Re: Russians did not kill Poles in Katyn [Archive]

Krztalizer

February 28th 04, 06:42 AM

Michael wrote:
>>BTW katyn is
>> relatively minor business compare to some 20 mass graves
>> left by germans in Smolensk area along having between 7000-16000
>> victims. The same for all other occupied areas of USSR.
>> With very similar signatures.

Occupied by who, the Germans or the Soviets? I believe Josef Stalin had a bit
of a reputation for weeding out and burying any potential threat, whether real
or imagined. And Gypsies, Rom, and anyone else he decided was excess.

Kirill replied:

>Those are merely Russian victims. We all know that the west doesn't
>consider Russians to be human beings.

Practically everyone in my family is American of undiluted Russian blood, and I
can tell you that you are full of ****. Which Great Leader of Russia said, "A
single death was a tragedy, a million deaths is just a statistic."? The reason
the west doesn't know how to respond to each classic Russian tragedy that
occurs is that often, the Soviets seemed to actively encourage the notion that
they were stoic about their own losses; so how is the west supposed to react to
millions of Soviets killed by their own government, then millions more killed
during the Great Patriotic Struggle? Then, we spent decades in the shadow of a
possible nuclear doom and watch as the great and civilized Soviet/Russian state
squats on millions of occupied people reduced to little more than drones. The
gray and polluted landscape stretching for miles in all directions from
Chernobyl was not even evacuated - the Soviets thought so little about their
own citizens that they let millions of people get poisoned, before they decided
to tell the truth. The West feels downright awful in every case of natural
disaster, and we're first on the scene with billions of dollars of aid whenever
nature strikes a blow. But we can always count on some mealy mouth ingrates and
crybabies that don't even realize that they have the freedom to troll the
internet because their completely corrupt government collapsed - these wannabe
pioneers do whatever they can to try and resurrect the "glory" of the Soviet
Union, when in fact it was a murderous blight across Asia that left millions of
people in abject poverty.

A country twice America's size, containing vast quantities of nearly every
mineral and ore on the planet, yet they just plain never seem to be capable of
sending any help when disaster strikes the US.

>Those are merely Russian victims. We all know that the west doesn't
>consider Russians to be human beings.

Pot/kettle, Kirill.

Gordon

Michael Petukhov

February 28th 04, 09:59 PM

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >another evidence it is yet another
> >polish made poor fake.
> >
>
> Blame the victims, Michael. Nice.

I am sure Polish goverment in London knew very well it
was germans job. Actualy it was really easy to understand.
But they voluntarily decided to be on the Gebels side.
You too BTW. So why should not man like me blame all of you.

Michael

Michael Petukhov

February 28th 04, 10:04 PM

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> so, three Russian women came forward to identify the Germans as the
> perpetrators, eh? Convenient.

Not only, there were german documents found as well.
There were many others locals who saw or heard something.
After all 4000 men was living for more than 1
year more. This cannot go unnoticed by local population.
Some of poles were transfered elsethere Moscow NKVD.
For insance NKVD was actively treing to get some of them
as agents etc. And of course some of them survived the
war.

Michael

Michael Petukhov

February 28th 04, 10:32 PM

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> Michael wrote:
> >>BTW katyn is
> >> relatively minor business compare to some 20 mass graves
> >> left by germans in Smolensk area along having between 7000-16000
> >> victims. The same for all other occupied areas of USSR.
> >> With very similar signatures.
>
> Occupied by who, the Germans or the Soviets? I believe Josef Stalin had a bit
> of a reputation for weeding out and burying any potential threat, whether real
> or imagined. And Gypsies, Rom, and anyone else he decided was excess.

This is what you think. I see.

>
> Kirill replied:
>
> >Those are merely Russian victims. We all know that the west doesn't
> >consider Russians to be human beings.
>
> Practically everyone in my family is American of undiluted Russian blood,

No Gordon, You may have 1 ton of undiluted russian blood
(btw how does it look like) but YOU ARE NOT A RUSSIAN.
There is one mandatory requirement for a russian:
a russian must love russia, no matter what. So you see
you have no connection to russia or russians.
Forget about this. You are typical brainwashed american.
Very naive, quite stupid and extremely aggresive by nature.

>and I
> can tell you that you are full of ****. Which Great Leader of Russia said, "A
> single death was a tragedy, a million deaths is just a statistic."? The reason
> the west doesn't know how to respond to each classic Russian tragedy that
> occurs is that often, the Soviets seemed to actively encourage the notion that
> they were stoic about their own losses; so how is the west supposed to react to
> millions of Soviets killed by their own government, then millions more killed
> during the Great Patriotic Struggle? Then, we spent decades in the shadow of a
> possible nuclear doom and watch as the great and civilized Soviet/Russian state
> squats on millions of occupied people reduced to little more than drones. The
> gray and polluted landscape stretching for miles in all directions from
> Chernobyl was not even evacuated - the Soviets thought so little about their
> own citizens that they let millions of people get poisoned, before they decided
> to tell the truth.

Well this was done by your dear Gorby. Is it a suprise for anyone
now that the same guy faked Katyn documents in his archive against
its own country.

> The West feels downright awful in every case of natural
> disaster, and we're first on the scene with billions of dollars of aid whenever
> nature strikes a blow.

Yeah, tell me why nobody in russia believe that goodness?
Even a few remaining prowestern guys don't? This story
is only circuating for internal US propaganda purposes.
So keep it for yourself.

> But we can always count on some mealy mouth ingrates and
> crybabies that don't even realize that they have the freedom to troll the
> internet because their completely corrupt government collapsed - these wannabe
> pioneers do whatever they can to try and resurrect the "glory" of the Soviet
> Union, when in fact it was a murderous blight across Asia that left millions of
> people in abject poverty.
>
> A country twice America's size, containing vast quantities of nearly every
> mineral and ore on the planet, yet they just plain never seem to be capable of
> sending any help when disaster strikes the US.

Joking? So russia send rescue teams everythere in world but US.
The reasonable guess would be that US probably never asked
about help. BTW russia also never asked US about any help.

>
> >Those are merely Russian victims. We all know that the west doesn't
> >consider Russians to be human beings.

Well I have many friends in wetern europe and certainly
they consider russians as human beings. But west as a system
does not. If not our nukes created in proper time west
would sink russian people in the seas of blood as SS did
in 41-45. After all NAZI was west, right? Many russians
believe that modern US is just todays NAZI replacement
of 38-39.

Michael
>
> Pot/kettle, Kirill.
>
> Gordon

Krztalizer

February 29th 04, 12:05 AM

>> Blame the victims, Michael. Nice.
>
>I am sure Polish goverment in London knew very well it
>was germans job.

Yeah, but since their country was already occupied by the fricking SOVIETS and
their Nazi allies, they decided to shift the blame off the Nazis and onto the
innocent and benevolent Soviets??? Riiiiiiiight.

> Actualy it was really easy to understand.
>But they voluntarily decided to be on the Gebels side.
>You too BTW.

Well, I'm not stupid enough to blame you for actions of 1940 - but you are
making quite a name for yourself as a revisionistic fool.

>So why should not man like me blame all of you.

No, you didn't suggest the 'west' faked those documents - you said it was the
Poles, the very victims of the crime. You wouldn't accept Soviet guilt in this
case in any circumstance, but its pretty clear that you are failing to convict
the Germans of this act.

Michael Petukhov

February 29th 04, 08:36 AM

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >> Blame the victims, Michael. Nice.
> >
> >I am sure Polish goverment in London knew very well it
> >was germans job.
>
> Yeah, but since their country was already occupied by the fricking SOVIETS and
> their Nazi allies, they decided to shift the blame off the Nazis and onto the
> innocent and benevolent Soviets??? Riiiiiiiight.

Why their government escaped from the battle field? Why they did not
asked USSR for help in 39. According to Ribbentrop-Molotov
pact eastern part of Poland was our field of influence with
their capital in it. So germans would never cross the agreed
line. Even with totaly destryed army Poles could have their
state functioning in eastern half, providing of course their
asked russians for help and keep goverment in Warshaw.
Instead they escaped to Rumania and surrender. After Sept 17,
1939 there were no Polish goverment, no Polish army, no Polish
state in eastern poland. Of course Stalin had to fill vacuum.
Poles have to blaim themself for all those traubles in 1939.
Why they were stupid?

>
> > Actualy it was really easy to understand.
> >But they voluntarily decided to be on the Gebels side.
> >You too BTW.
>
> Well, I'm not stupid enough to blame you for actions of 1940 - but you are
> making quite a name for yourself as a revisionistic fool.

Fool? No gordon, I am not fool. You are just uncapable to sort
facts and analyse it on your own. You are dependent on all accounts.
You never have your own opinion, you do not know even what is it
to have your own opinion. poor naive guy subject of manipulation
by anyone.

>
> >So why should not man like me blame all of you.
>
> No, you didn't suggest the 'west' faked those documents - you said it was the
> Poles, the very victims of the crime.

Why? i did. germany is part of west. Or not? Even Poles
belive they are part of west, idiots. That was main
reason to their traubles in 39-45, but they did not learn
anything from all that. Russian restored their state
russians gave them german lands and gurantee their borders,
but they are still so stupid to hate russians for all
russian goodness. Idiots.

>You wouldn't accept Soviet guilt in this
> case in any circumstance,

why not? most of russians still believe it was done by us.

> but its pretty clear that you are failing to convict
> the Germans of this act.

It does not matter for me. Although I did not try actually I would
never put myself in very weak position to convince anyone in anything
and become depedent on it. I do not care about anyone opinions on that
matters particualrly yours. However i note it is funny enough that
germans prefer to keep silence. Quite understanable. But after all
this years it is quite understandable. As for me Gordon I have just
informed folks that no matter what is current official position
of russian government on Katyn matters russian people will no allow
to put legal responsibility of this crime to russian people. There
are enough undisputable data proving it was german job. Sooner or
later it will be heard by a fair court who will defined that
legally. Katyn is the problem between germans and poles NATO
members, not between poles and russians.

that's all I wanted to say.

Keith Willshaw

February 29th 04, 01:16 PM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
> > >> Blame the victims, Michael. Nice.
> > >
> > >I am sure Polish goverment in London knew very well it
> > >was germans job.
> >
> > Yeah, but since their country was already occupied by the fricking
SOVIETS and
> > their Nazi allies, they decided to shift the blame off the Nazis and
onto the
> > innocent and benevolent Soviets??? Riiiiiiiight.
>
> Why their government escaped from the battle field? Why they did not
> asked USSR for help in 39. According to Ribbentrop-Molotov
> pact eastern part of Poland was our field of influence with
> their capital in it. So germans would never cross the agreed
> line. Even with totaly destryed army Poles could have their
> state functioning in eastern half, providing of course their
> asked russians for help and keep goverment in Warshaw.
> Instead they escaped to Rumania and surrender. After Sept 17,
> 1939 there were no Polish goverment, no Polish army, no Polish
> state in eastern poland. Of course Stalin had to fill vacuum.
> Poles have to blaim themself for all those traubles in 1939.
> Why they were stupid?
>

Oh Puleeze

The knowledge that the carve up of Poland was pre-arranged has been
known since the capture of German records in 1945. Here's an example

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns072.htm

<Quote>

From The Reich Foreign Minister to the German Ambassador in the Soviet
Union (Schulenburg)

No. 360 of September 15
For the Ambassador personally.

I request that you communicate the following to Herr Molotov at once:

1) The destruction of the Polish Army is rapidly approaching its conclusion,
as appears from the review of the military situation of September 14 which
has already been communicated to you. We count on the occupation of Warsaw
in the next few days.

2) We have already stated to the Soviet Government that we consider
ourselves bound by the definition of spheres of influence agreed upon in
Moscow, entirely apart from purely military operations, and the same applies
of course to the future as well.

3) From the communication made to you by Molotov on September 14, we assume
that the Soviet Government will take a hand militarily, and that it intends
to begin its operation now. We welcome this. The Soviet Government thus
relieves us of the necessity of annihilating the remainder of the Polish
Army by pursuing it as far as the Russian boundary. Also the question is
disposed of in case a Russian intervention did not take place, of whether in
the area lying to the east of the German zone of influence a political
vacuum might not occur. Since we on our part have no intention of
undertaking any political or administrative activities in these areas, apart
from what is made necessary by military operations, without such an
intervention on the part of the Soviet Government there might be the
possibility of the construction of new states there.

4) For the political support of the advance of the Soviet Army we propose
the publication of a joint communiqué of the following content:
"In view of the complete collapse of the previous form of government in
Poland, the Reich Government and the Government of the U.S.S.R. consider it
necessary to bring to an end the intolerable political and economic
conditions existing in these territories. They regard it as their joint duty
to restore peace and order in these areas which are naturally of interest to
them and to bring about a new order by the creation of natural frontiers and
viable economic organizations."

5) We assume in proposing such a communiqué that the Soviet Government has
already given up the idea, expressed by Molotov in an earlier conversation
with you, of taking the threat to the Ukrainian and White Russian
populations by Germany as a ground for Soviet action. The assignment of a
motive of that sort would be out of the question in practice. It would be
directly contrary to the true German intentions, which are confined
exclusively to the realization of well-known German spheres of interest. It
would also be in contradiction to the arrangements made in Moscow and,
finally, would-in opposition to the desire for friendly relations expressed
on both sides expose the two States before the whole world as enemies.

6) Since the military operations must be concluded as soon as possible
because of the advanced season of the year, we would be gratified if the
Soviet Government would set a day and hour on which their army would begin
their advance, so that we on our part might govern ourselves accordingly.
For the purpose of the necessary coordination of military operations on
either side, it is also necessary that a representative of each Government,
as well as German and Russian officers on the spot in the area of
operations, should have a meeting in order to take the necessary steps, for
which meeting we propose to assemble at Bialystok by air.

I request an immediate reply by telegraph. The change in text agreed upon by
Gaus with Hilger has already been taken care of.

RIBBENTROP

</Quote>

Try taking a look at the secret protocol of the Soviet German non aggression
pact

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/addsepro.htm

Keith

Michael Petukhov

February 29th 04, 09:10 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> Blame the victims, Michael. Nice.
> > > >
> > > >I am sure Polish goverment in London knew very well it
> > > >was germans job.
> > >
> > > Yeah, but since their country was already occupied by the fricking
> SOVIETS and
> > > their Nazi allies, they decided to shift the blame off the Nazis and
> onto the
> > > innocent and benevolent Soviets??? Riiiiiiiight.
> >
> > Why their government escaped from the battle field? Why they did not
> > asked USSR for help in 39. According to Ribbentrop-Molotov
> > pact eastern part of Poland was our field of influence with
> > their capital in it. So germans would never cross the agreed
> > line. Even with totaly destryed army Poles could have their
> > state functioning in eastern half, providing of course their
> > asked russians for help and keep goverment in Warshaw.
> > Instead they escaped to Rumania and surrender. After Sept 17,
> > 1939 there were no Polish goverment, no Polish army, no Polish
> > state in eastern poland. Of course Stalin had to fill vacuum.
> > Poles have to blaim themself for all those traubles in 1939.
> > Why they were stupid?
> >
>

You must be joking Keith or you just do nit actualy read what you post?

1) Ribentrop could write whatever he wanted to his
ambassador in Moscow. USSR goverment certainly has no
resposibilites for what was suggested by Germany.

2) The letter actually support my view that until Polish
goverment cowardly escaped to Rumania and left its army
and people in grave danger, USSR goverment had no intentions
to attack Poland and gave no promises of that to Germany
"...in case a Russian intervention did not take place...
a political vacuum might not occur.."

The meaning of the letter is that Ribbentrop asking
Moscow for a favor saying it would be in common interests.
Clearly Stalin was not that sure about that even on
Sept 15. The situation changed on Sept 17 when Polish
so to speak "goverment" voluntarily seased to exist and
escaped to Rumania. What he could do but to accupy the territories
to prevent power vacuum. What you would do in his place?

Based on that we could imgine what would be USSR actions
if France, Britain, Poland and Russia entered true antiNAZI
pact before 23.08.39. Germany would not even try to attack
poland. But first 3 countries had very different goals in
1939. And here in russian we know very well what the goals were
to collide Germany and USSR with possible participation
of Poland, Finland and Rumania on german side in 1939.
Right, Keith? You know that too, very well know.

Michael

> Oh Puleeze
>
> The knowledge that the carve up of Poland was pre-arranged has been
> known since the capture of German records in 1945. Here's an example
>
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns072.htm
>
> <Quote>
>
> From The Reich Foreign Minister to the German Ambassador in the Soviet
> Union (Schulenburg)
>
> No. 360 of September 15
> For the Ambassador personally.
>
> I request that you communicate the following to Herr Molotov at once:
>
> 1) The destruction of the Polish Army is rapidly approaching its conclusion,
> as appears from the review of the military situation of September 14 which
> has already been communicated to you. We count on the occupation of Warsaw
> in the next few days.
>
> 2) We have already stated to the Soviet Government that we consider
> ourselves bound by the definition of spheres of influence agreed upon in
> Moscow, entirely apart from purely military operations, and the same applies
> of course to the future as well.
>
> 3) From the communication made to you by Molotov on September 14, we assume
> that the Soviet Government will take a hand militarily, and that it intends
> to begin its operation now. We welcome this. The Soviet Government thus
> relieves us of the necessity of annihilating the remainder of the Polish
> Army by pursuing it as far as the Russian boundary. Also the question is
> disposed of in case a Russian intervention did not take place, of whether in
> the area lying to the east of the German zone of influence a political
> vacuum might not occur. Since we on our part have no intention of
> undertaking any political or administrative activities in these areas, apart
> from what is made necessary by military operations, without such an
> intervention on the part of the Soviet Government there might be the
> possibility of the construction of new states there.
>
> 4) For the political support of the advance of the Soviet Army we propose
> the publication of a joint communiqué of the following content:
> "In view of the complete collapse of the previous form of government in
> Poland, the Reich Government and the Government of the U.S.S.R. consider it
> necessary to bring to an end the intolerable political and economic
> conditions existing in these territories. They regard it as their joint duty
> to restore peace and order in these areas which are naturally of interest to
> them and to bring about a new order by the creation of natural frontiers and
> viable economic organizations."
>
> 5) We assume in proposing such a communiqué that the Soviet Government has
> already given up the idea, expressed by Molotov in an earlier conversation
> with you, of taking the threat to the Ukrainian and White Russian
> populations by Germany as a ground for Soviet action. The assignment of a
> motive of that sort would be out of the question in practice. It would be
> directly contrary to the true German intentions, which are confined
> exclusively to the realization of well-known German spheres of interest. It
> would also be in contradiction to the arrangements made in Moscow and,
> finally, would-in opposition to the desire for friendly relations expressed
> on both sides expose the two States before the whole world as enemies.
>
> 6) Since the military operations must be concluded as soon as possible
> because of the advanced season of the year, we would be gratified if the
> Soviet Government would set a day and hour on which their army would begin
> their advance, so that we on our part might govern ourselves accordingly.
> For the purpose of the necessary coordination of military operations on
> either side, it is also necessary that a representative of each Government,
> as well as German and Russian officers on the spot in the area of
> operations, should have a meeting in order to take the necessary steps, for
> which meeting we propose to assemble at Bialystok by air.
>
> I request an immediate reply by telegraph. The change in text agreed upon by
> Gaus with Hilger has already been taken care of.
>
> RIBBENTROP
>
> </Quote>
>
> Try taking a look at the secret protocol of the Soviet German non aggression
> pact
>
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/addsepro.htm
>
> Keith

Keith Willshaw

February 29th 04, 11:31 PM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...

>
> You must be joking Keith or you just do nit actualy read what you post?
>
> 1) Ribentrop could write whatever he wanted to his
> ambassador in Moscow. USSR goverment certainly has no
> resposibilites for what was suggested by Germany.
>

It does however for agreeing to the secret protocol to
the non aggression pact which made it possible

> 2) The letter actually support my view that until Polish
> goverment cowardly escaped to Rumania and left its army
> and people in grave danger, USSR goverment had no intentions
> to attack Poland and gave no promises of that to Germany
> "...in case a Russian intervention did not take place...
> a political vacuum might not occur.."
>
> The meaning of the letter is that Ribbentrop asking
> Moscow for a favor saying it would be in common interests.
> Clearly Stalin was not that sure about that even on
> Sept 15. The situation changed on Sept 17 when Polish
> so to speak "goverment" voluntarily seased to exist and
> escaped to Rumania. What he could do but to accupy the territories
> to prevent power vacuum. What you would do in his place?
>

The perhaps you can explain the message of the 3rd of September

<Quote>
Telegram

No. 253 of September 3
BERLIN, September 3, 1939-6:50 p. m.
Received MOSCOW September 4, 1939-12:30 a. m.

Very Urgent! Exclusively for Ambassador.
Strictly secret! For Chief of Mission or his representative personally.
Top secret. To be decoded by himself. Strictest secrecy!

We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish Army decisively in a few
weeks. We would then keep the area that was established as German sphere of
interest at Moscow under military occupation. We would naturally, however,
for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish
military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to
the Russian sphere of interest.

Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does
not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time
against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part,
to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would be not only a relief
for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet
interest as well.

In this connection please determine whether we may discuss this matter with
the officers who have just arrived here and what the Soviet Government
intends their position to be.
RIBBENTROP
</Quote>

Keith

Michael Petukhov

March 1st 04, 07:30 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> >
> > You must be joking Keith or you just do nit actualy read what you post?
> >
> > 1) Ribentrop could write whatever he wanted to his
> > ambassador in Moscow. USSR goverment certainly has no
> > resposibilites for what was suggested by Germany.
> >
>
> It does however for agreeing to the secret protocol to
> the non aggression pact which made it possible

Secret protol says "if... soviet sphere of interest will be..."
Where does it say accupation or something equal?

>
> > 2) The letter actually support my view that until Polish
> > goverment cowardly escaped to Rumania and left its army
> > and people in grave danger, USSR goverment had no intentions
> > to attack Poland and gave no promises of that to Germany
> > "...in case a Russian intervention did not take place...
> > a political vacuum might not occur.."
> >
> > The meaning of the letter is that Ribbentrop asking
> > Moscow for a favor saying it would be in common interests.
> > Clearly Stalin was not that sure about that even on
> > Sept 15. The situation changed on Sept 17 when Polish
> > so to speak "goverment" voluntarily seased to exist and
> > escaped to Rumania. What he could do but to accupy the territories
> > to prevent power vacuum. What you would do in his place?
> >
>
>
> The perhaps you can explain the message of the 3rd of September

The same, Ribentrop could write whatever he wanted to his
ambassador in Moscow. USSR goverment certainly has no
resposibilites for what was suggested by Germany.

Michael

>
> <Quote>
> Telegram
>
> No. 253 of September 3
> BERLIN, September 3, 1939-6:50 p. m.
> Received MOSCOW September 4, 1939-12:30 a. m.
>
> Very Urgent! Exclusively for Ambassador.
> Strictly secret! For Chief of Mission or his representative personally.
> Top secret. To be decoded by himself. Strictest secrecy!
>
> We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish Army decisively in a few
> weeks. We would then keep the area that was established as German sphere of
> interest at Moscow under military occupation. We would naturally, however,
> for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish
> military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to
> the Russian sphere of interest.
>
> Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does
> not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time
> against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part,
> to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would be not only a relief
> for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet
> interest as well.
>
> In this connection please determine whether we may discuss this matter with
> the officers who have just arrived here and what the Soviet Government
> intends their position to be.
> RIBBENTROP
> </Quote>
>
> Keith

Keith Willshaw

March 1st 04, 08:05 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> > >
> > > You must be joking Keith or you just do nit actualy read what you
post?
> > >
> > > 1) Ribentrop could write whatever he wanted to his
> > > ambassador in Moscow. USSR goverment certainly has no
> > > resposibilites for what was suggested by Germany.
> > >
> >
> > It does however for agreeing to the secret protocol to
> > the non aggression pact which made it possible
>
> Secret protol says "if... soviet sphere of interest will be..."
> Where does it say accupation or something equal?
>

That's what sphere of interest meant. I find it interesting that
you choose to pretend there was no collusion when this
was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
years ago.

> >
> > > 2) The letter actually support my view that until Polish
> > > goverment cowardly escaped to Rumania and left its army
> > > and people in grave danger, USSR goverment had no intentions
> > > to attack Poland and gave no promises of that to Germany
> > > "...in case a Russian intervention did not take place...
> > > a political vacuum might not occur.."
> > >
> > > The meaning of the letter is that Ribbentrop asking
> > > Moscow for a favor saying it would be in common interests.
> > > Clearly Stalin was not that sure about that even on
> > > Sept 15. The situation changed on Sept 17 when Polish
> > > so to speak "goverment" voluntarily seased to exist and
> > > escaped to Rumania. What he could do but to accupy the territories
> > > to prevent power vacuum. What you would do in his place?
> > >
> >
> >
> > The perhaps you can explain the message of the 3rd of September
>
> The same, Ribentrop could write whatever he wanted to his
> ambassador in Moscow. USSR goverment certainly has no
> resposibilites for what was suggested by Germany.
>
> Michael

It does if it chose not to repudiate it as was the case.

Keith

Michael Petukhov

March 1st 04, 04:13 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You must be joking Keith or you just do nit actualy read what you
> post?
> > > >
> > > > 1) Ribentrop could write whatever he wanted to his
> > > > ambassador in Moscow. USSR goverment certainly has no
> > > > resposibilites for what was suggested by Germany.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It does however for agreeing to the secret protocol to
> > > the non aggression pact which made it possible
> >
> > Secret protol says "if... soviet sphere of interest will be..."
> > Where does it say accupation or something equal?
> >
>
> That's what sphere of interest meant. I find it interesting that
> you choose to pretend there was no collusion

what do you mean collusion? And what the actual basis to believe
that is right interpretation of the actual history.

> when this
> was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
> years ago.

Well it was admitted by state criminals, traitors and history
falcificators. Certainly you would not deny that if
documents found in a sealed package in the most secrete part
of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said it was, to national leader
eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can be pretty sure
that Gorby himself is involved in falcification of the history
and as such is state criminal and traitor, no matter what were
his or his subordinates real goals.

>
> > >
> > > > 2) The letter actually support my view that until Polish
> > > > goverment cowardly escaped to Rumania and left its army
> > > > and people in grave danger, USSR goverment had no intentions
> > > > to attack Poland and gave no promises of that to Germany
> > > > "...in case a Russian intervention did not take place...
> > > > a political vacuum might not occur.."
> > > >
> > > > The meaning of the letter is that Ribbentrop asking
> > > > Moscow for a favor saying it would be in common interests.
> > > > Clearly Stalin was not that sure about that even on
> > > > Sept 15. The situation changed on Sept 17 when Polish
> > > > so to speak "goverment" voluntarily seased to exist and
> > > > escaped to Rumania. What he could do but to accupy the territories
> > > > to prevent power vacuum. What you would do in his place?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The perhaps you can explain the message of the 3rd of September
> >
> > The same, Ribentrop could write whatever he wanted to his
> > ambassador in Moscow. USSR goverment certainly has no
> > resposibilites for what was suggested by Germany.
> >
> > Michael
>
> It does if it chose not to repudiate it as was the case.

Sorry a bit too complex for me. What or who is "it" and what it/he/she "repudiated"?

Michael

>
> Keith

Keith Willshaw

March 1st 04, 05:25 PM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...

>
> what do you mean collusion?

Look the word up in a dictionary Michael

> And what the actual basis to believe
> that is right interpretation of the actual history.
>

The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
specifcally the secret protocols

> > when this
> > was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
> > years ago.
>
> Well it was admitted by state criminals, traitors and history
> falcificators. Certainly you would not deny that if
> documents found in a sealed package in the most secrete part
> of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said it was, to national leader
> eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can be pretty sure
> that Gorby himself is involved in falcification of the history
> and as such is state criminal and traitor, no matter what were
> his or his subordinates real goals.
>

Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially found in the
GERMAN archives back in 1945 and the truth came out
during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck German Governor
of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet Union the Gauss
affidavit was entered into evidence. This was an account of the
contents of the documents which was drafted from memory by
Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the Nazi Foreign Office,
who drew up the non-aggression treaty between the Reich and
the Soviet Union.

He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop and
Stalin at which the agreement to carve up Poland was made.
All this came out 40 years before Gorby came to power.

Keith

Michael Petukhov

March 2nd 04, 08:10 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > what do you mean collusion?
>
> Look the word up in a dictionary Michael
>
> > And what the actual basis to believe
> > that is right interpretation of the actual history.
> >
>
> The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
> specifcally the secret protocols

So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
against which it is directed and what to do if there will
be need to change that "europen state" to another
"european state". It is defensive pact without secret
protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?

>
> > > when this
> > > was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
> > > years ago.
> >
> > Well it was admitted by state criminals, traitors and history
> > falcificators. Certainly you would not deny that if
> > documents found in a sealed package in the most secrete part
> > of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said it was, to national leader
> > eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can be pretty sure
> > that Gorby himself is involved in falcification of the history
> > and as such is state criminal and traitor, no matter what were
> > his or his subordinates real goals.
> >
>
> Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially found in the
> GERMAN archives back in 1945

What traubles? I was talking about so called "Katyn documents"
which are found to be fakes. As for Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. All was done correctly
properly and in time. I see absolutely no traubles for us with
all that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

> and the truth came out
> during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck German Governor
> of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet Union the Gauss
> affidavit was entered into evidence. This was an account of the
> contents of the documents which was drafted from memory by
> Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the Nazi Foreign Office,
> who drew up the non-aggression treaty between the Reich and
> the Soviet Union.

Exactly this was non-aggresive treaty on 23.09.39 and later on.

>
> He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop and
> Stalin at which the agreement to carve up Poland was made.
> All this came out 40 years before Gorby came to power.

So what but he was present at the meeting?

Keith I do not quite understand you. what you want to prove?

Michael

>
> Keith

Michael Petukhov

March 2nd 04, 09:01 AM

Keith Willshaw

March 2nd 04, 10:01 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > what do you mean collusion?
> >
> > Look the word up in a dictionary Michael
> >
> > > And what the actual basis to believe
> > > that is right interpretation of the actual history.
> > >
> >
> > The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
> > specifcally the secret protocols
>
> So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
> on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
> with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
> included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
> against which it is directed and what to do if there will
> be need to change that "europen state" to another
> "european state". It is defensive pact without secret
> protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?
>

Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish mutual assistance treaty
of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and RACZYNSKI
and was far from secret. In fact the British PM wrote to Hitler on the
28th August specifically to inform him of its content so that there
would be no confusion, he then went on to make a public speech
in the house of commons about the subject. There was no doubt at
the time in anyones mind about the British position.

The Secret Protocol of the German Soviet agreement on
the other hand were definitely NOT well known at the time
and the Soviets were extremely upset when news of it
was released in 1946.

> >
> > > > when this
> > > > was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
> > > > years ago.
> > >
> > > Well it was admitted by state criminals, traitors and history
> > > falcificators. Certainly you would not deny that if
> > > documents found in a sealed package in the most secrete part
> > > of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said it was, to national leader
> > > eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can be pretty sure
> > > that Gorby himself is involved in falcification of the history
> > > and as such is state criminal and traitor, no matter what were
> > > his or his subordinates real goals.
> > >
> >
> > Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially found in the
> > GERMAN archives back in 1945
>
> What traubles? I was talking about so called "Katyn documents"
> which are found to be fakes. As for Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. All was done correctly
> properly and in time. I see absolutely no traubles for us with
> all that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
>
> > and the truth came out
> > during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck German Governor
> > of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet Union the Gauss
> > affidavit was entered into evidence. This was an account of the
> > contents of the documents which was drafted from memory by
> > Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the Nazi Foreign Office,
> > who drew up the non-aggression treaty between the Reich and
> > the Soviet Union.
>
> Exactly this was non-aggresive treaty on 23.09.39 and later on.
>
> >
> > He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop and
> > Stalin at which the agreement to carve up Poland was made.
> > All this came out 40 years before Gorby came to power.
>
> So what but he was present at the meeting?
>

Yes

> Keith I do not quite understand you. what you want to prove?
>

That the Soviet Government colluded with the Nazis to carve up
Poland between them. The Polish officer corps represented a
possible threat to Soviet hegemony and Stalin dealt with it
the same way he dealt with the officer corps of the Red Army in
1939, mass executions and deportations to Siberia.

Around 1 million Poles were sent to Soviet prison camps in
1940/41 and the Soviets forcibly imposed their own education
and governmental institutions in Eastern Poland. This was no
liberation, it was Empire building.

Keith

Michael Petukhov

March 2nd 04, 06:24 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > what do you mean collusion?
> > >
> > > Look the word up in a dictionary Michael
> > >
> > > > And what the actual basis to believe
> > > > that is right interpretation of the actual history.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
> > > specifcally the secret protocols
> >
> > So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
> > on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
> > with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
> > included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
> > against which it is directed and what to do if there will
> > be need to change that "europen state" to another
> > "european state". It is defensive pact without secret
> > protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?
> >
>
> Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish mutual assistance treaty
> of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and RACZYNSKI
> and was far from secret. In fact the British PM wrote to Hitler on the
> 28th August specifically to inform him of its content so that there
> would be no confusion, he then went on to make a public speech
> in the house of commons about the subject. There was no doubt at
> the time in anyones mind about the British position.

Existence of Secret Protocols for HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact is
secret perhaps only for you, Keith. Anyone else can read the
pact and its secret protocol in many places including:

http://2ndww.tripod.com/Germany/390825.html
http://history.dodnetwork.com/index.php?page=timeline.php&art_id=90

it says:

"...SECRET PROTOCOL

The Polish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom and
Northern Ireland are agreed upon the following interpretation of the
Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and
binding.

1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement
is to be understood Germany.
(b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the
Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting
Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

-----------------
My comment:

So not only Germany, Keith? And who else?

Article 2 of the HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact says that:

(1) The provisions of Article 1 will also apply in the event of any
action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or
indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and
was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to
resist it with its armed forces.

How do you like this ANY ACTION, Keith?

(2) Should one of the Contracting Powers become engaged in hostilities
with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which
threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in
such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that
Contracting Party, the provisions of Article 1 will apply, without
prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State
concerned.

WOW! "another European State" now.
------------------

2. (a) The two Governments will from time to time determine by mutual
agreement the hypothetical cases of action by Germany coming within
the ambit of Article 2 of the Agreement.
(b) Until such time as the two Governments have agreed to modify the
following provisions of this paragraph, they will consider: that the
case contemplated by paragraph (1) of the Article 2 of the Agreement
is that of the Free City of Danzig; and that the cases contemplated by
paragraph (2) of Article 2 are Belgium, Holland, Lithuania.
(c) Latvia and Estonia shall be regarded by the two Governments as
included in the list of countries contemplated by paragraph (2) of
Article 2 from the moment that an undertaking of mutual assistance
between the United Kingdom and a third State covering those two
countries enters into force.
(d) As regards Roumania, the Government of the United Kingdom refers
to the guarantee which it has given to that country; and the Polish
Government refers to the reciprocial undertakings of the
Roumano-Polish alliance which Poland has never regarded as
incompatible with her traditional friendship for Hungary.
3. The undertakings mentioned in Article 6 of the Agreement, should
they be entered into by one of the Contracting Parties with a third
State, would of necessity be so framed that their execution should at
no time prejudice either the sovereignty or territorial inviolability
of the other Contracting Party.
4. The present protocol constitutes an integral part of the Agreement
signed this day, the scope of which it does not exceed.
In faith whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed
the present Protocol.
Done in English in duplicate, at London, the 25th August 1939. A
Polish text shall subsequently be agreed upon between the Contracting
Parties and both texts will then be authentic. "

So was the text of that Secret Protocol made public in august 1939?
You could know better history of your own country, Keith.

>
> The Secret Protocol of the German Soviet agreement on
> the other hand were definitely NOT well known at the time
> and the Soviets were extremely upset when news of it
> was released in 1946.
>
>
> > >
> > > > > when this
> > > > > was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
> > > > > years ago.
> > > >
> > > > Well it was admitted by state criminals, traitors and history
> > > > falcificators. Certainly you would not deny that if
> > > > documents found in a sealed package in the most secrete part
> > > > of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said it was, to national leader
> > > > eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can be pretty sure
> > > > that Gorby himself is involved in falcification of the history
> > > > and as such is state criminal and traitor, no matter what were
> > > > his or his subordinates real goals.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially found in the
> > > GERMAN archives back in 1945
> >
> > What traubles? I was talking about so called "Katyn documents"
> > which are found to be fakes. As for Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> > we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. All was done correctly
> > properly and in time. I see absolutely no traubles for us with
> > all that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
> >
> > > and the truth came out
> > > during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck German Governor
> > > of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet Union the Gauss
> > > affidavit was entered into evidence. This was an account of the
> > > contents of the documents which was drafted from memory by
> > > Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the Nazi Foreign Office,
> > > who drew up the non-aggression treaty between the Reich and
> > > the Soviet Union.
> >
> > Exactly this was non-aggresive treaty on 23.09.39 and later on.
> >
> > >
> > > He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop and
> > > Stalin at which the agreement to carve up Poland was made.
> > > All this came out 40 years before Gorby came to power.
> >
> > So what but he was present at the meeting?
> >
>
> Yes
>
> > Keith I do not quite understand you. what you want to prove?
> >
>
> That the Soviet Government colluded with the Nazis to carve up
> Poland between them.

How? documents do not say a word about carving up.
Actual history events also do not. After all Stalin restored
Poland although in a bit different borders. Why
he did not took it all? Who could stop him in 45?

> The Polish officer corps represented a
> possible threat to Soviet hegemony and Stalin dealt with it
> the same way he dealt with the officer corps of the Red Army in
> 1939, mass executions and deportations to Siberia.

Note this is based on wrong assumption that Polish
officers were killed by NKVD. What if Germans did that?

>
> Around 1 million Poles were sent to Soviet prison camps in
> 1940/41 and the Soviets forcibly imposed their own education
> and governmental institutions in Eastern Poland. This was no
> liberation, it was Empire building.

Keith you clearly do not like other Empire buildings.
British Empire building is Ok of course.

I see.

Michael

>
> Keith

Keith Willshaw

March 2nd 04, 09:21 PM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > what do you mean collusion?
> > > >
> > > > Look the word up in a dictionary Michael
> > > >
> > > > > And what the actual basis to believe
> > > > > that is right interpretation of the actual history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
> > > > specifcally the secret protocols
> > >
> > > So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
> > > on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
> > > with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
> > > included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
> > > against which it is directed and what to do if there will
> > > be need to change that "europen state" to another
> > > "european state". It is defensive pact without secret
> > > protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?
> > >
> >
> > Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish mutual assistance treaty
> > of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and RACZYNSKI
> > and was far from secret. In fact the British PM wrote to Hitler on the
> > 28th August specifically to inform him of its content so that there
> > would be no confusion, he then went on to make a public speech
> > in the house of commons about the subject. There was no doubt at
> > the time in anyones mind about the British position.
>
> Existence of Secret Protocols for HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact is
> secret perhaps only for you, Keith. Anyone else can read the
> pact and its secret protocol in many places including:
>
> http://2ndww.tripod.com/Germany/390825.html
> http://history.dodnetwork.com/index.php?page=timeline.php&art_id=90
>
> it says:
>
> "...SECRET PROTOCOL
>
> The Polish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom and
> Northern Ireland are agreed upon the following interpretation of the
> Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and
> binding.
>
> 1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement
> is to be understood Germany.
> (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the
> Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting
> Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.
>
> -----------------
> My comment:
>
> So not only Germany, Keith? And who else?
>

A European power perhaps

> Article 2 of the HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact says that:
>
> (1) The provisions of Article 1 will also apply in the event of any
> action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or
> indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and
> was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to
> resist it with its armed forces.
>
> How do you like this ANY ACTION, Keith?
>

Its entirely consistent with the treaty.

> (2) Should one of the Contracting Powers become engaged in hostilities
> with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which
> threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in
> such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that
> Contracting Party, the provisions of Article 1 will apply, without
> prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State
> concerned.
>
> WOW! "another European State" now.
> ------------------
>

<Irony Mode On>
Gee what a surprise when the original treaty referred to
'a European State' it really meant 'a European State'

Wow

<Irony Mode Off>

> 2. (a) The two Governments will from time to time determine by mutual
> agreement the hypothetical cases of action by Germany coming within
> the ambit of Article 2 of the Agreement.
> (b) Until such time as the two Governments have agreed to modify the
> following provisions of this paragraph, they will consider: that the
> case contemplated by paragraph (1) of the Article 2 of the Agreement
> is that of the Free City of Danzig; and that the cases contemplated by
> paragraph (2) of Article 2 are Belgium, Holland, Lithuania.
> (c) Latvia and Estonia shall be regarded by the two Governments as
> included in the list of countries contemplated by paragraph (2) of
> Article 2 from the moment that an undertaking of mutual assistance
> between the United Kingdom and a third State covering those two
> countries enters into force.
> (d) As regards Roumania, the Government of the United Kingdom refers
> to the guarantee which it has given to that country; and the Polish
> Government refers to the reciprocial undertakings of the
> Roumano-Polish alliance which Poland has never regarded as
> incompatible with her traditional friendship for Hungary.
> 3. The undertakings mentioned in Article 6 of the Agreement, should
> they be entered into by one of the Contracting Parties with a third
> State, would of necessity be so framed that their execution should at
> no time prejudice either the sovereignty or territorial inviolability
> of the other Contracting Party.
> 4. The present protocol constitutes an integral part of the Agreement
> signed this day, the scope of which it does not exceed.
> In faith whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed
> the present Protocol.
> Done in English in duplicate, at London, the 25th August 1939. A
> Polish text shall subsequently be agreed upon between the Contracting
> Parties and both texts will then be authentic. "
>
> So was the text of that Secret Protocol made public in august 1939?
> You could know better history of your own country, Keith.
>

Which is essentially the same clarification of the treaty as was included
in Chamberlains letter to Hitler.

It was a Protocol to be sure but assuredly not a secret one
or are you suggesting Hitler didnt know the UK had offered
terrotorial gurantees to Poland

> >
> > > Keith I do not quite understand you. what you want to prove?
> > >
> >
> > That the Soviet Government colluded with the Nazis to carve up
> > Poland between them.
>
> How? documents do not say a word about carving up.

It uses diplomatic language (spheres of influence) for
the same thing. Note that the agrreements regarding
post war Germany also used similar language.

> Actual history events also do not. After all Stalin restored
> Poland although in a bit different borders.

Well now he was pressed rather hard on that matter at
Yalta and gain at Potsdam.

> Why
> he did not took it all? Who could stop him in 45?
>

He agreed to it long before 1945 and he was assuredly concerned
to get the Western Allies to demobilise, especially knowing
as he did through Klaus Fuchs and others just how close the
USA was to achieving nuclear weapons

> > The Polish officer corps represented a
> > possible threat to Soviet hegemony and Stalin dealt with it
> > the same way he dealt with the officer corps of the Red Army in
> > 1939, mass executions and deportations to Siberia.
>
> Note this is based on wrong assumption that Polish
> officers were killed by NKVD. What if Germans did that?
>

The evidence of many sources including Soviet
and Russian governments suggests they did not

> >
> > Around 1 million Poles were sent to Soviet prison camps in
> > 1940/41 and the Soviets forcibly imposed their own education
> > and governmental institutions in Eastern Poland. This was no
> > liberation, it was Empire building.
>
> Keith you clearly do not like other Empire buildings.
> British Empire building is Ok of course.
>

No it was immoral.

> I see.
>

I fear you dont.

Keith

Michael Petukhov

March 3rd 04, 06:59 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what do you mean collusion?
> > > > >
> > > > > Look the word up in a dictionary Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > > And what the actual basis to believe
> > > > > > that is right interpretation of the actual history.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
> > > > > specifcally the secret protocols
> > > >
> > > > So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
> > > > on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
> > > > with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
> > > > included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
> > > > against which it is directed and what to do if there will
> > > > be need to change that "europen state" to another
> > > > "european state". It is defensive pact without secret
> > > > protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish mutual assistance treaty
> > > of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and RACZYNSKI
> > > and was far from secret. In fact the British PM wrote to Hitler on the
> > > 28th August specifically to inform him of its content so that there
> > > would be no confusion, he then went on to make a public speech
> > > in the house of commons about the subject. There was no doubt at
> > > the time in anyones mind about the British position.
> >
> > Existence of Secret Protocols for HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact is
> > secret perhaps only for you, Keith. Anyone else can read the
> > pact and its secret protocol in many places including:
> >
> > http://2ndww.tripod.com/Germany/390825.html
> > http://history.dodnetwork.com/index.php?page=timeline.php&art_id=90
> >
> > it says:
> >
> > "...SECRET PROTOCOL
> >
> > The Polish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom and
> > Northern Ireland are agreed upon the following interpretation of the
> > Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and
> > binding.
> >
> > 1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement
> > is to be understood Germany.
> > (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the
> > Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting
> > Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.
> >
> > -----------------
> > My comment:
> >
> > So not only Germany, Keith? And who else?
> >
>
> A European power perhaps
>
> > Article 2 of the HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact says that:
> >
> > (1) The provisions of Article 1 will also apply in the event of any
> > action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or
> > indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and
> > was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to
> > resist it with its armed forces.
> >
> > How do you like this ANY ACTION, Keith?
> >
>
> Its entirely consistent with the treaty.
>
> > (2) Should one of the Contracting Powers become engaged in hostilities
> > with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which
> > threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in
> > such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that
> > Contracting Party, the provisions of Article 1 will apply, without
> > prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State
> > concerned.
> >
> > WOW! "another European State" now.
> > ------------------
> >
>
> <Irony Mode On>
> Gee what a surprise when the original treaty referred to
> 'a European State' it really meant 'a European State'

Exactly. according to this SECRET PROTOCOL Britain and Poland agreed
to start aggresive war against "a European State" using ANY action
of that "a European State".

>
> Wow
>
> <Irony Mode Off>
>
> > 2. (a) The two Governments will from time to time determine by mutual
> > agreement the hypothetical cases of action by Germany coming within
> > the ambit of Article 2 of the Agreement.
> > (b) Until such time as the two Governments have agreed to modify the
> > following provisions of this paragraph, they will consider: that the
> > case contemplated by paragraph (1) of the Article 2 of the Agreement
> > is that of the Free City of Danzig; and that the cases contemplated by
> > paragraph (2) of Article 2 are Belgium, Holland, Lithuania.
> > (c) Latvia and Estonia shall be regarded by the two Governments as
> > included in the list of countries contemplated by paragraph (2) of
> > Article 2 from the moment that an undertaking of mutual assistance
> > between the United Kingdom and a third State covering those two
> > countries enters into force.
> > (d) As regards Roumania, the Government of the United Kingdom refers
> > to the guarantee which it has given to that country; and the Polish
> > Government refers to the reciprocial undertakings of the
> > Roumano-Polish alliance which Poland has never regarded as
> > incompatible with her traditional friendship for Hungary.
> > 3. The undertakings mentioned in Article 6 of the Agreement, should
> > they be entered into by one of the Contracting Parties with a third
> > State, would of necessity be so framed that their execution should at
> > no time prejudice either the sovereignty or territorial inviolability
> > of the other Contracting Party.
> > 4. The present protocol constitutes an integral part of the Agreement
> > signed this day, the scope of which it does not exceed.
> > In faith whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed
> > the present Protocol.
> > Done in English in duplicate, at London, the 25th August 1939. A
> > Polish text shall subsequently be agreed upon between the Contracting
> > Parties and both texts will then be authentic. "
> >
> > So was the text of that Secret Protocol made public in august 1939?
> > You could know better history of your own country, Keith.
> >
>
> Which is essentially the same clarification of the treaty as was included
> in Chamberlains letter to Hitler.
>
> It was a Protocol to be sure but assuredly not a secret one
> or are you suggesting Hitler didnt know the UK had offered
> terrotorial gurantees to Poland

So Secret Protocol which was not "a secret one". Any other ideas like that?

Michael

Keith Willshaw

March 3rd 04, 07:39 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...

> >
> > > (2) Should one of the Contracting Powers become engaged in hostilities
> > > with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which
> > > threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in
> > > such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that
> > > Contracting Party, the provisions of Article 1 will apply, without
> > > prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State
> > > concerned.
> > >
> > > WOW! "another European State" now.
> > > ------------------
> > >
> >
> > <Irony Mode On>
> > Gee what a surprise when the original treaty referred to
> > 'a European State' it really meant 'a European State'
>
> Exactly. according to this SECRET PROTOCOL Britain and Poland agreed
> to start aggresive war against "a European State" using ANY action
> of that "a European State".
>

Try again Michael , the agreement states clearly that this only applies
if the action of that European states threatens the security of either
Britain or Poland.

Keith

Matt Wiser

March 3rd 04, 01:42 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>"Michael Petukhov" >
>wrote in message
om...
>> "Keith Willshaw" >
>wrote in message
>...
>> > "Michael Petukhov" >
>wrote in message
>> > om...
>> >
>> > >
>> > > what do you mean collusion?
>> >
>> > Look the word up in a dictionary Michael
>> >
>> > > And what the actual basis to believe
>> > > that is right interpretation of the actual
>history.
>> > >
>> >
>> > The treaties signed between the USSR and
>Nazi Germany in 1939,
>> > specifcally the secret protocols
>>
>> So what? Standard practice for anyone. For
>istance
>> on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual
>assitance
>> with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact,
>which also
>> included a secret protocol defining who is
>"european state"
>> against which it is directed and what to do
>if there will
>> be need to change that "europen state" to
>another
>> "european state". It is defensive pact without
>secret
>> protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever
>heard about this?
>>
>
>Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish
>mutual assistance treaty
>of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and
>RACZYNSKI
>and was far from secret. In fact the British
>PM wrote to Hitler on the
>28th August specifically to inform him of its
>content so that there
>would be no confusion, he then went on to make
>a public speech
>in the house of commons about the subject. There
>was no doubt at
>the time in anyones mind about the British position.
>
>The Secret Protocol of the German Soviet agreement
>on
>the other hand were definitely NOT well known
>at the time
>and the Soviets were extremely upset when news
>of it
>was released in 1946.
>
>
>> >
>> > > > when this
>> > > > was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments
>MANY
>> > > > years ago.
>> > >
>> > > Well it was admitted by state criminals,
>traitors and history
>> > > falcificators. Certainly you would not
>deny that if
>> > > documents found in a sealed package in
>the most secrete part
>> > > of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said
>it was, to national leader
>> > > eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can
>be pretty sure
>> > > that Gorby himself is involved in falcification
>of the history
>> > > and as such is state criminal and traitor,
>no matter what were
>> > > his or his subordinates real goals.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially
>found in the
>> > GERMAN archives back in 1945
>>
>> What traubles? I was talking about so called
>"Katyn documents"
>> which are found to be fakes. As for Molotov-Ribbentrop
>pact
>> we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing.
>All was done correctly
>> properly and in time. I see absolutely no
>traubles for us with
>> all that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
>>
>> > and the truth came out
>> > during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck
>German Governor
>> > of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet
>Union the Gauss
>> > affidavit was entered into evidence. This
>was an account of the
>> > contents of the documents which was drafted
>from memory by
>> > Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the
>Nazi Foreign Office,
>> > who drew up the non-aggression treaty between
>the Reich and
>> > the Soviet Union.
>>
>> Exactly this was non-aggresive treaty on 23.09.39
>and later on.
>>
>> >
>> > He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop
>and
>> > Stalin at which the agreement to carve up
>Poland was made.
>> > All this came out 40 years before Gorby
>came to power.
>>
>> So what but he was present at the meeting?
>>
>
>Yes
>
>> Keith I do not quite understand you. what
>you want to prove?
>>
>
>That the Soviet Government colluded with the
>Nazis to carve up
>Poland between them. The Polish officer corps
>represented a
>possible threat to Soviet hegemony and Stalin
>dealt with it
>the same way he dealt with the officer corps
>of the Red Army in
>1939, mass executions and deportations to Siberia.
>
>Around 1 million Poles were sent to Soviet prison
>camps in
>1940/41 and the Soviets forcibly imposed their
>own education
>and governmental institutions in Eastern Poland.
>This was no
>liberation, it was Empire building.
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
And guess who was in charge of Sovietizing Eastern Poland? One Nikita Sergeyiech
Khruschev.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Michael Petukhov

March 3rd 04, 04:08 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > >
> > > > (2) Should one of the Contracting Powers become engaged in hostilities
> > > > with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which
> > > > threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in
> > > > such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that
> > > > Contracting Party, the provisions of Article 1 will apply, without
> > > > prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State
> > > > concerned.
> > > >
> > > > WOW! "another European State" now.
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > > <Irony Mode On>
> > > Gee what a surprise when the original treaty referred to
> > > 'a European State' it really meant 'a European State'
> >
> > Exactly. according to this SECRET PROTOCOL Britain and Poland agreed
> > to start aggresive war against "a European State" using ANY action
> > of that "a European State".
> >
>
> Try again Michael , the agreement states clearly that this only applies
> if the action of that European states threatens the security of either
> Britain or Poland.

Too wide range of cases to be true defensive pact.
Who will decide what is threat and what is not?
Imagine for a moment if Poland invaded Lithuania
in 1939 and USSR moved forces to protect
it against Poland would it "threatens the security of
either Britain or Poland"? Very probable scenario
in 1939 by the way. Poles tried actually ones and were
stoped by strong Stalin reaction only. I think this is
why Mr. Halifax signed that mutual assistence pact
with (Keith note) THE SECRET PROTOCOL. His hopes for
big war in eastern europe of all against USSR were quite
real. In august 1939 there were two states who were practicing
aggresive attacks against its neibours namely Germany and
Poland, and both were united in pathological hate of USSR.

Stalin signed a defensive pact with Hitler.
Mr. Halifax signed aggresive pact with Poland.
Both had secret protocols. Feel the difference.

Michael

>
> Keith

Keith Willshaw

March 3rd 04, 04:34 PM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > > >
> > > > > (2) Should one of the Contracting Powers become engaged in
hostilities
> > > > > with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which
> > > > > threatened the independence or neutrality of another European
State in
> > > > > such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that
> > > > > Contracting Party, the provisions of Article 1 will apply, without
> > > > > prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State
> > > > > concerned.
> > > > >
> > > > > WOW! "another European State" now.
> > > > > ------------------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > <Irony Mode On>
> > > > Gee what a surprise when the original treaty referred to
> > > > 'a European State' it really meant 'a European State'
> > >
> > > Exactly. according to this SECRET PROTOCOL Britain and Poland agreed
> > > to start aggresive war against "a European State" using ANY action
> > > of that "a European State".
> > >
> >
> > Try again Michael , the agreement states clearly that this only applies
> > if the action of that European states threatens the security of either
> > Britain or Poland.
>
> Too wide range of cases to be true defensive pact.

In your opinion

> Who will decide what is threat and what is not?
> Imagine for a moment if Poland invaded Lithuania
> in 1939 and USSR moved forces to protect
> it against Poland would it "threatens the security of
> either Britain or Poland"?

Possibly but then that would not have happened
as a result of another European Nation but of
Poland which would give Britain an out.

> Very probable scenario
> in 1939 by the way. Poles tried actually ones and were
> stoped by strong Stalin reaction only. I think this is
> why Mr. Halifax signed that mutual assistence pact
> with (Keith note) THE SECRET PROTOCOL. His hopes for
> big war in eastern europe of all against USSR were quite
> real.

That is possibly the silliest statement ever posted in this
newsgroup. The one thing that characterised Chamberlain's
government was the view that virtually anything was preferable
to fighting a war.

> In august 1939 there were two states who were practicing
> aggresive attacks against its neibours namely Germany and
> Poland, and both were united in pathological hate of USSR.
>

Oh puleeze, it wasnt Poland that invaded Lituania, Latvia, Estonia
and Finland.

> Stalin signed a defensive pact with Hitler.

That allowed him to 'defensively' invade and annexe the
Baltic States , Finland and Poland

> Mr. Halifax signed aggresive pact with Poland.

That caused Britain to declare war on Germany after
Germany invaded Poland

> Both had secret protocols. Feel the difference.
>

Good advice, why dont you take it.

Keith

Krztalizer

March 3rd 04, 08:00 PM

Keith, this is _Michael_. "Facts" in his dimension don't actually reflect
events on our planet. While I commend your staying power, its never going to
get Michael to the point of saying, "You know, I was wrong - the Soviets did
this." because he _can't_; he was bred to accept any farflung story that
praises the Stalinists and absolutely and fervently refute anything from the
west. Not his fault - he is fulfulling his programming.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

Keith Willshaw

March 3rd 04, 08:18 PM

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> Keith, this is _Michael_. "Facts" in his dimension don't actually reflect
> events on our planet. While I commend your staying power, its never going
to
> get Michael to the point of saying, "You know, I was wrong - the Soviets
did
> this." because he _can't_; he was bred to accept any farflung story that
> praises the Stalinists and absolutely and fervently refute anything from
the
> west. Not his fault - he is fulfulling his programming.
>
> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>

True enough

Michael lives in a world in which Stalin and Beria were peaceful
social democrats deperately fending off attacks by that well known
warmonger Neville Chamberlain and manfully defending the
demi-paradise of the USSR against the invading Finnish hordes.

Keith

Krztalizer

March 3rd 04, 08:46 PM

>Michael lives in a world in which Stalin and Beria were peaceful
>social democrats deperately fending off attacks by that well known
>warmonger Neville Chamberlain and manfully defending the
>demi-paradise of the USSR against the invading Finnish hordes.

BINGO! :)

Michael Petukhov

March 4th 04, 09:43 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > (2) Should one of the Contracting Powers become engaged in
> hostilities
> > > > > > with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which
> > > > > > threatened the independence or neutrality of another European
> State in
> > > > > > such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that
> > > > > > Contracting Party, the provisions of Article 1 will apply, without
> > > > > > prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State
> > > > > > concerned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WOW! "another European State" now.
> > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <Irony Mode On>
> > > > > Gee what a surprise when the original treaty referred to
> > > > > 'a European State' it really meant 'a European State'
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. according to this SECRET PROTOCOL Britain and Poland agreed
> > > > to start aggresive war against "a European State" using ANY action
> > > > of that "a European State".
> > > >
> > >
> > > Try again Michael , the agreement states clearly that this only applies
> > > if the action of that European states threatens the security of either
> > > Britain or Poland.
> >
> > Too wide range of cases to be true defensive pact.
>
> In your opinion

Not only. No government in a good mind would enter a
devensive pact with other goverment which can be triggered
by ANY action of third party goverment. It is basurd and nonsense,
unless of course this (first goverment) knew in advance that it
was not going to do anything to fulfil its obligations.

>
> > Who will decide what is threat and what is not?
> > Imagine for a moment if Poland invaded Lithuania
> > in 1939 and USSR moved forces to protect
> > it against Poland would it "threatens the security of
> > either Britain or Poland"?
>
> Possibly but then that would not have happened
> as a result of another European Nation but of
> Poland which would give Britain an out.

Sure? Poland betraied France at least three times
in 38-39 having a defencive deal with France and
despite of all French efforts. After all that what
was a basis to trust Poland at all?

>
>
> > Very probable scenario
> > in 1939 by the way. Poles tried actually ones and were
> > stoped by strong Stalin reaction only. I think this is
> > why Mr. Halifax signed that mutual assistence pact
> > with (Keith note) THE SECRET PROTOCOL. His hopes for
> > big war in eastern europe of all against USSR were quite
> > real.
>
> That is possibly the silliest statement ever posted in this
> newsgroup.

Nevertheless it is most common views on the eurpean "real
politics" here on east. You do not like that? Well...
We do not expect any better from our "partners".

> The one thing that characterised Chamberlain's
> government was the view that virtually anything was preferable
> to fighting a war.

But one thing, big war between all and USSR in 1939.
Hey Keith, what's was the british goal until sept 39.
Right?

>
> > In august 1939 there were two states who were practicing
> > aggresive attacks against its neibours namely Germany and
> > Poland, and both were united in pathological hate of USSR.
> >
>
> Oh puleeze, it wasnt Poland that invaded Lituania, Latvia, Estonia
> and Finland.

Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
than voted on referendum to join USSR. All the rest are just
a empty talks. Actually all British colonies were captured
even without such kind of formalities. Nobody even asked local
population opinions.

In any case it was in 1940 when the WWII was going on. Britain
army had already invaded many foreign countries and even
attacked French NAVY, its former ally. I see no reasons
why we russians should behaive any better when
enemies were in front of us.

In 1939, official peace time, as I said there were two states
who were practicing aggresive attacks against its neibours
namely Germany and Poland. With both of them British goverment
was trying to make some sort of tricky deals.

>
> > Stalin signed a defensive pact with Hitler.
>
> That allowed him to 'defensively' invade and annexe the
> Baltic States,

In 1940 and with all neccessary formalities, like
deal to invite russian army and referendum.
No matter what but all formalities were done
properly.

>Finland

It was not annexed, although it could be. Why is that?
We just moved borders a bit further from Leningrad
and leased a few islands to protect Leningrad
from the sea. BTW these borders are internationally
accepted now including by UK.

>and Poland

Polish state voluntarily seased to exist on Sept 16
when Polish goverment cowardly escaped to Rumania.
If not USSR germany would occupy that part of Poland.
So what choice Stalin had? However in 45 he (stalin)
voluntarily restored Polish state. why is that?

>
> > Mr. Halifax signed aggresive pact with Poland.
>
> That caused Britain to declare war on Germany after
> Germany invaded Poland

Hoping for Polish resitence. I can imagine their
degree of british surprise of speed of Polish
goverment escape from the battle field. But it was
alrady too late.

>
> > Both had secret protocols. Feel the difference.
> >
>
> Good advice, why don't you take it.

So Keith, you do not deny any more the very existence
of the secret protocol in Btitish international
practice dealing with aggressor states. Tell
me know why Stalin would have to behaive any
better than others did?

Michael

Keith Willshaw

March 4th 04, 10:17 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...

>
> But one thing, big war between all and USSR in 1939.
> Hey Keith, what's was the british goal until sept 39.

Peace

> Right?

>
> Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
> than voted on referendum to join USSR. >

Michael if you really believe this you are beyond hope.

Keith

Michael Petukhov

March 4th 04, 10:29 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > But one thing, big war between all and USSR in 1939.
> > Hey Keith, what's was the british goal until sept 39.
>
> Peace

Tell this **** to somebody else. Agreement with Stalin in 38 -39
would 100% guarantee peace in europe, but brits prefered to
"pacify" Hitler causing millions of deaths.

>
> > Right?
>
> >
> > Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
> > than voted on referendum to join USSR. >
>
> Michael if you really believe this you are beyond hope.

cheap demagogy. Whether you like it or not the aggrements and
the referendum are historical facts and it will stay forever.

Michael

>
> Keith

pigdog

March 7th 04, 09:40 PM

> > > Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
> > > than voted on referendum to join USSR. >
> >
> > Michael if you really believe this you are beyond hope.
>
> cheap demagogy. Whether you like it or not the aggrements and
> the referendum are historical facts and it will stay forever.

For starters, I'd sure like to see the document where the Baltic
countries "officially invited" Stalin's Red Army to their terri-
tories. Wonder what the _heck_ would've they invite them for? :)

In reality though, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were
given flat out ultimatums with 48 hour timeframes for "partnership
treaties" to allow military bases with overpowering Soviet military
numbers, or be considered Russia's enemies, face war and be overrun
by Soviet forces in several times the manpower (not to mention hard-
ware) that was already stationed near their borders. Since the
Western allies were at war and quite busy themselves at this point,
and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (existance of which the Soviets
had denied well into the 1990ies, but the originals not to mention
official copies of which have been found) gave free hands by Hitler
to Stalin to do with Baltics/Finland as he wishes, there was no help
expected from Germany either.

So the governments of the Baltic states made the grave mistake
and accepted the terms of the ultimatums. Unfortunately, by at-
tempting to avoid war and save lives by choosing not to attempt
military resistance (they did *not* consult with their nations
nor even considered military resistance against enemy 100 times their
size), they actually settled the grounds of the 50-year old
occupation that followed, and allowed people with misconceptions
such as yours to even exist. Fortunately, Finland (who received
the ultimatum last) witnessed the fate of the Baltic states and
knew better -- they refused, and as a result, indeed faced their
bloody Winter War, but instead of being turned into the Finnish
SSR they were able to keep their independence despite losing some
of their territory in the end.

In the Baltics, after a few months (in 1940) the Soviet government
quoted some BS as grounds for "breaking" the "partnership treaties",
demanded _unlimited_ number troops to be stationed in the countries
(in case with Estonia, 90,000 vs 15,000 of Estonia's own army),
and flat out demanded for new, "Soviet-friendly" government to be
installed, this time with just 8 hours to comply. Being surrounded
and outnumbered by enemy troops in their own country, they complied
again. Communist "revolutions" were staged (I loved a photo from
that day in Tallinn with a column of "revolutionaries" marching
up to the government buildings, which many newspapers printed..
after cropping away the Soviet tanks that lined the crowd from
both sides, that is), Stalinist-style "elections" were held for
the puppet government (with only Soviet-approved communists as
candidates), which in turn declared the countries Soviet Socialist
Republics and "pleaded" access to Soviet Union a few months later.

It's worth mentioning that despite all that stuff that took place
in the Baltics 1940 being unconstitutional, illegal under inter-
national law and with utmost clarity against the will of the
people.. there *never* were *any*, not even obviously fabricated
Communist-style, referendums neither about allowing Soviet bases in
the countries, nor about joining the Soviet Union. If you're
quoting Soviet history books, you might as well quote THOSE right.

Pete

March 7th 04, 10:04 PM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote
>
> cheap demagogy. Whether you like it or not the aggrements and
> the referendum are historical facts and it will stay forever.
>

Sure. Just like you 'invite' a mugger to share the contents of your wallet.

Pete

Evan Brennan

March 8th 04, 06:43 AM

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> that's all I wanted to say.

We take your promise seriously and expect it to be upheld without question.

Michael Petukhov

March 8th 04, 03:01 PM

pigdog > wrote in message >...
> > > > Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
> > > > than voted on referendum to join USSR. >
> > >
> > > Michael if you really believe this you are beyond hope.
> >
> > cheap demagogy. Whether you like it or not the aggrements and
> > the referendum are historical facts and it will stay forever.
>
> For starters, I'd sure like to see the document where the Baltic
> countries "officially invited" Stalin's Red Army to their terri-
> tories.

The official agreement was signed with soviet military bases
allowed in, period The text is not secret and can be found if
you want. Moreover I am sure you have seen that. am I right?

>Wonder what the _heck_ would've they invite them for? :)

There could be many reasons. Poland and Germany for
instance had official territorial demands to Lithuania.
But three smalls had borders with three europen powerfull
military powers and they new that neutral status will
no be allowed. That's why I guess.

>
> In reality though, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were
> given flat out ultimatums with 48 hour timeframes for "partnership
> treaties" to allow military bases with overpowering Soviet military
> numbers, or be considered Russia's enemies, face war and be overrun
> by Soviet forces in several times the manpower (not to mention hard-
> ware) that was already stationed near their borders.

What ultimatums? They were politely offered a deal. And decided
they have better to sign it. That's all.

> Since the
> Western allies were at war and quite busy themselves at this point,
> and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (existance of which the Soviets
> had denied well into the 1990ies,

What? It was published immidetaly, without secret protocol certainly,
exactly because it was a secret protocol.

> but the originals not to mention
> official copies of which have been found)

Although no originals are found so far, and available
copies have marks of fake. Nerver mind, though. I ask you
what is so bad about this protocol? Two states
defined its respective "spheres of invluence" in a
very hypothetical case of political and economical
restructure of Poland state. That's all. Absolutely legal
and after all western states done toward USSR in 1938-39,
100% moral act towards those states and Poland.

> gave free hands by Hitler
> to Stalin to do with Baltics/Finland as he wishes, there was no help
> expected from Germany either.

So what? Hitler was indepedent of USSR and as such had free hands.
It was not in Stalin power to forbid something to Hitler. Stalin
got a deal protecting (at that time) its own country and a few
neibouring countries of interest against German and Polish invasion.
100% legal, moral and necessary steps.

>
> So the governments of the Baltic states made the grave mistake
> and accepted the terms of the ultimatums.

So you admit they accepted terms. Good. What's the problem?

>Unfortunately, by at-
> tempting to avoid war and save lives by choosing not to attempt
> military resistance (they did *not* consult with their nations
> nor even considered military resistance against enemy 100 times their
> size), they actually settled the grounds of the 50-year old
> occupation that followed, and allowed people with misconceptions
> such as yours to even exist.

Were Swedish rule over Baltics in 17 century and russian rule in
18 and 19 centuries an occupation as well? These three smalls
were always under someones occupation. It is their normal state
of business. They economically, politically and military
cannot be indepedent and the only thing they can do is to sell
themself to someone who pays more at any given moment. This
sort of business includes certain inconviniences like
occupations or even deportations.

> Fortunately, Finland (who received
> the ultimatum last) witnessed the fate of the Baltic states and
> knew better -- they refused, and as a result, indeed faced their
> bloody Winter War, but instead of being turned into the Finnish
> SSR they were able to keep their independence despite losing some
> of their territory in the end.

True to some extend. They did not accept and they fought
resulted in some sort of independence. BTW why do not
you ask yourslef why Stalin did not occupied Finland in
1944 and did not convert it into Finish SSR? He had all
means and excuses for that? After all Finland joint Hitler
in 1941. So why is that? What is your theory? As for me
I believe it was true Stalin's crime.

>
> In the Baltics, after a few months (in 1940) the Soviet government
> quoted some BS as grounds for "breaking" the "partnership treaties",
> demanded _unlimited_ number troops to be stationed in the countries
> (in case with Estonia, 90,000 vs 15,000 of Estonia's own army),
> and flat out demanded for new, "Soviet-friendly" government to be
> installed, this time with just 8 hours to comply. Being surrounded
> and outnumbered by enemy troops in their own country, they complied
> again. Communist "revolutions" were staged (I loved a photo from
> that day in Tallinn with a column of "revolutionaries" marching
> up to the government buildings, which many newspapers printed..
> after cropping away the Soviet tanks that lined the crowd from
> both sides, that is), Stalinist-style "elections" were held for
> the puppet government (with only Soviet-approved communists as
> candidates), which in turn declared the countries Soviet Socialist
> Republics and "pleaded" access to Soviet Union a few months later.

OK? What fraction of population came and vote for that?
How do you know that majority did not want exactly that?
Oh, I see those were Stalinist-style "elections". So
if it was British-styled "election" there would an opposite
result. Is that what do you really mean?

>
> It's worth mentioning that despite all that stuff that took place
> in the Baltics 1940 being unconstitutional, illegal under inter-
> national law and with utmost clarity against the will of the
> people.. there *never* were *any*, not even obviously fabricated
> Communist-style, referendums neither about allowing Soviet bases in
> the countries, nor about joining the Soviet Union. If you're
> quoting Soviet history books, you might as well quote THOSE right.

Well baltic countries separation from USSR was also unconstitutional.
Before that was unconstitutional 1917, Swedes also believed that
Baltics was their integral crown lands just before Poltava battle
before that there were poles, russians, germans and one god
knows who else. So what?

Tell us the true. You simply hate only russians and therefore
whatsoever they did wrongly or correctly is unconstitutional
and illegal. Am I right?

Michael