The Augustow Roundup in July, 1945

World War II Russian Military
#21

Why shall i do this?
I will not, coz such a theme will rise up the mutual nationalistic troubles and reproaches .I actually don’t think it’s really needed for between brother slavic nations.You have a right to care about your independence, but how about the independence of your neighbourd who lived next door?

So tell me mate, why the Soviets stayed in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t they go back home to their beloved fatherland?
Because communist parties from every country asked them to stay? And so they stayed because Soviets were so nice and gently people who just couldn’t say “no”?

Really you don’t know why soviets stayed there, mate?
Becouse they had splitted out the zones of influence. The CHurch, Rosewelt and Stalin. You know it. Just like the Poland and Germany had splitted the Chehoclovakia in 1938…just like the Pilsudsky and bolshevic criminal Lenin had splitted the Ukraine in 1921. Why Poles has not leaved the Ukraine - from you way of thinking i have to admit- coz they were so “nice and gently” for locals? No?
You , my friend have to agreed that Poland used the any possibility to capture and grab any neighbourd territory over all its history.And no one ever interested want the locals to be the “citizents” of Poland or no.And never Poland leaved those territories.
So why on your mind USSR should leave the Eastern Europe?

Imagine a bear giving a strong hug to a bunny and saying that they are friends forever - this is how this friendship looked like.
And don’t forget that during that peace Soviet “friends” carried out arrests of my countrymen, and in October 1956 Soviet tank columns marched towards Warsaw - a really firendly act.

And now imagine the Prague, 1968. The “bear and bunny” alongside invide the CHehoslovakia. And Polish tanks with soviets marched toward Chech capital. What a idilia. Looks like a really frendly act, is in it?:wink:

Well, correct me if I’m wrong but:

  1. Americans never murdered 20000 French, British, Belgian, Dutch, Italian nor even German officers once they showed up in Europe,

Hell yes…
The Americans killed pretty much Brits during war for Independence. Also killed a lot of enemies which ever invided the USA like Mexicans , Spanish or Canadians. And of cource they killed a thousands of enemy officer of armies which USA itself had invided;)Including some captured German officers.
So our American partners had killed a tonns of enemy officers, whose poor armies had a honour to attack the USA and kills the americans:)
We both know a lot of stories how the USA might to invide and wiped out the entire countries in “revenge”.But this is entire the other story.

  1. Americans didn’t send NKVD nor Smersh to hunt down French, British, Belgian nor Dutch citizens,
  2. Americans payed for Marschall Plan,
  3. Americans never disassambled a single factory and moved it to US,
    etc, etc.

and 5). the Americans NEVER joined the European territories (with factories and plants) to USA. Unlike the Poland…

The decision regarding the change of borders was not made by Polish.
It was made during Yalta Conference by Infamous Trio: Stalin, Rosevelt and Churchill. Poles like their borders as they were before the war.

But Ukrainians did not like those pre-war borders, mate…
therefor the unfamous trio has finaly decided and ended that terrible ethnic conflict. And you should be gratefull for that 0- they saved a lives of thousands of poles.

And no, Pilsudski didn’t asked Ukrainians. The division of Ukraine was decided at Riga Treaty in 1921 between Poland and Soviet Russia. Did tavarishch Lenin asked Ukrainians for permission to stay? :slight_smile:
I don’t think so.

But why then Stalin should ask the poles to stay after ww2?:wink:
Now you tell the true.
The Pilsudsky has deel with illegal bolshevic govenment ( the official White govenment stell existed and fought in 1921) and separated the neighbourd country that should be independent. From all sides the Riga threaty was illegal. Therefore the “Eastern Polald” was never legitime.Neither for Russia nor for Ukraine.

#22

I’ll support myself with a post by our colleague, Kregs:
“[…] after the 1921 war, Poland’s borders became internationally recognized despite Ukrainian resistance. So, therefore, any attempts to alter by force the borders established at Riga and recognized by the Entente, violates international law.”

And as a reminder, it was a treaty between Poland and Soviet Russia.

So Chevan, you need to decide whether the treaty was legal or not.
In this thread you say it was illegal, but in another thread you don’t oppose when it is said it was legal.

#23

Mate , from which time you begin to post by reposting the other members?:wink:
Glad , you’ve back though…
We missed you here.

And as a reminder, it was a treaty between Poland and Soviet Russia.

So Chevan, you need to decide whether the treaty was legal or not.
In this thread you say it was illegal, but in another thread you don’t oppose when it is said it was legal.

my firend, if i get the pause in MY discussion with the OTHER member - why should you worry about? You know my point, but i repeat this ONCE againt.With quote…
Wiki sais

The Allied Powers were reluctant to recognize the treaty, which had been concluded without their participation.Their postwar conferences supported the Curzon Line as the Polish-Russian border, and Poland’s territorial gains in the treaty lay about 250 kilometers east of that line.French support led to its recognition in March 1923 by France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan, followed by the US in April.

Belarussian and Ukrainian independence movements saw the treaty as a setback.Four million Ukrainians and over one million Belarussians lived within areas ceded to Poland; in one estimate, only 15% of the population was ethnically Polish.The Ukrainian People’s Republic led by Symon Petliura had been allied with Poland by Treaty of Warsaw, but the Treaty of Riga abrogated it.The new treaty violated Poland’s military alliance with the UPR, which had explicitly prohibited a separate peace. In doing so, it worsened relations between Poland and those Ukrainians who had supported Petliura. These supporters felt Ukraine had been betrayed by its Polish ally, a feeling that would be exploited by Ukrainian nationalists and contribute to the growing tensions and eventual violence in the 1930s and 1940s.

Even the Western major countries seen the Rigas treaty violated the independece and right of several nations - Belorussians, Ukrainians and Luthinians. Not to mention that the treaty with Bolshevics butchers , who in 1921 stiil firght the Legal Russian govenment army and commited a lot of the mass crimes against civils - can’t be recognized LEGAL for the nations. Let me remind you , the Soviet govenment has been officially recognized by West since beginning 1930-yy.It was seen , however as the LEsser Evil - as mean to stop the war at that moment. So it was illegalbut better then nothing.
However , we both know , how the UPA seen this situation and how later civil poles have paid for such an “treaty”,right?

#24

[QUOTE=Chevan;180440] Let me remind you , the Soviet govenment has been officially recognized by West since beginning 1930-yy[QUOTE]

Well, I kindly suggest a quick check of historic facts.
As far as I know, the USSR was recognized by the British Empire in February 1924, by France in October 1924 and US in 1933. So, you’re a little bit wrong. Just a little bit :wink:

Anyway, in my opinion there’s not much to discuss about this treaty. It was legal and recognised by the states signing it: Poland and Russia. It is obvious that the way Ukrainians and Belorussians were treated was shameful and in their eyes this treaty was a trison (especially by Polish side - I bet Ukrainians and Belorussians never expected anything good from Russians). But as far Poland and Russia were concerned, the treaty was legal and welcomed by both states. Poland was tired with war, needed time to recover and focus on internal problems. Soviet Russia was on its knees still involved in a war against Wrangl’s Army. Both sides were not interested in continuation of a conflict which would bring only more victims without clear and decisive victory in near future.
In my opinion the outcome of this treaty was a failure for Poland, because there were three different ideas represented by the members of polish delegation (instead of presenting one clear vision, they preferred to argue within the delegation - so typical for Poles :slight_smile: ). In the begining, there was an idea of federation of states (Poland, Belarussia, Ukraine and Lithuania) but it was given up and the idea of division of the land was forced by nationalist members of delegation.
Anyway, the treaty was signed and recognised later by the other countries, that means it was legal.

There always will be someone unhappy and felling betrayed, so I’m not surprised you give examples.

#25

Brilliant Kovalski;)
Yes, i was a bit wrong , mind the USA. Yes the Britain was the first to recognize the USSR 2 feb 1924. That is still MUCH later the supposed “Legal” Riga treaty with USSR were admitted by League of nations.
So as you see even from pure juridical points - the so called “soviet govenment” ( i.e. the gang of bloody criminals self-declared leaders of Russia) has no any legal right to sign an any international treaty. It might be easly dismissed or proved as false by any international court if such a aim will be wished.
The fact that the Poland to own imperialistic profit self-declared the gang of criminals- doesn’t cost a much.

Anyway, in my opinion there’s not much to discuss about this treaty. It was legal and recognised by the states signing it: Poland and Russia. It is obvious that the way Ukrainians and Belorussians were treated was shameful and in their eyes this treaty was a trison (especially by Polish side - I bet Ukrainians and Belorussians never expected anything good from Russians). But as far Poland and Russia were concerned, the treaty was legal and welcomed by both states. Poland was tired with war, needed time to recover and focus on internal problems. Soviet Russia was on its knees still involved in a war against Wrangl’s Army. Both sides were not interested in continuation of a conflict which would bring only more victims without clear and decisive victory in near future.
In my opinion the outcome of this treaty was a failure for Poland, because there were three different ideas represented by the members of polish delegation (instead of presenting one clear vision, they preferred to argue within the delegation - so typical for Poles :slight_smile: ). In the begining, there was an idea of federation of states (Poland, Belarussia, Ukraine and Lithuania) but it was given up and the idea of division of the land was forced by nationalist members of delegation.

Actualy the treaty was needed for both territorial predators - Poland and Russia. However if to put in mind the locals right’s were ignored and Boslshevics were still ILLEGAl ( you right about Civil war continied) hardly the such a treaty migh to resolve the troubles.

There always will be someone unhappy and felling betrayed, so I’m not surprised you give examples.

But you too are unhappy when remember like Soviets installed the commies in 1945, right? All we feel offensived when someone decided for us - whatever political system we want. Why shell we to ignore the same rights of the other nations?The peoples are the equal , aren’t they?You confirm that locals were distressed by the treaty but it was the Legal, coz it was profitable for Poland!

#26

I’ve never stated that treaty was legal because it was profitable for Poland. Please don’t pin that to me.
According to the 20’s international law standards the treaty was legal because it was recognised by both sides and later by other countries. And Belorussians and Ukrainians were not considered as legal entities.
Today it would look completely different. Kosovo case, for example.
But was the treaty legal from the moral point of view?
I don’t think so.
I think the Ukrainians and Belorussians should had been given the same chance to create their own states as Polish had been given after WW1. But nobody was interested in that - Poles, Russians, nor the Western Allies.
Personally, I think these cards could be played different.
Instead of that, the hostilities in this part of Europe were fuelled and the economical and social progress was halted for almost whole century.

#27

Sorry, but this is just another bright example , my friend . How you turn the events in profitable light.
About “illegal enteties” , let’s to see the Warsaw Treaty of 1920.

The treaty was signed on 21 April in Warsaw (it should be noted that some sources give the dates 20 and 22 April for the signing of the treaty). In exchange for agreeing to a border along the Zbruch River, recognizing the recent Polish territorial gains in western Ukraine (Article II)(obtained by the Poland’s defeating the Ukrainian attempt to create another Ukrainian state in Volhynia and Galicia, territories with mixed Ukrainian-Polish population), Poland recognized the Ukrainian People’s Republic as an independent state (Article I) with borders as defined by Articles II and III and under ataman Petlura’s leadership

The UPR was declared the same time the Polish Repablic was birth.And it was fully recognized by Poland in 1920. Folow to you logic- the two side Warsaw treaty was International BTW:).
The UPR in face of Semen Petlura has signed the Treaty of Warsaw- he was actual leader of UPR.
So the so called Reagy treaty was a direct violation of Warsaw treaty. Notice, the Semen Petlura was LEGAL leader, while bolshevics in Riga were just gung of criminals. So again from juridical point- the Rigas treaty can’t be the Legal coz it violated the actually LEGAL previous Warsaw Treaty with Independent state of Ukraine.Which Poland succesfully has betrayed. Why?

Today it would look completely different. Kosovo case, for example.

It looked the exactly the same in 1943. Volyn?

But was the treaty legal from the moral point of view?
I don’t think so.
I think the Ukrainians and Belorussians should had been given the same chance to create their own states as Polish had been given after WW1. But nobody was interested in that - Poles, Russians, nor the Western Allies.

It’s not correct. Actualy the Poland, as we seen has recognized the UPR. But later just joined it to Poland. Illegally.

#28

Look who’s talking… :slight_smile:

You’re absolutely right about this one. Poland recognized UPR and agreed to cooperate militarly in order fight the Russians. But later, when it came to start peace talks, Ukrainians were not represented there. Not Poles, nor Russians were interested in independent Ukraine. To be honest with you, Poland requested Russia to accept Ukrainian minister Andrij Liwycki to take part in negotiations. But as expected, Russians stated that the only Ukrainian republic is the Soviet one and Lywicki was not accepted. Of course, it was a perfect excuse for Polish to drop Ukrainian case. They pretended for a while to support their allies, but soon it was clear that Ukrainians had been betrayed.

It is a bit more complicated than that.
When the Riga Treaty was signed, the other countries accepted it and withdrew their ambassadors from UPR. That meant the UPR lost its recognition as a sovereign state and that made the treaty legal.
I know it sucks but this is how it works.

#29

But note, the bolshevics had not treaty with UPR in 1921. They had no absolutly any signed international documents dated this period. They were illegal and not legitime. Don’t forget it, please. The Riga treaty was signed with ILLEGAL force on one side.The fact that this force seen the Rigas treaty in OWN political aims- to stop the polish advance and to prevent the final military collaps of the bolshevic regime, can’t claim the regime was enought legitime to sign the international treaties from a face of population of Russia.

It is a bit more complicated than that.
When the Riga Treaty was signed, the other countries accepted it and withdrew their ambassadors from UPR. That meant the UPR lost its recognition as a sovereign state and that made the treaty legal.
I know it sucks but this is how it works.

Ok, so if after 1945 the Londont poles lost it’s recognition - may we suppose that the imposed by USSR communist govenment of Poland was LEGAL and Legitime?See, the communist govenment were fully recognized by west. And they had a international agreements , signed by the allied powers.Was the post war event also a “bit more compicated” for Poland itself?
Just understand me correct. I worry for sort of revisionism in history.Any one nations can’t claims right for independence, ignored/ forgot the independence of their neighbourds.This is absolutly correct for Russia as well.

#30

I just had to use your own word as a comment :wink:

Ukrainian People’s Republic had been recognized by Bolschevik Russia in February 1918. A month later, Russia signed so-called Brest Treaty together with Germany, Austrian Empire and their allies together with UPR.
The treaty stated that UPR didn’t claim any right for Galicia and Russia decided to withdraw itself from any superior relations towards the newly-created states.

Of course some time later, when it become profitable, Russia withdrew its recognition of independent Ukraine.

Yes, when the WW2 ended, polish government-in-exile lost all the recognition, as such an ally was not needed anymore (let’s be honest - an ally without money, territory, any prospects for future). It was undoubtedly cynical, but this is exactly how it happened. Western Allies simply “transferred” their recognition on communist government of Poland. The government-in-exile existed till the fall of communism, but it meaning was purely symbolic.
There is an analogy here. Western Allies behaved in very similar way as Poland did 24 years earlier.

#31

Top secret report (russian) sent by gen. Victor Abakumov (head of USSR People’s Commissariat of Defence Chief Counterintelligence Directorate “SMERSH”) to Lavrenty Beria, regarding the Augustow Roundup.
These files were recovered by polish IPN in April 2012.
http://ipn.gov.pl/download/2/1347/Oblawa_augustowska_cz_1.pdf
http://ipn.gov.pl/download/2/1349/Oblawa_augustowska_cz_2.pdf

#32

“Recovered by Pollsh IPN…” :slight_smile: Spooky!

These documents were requested by Russian historian Nikita Petrov in Nov 2011. Russian FSB declassified documents and sent him copies in Feb 2012.
http://urokiistorii.ru/history/soc/3214

#33

Check my 1st post.
To get anything from russian (especially FSB) archives is like to recover, discover or unveil. :slight_smile:

#34

I do apologize for jumping into this thread very, very late, but I was discussing this very topic with a very dear friend, who is a historian and holds a teaching position in an American university. We also discussed the Augustow Roundup, which I remember very well, as I was arrested in August of 1945, a month later.

Now, on to the 1921 Riga Treaty. The Treaty was validated because France, Great Britain, and the United States eventually accepted the treaty’s territorial resolutions, which is not surprising, due to the fear that the resurgent Communist Red Army (the White Army, for the first time during the Russian civil war, experienced magnificent set-backs and misfortune) would pose a critical military and political threat to France and the Western countries from the east. The Riga Treaty, until Rapallo a year later, calmed France’s fears and stabilized its eastern border, as well as Poland’s, for the next 18 years. Also, eastern Europe settled down, albeit uneasily, in the Versailles treaty’s assigned territories because, I imagine, Poland tentatively reached conciliation on all her borders, and the civil war in Russia was winding down, calming “Red fears” in the West.

But, if you notice, Poland did not accept the Curzon line at Versailles or Riga for historical and political reasons. First, Dmowski argued for the restoration of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth borders, stretching from the tip of Danzig’s border, encompassing all of Belarus and three-quarters of Ukraine, and some land in Russia. Second, Dmowski believed that since these countries still had ethnic Polish minorities, and these countries were linked to Polish history, they should return to the new Poland, despite the significant demographic changes in the area. The Curzon line would cut off Poland from her history, so the thinking went. I don’t subscribe to Dmowski’s chauvinist, nationalist vision because the line represents Polish minorities very well. In 1921, 250 km east of Bialystok represented shared land with the Lithuanian Duchy before she joined forces with Poland, not modern demographics or economics (much of this territory wasn’t urbanized and contained farms, which utilized backward farming techniques that failed to yield sufficient revenue for crops, due to protectionist tariffs and the collapse of world food prices.) And, Pilsudski was born and raised in Vilna in a Polish noble family, making the argument against the Riga Treaty difficult to deride in Poland and the Polish army.

Let me remind you , the Soviet govenment has been officially recognized by West since beginning 1930-yy.It was seen , however as the LEsser Evil - as mean to stop the war at that moment.

I do not understand, Chevan, forgive me (If we were speaking Polish, I would immediately understand, as the cases make reading comprehension easier; English has too many pronoun-antecedent agreement rules, and the meaning gets lost in the shuffle). Who was the lesser evil, Soviet government, the Polish government, or the White Army under Denikin?

So it was illegalbut better then nothing.

I do not understand, Chevan. In 1923, the International Community (League of Nations) recognized the treaty, so therefore, the treaty was a legal document between Poland and the Soviet Union. Your last two quotes acknowledge this statement.

However , we both know , how the UPA seen this situation and how later civil poles have paid for such an “treaty”,right?

The world paid dearly for Poland’s borders, as Germany contested the authenticity of Danzig and much of Poland’s western borders. The eastern border question was not settled until the USSR’s invasion in 1939, when that country imposed its authority by force. Also, Poland’s lost eastern border, which the allies never recognized until Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, ending the brief, but fragile, “alliance” between those two powers, caused much anxiety and mutual suspicion between Poland and the Soviet Union, a suspicion that lasts to this very day.

#35

Yes, Kovalski. AK units had an amalgamation of loyalties and ideologies. This motley assortment of sorts became more and more evident to the underground very soon after Germany’s long retreat from Stalingrad. Before then, we understood that the common purpose was to strengthen Polish morale under German rule, establish some sort of rapport with Polish intellectuals, and weaken Germany’s hold on the populace. But the ideological assortment became a weakness. For instance, some AK soldiers were strong Nationalists with little regard for non-Poles, some sympathized with the Soviet Union, others with the allies, etc. One frightening aspect of this shifting ground was that you never knew who would turn against you because of loyalty and ideological issues. Another frightening, but sad, aspect was that many in the underground wanted Polish stability and believed that cooperation with the new government would stop the bleeding between the divergent factions in the underground. Others, who despised the Soviets, refused to disarm and ran for their lives (I am of this number, unfortunately). The basic belief was that the Soviets would never allow freedom to flourish and never leave Polish soil without exacting painful vengeance. We who ran knew this all to well.

#36

Actually, Chevan, I believe we were asked to stay. To protect us and Europe from you. Who asked the Russians to stay where they were?

#37

You will laught, royal, but we in USSR sincerely believed the same:) To protect the mankind from agressive american imperialism;) Sounds familiar?

Who asked the Russians to stay where they were?

They have asked themself;) Becouse when you invide some country - you then install the puppet gowenment, which immediatelly “asked you to stay and defend us” :wink: Just like it was in Saigon or Baghdad. You should better know how it…

#38

Hello Kregs. Sorry for late answer- just re-read this interesting thread. But how old are you?

Now, on to the 1921 Riga Treaty. The Treaty was validated because France, Great Britain, and the United States eventually accepted the treaty’s territorial resolutions, which is not surprising, due to the fear that the resurgent Communist Red Army (the White Army, for the first time during the Russian civil war, experienced magnificent set-backs and misfortune) would pose a critical military and political threat to France and the Western countries from the east.

Yes the political and military troubles of the France and Britain over the eastern threat were explicable. The were ready to recognise the rigas treaty even if Poland wanted too much territories behind curson line - it was still better if it helped to stop a war. Soviets and Poles have separated Ukraine for its mutual profit. But this treaty roughly violated the interests of MAJOR populated side - the Ukraine Peoples Repablic whose leader Petlura has been ignored. Thus de-facto the treaty was an “act of annection of ukrainian territory”. That later comes to bloody civil conflict there.

But, if you notice, Poland did not accept the Curzon line at Versailles or Riga for historical and political reasons. First, Dmowski argued for the restoration of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth borders, stretching from the tip of Danzig’s border, encompassing all of Belarus and three-quarters of Ukraine, and some land in Russia. Second, Dmowski believed that since these countries still had ethnic Polish minorities, and these countries were linked to Polish history, they should return to the new Poland, despite the significant demographic changes in the area. The Curzon line would cut off Poland from her history, so the thinking went. I don’t subscribe to Dmowski’s chauvinist, nationalist vision because the line represents Polish minorities very well. In 1921, 250 km east of Bialystok represented shared land with the Lithuanian Duchy before she joined forces with Poland, not modern demographics or economics (much of this territory wasn’t urbanized and contained farms, which utilized backward farming techniques that failed to yield sufficient revenue for crops, due to protectionist tariffs and the collapse of world food prices.) And, Pilsudski was born and raised in Vilna in a Polish noble family, making the argument against the Riga Treaty difficult to deride in Poland and the Polish army.

It’s called imperialism;) Pilsudsky dreamed about new Great Poland- we know it both. The problem of poles , IMO, is when they blame the russian and german imperialism - they are absolutly blind to its own imperialism.

I do not understand, Chevan, forgive me (If we were speaking Polish, I would immediately understand, as the cases make reading comprehension easier; English has too many pronoun-antecedent agreement rules, and the meaning gets lost in the shuffle). Who was the lesser evil, Soviet government, the Polish government, or the White Army under Denikin?

I meant the unfair Rigas treaty with illegal bolsheviks was a lesser evil for the Great Powers but not for the peoples , populated the disputed territories.

I do not understand, Chevan. In 1923, the International Community (League of Nations) recognized the treaty, so therefore, the treaty was a legal document between Poland and the Soviet Union. Your last two quotes acknowledge this statement.

What a legal document could be with signed Soviet union in 1921 if USSR hasn’t been internationally legalised untill the 1924? The bolshevics were still fighting the civil war for power with legal White govenment forces there. The bolshevics were in fact just another terrorist , fighting the legal govenment. It’s just like to separate the Iraq and signed the treaty wit ISIS - on the basis that they also is winning the legal iraqi govenment;) Hey, it may help to stop a war on the Middle East to the great powers common profit;)

#39

Chevan, do me a favour and give me an example of US Army operations in 1945 against the local population of France, Belgium, Netherlands or even Germany. Remind me of the organized action which aim was to suppress the civilians, arrest the men, women and children, brutally interrogate them and later put onto the truck and drive in the unknown direction. Tell me about hundreds of French who vanished without a trace after US Army entered their villages.

And then, please tell me which Western European country liberated by the US had its personnel installed in every military unit, in every internal security office, in every single ministry?

I’m intentionally not mentioning Iraq, Vietnam nor Nicaragua. We all know what happened there and was the reason for the US presence there.

But in 1945, there was a big difference between US and USSR.

#40

Oh , mate Kovalski has finally returned back. I missed you;)

…just against the local civils? OK. The Dresden ( 12 febriary) the Tokio ( march 1945) the Hiroshima( august) - all those auctions have been planned and organised specially against civils. I may continie, but hardly you would like that way of dialog;)

Remind me of the organized action which aim was to suppress the civilians, arrest the men, women and children, brutally interrogate them and later put onto the truck and drive in the unknown direction.

Today is everything for you , mate. My lovely busyness to help the people to educate.
250–300 were killed, mostly women and children
The American colonel, troubled by what he was hearing, tried to stall at first. But the declassified record shows he finally told his South Korean counterpart it “would be permitted” to machine-gun 3,500 political prisoners, to keep them from joining approaching enemy forces.
That’s just what come to mind instantly, but i can dig up a tonns more.

Tell me about hundreds of French who vanished without a trace after US Army entered their villages.

Surprise! I have one Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated
Did you know the Vietnam was a French colony?

And then, please tell me which Western European country liberated by the US had its personnel installed in every military unit, in every internal security office, in every single ministry?

Post-war occuped Germany;)

I’m intentionally not mentioning Iraq, Vietnam nor Nicaragua. We all know what happened there and was the reason for the US presence there.

I know why you ignore the Iraqi bloody bath? ( up to 1 million of civils dead) becouse the Poland has participated in that dirty compain. Im i right? But of cource , we both know it was becouse of communists!!! They provided saddam wth MDW and US just saved the entire world and , personally Poland, from the atomic armageddon - that is the reason which we both imply?

But in 1945, there was a big difference between US and USSR.

Hard to agrue, i have to add the Stalin was an maniacal idiot. I’ve just noticed all the countries the americans bombed into stone age like Germany and Japane now loves the USA and best american friends today. How do you think if the Soviets instead fo liberation ( or before libaration) just nuked or firebombed with “white phosporic” the Warsaw - could we hope for better friendship today?