How justfiled the Soviet annexation of former Polish territories in 1939 was?

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#1

Hello!

I would like to invite you to share the knowledge you have about the annexation by USSR the eastern part of Poland in 1939. Please also share your opinion.

Could you try to present firstly points why it was not justified, and after the points, that could justify (or rather explain) it. Since most of people here are so objective (as we found in another thread of this forum), please, regardless of your opinion try to come up with argument for both sides.

These are my rough ideas:

Unjustified:
[ul]
[li]The territory belonged to a sovereign state.[/li][li]USSR and Poland had none-aggression pact signed in 1932. It was broken by USSR in 1939.[/li][li]It was a sign of aggressive expansionist imperial advance.[/li][/ul]

Justified:
[ul]
[li]The territories in question were annexed during the Polish-Soviet war in 1920. The war was started by Poland[/li][li]The area was internationally (western allies, especially Britain) acknowledged in 1919, as belonging to the USSR. This is clear from the Curzon line proposal. [/li][li]The area was not ethnically Polish. Some enclaves of Polish population were present. At best there were 39% of Poles and it is after the extensive polish colonization during the 1920th.[/li][li]Geopolitically the area belonged to Russian empire and Russian (in it’s original term that includes nowadays Ukrainians, Belo-Russians and Russians)[/li][li]According to Soviet government Poland as a state seized to exist on 15 of September after the Polish government collapsed and therefore all the agreements were void. Therefore, as mentioned in the note to the Polish ambassador in Moscow, formally USSR did not break any rules by reclaiming the land.[/li][li]USSR was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost with the collapse of the Russian Empire[/li][/ul]

What would be your proposal? What have I missed?
I am sure Lancer44 has a lot to say! :wink: I better take my helmet on…

Remark: This thread is NOT about what happened after the territories were annexed. Please respect.

#2

Hi Egorka,

take off your helmet, it won’t be needed :wink:

None of sides who took part in war of 1920-21 needed an encouragement of any kind. Some polish historians point out a “russina aggression” and some russian historians point out a “polish aggression”. In fact none of sides was an aggressor. The immediate cause of war was the withdrawal of German armed forces from the areas beetween ones controlled by Russians and Poles.
So the reason that war was started by Poland is not true.

This is very controversial. We should admit that for Poles and Russians disscussed territorries had a vital significance, and were considered as a “theirs”.
As we had one clash with Chevan about that, I think we shouldn’t judge who has “historical” rights to these territorries.

Generally I agree, but it would be a huge lie, if you say that in all areas taken by Soviets in 1939 Poles were in minority. There were areas where Poles were in majority (over 60 % - some western parts of discussed territorries).

It was opinion of Soviet goverment only. Polish goverment had control over eastern areas after 15th of September. And the goverment never collapsed.

The Curzon’s line was considered in Poland as unjust, so it wasn’t accepted, but I agree that Soviets could use it as an argument.

True.

Cheers,
Kovalski

#3

A couple comments:

Much of central Poland, including Warsaw, was part of the Russian Empire, prior to WWI. So I’m not sure how that justifies the Soviet Union taking the eastern territories in particular.

The specific territories annexed had more to do with their agreement with Nazi Germany, not the ethnic make-up of the people’s in those territories. True, in some areas there were large, even majority, Ukrainian or ‘White Russian’ populations. But there were also large numbers / majorities of Poles in other parts. To look at the overall percentages in the territories as a whole is somewhat misleading. After all, if one considers the area of North America comprising the U.S.A. and Canada, the population is 90% American. Does that mean that it’s OK for the U.S. to annex Canada?

I’m not sure trying to ‘blame’ Poland for the 1920 war justifies the Soviet annexation in 1939. The communists were trying to ‘encourage’ communist regimes throughout Europe, and would have been happy to have a communist Poland, and Germany for that matter. The Red Army advanced nearly to Warsaw, well within any reasonable definition of legitimately Polish territory, before they were forced back. So it’s not really legit to characterize the 1920 war simply as an act of Polish aggression whereby the Poles annexed territory that rightfully belong to the Soviet Union - the communists were trying to annex as much as they could in the other direction at the same time.

#4

Deadkenny is perfectly right.

Central Poland become part of the Russian Tsarist Empire after consecutive annexations in 18 and 19 century.
The whole argument of eastern territories belonging to Russia can be compared to famous GRU “cupboard”.
Short joke below illustrates how one or more uncertain information can be used to support each other:

KGB is questioning suspect which was arrested with a large sum of money.

  • Where these money come from?
  • They come from the cupboard…
  • Who put them into the cupboard?
  • My wife. She get them from myself.
  • So, where the money come from?
  • I already told you that they come from the cupboard!

There is no justification for invasion and annexations.
Any discussion about it is pointless. And territorial changes after WWII are irreversible.
Former Polish eastern territories belong now to Ukrainians, Belorussians and Lithuanians.
So be it. Any claims that annexations were “unjust” can be compared to theoretical claims of Indians in USA which can say that they ancestors sold Manhattan for some blankets, axes and other trifles and that the deal was “unjust”.

Cheers,

Lancer44

#5

Hello my friends.

Well looking to the our Polish-Russian relations and many wars for the control of lands, i can say that our relations were soft or friendly.
Regarding the 1939 i don’t think the we could understand the events only from the Soviet-polish views. Don’t forget please till 1939 there were a very importaint political events in Europe.

Germany by giants steps moved to the East. After the Munich (1938) it was absolutly clear the motives of Britain and France to direct the German agression to the East.
Nobody except USSR (!!!) tryed to support or understand the Chech position in this question. Folowing of its colonian tradithions Britain and France simply devided the independent Chechoslovakia and presented its to the Hitler. The Chech president was presented with a fact, he even wasn’t invited to the meeting where Chemberlen, Deladie, Mussolini and Hitler discussed the problem.
Moreover Chech president Edvard Benesh was warned if he tryed to appeal to the USSR for the help , the Britain and France could support the Germany in war against USSR.(!!!)

So as you could see not USSR was the first who signed the “pieceful” aggreements with Nazi till WW2.
When Stalin looked as easy so called “Western democraties” solved the problems and what’s method they did use it was not so criminal for him had to agree with germans.

Personaly i think the annexion of so called Western Belorussia and Ukrain was the mistake becouse its nationalist movenment was the worst. If till the 1939 ( and during the german occupation) the UPA-UNCO killed the poles, then after the WW2 they killed soviets and civils Ukrains who supported the joining to the USSR. “Forests brothers” killed the peoples till the end of 1950.
I think the REALLY independent Ukrain and Belorussia is the best way for all us. Not with NATO or Russia but the independent.

Cheers.

#6

Kovalski:

None of sides who took part in war of 1920-21 needed an encouragement of any kind. Some polish historians point out a “russina aggression” and some russian historians point out a “polish aggression”. In fact none of sides was an aggressor. The immediate cause of war was the withdrawal of German armed forces from the areas beetween ones controlled by Russians and Poles.
So the reason that war was started by Poland is not true.

Capturing Kiev is not a sign of aggression for you? Have you tried to see how far Kiev is from the Polish border of 1919? Or maybe Kiev had very high Polish population ratio. :wink: As you see I strongly disagree with you on this point.

This is very controversial. We should admit that for Poles and Russians discussed territorries had a vital significance, and were considered as a “theirs”.
As we had one clash with Chevan about that, I think we shouldn’t judge who has “historical” rights to these territorries.

It is controversial indeed. It is not about finding someone’s excusive rights on that peice of land. It is about acknowledging that Soviet Russia had at least equally justifiable claim.

Generally I agree, but it would be a huge lie, if you say that in all areas taken by Soviets in 1939 Poles were in minority. There were areas where Poles were in majority (over 60 % - some western parts of discussed territorries).

Lying is not the way forward. :roll: There were areas with majority of Polish population, but this areas were small in area. I will post some maps I have from different sources (pre war books).
But the essence of it is the Eastern Poland had very little Polish population in 1920. And the demographics in 1939 were formed by the Polish colonisation policies (this lead up to 40% polish population).
Therefore the USSR’s government considered this as unjust colonisation of unjustfully controlled land (Much what Baltic countries say about Russian colonization after the war).
Note that I am not moralising this point, just barely bringing it forward.

It was opinion of Soviet government only. Polish government had control over eastern areas after 15th of September. And the goverment never collapsed.

I guess you are right that it was only USSR’s opinion. Regarding the scale of the control the Polish goverment had after it fled to Rumania is debateable. But I do not have any facts regarding it now.

The Curzon’s line was considered in Poland as unjust, so it wasn’t accepted, but I agree that Soviets could use it as an argument.

The Curzon line was accepted by neither Poland nor Russia.
I just wanted to stress that the world community was having the opinion that this land rather belongs to Russia.

Thanks for the answer, Kovalski. I will take my helmet off. /Igor takes his helmet off, but places it over groin… just in case…/

#7

If these ideas are taken as valid reasons for aggression and annexation, then wars should never stop.
I think Stalin wanted USSR to have stronger position before inevitable war with Germany. It’s an explanation, not justification.

#8

I have mention already the captiring the territories was not particalar doing of USSR till the WW2. There a lot of examples when the Western European state had the colonian war for the territories where the have zero majiority. In fact neither of Wester Ukrain and nor Belorussian didn’t admit the polish power in they territories.Moreover till the 1939 those territories had a power anti-polish movenment ( like later anti-soviet).

The specific territories annexed had more to do with their agreement with Nazi Germany, not the ethnic make-up of the people’s in those territories. True, in some areas there were large, even majority, Ukrainian or ‘White Russian’ populations. But there were also large numbers / majorities of Poles in other parts. To look at the overall percentages in the territories as a whole is somewhat misleading. After all, if one considers the area of North America comprising the U.S.A. and Canada, the population is 90% American. Does that mean that it’s OK for the U.S. to annex Canada?

But this didn’t stop the americans to capture the mexican states like Texas or captured the California. Moreover this was absolutly don’t stop them to take a colonian war for Phillipines where perished a lot of native peoples.
Here is one problem in your point.
Its seems you forgot that the allies had the mutial agreements of borders after the WW2.
Those agreemeth give the USSR juridical right to join the Western Ukrain and Belorussia to the USSR. Both Churchill and Rosevelt even didn’t dispute this point(Another matter was the qustion of polish gov on which allies had its own view).
Moreover regarding the Polish territories.
After the WW2 Poland according the Jalta and Potsdam agreements send to USSR about 177 000 square km of its eastern territories, but it got from the Germany about 100 000 square km ( Most of Eastern Prussia, part of Brandenburg land and Silesia). And all allies had were agreeable with.
Thus all sides including USA,Britain and France were responsiple for post-WW2 annextion of territories ( not only Poland but in all the Eastern Europe).
So claiming the USSR on annextions you have to agree to claim any othe allies agreements after WW2.

The communists were trying to ‘encourage’ communist regimes throughout Europe, and would have been happy to have a communist Poland, and Germany for that matter.
…the communists were trying to annex as much as they could in the other direction at the same time.

It’s not correct.
The comunist regimes were established in answer to allies who create “democraties” in Italy , France and ets.
In fact there were the mostly pro-communist leader who commanded the resistance in western Europe.But allies simply ignored them as power after liberating. After WW2 the allies had formed “democratic” govenments which they wish without any objection from USSR. This was a common practice in WW2.
If you watch to the allies policy in the South Eastern asia( for instance in Birma). Where they had formed the “democratic” gov in spirit of colonian policy. The real national leaders which fight for independence of its states EVEN wasn’t invited to the gvenment.
So i don’t think it was a character matter of Stalin - to install the pro-soviet govn, He had a excellent teacher in faces of US-UK. :wink:

Cheers.

#9

Sure, sure!!! I guess I was not clear enough.
My point is that, this particular action was explainable and logical as a part of the political game played in Europe between the two wars.
But I don’t want to claim that it was moral to do so or even more deporting people after.

#10

And what was till 18 century?
How Poland could took the controll over its areas?

The whole argument of eastern territories belonging to Russia can be compared to famous GRU “cupboard”.
Short joke below illustrates how one or more uncertain information can be used to support each other:

KGB is questioning suspect which was arrested with a large sum of money.

  • Where these money come from?
  • They come from the cupboard…
  • Who put them into the cupboard?
  • My wife. She get them from myself.
  • So, where the money come from?
  • I already told you that they come from the cupboard!

Ha ha ha
Thanks mate i remember this anekdote.
Well indeed the just one side could pretend to those lands - Ukrain and Belorussia, not Russia (USSR) or Poland.
To claim the Stalin of annexion of “polish” lands in 1939 is pointless. The Poles had no more rights to those land than the USSR.

There is no justification for invasion and annexations.
Any discussion about it is pointless. And territorial changes after WWII are irreversible.
Former Polish eastern territories belong now to Ukrainians, Belorussians and Lithuanians.
So be it.

Right mate, i think if no, the some Garmans might to wish back the Eastern Prussia which Poland captured after WW2 with allies help;) :slight_smile:

Cheers.

#11

Deadkenny:

Oh my God! They killed Kenny!!! :smiley:

Much of central Poland, including Warsaw, was part of the Russian Empire, prior to WWI. So I’m not sure how that justifies the Soviet Union taking the eastern territories in particular.

I agree, the way you put it, it does not justify/explain what happened.
But there was clear ethnografic difference between west and east of Poland. It is that difference that is the key here.

The specific territories annexed had more to do with their agreement with Nazi Germany, not the ethnic make-up of the people’s in those territories. True, in some areas there were large, even majority, Ukrainian or ‘White Russian’ populations. But there were also large numbers / majorities of Poles in other parts. To look at the overall percentages in the territories as a whole is somewhat misleading. After all, if one considers the area of North America comprising the U.S.A. and Canada, the population is 90% American. Does that mean that it’s OK for the U.S. to annex Canada?

This example has nothing to do with Polands case. If you had said that Canada had more than 60% Americans (if one could distinguish them from Canadians) then the chances are it could lead to confrontation. At least in 19th century.

I’m not sure trying to ‘blame’ Poland for the 1920 war justifies the Soviet annexation in 1939. The communists were trying to ‘encourage’ communist regimes throughout Europe, and would have been happy to have a communist Poland, and Germany for that matter. The Red Army advanced nearly to Warsaw, well within any reasonable definition of legitimately Polish territory, before they were forced back. So it’s not really legit to characterize the 1920 war simply as an act of Polish aggression whereby the Poles annexed territory that rightfully belong to the Soviet Union - the communists were trying to annex as much as they could in the other direction at the same time.

It does not justify, but explains. Poland in 1920 was just as agressive as USSR was 1939. The Red Army advanced after Poles were all the way to Kiev. Please be consitent in presenting the events order.

But it is right that the Polish march of Red Army in 1920 was an attempt for the World Revolution. The politics in Soviet Russia in the beginning of 1920th was extermist bolshevic one. But it does not erase the fact that Poland started the agression in 1919.

So all in all, the Polish actions in 1920 were on the same level as Stalin’s in 1939.

#12

Lancer44:

Correct me if I am wrong, but Poland was given to Russia in 19th century as the result of the international conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna).
This happened largely due to active polish assosiation with Napoleon. Therefore Poland was punished by the winning countries.
Obviously Russia was the one mostly interested, but there was concensus in the international community about this issue.

#13

Egorka, I’m still not sure that I’ve got your point.

Poland also was aggressive in 20th century and earlier, as well as many other countries were.

I think the main difference between Russian and Polish mistakes in the past is our difference in size. In 20th century, Russia was much bigger and stronger, so the results of its mistakes and crimes were much more significant than those of Poland.

And note that Russia is still big and strong enough :smiley: So when you write about justifications for Stalin’s agressive policy… I’m afraid some Poles read this message as “the Russians are still ready to attack if they find it reasonable”. I wish I’m wrong :wink:

#14

Lexa, do not worry I am a peaceful person! I am not trying to provoke anyone in here. And I am not for attacking neighbours if the situation is right.

I do understand that Poles may tend to think the way you explained. I can see sertain ground for such position.
But we are here for learning about what happened with our countries and us in 20th century. I am sorry if someone finds this subject painful to discuss. But I think it should be discussed. I suppress my egoistic nationalistic thought, because I contiously undertand that it leads me away from understanding from what really happened. And I expect the same from others.

So I think it is correct to put this question the way I did. And once again I ment “explain”, not “justify”.

#15

I think Egorka right.
Certainly we need to discuss the problem becouse it really exists.
I have to say this polish guys are my friends, so i haven’t intention to offend somebody and i ready to hear the opposite point. I think if we will find the compromiss our communicaition will only win.

Cheers.

#16

Compromise on what? USSR recognized sovereignity and borders of Poland by Riga treaty in 1921. Whether these borders were good or bad, they were officially accepted by the legal Soviet government. So in 1939, it was pure agression, in my opinion.

#17

Lexa:

I agree it was an agression.

Do you suggest we stop here? I think it is ok to talk. We are grown ups here. What is the problem? Why can not we just discuss our common past calmly?

In fact that is why I like such forums, because I can get in contact with real Poles (in this particular case) and find out their side of the story. I can not read books and articles in Polish. So how would I find thier point of view? But I also expect that they would be also willing to hear opposite opinions. What is wrong with that?

In case of 1939 it was an agression that was born out previous agression of 1919. Instead of just saying evil Stalin did this and that, I think we should try to see “broader picture”.

I do not like to hear about the crimes that the goverment and people of my country were involved in. It hurts me at heart. But I swallow this feeling, because one can never learn and clear his soul without acknowledging the sins.

#18

Compromise between our national senses and our slav friendship. What don’t you understand?

USSR recognized sovereignity and borders of Poland by Riga treaty in 1921. Whether these borders were good or bad, they were officially accepted by the legal Soviet government. So in 1939, it was pure agression, in my opinion.

Nobody deny it was agression.
The question was that it was the simular agreession like the polish capturing of Kiev in 1919, or polish capturing the Teshin area of Chechoslovakia in 1938.

This was a mistake of Stalin, but it was a forced measure try to stop German agression. Becouse Poland (like and Britain and France) refused the allies agreement with Stalin.

This was a dirty politic , nothing personal as it said :wink:

Cheers.

#19

Here is the map of the Polands population in 1931 from the Polish Wikipedia page (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Państwo_wielonarodowe).
Go to the wikipedia page to see larger image.

#20

As far as I know, there were no officially recognized borders and treaties between Poland and Soviet Russia in 1919. Soviet Russia wasn’t legal successor of Russian Empire. So, it’s difficult to regard Polish campaign of 1919 as formal agression against Russia. But possibly Kiev campaign of Pilsudski was the main reason why Stalin later regarded Poland as enemy.

Btw., many Russian people fought against bolsheviks on the Polish side. And frankly speaking, I don’t know which side I’d prefer to join if I had to choose.

Sure, we can and we must. You’re right, Igor.

Remember also about other territorial gains by USSR in accordance with secret protocols to the M-R pact. They all can’t be explained by earlier agressions of these countires or by care about some national groups.