How do you think. Did, the two-years old, polish forces saved the rest of Europe. What if Soviets would win. Could it be that there would be no Nazis? Maybe WWII between GB, USA and USSR ?? Just like to know you ideas.
Obviously, Poland saved Europe from the Soviets in 1920. Andyou'd think that the west would be a little gratefull for it. But instead, Britain and the US simply gave Poland up to the Soviet Union because it was easier. Sometimes I wish Poland didnt win that war, so the rest of Europe could suffer under Soviet Occupation the way Britain, France and America forced Poland to.
This is a difficult one to call. There is no doubt that Poland's victory saved Eastern Europe and the Baltic States but I'm not sure about Western Europe. The Red Army still hadn't completely defeated the Whites in the Civil War and even if the Red Army had defeated Poland were they strong enough in 1920 (and did they have enough Communist support in Germany) to have swept across Europe? Even with the political unrest in Germany why wouldn't the Germans see them simply as an invading Russian Army (as the Poles wisely did)? Fear of Slavish Hordes played a big part in German WWI propaganda. Its' hard to imagine the Red Army defeating the French Army in 1920. That said Poland's victory ensured the existance of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, LAtvia and Lithuania to say the least. It is the 20 years of freedom these countries enjoyed that ensured their resurrection after the Soviet occupation. Take care, Neil
I think that had the Polish troops not stopped the invading Soviets we could have seen them knocking at the door. At the very least it may have caused the British and French to put more troops furtyher east to keep a line and the presence may have stayed many years thus stopping the rise of Hitler! Simplistic view to a complicated answer but i do beleive that this war was very vitiasl to the stability of the region for the next twenty years. regards Arm.
Hi Arm, interesting point, as always. Never really thought about it but let's say the Poles are defeated and France with a redispatched BEF and German support defeat the Red Army. At that point you've got to think they would have to dismantle the Soviet system. The French and british couldn't just make peace with the Soviets based on Germany's borders or the Curzon line, they would have to remove the Soviets from power. The 20th Century is completely different! Take care, Neil
Just by this move the germans may have been intergrated 'better' into the european system and Hitler may never have been given the right conditions to strom to power. Very probably the Soviets were not organised enough to conquer europe but i am glad we never had to see the chance arise. regards Arm.
Originally posted by Polish_Street_Soldier@Jul 1 2004, 05:27 PM Obviously, Poland saved Europe from the Soviets in 1920. Andyou'd think that the west would be a little gratefull for it. But instead, Britain and the US simply gave Poland up to the Soviet Union because it was easier. Sometimes I wish Poland didnt win that war, so the rest of Europe could suffer under Soviet Occupation the way Britain, France and America forced Poland to. Oh no. I can´t agree with you. Do you really think that polish forces saved Europe from the Soviets in 1920?No,definitely no.
Originally posted by dusan+Jul 11 2004, 11:03 AM-->(dusan @ Jul 11 2004, 11:03 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Polish_Street_Soldier@Jul 1 2004, 05:27 PM Obviously, Poland saved Europe from the Soviets in 1920. Andyou'd think that the west would be a little gratefull for it. But instead, Britain and the US simply gave Poland up to the Soviet Union because it was easier. Sometimes I wish Poland didnt win that war, so the rest of Europe could suffer under Soviet Occupation the way Britain, France and America forced Poland to. Oh no. I can´t agree with you. Do you really think that polish forces saved Europe from the Soviets in 1920?No,definitely no. [/b]You remember Teschen then. Czech Tĕšín, Pol. Cieszyn
The Soviet war with Poland in 1920 was a big mistake from the point of view of the Soviet Union and the Politburo was split on the issue. It did not advance the Bolshevik cause one iota. But I personally think that the original ideals of the Bolshevik revolution would have been a positive benefit to the world. It was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country, followed by the death of Lenin and the rise of Stalin that created a monster by the 1930s.
Originally posted by angie999@Jul 17 2004, 08:18 AM The Soviet war with Poland in 1920 was a big mistake from the point of view of the Soviet Union and the Politburo was split on the issue. It did not advance the Bolshevik cause one iota. But I personally think that the original ideals of the Bolshevik revolution would have been a positive benefit to the world. It was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country, followed by the death of Lenin and the rise of Stalin that created a monster by the 1930s. Maybe so, but it was Poland that invaded Russia in the first place! "1919 Russo-Polish War -(4-19) Poland invaded Russia in April, after demanding a return to the boundaries of 1772. The Poles were intially very successful, capturing Kiev and much of the Ukraine. The Soviets counterattacked, driving off the Poles and advancing toward Warsaw. The Poles, however, received vigorous aid from the French, and were able to repulse the Soviets. Under the Treaty of Riga, the final frontiers between Poland and the Soviet Union were set." My own view is that post-revolutionary Russia was a "monster" a long time before the death of Lenin. Certainly it was one by the time of Kronstadt etc in February 1921, but I would say that Kronstadt was the "last gasp" of anti-authoritarianism.
But the issue was that having successfully stopped the Poles and forced them back, the Red Army went on to in effect try and conquer Poland. Trotsky for one was against this on political grounds and he was not alone, but of course he was outvoted and then went along with policy. By the way, a certain Captain Charles de Gaulle was one of the French advisors to the Polish army.
Originally posted by angie999@Jul 17 2004, 12:07 PM But the issue was that having successfully stopped the Poles and forced them back, the Red Army went on to in effect try and conquer Poland. Trotsky for one was against this on political grounds and he was not alone, but of course he was outvoted and then went along with policy. By the way, a certain Captain Charles de Gaulle was one of the French advisors to the Polish army. And if the Russians had stopped on the border the Polish Army would have just gone home?
Originally posted by BeppoSapone@Jul 17 2004, 05:19 PM And if the Russians had stopped on the border the Polish Army would have just gone home? No, but whether they would have gone back on the offensive is another matter. And if the Red Army had been shown to be fighting a purely defensive war, with no predatory ambitions regarding Poland, this could have had a big effect on public opinion.
Originally posted by angie999+Jul 24 2004, 02:11 AM-->(angie999 @ Jul 24 2004, 02:11 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-BeppoSapone@Jul 17 2004, 05:19 PM And if the Russians had stopped on the border the Polish Army would have just gone home? No, but whether they would have gone back on the offensive is another matter. And if the Red Army had been shown to be fighting a purely defensive war, with no predatory ambitions regarding Poland, this could have had a big effect on public opinion. [/b]Of course the Poles would have gone back on the offensive. Poland invaded Russia in 1919 because Russia was weak, and because a re-born Poland insisted upon the pre-Napoleonic Polish borders. The French would have re-trained and re-armed the Poles, because they needed a strong Poland to replace Russia on Germanys eastern border. Once the Poles were strong again they would have invaded Russia again, because they did not agree with any settlement that did not give Poland the 1772 eastern border. Whose "public opinion" are you thinking of? Both the British Army in north Russia and French Black Sea fleet, intervention forces, mutinied in Russia. British survivors of WW1 would not go to Russia despite being offered large sums of money to volunteer etc etc etc
Originally posted by BeppoSapone+Jul 24 2004, 01:46 PM-->(BeppoSapone @ Jul 24 2004, 01:46 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by angie999@Jul 24 2004, 02:11 AM <!--QuoteBegin-BeppoSapone@Jul 17 2004, 05:19 PM And if the Russians had stopped on the border the Polish Army would have just gone home? No, but whether they would have gone back on the offensive is another matter. And if the Red Army had been shown to be fighting a purely defensive war, with no predatory ambitions regarding Poland, this could have had a big effect on public opinion. Of course the Poles would have gone back on the offensive. Poland invaded Russia in 1919 because Russia was weak, and because a re-born Poland insisted upon the pre-Napoleonic Polish borders. The French would have re-trained and re-armed the Poles, because they needed a strong Poland to replace Russia on Germanys eastern border. Once the Poles were strong again they would have invaded Russia again, because they did not agree with any settlement that did not give Poland the 1772 eastern border. Whose "public opinion" are you thinking of? Both the British Army in north Russia and French Black Sea fleet, intervention forces, mutinied in Russia. British survivors of WW1 would not go to Russia despite being offered large sums of money to volunteer etc etc etc [/b]I was thinking of Polish public opinion. Once the Poles had been turned back, attacking again would have been futile and pointless. It could have led to the Polish regime being ousted. And what of French public opinion at a time when the French Communist Party was emerging as a mass party? One thing to help the Poles defend themselves, another to ally France with Poland for an attack on a Soviet regime with no predatory intent. The French CP would have had a field day.
Although Poland did invade the Ukraine in Poland's eyes it was rather suspicious that it required Soviet troops to support a 'Nationalist' Ukraine. The Soviet Union was trying to get to Germany, hence the 'Over the Corpse of White Poland...' propaganda line. The concept that some type of 'Good" Soviet Union died with Lenin is really not supported by the facts. Poland's invasion of the Ukraine was an attempt to preempt a perceived Soviet drive through Poland to Germany. Poland's moves towards Lithuania are another matter. Take care, Neil
Originally posted by Neil B@Jul 26 2004, 11:08 AM Although Poland did invade the Ukraine in Poland's eyes it was rather suspicious that it required Soviet troops to support a 'Nationalist' Ukraine. The Soviet Union was trying to get to Germany, hence the 'Over the Corpse of White Poland...' propaganda line. The concept that some type of 'Good" Soviet Union died with Lenin is really not supported by the facts. Poland's invasion of the Ukraine was an attempt to preempt a perceived Soviet drive through Poland to Germany. Poland's moves towards Lithuania are another matter. Take care, Neil Neil What do you think would have happened if Soviet Russia had halted their advance on the/one of the/Polish borders?
Honestly Beppo, Tough to say! You are correct that elements in Poland, mostly Dmowski if I recall wanted a reestablishment of pre-partitioned Poland. Pilsudski though was effectively in charge and he was much more concerned with Lithuania and the capture of Vilna than Ukrainian territory. I honestly don't think Poland was that predatory in regards to the Ukraine. Lithuania is another story. Keep in mind that Poland was looking for a buffer as the Soviet Union was making it clear they had (long term) World Revolution and (short term) contact with Germany as their goal. With the defeat of the Red Army Poland was happy to take the territory offered at Riga since the Poles felt they would see the Red Army again. Keep in mind the Poles also assisted the Latvians during this time and made no territorial demands on Latvia. Take care, Neil
Originally posted by Neil B@Jul 26 2004, 04:08 PM The concept that some type of 'Good" Soviet Union died with Lenin is really not supported by the facts. Although I seldom see the world in starkly "good" and "bad" (except for the Nazis that is = out and out bad!), I would be happy to debete this off topic, so I am starting a new thread in The Barracks.
Originally posted by angie999@Jul 17 2004, 03:18 PM But I personally think that the original ideals of the Bolshevik revolution would have been a positive benefit to the world. [post=26922]Quoted post[/post] There were no checks and balances preventing the rise of monsters. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was a sham, a gang of hardmen seized power in a weak but potentially powerful nation. Living in a post-communist country makes you realise it was one big lie, utterly destructive of the human spirit, the guys running the system either evil b*stards or, at best, small-time crooks. It will take us a full generation to remove the last vestiges of the system and move ahead as a normal, decent nation. Michal from Warsaw
