De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[ljadw]

6 years after the Hungarian revolution, most political prisoners had been released .

[gebhk]

The Romanian armed forces turned against Ceausescu because the Romanian economy collapsed .

And the Polish economy collapsed too 1978-80. However the army didn't turn and the regime remained. If you consider the two together, the turning of the armed forces is the variable, not the economy. The reason for this, by and large, is because all but the most insane dictators have since time immemmorial, ensured that the aremed forces that kept them on their stools did not personally suffer the consequences of any economic woes. And, incidentally, i find little to suggest that worrying about the economy was the driving factor behind the decisions of the Romanian military. Rather, it was a conviction at the highest level that given the collapse of communism all round, communism in general and Ceausescu in particular were lost causes. The tipping point is considered to be the death of defence minister Vasile Milea in unclear circumstances. Whatever the truth behind this event, the rank and file were convinced he had been murdered at the behest of Ceausescu and reacted by going over to the revolution.

Once again, trying to formulate laws to explain events with hideously complex multi-variate causation, on the basis of a single variant is a futile exercise and a fool's errand, particulalry when the majority of the factors are unknowable.

There were how many strikes in Hungary after 1956 and how many times did the army intervene ?

And how long did the communist regime in Hungary last after the Red Army was removed form the equation?

As a peculiar aside to the two most recent oftops and sort of tying them together, is that it's been said that the composer of the music of 'the Ballad of Janek Wisniewski', a bitterly anti-government commemoration of the fallen in Gdynia in December 1970, was in his day a security services agent. As Margaret Thatcher famously said "it'a a funny old world".

[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?

the Stasi Records Archive will disclose whether any evidence exists

but not the evidence.
Such evidence is available only to historians.

[gebhk]

Thnaks WM, that explains that.

[ljadw]

The Romanian armed forces turned against Ceausescu because the Romanian economy collapsed .

And the Polish economy collapsed too 1978-80. However the army didn't turn and the regime remained. If you consider the two together, the turning of the armed forces is the variable, not the economy. The reason for this, by and large, is because all but the most insane dictators have since time immemmorial, ensured that the aremed forces that kept them on their stools did not personally suffer the consequences of any economic woes. And, incidentally, i find little to suggest that worrying about the economy was the driving factor behind the decisions of the Romanian military. Rather, it was a conviction at the highest level that given the collapse of communism all round, communism in general and Ceausescu in particular were lost causes. The tipping point is considered to be the death of defence minister Vasile Milea in unclear circumstances. Whatever the truth behind this event, the rank and file were convinced he had been murdered at the behest of Ceausescu and reacted by going over to the revolution.

Once again, trying to formulate laws to explain events with hideously complex multi-variate causation, on the basis of a single variant is a futile exercise and a fool's errand, particulalry when the majority of the factors are unknowable.

There were how many strikes in Hungary after 1956 and how many times did the army intervene ?

And how long did the communist regime in Hungary last after the Red Army was removed form the equation?

As a peculiar aside to the two most recent oftops and sort of tying them together, is that it's been said that the composer of the music of 'the Ballad of Janek Wisniewski', a bitterly anti-government commemoration of the fallen in Gdynia in December 1970, was in his day a security services agent. As Margaret Thatcher famously said "it'a a funny old world".

Initially (til the end of the 1970s ) Ceausescu was very popular in Romania ,because the economy was going well and because he provoked with impunity the Soviets,who were helpless and unable to do something against him : he condemned the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and refused to participate on it .
Later,when the economy was collapsing, he lost his popularity and the support of the army .
But still, in an opinion poll of a few years ago,almost half of the interviewed had a positive opinion about him and said that life was better under him .
About Hungary in 1989 : the Red Army was already removed from the equation since a lot of years .
The Red Army did not intervene against Solidarnoc in 1981, thus the possibility that it would intervene in Hungary was almost non-existent .
The Soviets were always very careful about an intervention in the satellites and tried always to avoid it .Economic and social demands were not a reason to intervene,but,unrealistic political demands as to leave the Pact of Warsaw in Hungary 1956 ,would of course cause the intervention of the Red Army .
Stalin did nothing to prevent the secession of Yugoslavia in 1948, his reaction was to prevent other secessions, by eliminating the sitting communist gauleiters .

[gebhk]

Initially (til the end of the 1970s ) Ceausescu was very popular in Romania

An assumption that cannmot be tested and therefore cannot be confirmed or denied.

Later,when the economy was collapsing, he lost his popularity and the support of the army .

Literally true (ie the collapse of the economy, loss of popuylarity (if any) and loss of the support of the army did occur 'later' albeit at different times). However that is not evidence that there was a causative relationship between the two, especially given that the economy started collapsing many years before he lost support of the army, something which occured only days before his fall.

But still, in an opinion poll of a few years ago,almost half of the interviewed had a positive opinion about him and said that life was better under him .

Not only that but since his death, his 'approval rating' has being going steadily up. So what? Readily explained by the 'rose tinted glassses effect' and, regardless, tells us nothing reliable about the situation when he was actually in charge. Jaruzelski, deeply reviled when in power, has now also been 'rehabilitated' in the 'court of public opinion'.

About Hungary in 1989 : the Red Army was already removed from the equation since a lot of years .

Really? So if the Hungarians kicked out their USSR-approved rulers, set up a liberal democracy and began to operate as a sovereign nation, you recon the Red Army would have cheerfully stood by? You are, of course, welcome to that opinion but if so, since it can't be tested, we will have to agree to differ. Nevertheless you cannot escape from the fact that while the USSR was intact, every single one of the European Warsaw Pact countries and even Yugoslavia (which was not a member) remained a communist/socialist totalitarian dictatorship and when the USSR collapsed every single one ceased to be so within, at most 2 years. Most folk, I suggest would struggle to believe that was a coincidence.

The Red Army did not intervene against Solidarnoc in 1981,

Of course not. Why would they? They had their stooge Jaruzelski in place with assurance that the LWP and ZOMO would do the necessary and they did just that. I don't see your point here. However the Red Army was certainly available (some would argue poised - the Czechoslovak one certainly was) to intervene should it become necessary and therefore very much remained in the equation. After all, that is how Jaruzelski subsequentkly tried to justify his actions.

Stalin did nothing to prevent the secession of Yugoslavia in 1948,

Secessation from what?

[ljadw]

When Tito seceded in 1948, the Red Army did not invade Yugoslavia. The reason was that it was not possible to do this,politically and militarily .And when Tiny Albania 20 years later said F..ck you to the Kremlin, the Soviets did nothing . And when Ceausescu openly said that the invasion of CZ was wrong, again the Soviets did nothing .
That Yugoslavia remained a communist dictatorship was not a consolation for the Kremlin,because a communist dictatorship that refused openly to obey the orders of the Kremlin,was worse, much worse than a non communist (or anti-communist ) dictatorship that did business with the Soviet Union .The same for the Catholic Church . Protestantism was worse for the Vatican than the Islam . Stalin suspected that the other communist henchmen could follow the example of Tito
About the LWP and Zomo :they did not the necessary : Solidarnosc was not eliminated .
And the Red Army would not intervene in Poland : it did not intervene in 1956 : in 1956 the Soviet Union could not afford an invasion of Poland ,as a successful one would result in partisan war against the Russians and as the Polish Army would be totally lost for the Pact of Warsaw .Besides : where would the Soviets get the 500000 men needed for the occupation of Poland ? Even Stalin was very circumspect about intervening in Poland and he spared Polish sensitivities . There was a big difference between the repression in Poland and in Hungary and CZ .
25 years later,the Soviet margin of maneuver was much smaller than in 1956 .In 1981 Poland would be a second Afghanistan .

[ljadw]

About the Soviets yielding in 1956 : see:
Background of the Polish October Revolution by Adam Promke .
One citation :
''The upheaval in Poland was exceptional in the extent that it succeeded in winning fundamental concessions from Moscow .''
And there is also (from the Woodrow Wilson Center )Cold War International History Project : Cold War Crises
Poland 1956 Krushchev,Gomulka and the Polish October . (by L.W. Gluchowski ) .

[gebhk]

None of this idle speculation answers the fundamental question why all these countries remained communst/socialist totalitarian states and all ceased to be communist/socialist totalitarian states when the USSR ceased to be. Because the issue here, if I can remind you, is your assertion that dictatorships exist only with the support of the people. It seems remarkable that, if your argument is correct, all (without exception) of these populations supported totalitarian states up until the Soviet Union ceased to be a threat and within 2 years or less of that, all without exception stopped supporting them. I'd love an explanatuion that holds water other than that it was the threat of the Red Army that ensured compliance.

About the LWP and Zomo :they did not the necessary : Solidarnosc was not eliminated .

They did do their job - Solidarnosc weas neutralised and had no power. That was all that was required or, more to the point, all that their Soviet masters required them to do.

[ljadw]

Solidarnosc was NOT neutralized ,its leaders were not in the gulag: when the communists left, Solidarnocs took their place .
And ,an intervention from the military could not save communism : it had failed and was only good for the bin .
These countries ceased to be communist dictatorships because the rulers gave up : they knew that their system had failed and they told it to the people and proposed bonanza capitalism : the motto was : become rich .
And ,what did the people, what did the Cheka, what did the military ?
Nothing : they did not fight for or against communism.They were indifferent, apathetic .Romania was an exception,but even in Romania there was a revolution from above .
The number of communists was already almost non existent : if the Polit bureau admitted that communism was a failure and that capitalism was the solution ,who would fight to preserve the existing regime ? There were more communists in western Europe and the US than in Eastern Europe and the USSR .
Communism had already disappeared before `1989, but every one did as if it still existed . It was all keeping up appearances .
And the fall of communism in the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the fall of communism in the satellite states .

[Gorque]

Why does M.P's "Argument Clinic" come to mind whenever one deals with ljadw? It certainly can't be referred to as a debate.

[gebhk]

Solidarnosc was NOT neutralized ,its leaders were not in the gulag: when the communists left, Solidarnocs took their place .

The operative being 'when the communists left'. Not that Solidarnosc 'took over' but that's another suibject for another bizarre discourse.

its leaders were not in the gulag:

Didn't need to be - they were in Polish prisons because, as I said, the LWP and ZOMO did what was necessary.

The point remains that the communist/socialist totalitarian state remained in power while Soviet guns were there to back it up. It evaporated as soon as those guns were removed. Everything else is irrelevant to this discussion.

[gebhk]

Hi Gorque

On the plus side, these bizarre argument salads encourage me to look at stuff I wouldn't normally - in this case I found the brilliant Krauze film 'Black Thursday' which emulates Wajda's 'Man of Iron' by finishing with a rendition of the Ballad of Janek Wisniewski, in this case by Kazik with a new instrumental setting. Absolutely awesome (probably should go into the 'what music are you listening to now' section. The film is a faithful dramatisation of the December 1970 events in Gdynia where the economy having tanked, the communist government lost the glowing support of the people it enjoyed up till then and fell.... oh, hang on, no it didn't: instead it brought in tanks, the army and drugged up armed police, ordered them to open fire and killed at least 46 civilians (or at least that's how many the government was prepared to admit to later), seriously wounded another 1064 severely (again admitted to), beat the crap out of tens of thousands of others and remained in power. Funny that.

My unseemly sarcasm aside, I would strongly recommend viewing the film - it is available on the internet with English subtitles.

[Gorque]

Hi Gorque

On the plus side, these bizarre argument salads encourage me to look at stuff I wouldn't normally - in this case I found the brilliant Krauze film 'Black Thursday' which emulates Wajda's 'Man of Iron' by finishing with a rendition of the Ballad of Janek Wisniewski, in this case by Kazik with a new instrumental setting. Absolutely awesome (probably should go into the 'what music are you listening to now' section. The film is a faithful dramatisation of the December 1970 events in Gdynia where the economy having tanked, the communist government lost the glowing support of the people it enjoyed up till then and fell.... oh, hang on, no it didn't: instead it brought in tanks, the army and drugged up armed police, ordered them to open fire and killed at least 46 civilians (or at least that's how many the government was prepared to admit to later), seriously wounded another 1064 severely (again admitted to), beat the crap out of tens of thousands of others and remained in power. Funny that.

My unseemly sarcasm aside, I would strongly recommend viewing the film - it is available on the internet with English subtitles.

Hi gebhk:

I appreciate the humor as well as the film recommendation. The better half and I have of late been watching Scandanavian dark thrillers (with English subtitles of course) and this would be a welcome break in-between.

I agree that many of the bizarro-world statements are forcing me to investigate/re-examine certain aspects of the above-discussion with greater care and now, deeper insight.

[ljadw]

Solidarnosc was NOT neutralized ,its leaders were not in the gulag: when the communists left, Solidarnocs took their place .

The operative being 'when the communists left'. Not that Solidarnosc 'took over' but that's another suibject for another bizarre discourse.

its leaders were not in the gulag:

Didn't need to be - they were in Polish prisons because, as I said, the LWP and ZOMO did what was necessary.

The point remains that the communist/socialist totalitarian state remained in power while Soviet guns were there to back it up. It evaporated as soon as those guns were removed. Everything else is irrelevant to this discussion.

Soviet guns were not there to back it up : they were not there in Poland in 1956, not in Poland in 1980.

On 10 March 1981 Walesa met Jaruzelski ,the meeting took 3 hours . Why did Jaruzelski accept to meet the leader of the Polish opposition ? Because he was forced to do it .The Soviet guns did not help Jaruzelski . Do you imagine that Stalin would have accepted to meet the leader of the opposition , or Hitler ?
In December 1981 Walesa was arrested ( Stalin would have shot him ) ,but after only 11 months ,the regime was forced to release him .
Do you think that Stalin or Hitler would have released the leader of the opposition ?
Source : Wiki "Walesa .

About Solidarnosc :
''Government attempts in the early 1980s to destroy the union through the imposition of martial law in Poland and the use of political repression, failed .''
Source : Wki : Solidarnoc .
The attempts of the government FAILED .And the Soviet guns did not help the government .
Already before the official end in 1989 ,the government negotiated with the trade union,because it was forced to negotiate .
The government had lost already before Solidarnosc took over officially .