Soviet Hero General Loses Another Statue

[4thskorpion]

territorial rights (or counter-claims) are the subject of propagandists from all sides

Before the 20th century, Germans generally had no problems with acknowledging the Polish past of Silesia. For example:

Johann Gottlieb Schummel (1748-1813), in his "Schummels Reise durch Schlesien im Julius und August 1791" (published in 1792), wrote: "Let's not start a court trial for Silesia with the Poles. We will lose it in the Tribunal of History, both in the first instance and in higher instance."

I have no doubt about it, however choose any epoch of history and some will argue one thing and in another era some will have a counter arguement or claim over territory - one can point to several cities in the region that have been hotly contested over throughout history, and still are.

But back to the subject of the thread, is it right for this particular monument to a Soviet general who was part of the Red Army that pushed the German occupiers out of the former Polish territories be removed in a purely political act with all the fanfare that such an act entails. Its removal on the "17 September" in such a public manner was designed to provoke a reaction from Russia. The aggrieved townsfolk could have taken it down at any time since the collapse of the Polish communist regime years ago but it chose not to do so. There seems to be no recognition that without the Red Army blood sacrifice "Poland" would have remained occupied by the Germans, probably forever and a day, despite claims of having the largest underground army in occupied Europe it remained ineffectual in removing the German's during 5 years of occupation. Indeed one occupier was replaced with another over which Poles had little choice but the anti-communist restistance was also ineffective in removing the new occupiers. Anders and the exile Polish government in London were living in hope of a Third World War between the US and its allies and the USSR in the vain belief that this war would rescue Poland from the Soviet's but this was never going to happen.

[4thskorpion]

Clearly Adamushko is in a minority, not surprisingly given that, as I understand it, the documents in 'Package No 1' revealed in 1990, identify individuals in Belorussian SSR prisons slated for murder and othjers confirming that they were indeed killed there.

Like I said earlier...

Obviously some people will choose to believe Adamushko and some will not.

...and you said earlier:

However this seems to be getting us very far from Gen Chernyakhovsky and his statue!

So maybe Katyn is for another day

[gebhk]

without the Red Army blood sacrifice "Poland" would have remained occupied by the Germans, probably forever and a day,

Not really, (1) It would have been liberated (in the true meaning of the word) by the Western allies because they were commtted to the defeat of Germany just as much as the Soviets in reality, were albeit somwhat later. (2) Without the Red Army's 'blood sacrifoce' in 1939, there would not have been a German occupation of Poland in the first place or, most likely, a shorter one.

claims of having the largest underground army in occupied Europe.

That is not a claim, it is an objective fact.

it remained ineffectual in removing the German's during 5 years of occupation.

That is akin to saying that the European Space Agency has been ineffectual in putting a man on the moon. It was never the objective or purpose of the Polish Resistance to remove the Germans unaided.

I am, in any case, somewhat bemused what remote connection these sideswipes at the Polish Resistance have to do with the subject matter of the thread. I concur that Katyn should be left for another day, however you did ask the question why large numbers of Poles believe in a conspiracy theory related to Katyn. Regardless of the present situation regarding classification of Soviet documents relating to Katyn and the classification status of the RF investigation into the atrocity, the fact remains that at the very least documentary evidence has been deliberately kept from the public domain for over 70 years (and as far as I can see, continues to be so) and not just by the Soviets - as recently as 2012 a huge chunk of Katyn-related documentation was declassified by the USA, the British Government has similarly been coy about revealing its part in promoting the lie that the Germans committed the crime. It is hardly surprising that, given the level of obfuscation surrounding the event, given the fact that there was a conspiracy (now proven) at the highest levels to keep the facts from public knowledge, people have learnt to suspect conspiracies around every corner.

[gebhk]

However, to return to the subject in hand, 4thskorpion, you seem to be forgetting that the erection of the statue in question was as much a political statement as it's removal. That political statement had little in common with any recognition of any blood sacrifice - that recognition is best delivered in the form of cemetaries and memorials for the fallen, as indeed it is. If the Russian Federation feels aggrieved at Poland's rejection of the political statement behind the erection of the statue, then I would suggest it says as much about its inability to distance itself from its totalitarian and empire-building past as it does about Poland.

As you otherwise quite correctly point out, as a result of the 'blood sacrifice' one occupier was replaced with another over which Poles had little choice. So two bandits captured a slave and abused him jointly. Then they the fell out and, for a time, one bandit got the slave for himself and abused him very badly. Eventually, however, the second bandit defeated the first and regained the now very battered and bruised slave, enslaved him for many years and treated him somewhat better, giving only the occassional beatings. Over time the slave even got a degree of independence and was even allowed out the house occassionally but there was little doubt what would happen if he stepped out of line. Does that mean the slave should feel eternally grateful to the second bandit?

Ultimately, however, it is up to the people of Poland generally and of Pieniezno specifically who they chose, rightly or wrongly, to honour with statues. Clearly gen Czernakovsky isn't one of them and they should, as citizens of a sovereign nation, be allowed to remove his statue if they see fit without interference from foreign governments.

[4thskorpion]

without the Red Army blood sacrifice "Poland" would have remained occupied by the Germans, probably forever and a day,

Not really, (1) It would have been liberated (in the true meaning of the word) by the Western allies because they were commtted to the defeat of Germany just as much as the Soviets in reality, were albeit somwhat later.

1) I think you have overlooked the glaring fact that Great Britain and the US had agreed that it would be the USSR that would liberate Poland and eastern Europe and they would liberate western Europe. Great Britain had no intention or capability of ever liberating Poland by itself...it could not without help form the US and USSR. Churchill realised the only way to defeat Nazi Germany was with the USSR attacking from the East and with the US from the west. Poland was never in a position to liberate itself despite the claimed size of the Polish underground and thus was always at the mercy of the greater powers that was the realpolitik of their predicament.

(2) Without the Red Army's 'blood sacrifoce' in 1939, there would not have been a German occupation of Poland in the first place or, most likely, a shorter one.

2) Mere speculation, because on the 6 September 1939 the Polish government and military command had fled the capital, Warsaw....11 days before the USSR entered Polish territory. The Polish government had reached Romania by 18 September the day after the Soviets entered Poland.

Does that mean the slave should feel eternally grateful to the second bandit?

And yet the PZPR is recorded as having 3,500,000 members in 1970s?

Ultimately, however, it is up to the people of Poland generally and of Pieniezno specifically who they chose, rightly or wrongly, to honour with statues. Clearly gen Czernakovsky isn't one of them and they should, as citizens of a sovereign nation, be allowed to remove his statue if they see fit without interference from foreign governments.

Indeed it is up to the citizens of Pieniezno and the Polish government, but their political ineptitude does nothing to aid rapprochement between Poland and Russia.

[henryk]

USSR did not liberate Poland. It replaced Germany as the Overlord.

[gebhk]

"And yet the PZPR is recorded as having 3,500,000 members in 1970s?"
And how many members does it (or its successors) have now that it is not the 'state religion' of a totalitarian one-party state with all the social and career benefits membership conferred? What on earth does that have with any feelings of gratitude to anyone or anything is beyond me but frankly if anything, the above statistic suggests nearly 70% of the adult population was registering a 'no' vote in the only way it could in this context.

"I think you have overlooked the glaring fact that Great Britain and the US had agreed that it would be the USSR that would liberate Poland and eastern Europe and they would liberate western Europe."
With respect it is your alternative scenario not mine where the Red Army stops at the borders of Poland. It is you, not I, who is making claims about what would have happened if the Red Army had not made its 'blood sacrifice' overrunning Poland. I am merely pointing out the fundamental error in your chain of logic, namely that if that happened, somehow the Western Allies would have allowed Germany to survive and thus continue its role in Poland. This seem unlikely in the extreme. And yes the USA (with or without Britain and the supoport of most of a liberated Western Europe) was entirely capable of pursuing the war in Europe to its conclusion in 1944 without the assistance of the Red Army beyond its own borders. The reasons it did not do so had in all likelihood more to do with domestic politics than they did with military capability and capacity.

[gebhk]

"but their political ineptitude does nothing to aid rapprochement between Poland and Russia."
If local government is satisfying its electorate by removing an offensive monument that, in my opinion, speaks to political acumen not ineptitude. Alas that is the problem with a democracy, the electorate does not always agree that their immediate concerns must at all times be subservient to the 'greater good' as they are in totalitarian states. And by the way, if Russia is insisting that the price of rapprochement is the maintenance of symbols of its previous enslavement of the rapprochee and feels the need to interfere in the internal matters of a sovereign state at a level where, frankly, its own government has little reason or justification to meddle, then perhaps that is not the sort of rapprochement Poland needs.

[4thskorpion]

"I think you have overlooked the glaring fact that Great Britain and the US had agreed that it would be the USSR that would liberate Poland and eastern Europe and they would liberate western Europe."
With respect it is your alternative scenario not mine where the Red Army stops at the borders of Poland. It is you, not I, who is making claims about what would have happened if the Red Army had not made its 'blood sacrifice' overrunning Poland.

The Red Army did not overrun Poland, the simple fact is that there was no Poland in 1944 there were only German territories that included the Generalgouvernement, Reichsgau Wartheland, Reichsgau, Danzig-West Prussia, Ostpreußen, Oberschlesien, Reichskommissariat Ostland and Reichskommissariat Ukraine. However you cut it, thanks to the USSR (with the support of Polish 1AWP) Poland was returned as a nation albeit with new borders following the Border Agreement between Poland and the USSR of 16 August 1945.

I am merely pointing out the fundamental error in your chain of logic, namely that if that happened, somehow the Western Allies would have allowed Germany to survive and thus continue its role in Poland. This seem unlikely in the extreme. And yes the USA (with or without Britain and the supoport of most of a liberated Western Europe) was entirely capable of pursuing the war in Europe to its conclusion in 1944 without the assistance of the Red Army beyond its own borders. The reasons it did not do so had in all likelihood more to do with domestic politics than they did with military capability and capacity.

Nothing to do with domestic politics. In 1941 Churchill was keenly aware that without the Red Army defeating German forces from the east there would be no liberation of western Europe let alone German occupied territories in the east - with or without US forces. That is why Churchill was more intent on gaining Stalin's support than for any considerations towards his Polish ally, hence Churchill's often quoted statement in the British House of Commons, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”...the "devil" being Stalin.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

the simple fact is that there was no Poland in 1944

There was Poland in 1944. According to international law, states which are under foreign occupation do not cease to exist.

[gebhk]

I am sorry, but What Churchill's predicament in 1941 has to do with the capacity of the USA to wage war in 1944 and let alone in 1945 is beyond me.

[4thskorpion]

I am sorry, but What Churchill's predicament in 1941 has to do with the capacity of the USA to wage war in 1944 and let alone in 1945 is beyond me.

You previously intimated that in you opinion the western allies could eventually have liberated Poland without support from the USSR whereas in fact the the Normandy invasion of 1944 could not have taken place without the Red Army blood sacrifice on the eastern front. In fact Stalin had to repeatedly demand from Churchill and FDR the timing of when the western allies were going to invade Western Europe as they had agreed to do but had not done so until June 1944.

Poland was never in a position to liberate itself and the only outside force capable of doing that was the USSR given that Churchill and FDR had agreed that Poland would be liberated by the USSR not the western allies. As the London Polish government in exile found out "beggars' can't be choosers" and that was especially so on who was going to liberate German occupied territories of former Poland.

[4thskorpion]

the simple fact is that there was no Poland in 1944

There was Poland in 1944. According to international law, states which are under foreign occupation do not cease to exist.

However, as you know "Poland" has come and gone throughout a history of partitions as evidenced in maps of the various periods. That is true of some maps of Europe in WWII, I have several maps which show no sign of Poland, and I believe some US atlases of the period also show no sign of Poland in Europe.

Central Europe 1792–1813

EUROPA_MAPA.jpg (267.46 KiB) Viewed 939 times

Europe - WWII

Are the so-called "recovered territories" not evidence of an former German territory depopulated of German inhabitants then occupied and incorporated into postvwar Poland and would this not be contrary to the international law you describe?

[gebhk]

"You previously intimated that in you opinion the western allies could eventually have liberated Poland without support from the USSR whereas in fact the the Normandy invasion of 1944 could not have taken place without the Red Army blood sacrifice on the eastern front. In fact Stalin had to repeatedly demand from Churchill and FDR the timing of when the western allies were going to invade Western Europe as they had agreed to do but had not done so until June 1944."
There we have to differ: had the Soviets stopped within their own borders - your scenario, not mine - I do not see how Germany could have withstood the US giant (even without the A bomb and even without the assistance of other Western European countries). In your focus on the input of the Red Army you also seem to conveniently forget that its progress would have been substantially less without the collossal amount of aid provided by the Western Allies, particularly the USA.

I have to agree, however, that pre-war Poland ceased to be in September 1939 - destroyed by Germany and the USSR. What was created afterwards was a different entity which would, aside from the official language, have hardly been recognised by my parents or grandparents.

[4thskorpion]

"You previously intimated that in you opinion the western allies could eventually have liberated Poland without support from the USSR whereas in fact the the Normandy invasion of 1944 could not have taken place without the Red Army blood sacrifice on the eastern front. In fact Stalin had to repeatedly demand from Churchill and FDR the timing of when the western allies were going to invade Western Europe as they had agreed to do but had not done so until June 1944."
There we have to differ: had the Soviets stopped within their own borders - your scenario, not mine - I do not see how Germany could have withstood the US giant (even without the A bomb and even without the assistance of other Western European countries). In your focus on the input of the Red Army you also seem to conveniently forget that its progress would have been substantially less without the collossal amount of aid provided by the Western Allies, particularly the USA.

Not just my view:

VE Day 70th anniversary: We should never forget - the Soviets won World War II in Europe

The Red Army was "the main engine of Nazism’s destruction," writes British historian and journalist Max Hastings in "Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945." The Soviet Union paid the harshest price: though the numbers are not exact, an estimated 26 million Soviet citizens died during World War II, including as many as 11 million soldiers. At the same time, the Germans suffered three-quarters of their wartime losses fighting the Red Army.

"It was the Western Allies’ extreme good fortune that the Russians, and not themselves, paid almost the entire ‘butcher’s bill’ for [defeating Nazi Germany], accepting 95 per cent of the military casualties of the three major powers of the Grand Alliance," writes Hastings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 39369.html

...(even without the A bomb and even without the assistance of other Western European countries).

Ah, "One more atomic bomb and Lwow will again be ours." ... a phrase common among 2PolCorps.

I have to agree, however, that pre-war Poland ceased to be in September 1939 - destroyed by Germany and the USSR. What was created afterwards was a different entity which would, aside from the official language, have hardly been recognised by my parents or grandparents.

Nor mine too!