70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

World War II Russian Military
#1

Article in Polish press:-

Poles Remember 17 September 1939.

Poles mark the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland

…While the date 1 September 1939 is widely remembered across the globe, it often overshadows an equally tragic day in Polish history: 17 September 1939.

On this day 70 years ago, Soviet forces, acting on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact agreed upon by Hitler and Stalin, invaded Poland. The plan was to divide the country in half, and Poland, left to fight a war on two fronts, was defeated soon after…

http://www.krakowpost.com/article/1575

#2

Do i understand the phrase right- it’s look like Poland was almost defeating the GErman troops in 17 ceptember , but USSR suddenly attacked the polish back and poles unexpectedly for all ( including their allies) losed the war?
Does it claim that without Soviet participation - the Poland probably should win the war?

#3

Hi Chevan. If you are referring to the line you quoted:

The plan was to divide the country in half, and Poland, left to fight a war on two fronts, was defeated soon after

  • then no, the phrase does NOT suggest any of the things you mentioned.
#4

OK Ardee , nice to see you again.
let’s try the another way.

The plan was to divide the country in half, and Poland, left to fight a war on two fronts, was defeated soon after

Does it sentence claim that if Poland wouln’t be left to fight a war on TWO fronts- they wouldn’t be defeated soon after?
Does it also claim that there were a simular war with USSR just like it was the war with GErmany?

#5

Does it sentence claim that if Poland wouln’t be left to fight a war on TWO fronts- they wouldn’t be defeated soon after?

No, it doesn’t. It states quite simply a) there was a plan between the Germans and Soviets to divide Poland in half, b) Poland was left to fight a two-front war, and c) after the two-front war began, the Poles quickly collapsed.

I would not read anything more into that than what’s above. If anything, the only “between the lines” comment that I see is the dig about Poland being “left” to fight a two-front war. And that would be a reference to the failure of France and the UK, both bound by treaties, to take forceful action on Germany’s western flank.

Polish planners had known long before the war started that they could not win a one-on-one fight with Germany. Plan Z – the Polish master plan for the defense against a German invasion, and the plan used in Sept 39 - was based entirely on this assumption. Poland’s strategic plan was to roll with the punches, to simply survive until such time as the western allies launched a counterattack in the west, drawing off German forces, and after which, Germany would the one caught in a two-front war. The treaties required such an attack in the west by a specific time line. For many reasons, the Allied did not launch a forceful attack. The Soviets invaded Poland the very day after the west failed to meet their “deadline.”

I do not believe the timing of the Soviet attack was a coincidence: Stalin waited until it was obvious the west would not or could not effectively intervene. I believe he had intelligence on the treaties’ time lines. IIRC, there was also a non-aggression pact between the USSR and Poland, which Stalin famously dismissed by saying Poland no longer existed as a nation. Poland, which had committed the bulk of its strength to fight in the west, was totally unable to meet the second invasion from the east, and collapsed.

Does it also claim that there were a simular war with USSR just like it was the war with GErmany?

I am not sure of exactly what you are trying to say here. If you are asking if the Polish fight against the Soviets was on par with the fight against the Germans, than I would again say no, the sentence doesn’t try to indicate anything of the kind. As I indicated above, the reality was the Poles had most of the strength committed to fighting the Germans. On paper, the Poles had a fairly large army (I believe at the time it was ranked as the sixth largest, either in Europe or the world, I forget which), but (because of pressure to delay from France and the UK) it was still mobilizing when the Germans struck, robbing them of a substantial portion of its manpower - I’m going by memory here, but I think they only had about 60% of their strength, and German action against rail and other transportation, coupled with combat losses, surely did not allow that figure to increase appreciably. The Poles had next to nothing left with which to resist the Soviet attack.

I hope that answers your concerns…

#6

Well let’s talk.

The qoute above is quite wrong coz.
a)There were no plan to devide Poland in …half.
The plan was to devide it on …along Curzon line, that firstly was recommended by British side on Soviet-polish Ruga peace negoration of 1920.
The line of Curzon was an ethnical border that might be taken as a state border, but Poland has demanded not just serious part of Ukraine and Belorussia but a half of Luthinia… including the Vilnus:)
The post ww1 poland has seized the big territories of its neighbourgs, see the map of Poland 1918-1922
After the 1939 Poland lost EXACTLY those territories
b)Poland endeed never declared war on USSR, neither fought against Red Army.
The polish commander Rudz-Smugly specially ordered to rest of polish troops near Lviv NOT TO resist the red army.
So in fact - the polish-soviet second front NEVER existed.
c)Polans was endeed quicly collapsed already until september 14.In 16 september the GErman army has reached the Curzon line, advancing further on many places.

Polish planners had known long before the war started that they could not win a one-on-one fight with Germany. Plan Z – the Polish master plan for the defense against a German invasion, and the plan used in Sept 39 - was based entirely on this assumption. Poland’s strategic plan was to roll with the punches, to simply survive until such time as the western allies launched a counterattack in the west, drawing off German forces, and after which, Germany would the one caught in a two-front war. The treaties required such an attack in the west by a specific time line. For many reasons, the Allied did not launch a forceful attack. The Soviets invaded Poland the very day after the west failed to meet their “deadline.”

It’s true.
However the France and britain were obligated to start the active war on West within two weeks after the GErman attack on poland.It was a special condition of Polish-British treaty.
That’s why the 14-15 september was the day when west finaly failed to do soemthing.And poles had finally realized - the game is over.

I do not believe the timing of the Soviet attack was a coincidence: Stalin waited until it was obvious the west would not or could not effectively intervene. I believe he had intelligence on the treaties’ time lines. IIRC, there was also a non-aggression pact between the USSR and Poland, which Stalin famously dismissed by saying Poland no longer existed as a nation. Poland, which had committed the bulk of its strength to fight in the west, was totally unable to meet the second invasion from the east, and collapsed.

They can’t even hold the invasion from the west alone.This is very importaint fact that dismiss the argument about TWO front compain, that ostensibly only POLAND CAN’T wage.
In face of circumstances, the GErman shall capture all the POLAND most late- 28 September, when Warsaw falled.

I am not sure of exactly what you are trying to say here. If you are asking if the Polish fight against the Soviets was on par with the fight against the Germans, than I would again say no, the sentence doesn’t try to indicate anything of the kind. As I indicated above, the reality was the Poles had most of the strength committed to fighting the Germans. On paper, the Poles had a fairly large army (I believe at the time it was ranked as the sixth largest, either in Europe or the world, I forget which), but (because of pressure to delay from France and the UK) it was still mobilizing when the Germans struck, robbing them of a substantial portion of its manpower - I’m going by memory here, but I think they only had about 60% of their strength, and German action against rail and other transportation, coupled with combat losses, surely did not allow that figure to increase appreciably. The Poles had next to nothing left with which to resist the Soviet attack.

The Poles endeed was going to hold the last step of defence near Lviv and near Romanian border against Germany.
But strategically it will be just adventure - losing of time and lives.
There were almost of 300 000 of Polish troops here( almost all of them were captured by Red Army) who DIDN"T even try to fight.
As i said above the Rudz-Smugly ordered not to began the active combat with Red Army.
The other serious factor that made the poles to surrender soon- the very hostile relation the local ukrainians to polish army and poles.The local population started the partisan warfare against poles.
There were a case when the polish captured officer asked NKVD command to reinforce the guard of polish pows- the locals threated to kill them all.
You should remember the Volyn massacre that happend in 1943-44.
So it easy might to heppend in …1939-1940.Believe me.
And GErmans should be just sit and wait , looking at bloody pogroms, just like they looked at anti-semitic pogroms on Poland and Ukraine.
I/m not advocating the Soviet re-occupation of Western Ukraine- it was agression for definition.The Nazi-Soviet agreements as well.
But every time when one more irrational pole claim the bul…t about soviet attack of “Eastern Poland”- i want to ask him - how about Volyn? Did they rememder it as strong as they remember 17 september?

#7

Chevan, I’ve wondered what your motivation was for your questions, and I guess that is now pretty clear. You do seem to be overly-sensitive to the topic of how Poles view the war, and hope you will not degrade to behaving like a troll. So far as I am concerned, I am ending my participation in this thread with this post, as I don’t wish to be drawn into a fight on the subject.

If I understand your argument, you are suggesting there was no Plan to divide Poland in half, because the territories seized by the USSR were ones that were previously part of the Ukraine, etc? I’ll suggest to you that that view point is not as valid as you seem to feel: whatever the history, the area seized by the USSR in 1939 was legally and internationally recognized as part of Poland. IIRC, even the USSR had hitherto acknowledged this, though it may have done so without joy. In any case, there are parts of Europe that have changed hands so many times over the centuries that it is silly to base an argument on past sovereignty. If instead you base your argument on the ethnicity of the people living there, you may have a stronger argument - though of course, at the risk of opening topics such as your approach to, say, the Balkans. But even so, your argument fails because of what the accepted borders were for Poland at the time. You may not like it, but that is the reality.

Also, to take your statement about Rudz-Smugly’s orders at face value (I’m not familiar with the details), I also believe there were still instances of Polish armed resistance to the Soviets, with casualties to both sides. Certainly the Soviets took control of the territory by virtue of the armed forces sent to occupy it. To claim such wasn’t “war” seems an interesting point of view, but that’s up to you.

#8

60 y after war and the real true about the beginig are so hard to say! For me both Nazi Germany and USSR are starting the war. Bloody Hitler and bloody Stalin, what is different!?
But there are another nuance - the pre-war polish politic. This politic was not very peaceful. Remember Polish ultimatums against Lithuanians and Czechs.

#9

I’ts true , i bit sensitive to this theme.
But i have to add- this is not just russian-polish problem , but rather polish-ukrainian.
You point is correct to some extend , but you probably didn’t specialy study this theme, i guess?

If I understand your argument, you are suggesting there was no Plan to divide Poland in half, because the territories seized by the USSR were ones that were previously part of the Ukraine, etc? I’ll suggest to you that that view point is not as valid as you seem to feel: whatever the history, the area seized by the USSR in 1939 was legally and internationally recognized as part of Poland.

Oh yes, sure.
But there is a serious problem.
But let me remind you by whom the Riga threaty has been recognized - by Bolshevic government ( RSFSR and Bolshevic Ukrain) from one side and by polish inviders from other.
I don’t really think you will claim the Bolshevics were the legitime govenment of Russia that time ( 1921) keep also in mind there still existed the White Russian government who still fought the Bolshevics in Civil war.
The other serious point - were there the represantatives of peoples in Riga , who lives at the lands of Western Ukraine?
No…
The western Ukraine was endeed the Ukrainian Peoples Republic leading by Semen Petlura which was allied to Poland.Petlura fought the boslhevics too.
However instead to supprot their ally, Poles just… joined it’s land to Poland:)
So from objective outside point- the Polish-Soviet agreement was nothing more than Imperialistic separation of Ukrainain land.Both were agressors.
Just like it later happend in 1939 with Poland itself.
Don’t believe me- asc any ukrainian.
The Ukrainians endeed NEVER recognized this threaty. The so called “Eastern Poland” existed ONLY in imperialistic dreams on Poles.

IIRC, even the USSR had hitherto acknowledged this, though it may have done so without joy.

it’s true.
Just like the West later fully acknowledged the borders of 1945:)

In any case, there are parts of Europe that have changed hands so many times over the centuries that it is silly to base an argument on past sovereignty. If instead you base your argument on the ethnicity of the people living there, you may have a stronger argument - though of course, at the risk of opening topics such as your approach to, say, the Balkans. But even so, your argument fails because of what the accepted borders were for Poland at the time. You may not like it, but that is the reality.

Don’t me like that , but Ukrainians themself.
And it’s not good from poles to ignore the obvious things.

#10

Its says something when someone starts throwing insults.

#11

Perhaps, but let’s not make throwing insults a habit in this thread.

#12

Geez, Chevan, what’s your point? Silly man. Perhaps the point is that the Soviets were in bed with the devil and decided to carve up Poland to suit their own ends. When the devil turned on the Soviets, all sorts of righteous indignation came from Moscow. The west made a deal with the Soviet devil because they hated and feared Hitler more than Stalin and the Soviets eventually chewed up a very high proportion of the German army. That the Germans were basically insane to attack the Soviet Union in the first place is common knowledge. That the Russians were willing to jump into bed with the Germans doesn’t do them much credit and didn’t do them any good at all when the Germans attacked. The Poles were the victims both during and after the war.

#13

In my opinion there was no point in attacking any Soviet unit as the campaign was already lost for Poles. I think that historians will argue about that order for many years, if it was right decision or not.
Most of polish units avoided the fight, because they were also ordered to march towards Romanian border. They were given right to engage Soviets in self-defence or in case when RA was blocking their path.
Meanwhile, whole polish Border Security Corps resisted and tried to delay the Soviet advance as long as possible. Also Independent Operational Group “Polesie” and Reserve Cavalry Brigade of “Wołkowysk” were actively engaging the Red Army. In many towns and villages the defiance was organized by local small military units, volunteers, teenage scouts.

#14

That was absolutly …illegal,coz Polish govenment did,t declared war on USSR.Neither we were in condition of war.
BTW the local polish defence were organized not as much against RA as againts the agressive groups of Ukraine nationalists, who burded by desire of bloody “retrebution”.

#15

Well ,the point is , if to look at general , mr clever boy , that Poland was a real victim not just “both devils” but , before all - it was a victim of extremaly dastard policy of the their western allies , who specially directed hitler to east , getting false guaranties which they weren’t even going to realize.So Poles should be stay absolutly ALONE before the “devils lied into bed”.And that’s is the really sad fact , that is still unpopular.
The bitter true of story is that neither Poland nor their “phony” allies didn’t even GOING to declare the war neither 1939 nor later to “Soviet agressor”(Stalin knew this , othervise he would so easy sent RA to Western Ukraine) , as it widelly affirmed today.That makes us to doubt in widespread point.Maybe coz soviet never entered to the Polish territory endeed?It was Ukrainian territory , as ukrainians think.

#16

The factional novel ‘The Engineer’ released for this anniversary has got wide acclaim as an easy read summary of events that highlights the issue of Soviet intervention and gives some better perspective to the Polish position for the English speaking reader as well as the political pressures of France and Britain which contributed to the loss of the campaign. Opening up the so called Ukrainian story takes us a bit further back in time! The ‘Borderland’ and plebiscites and ethnicity and nationalism was hardly the real issue there, rather the re run of the 1920’s when Stalin suffered a personal affront! Surely it is at least sensible with all the knowledge we have today to accept that the Polish army fought a good campaign, the Piloish air force was not destroyed on the ground and the small navy made a good contribution to the war effort. Unfortunately Russkis did intervene and brought the end to the Poles and betrayed Ukrainian aspirations.

#17

I’m afraid the nationalistic troubles and polish-ukrainin ethnic hostilities were there for a long time even Stalin was born.The problem of Polish point of view is that- the Ukraine itlesf ( neither ukrainian leader) NEVER recognized the Western Ukraine as “Eastern Poland”.People who don’t notice the events like Volun massacre are just blind ( or cynic).
The Soviet attack, was re-occupation of the territories that UkrSSR considered as it’s stolen land. This point is also supported by the fact that Polish army didn’t resisted to RA like they fought against Germany.I’m not doubt the Poles fought very well for its motherland. but they didn’t fight at all for “Eastern poland”. Becouse the local population NEVER accepted their land beeing part of Poland.

#18

I suppose it is a matter of the historical nature of tribalism converting to nationalism beginning in the late 19th century.
However you seem to miss the significance of the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686. Presumably you are also counting cossacks as an ethnic group rather than a military order in origin. I am sorry that to argue in the way Dmowski or Bandera did for some narrow interpretation of the nation state is to miss the point of a nations collective spirit or culture.
Poles were not interlopers in this area of the Borderland, the Ukraine anymore than anyone else. Religion was more a dividing line than other matters and fully exploited by the atheistic Soviets who certainly stamped on Ukrainian nationalism as well as the so called kulaks.

#19

I remember reading “The Engineer” in a hospital waiting room. My wife of sixty-three years (the poor lass) was, at the time, struggling in her fight against lung cancer. I promised to buy her the book before she died: a promise I didn’t break (unfortunately that was the only promise I didn’t break in our turbulent life together.)

She, if my rusty memory serves me, wrote her dissertation on the empty assurances French and British diplomats gave the Poles in late 1938 and early 1939. They, the French and the British, gave lip service to the idea of supporting the Polish ground forces in the event of a possible invasion. The French, knowing that their own military cadre was not up to snuff, stalled and told Lipski that they would relay the matter to the League of Nations if the Germans invaded; the British, on the other hand, preferred to act as an “offshore balancer,” letting the continental powers handle the German threat, and leaving Poland to its own devices. After all, didn’t the British once state that they had very little interest in protecting Eastern Europe? I, however, find it depressing to read about France’s negligible treatment of the “Little Entente,” the pro-French eastern European states formed after World War I. If the French were really earnest about deterring German aggression, wouldn’t they focus exclusively on building a stronger eastern bloc to in order to contain the threat? The French, it seems, gave the Eastern states a plastic box-cutter instead of a genuine sword.

I agree with Chevan about the Soviet intervention. The Soviet “invasion” in the east was mild compared to the German invasion in the west. That can be attested to in the mortality rates-- 700 to 1,000 on the Eastern Front, 8,000 to 16,000 on the Western Front. A friend of mine, who wrote an analysis on the condition of the Polish army, cavalry brigades, navy, and air force in 1939, stated that the eastern Kresy was poorly defended-- only some border guards were forced to hold back the full onslaught of the invasion.

#20

That standpoint is very much fair game. While the Poles were suppressing Ukrainian nationalism in the former Austrian-Hungarian territory of Galicia, the Ukrainians were contemplating terrorism in order to achieve statehood and independence: a vicious cycle that climaxed in the massacre, an event I remember very vividly as a teenager. Three young Polish children hid behind our house, a tall, two-story edifice hiding the rows of budding wheat ears stretching for numerous acres in the vast countryside; they were afraid of the UPA, or, more specifically, the Bandera, who roamed the villages looking for non-Ukrainians to murder.

The Soviet attack, was re-occupation of the territories that UkrSSR considered as it’s stolen land. This point is also supported by the fact that Polish army didn’t resisted to RA like they fought against Germany.I’m not doubt the Poles fought very well for its motherland. but they didn’t fight at all for “Eastern poland”. Becouse the local population NEVER accepted their land beeing part of Poland.

Also because it wasn’t profitable to do so. The weapon factories that built the equipment the Poles needed to hold off the Germans were concentrated heavily on the western frontier, the contentious border Poland shared with Germany. Also, the Poles were expecting the Germans to invade in the west, so naturally, every scrap of manpower and weaponry the Poles could muster together were thrown at the Germans on the western front. (Interestingly, some army groups weren’t even mobilized until last minute, probably the result of British and French warnings against the practice.)