De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[wm]

Here:

The Stasi Records Archive
Access to Records
Every individual has the right to request to view his own personal file. Limited access to records on missing or deceased persons is available to near relatives for specific purposes.
...
In response to petitions from public and private agencies, the Stasi Records Archive will disclose whether any evidence exists to suggest that certain individuals in prominent social and political positions collaborated with the MfS.
These include members of government, members of the Bundestag and state parliaments, state secretaries, judges, sports officials as well as certain groups of public service employees.

[ljadw]

Evidence :
Is Chancellor Angela Merkel a former communist spy ?
and
Merkel says the terror of Hamas cannot be accepted .
It is a FACT that the Stasi dossier of informer Anita (= Merkel ) is still kept secret,is still not available to the public .
And, who was German chancellor between 2005 and 2019 ? And had thus all possibility to keep her dossier secret .
And Merkel started her political career in the Democratic Awakening,of which one of the founders was Wolfgang Schnur,also an informant of the Stasi .

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw:

Oh my! I have a far different narrative on this.



Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20170709045 ... s-politics

I've provided my source, what's yours?

Your ''source '' is what Merkel said. You have the right to believe her . I have the right not to believe her .NO ONE could make a career in the DDR without working for,collaborating with the Stasi .

So, once again, you have nothing to support your statement, which means it is nothing more than an opinion.

You have nothing to support your claim that Merkel refused to work for the Stasi,unless her own words .
The fact that she GOT a promotion ( a job at the Academy of Sciences ) proves she worked for the Stasi .There is also the fact that her parents were convinced communists who left West Germany for the DDR and that she got the permission to travel abroad : some one who refused to work for the Stasi would be blacklisted and would not have the permission to travel to the West .

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Please keep trying, for the more bizarre your posts become, the more they entertain.

Tagesschau :war Angela Merkel ein Stasi-Spitzel ?
''Merkel hat aber nie zugestimmt dass ihre Stasi-Akte veröffentlicht wurd .''
Translation : Merkel has refused to open her Stasi dossier .
Thus evidence of absence .
IM Erika Eine Spurensuche :
''Wenn man diese Dokumente sehen will,muss Merkel dem zustimmen,was sie mehrfach afgelehnt hat .''
Translation : If you want to see these documents ( the Stasi files of Merkel ) ,you must have her consent, and she has refused to give this .
Thus : evidence of absence
And, from the same post : Merkel became in April 1990 deputy spokeswoman of the last PM of East Germany : Lothar de Maiziere, who was also a Stasi informant .
If the German PM is keeping secret a dossier about her, this means that she has something to hide .

[wm]

In response to petitions from public and private agencies, the Stasi Records Archive will disclose whether any evidence exists to suggest that certain individuals in prominent social and political positions collaborated with the MfS.

[Gorque]

In response to petitions from public and private agencies, the Stasi Records Archive will disclose whether any evidence exists to suggest that certain individuals in prominent social and political positions collaborated with the MfS.

Thank you wm.

[Gorque]

Your ''source '' is what Merkel said. You have the right to believe her . I have the right not to believe her .NO ONE could make a career in the DDR without working for,collaborating with the Stasi .

So, once again, you have nothing to support your statement, which means it is nothing more than an opinion.

You have nothing to support your claim that Merkel refused to work for the Stasi,unless her own words .
The fact that she GOT a promotion ( a job at the Academy of Sciences ) proves she worked for the Stasi .There is also the fact that her parents were convinced communists who left West Germany for the DDR and that she got the permission to travel abroad : some one who refused to work for the Stasi would be blacklisted and would not have the permission to travel to the West .

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Please keep trying, for the more bizarre your posts become, the more they entertain.

Tagesschau :war Angela Merkel ein Stasi-Spitzel ?
''Merkel hat aber nie zugestimmt dass ihre Stasi-Akte veröffentlicht wurd .''
Translation : Merkel has refused to open her Stasi dossier .
Thus evidence of absence .
IM Erika Eine Spurensuche :
''Wenn man diese Dokumente sehen will,muss Merkel dem zustimmen,was sie mehrfach afgelehnt hat .''
Translation : If you want to see these documents ( the Stasi files of Merkel ) ,you must have her consent, and she has refused to give this .
Thus : evidence of absence
And, from the same post : Merkel became in April 1990 deputy spokeswoman of the last PM of East Germany : Lothar de Maiziere, who was also a Stasi informant .
If the German PM is keeping secret a dossier about her, this means that she has something to hide .

See wm's post above: Absence of Evidence.

[Gorque]

More Absence of Evidence"

The "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" has asked the historian and former director of the Stasi memorial in Berlin-Hohenschönhausen, Hubertus Knabe, for an assessment. And he immediately makes it clear that there are no documents identifying Angela Merkel as a Stasi informant.

and....

However, Merkel's private trips fell at a time when the GDR authorities were just expanding travel options. In any case, according to Knabe, there is no evidence of activity as a Stasi informer.

and....

A report was sent to the Stasi headquarters about the incident, but Merkel did not appear to suffer any disadvantages. But Knab does not derive any activity for the Stasi from this either.

and....

According to Knabe, her membership in the FDJ is also not proof of her having worked for the state security service.

Source: https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/a ... 39b64.html

War Angela Merkel ein Stasi-Spitzel?

[gebhk]

In Poland the Soviets YIELDED : when the Kremlin delegation arrived in Warsaw ,they were received by the Poles who DEMANDED concessions ,and got them :Rokossovski was fired and the Soviets gave up because they no longer had the power to crush the Polish demands and because the Poles were that careful not to go too far .
The fact remains that Gomulka and his successor had to leave because the Polish population revolted, and NOT for political reasons . And Gomulka and his succor did not dare to use the army against the strikers .

Wow, I can only assume that this hooey is supposed to be a joke and if so in poor taste. The Soviets 'gave up' ? I presume that means they left the country and let the Poles get on with their lives? Oh, hang on, they didn't. They replaced a few of their puppets with others. The Soviets 'didn't have the power to crush Polish demands'? Seriously? Was the Red Army was on holiday? And just for the record the Polish demands were crushed ;10K troops were used to crush the strikers with at least 58 dead and 600+ wounded that we know of. Only then were the 'concessions' made.

The fact remains that Gomulka and his successor had to leave because of internal party sculduggery and backstabbing which ultimately led to the Soviets deciding they weren't up to the job and not because they were forced out by some Polish revolution (I did start off saying 'because the Poles were revolting', but that could be misconstrued even if comrade Khrushchev probably thought so) . Gomolka did not dare to use the army against the strikers? Give me a break - do I really have to remind you about the at least 41 killed and over 1100 wouned by the army and armed police/internal security forces in 1970? Gierek (that was the name of Gomolka's successor, by the way) didn't have to use the army because beating the crap out of strikers with trucheons, water cannon and concussion grenades by police and internal security forces deployed in tens of thousands proved sufficient for the job in 1976. His other successor, Wojciech Jaruzelski had no qualms about deploying the army either as we all know.

In all cases, a totalitarian regime with virtually zero support in the population was able to maintain itself because it had armed forces at its diposal and the backing of a foreign super-power and remained in power for 50+ years with virtually zero support. Once the guns that supported it were withdrawn, it was out on its ass within a year.

[ljadw]

More Absence of Evidence"

The "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" has asked the historian and former director of the Stasi memorial in Berlin-Hohenschönhausen, Hubertus Knabe, for an assessment. And he immediately makes it clear that there are no documents identifying Angela Merkel as a Stasi informant.

and....

However, Merkel's private trips fell at a time when the GDR authorities were just expanding travel options. In any case, according to Knabe, there is no evidence of activity as a Stasi informer.

and....

A report was sent to the Stasi headquarters about the incident, but Merkel did not appear to suffer any disadvantages. But Knab does not derive any activity for the Stasi from this either.

and....

According to Knabe, her membership in the FDJ is also not proof of her having worked for the state security service.

Source: https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/a ... 39b64.html

War Angela Merkel ein Stasi-Spitzel?

I did not say that her membership of the FDJ was a proof of her having worked for the state security . Thus,irrelevant argument .
And, some one who refused to work for the Stasi,would not receive the permission to travel to West Germany .
And, if Merkel did not work for the Stasi, why is her Stasi dossier still kept secret ?

[ljadw]

In response to petitions from public and private agencies, the Stasi Records Archive will disclose whether any evidence exists to suggest that certain individuals in prominent social and political positions collaborated with the MfS.

The Stasi Records Archive did not do this,because Merkel opposed the publication of her dossier .

[ljadw]

In Poland the Soviets YIELDED : when the Kremlin delegation arrived in Warsaw ,they were received by the Poles who DEMANDED concessions ,and got them :Rokossovski was fired and the Soviets gave up because they no longer had the power to crush the Polish demands and because the Poles were that careful not to go too far .
The fact remains that Gomulka and his successor had to leave because the Polish population revolted, and NOT for political reasons . And Gomulka and his succor did not dare to use the army against the strikers .

Wow, I can only assume that this hooey is supposed to be a joke and if so in poor taste. The Soviets 'gave up' ? I presume that means they left the country and let the Poles get on with their lives? Oh, hang on, they didn't. They replaced a few of their puppets with others. The Soviets 'didn't have the power to crush Polish demands'? Seriously? Was the Red Army was on holiday? And just for the record the Polish demands were crushed ;10K troops were used to crush the strikers with at least 58 dead and 600+ wounded that we know of. Only then were the 'concessions' made.

The fact remains that Gomulka and his successor had to leave because of internal party sculduggery and backstabbing which ultimately led to the Soviets deciding they weren't up to the job and not because they were forced out by some Polish revolution (I did start off saying 'because the Poles were revolting', but that could be misconstrued even if comrade Khrushchev probably thought so) . Gomolka did not dare to use the army against the strikers? Give me a break - do I really have to remind you about the at least 41 killed and over 1100 wouned by the army and armed police/internal security forces in 1970? Gierek (that was the name of Gomolka's successor, by the way) didn't have to use the army because beating the crap out of strikers with trucheons, water cannon and concussion grenades by police and internal security forces deployed in tens of thousands proved sufficient for the job in 1976. His other successor, Wojciech Jaruzelski had no qualms about deploying the army either as we all know.

In all cases, a totalitarian regime with virtually zero support in the population was able to maintain itself because it had armed forces at its diposal and the backing of a foreign super-power and remained in power for 50+ years with virtually zero support. Once the guns that supported it were withdrawn, it was out on its ass within a year.

YES :the Soviets gave up :
Norman Davies : Poland was transformed from a puppet state to a client state .
Raymond Pearson : from a Soviet colony to a dominion .
And, who lost in 1970 ? Gomulka or the strikers ?
Who lost 10 years later ?Gierek or the strikers ?
Who won in 1956 ?The Soviets and Stalinists ?Or the strikers and Gomulka ?
Everyone knows that there was a liberalization, a thaw in 1956 .How many strikers, how many political opponents were hanged by Gomulka and Gierek ?
Who lost in 1956 ?Gomulka or Rokosowski? Was Gomulka transferred again to prison or was Rokosowski obliged to leave Poland ?
And you are TOTALLY wrong when you say that in 1956 the Polish regime had zero support : Gomulka was the most popular person in Poland in October 1956 .
And your claim that a totalitarian regime has zero support from the population and can survive only with the help of the army and a super power is debunked by other examples ,as Hungary after 1956, as Romania under Ceausescu,as Germany under Hitler,as Spain under Franco, as China today,as the Soviet Union after Stalin ,Chili under Pinochet :without a successful economy, Pinochet would not have lasted .
As general von Schleicher said : you can't sit down on bayonets .
Kadar and Ceausescu were longtime very popular ,as long as the economy did well .

[wm]

The Stasi Records Archive did not do this,because Merkel opposed the publication of her dossier .

Not true and impossible.

the Stasi Records Archive will disclose whether any evidence exists to suggest that certain individuals in prominent social and political positions collaborated with the MfS.
These include members of government.

[gebhk]

YES :the Soviets gave up :

They packed up and left leaving the Poles to do as they pleased? Poland became an independent sovereign nation?

And, who lost in 1970 ? Gomulka or the strikers ?

Both. The regime remained the same regardless.

Who lost 10 years later ?Gierek or the strikers ?

Both. The regime remained the same regardless.

Gomulka was the most popular person in Poland in October 1956 .

And you know this how? There was a reliable opinion poll? An election? Again the whole problem of generalisations based on assumptions based on the unknowable.

can survive only with the help of the army and a super power is debunked

Nothing there that is debunkable. It's an obvious fact that a dictatorship that has the support of the armed forces cannot be forcibly overthrown with countless examples in history. We can cite examples at each other to kingdon come and none will prove a general principle, because there isn't one beyond that. The set of circumstances under which dictatorships fell is multifactorial and unique to each case. The only common denominator is that for this to happen, the armed forces had to be at least neutral. To give but one example: I cannot believe anyone would suggest that the economy of Pol Pot's Cambodia was working, or anything else for that matter. Despite this, he was only ousted when his armed forces were defeated by a foreign power. You, yourself qualified that the Soviet Union's economy 'worked' after Stalin. Why the qualification? Because without it the example doesn't fit your generalisation? I can't imagine that any Ukrainian thought that the economy was working during the Hlodomor. Was Stalin overthrown?

And your claim that a totalitarian regime has zero support from the population

I made no such claim, so have no need to defend it.

If we return to what I was talking about, that is Poland 1945-1990, if we abandon speculation based on makebelieve in favour of actual metrics, they entirely do not support your theory. If you look at crude metrics, such as GDP, you can draw a virtually straight line from 1948 to 1980. The rate of improvement of the economy was not any more or less before and after Gomolka took over, it did do marginally better under Gierek until the credit basis on which this marginal improvement was achieved collapsed, but in any event even that did not cause a change of regime either, Jaruzelski simply turned the army and the ZOMO out into the streets. Conversely when the regime was finally ousted in the late 80s, the rate of improvement had resumed, for a few years prior, at the same rate as during the best of the Gomolka-Gierek eras. The catalyst for the change, evidently, was not the economy but the removal of the Red Army from the equation (plus a million and one other factors, no doubt).

As general von Schleicher said : you can't sit down on bayonets .

Too right. As every dictator knows, it is much better to have them pointing at your enemies and competitors

Kadar and Ceausescu were longtime very popular ,as long as the economy did well .

Again, utterly unknowable, though my Romanian ex would violently disagree on the Ceausescu example. And, undoubtedly, the direct cause of his fall was the armed forces turning on him and not the economy. Ironically (though not unusually) his popularity appears to have grown since his death - and yes that is based on metrics and not on a guess.

[gebhk]

Hi WM

Regarding the Stasi records - what about data protection issues? i can only assume the records contain much private, security-sensitive and proprietory data which probably shouldn't be made public? How is that dealt with?

[ljadw]

YES :the Soviets gave up :

They packed up and left leaving the Poles to do as they pleased? Poland became an independent sovereign nation?

And, who lost in 1970 ? Gomulka or the strikers ?

Both. The regime remained the same regardless.

Who lost 10 years later ?Gierek or the strikers ?

Both. The regime remained the same regardless.

Gomulka was the most popular person in Poland in October 1956 .

And you know this how? There was a reliable opinion poll? An election? Again the whole problem of generalisations based on assumptions based on the unknowable.

can survive only with the help of the army and a super power is debunked

Nothing there that is debunkable. It's an obvious fact that a dictatorship that has the support of the armed forces cannot be forcibly overthrown with countless examples in history. We can cite examples at each other to kingdon come and none will prove a general principle, because there isn't one beyond that. The set of circumstances under which dictatorships fell is multifactorial and unique to each case. The only common denominator is that for this to happen, the armed forces had to be at least neutral. To give but one example: I cannot believe anyone would suggest that the economy of Pol Pot's Cambodia was working, or anything else for that matter. Despite this, he was only ousted when his armed forces were defeated by a foreign power. You, yourself qualified that the Soviet Union's economy 'worked' after Stalin. Why the qualification? Because without it the example doesn't fit your generalisation? I can't imagine that any Ukrainian thought that the economy was working during the Hlodomor. Was Stalin overthrown?

And your claim that a totalitarian regime has zero support from the population

I made no such claim, so have no need to defend it.

If we return to what I was talking about, that is Poland 1945-1990, if we abandon speculation based on makebelieve in favour of actual metrics, they entirely do not support your theory. If you look at crude metrics, such as GDP, you can draw a virtually straight line from 1948 to 1980. The rate of improvement of the economy was not any more or less before and after Gomolka took over, it did do marginally better under Gierek until the credit basis on which this marginal improvement was achieved collapsed, but in any event even that did not cause a change of regime either, Jaruzelski simply turned the army and the ZOMO out into the streets. Conversely when the regime was finally ousted in the late 80s, the rate of improvement had resumed, for a few years prior, at the same rate as during the best of the Gomolka-Gierek eras. The catalyst for the change, evidently, was not the economy but the removal of the Red Army from the equation (plus a million and one other factors, no doubt).

As general von Schleicher said : you can't sit down on bayonets .

Too right. As every dictator knows, it is much better to have them pointing at your enemies and competitors

Kadar and Ceausescu were longtime very popular ,as long as the economy did well .

Again, utterly unknowable, though my Romanian ex would violently disagree on the Ceausescu example. And, undoubtedly, the direct cause of his fall was the armed forces turning on him and not the economy. Ironically (though not unusually) his popularity appears to have grown since his death - and yes that is based on metrics and not on a guess.

The Romanian armed forces turned against Ceausescu because the Romanian economy collapsed .
The Hungarian armed forces did not turn against Kadar ,because the Hungarian economy did the best of all countries of the Warsaw Pact .
''The Hungarian dissent was minimal,due to the rising standard of living and progressive liberalization .''
Source : Persée"
The New Economic Mechanism in Hungary,reflected in the Romanian Quotidian Crisana .
And also from the same source :
''In 1961 Kadar said :Who is not against us,is for us .''
And '' at the end of the 1980s,a third of the Hungarian GDP was generated by private business '.
This means that already before the fall of Communism,Hungary
had ceased to be a communist state .
There were how many strikes in Hungary after 1956 and how many times did the army intervene ?
After the end of the repression of the 1956 revolt,how many Hungarians were condemned to death and executed for political reasons ?