De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Discussions on all aspects of Poland during the Second Polish Republic and the Second World War. Hosted by Piotr Kapuscinski.
gebhk
Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by gebhk » 05 Feb 2022 09:47

The bottom line which you consistently avoid addressing is that Poland and ALL the other countries in question remained totalitarian communist states until the USSR ceased to be at which point they ALL ceased to be totalitarian communist states. Whether the shooting and repression was done by the puppet governments themselves or, if they failed in that, by the Red Army, is immaterial. The shooting and repression was done and the regime remained in power. It matters not two hoots whether Walesa was in or out of prison; the fact is that the regime remained in power. It matters not two hoots what Stalin or Hitler would have done, the fact remians that the regime remained in power. And, as the Romanian example showed, it remained in power until the armed forces decided they were on the side of the anti-communists.

In short the support of armed might was the critical factor not of some nebulous 'support of the people' or the success of the economy. The fact is that all over the world various dictatorships cling onto power despite tanking economies and/or little public support. The only consistent factor is that they retain power because they have guns to support them.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13150
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 05 Feb 2022 11:43

That's your opinion,which is debunked by the present situation in China .
And ,from an other source ( East German Stasi and Polish Secret Service shared deep distrust ):

''Stasi head Mielke and his entourage were stricken with panic by the attempts of Polish communist leadership to find a compromise with Solidarnosc )''
This means that even BEFORE the fall of communism in the Soviet Union,the ''totalitarian communist Polish regime '' (haha ) tried to find a compromise with its enemies and this BEFORE and AFTER the imposition of martial law .
And, in Romania, it was NOT a question of anti-communists again pro-communists ,but the fact is that the population wanted to get rid of an old,senile and failed dictator . The number of anti and pro-communists in Romania were almost equal = non-existent .

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by gebhk » 05 Feb 2022 15:10

How exactly can an opinion be 'debunked'? It is an opinion.

What China has to do with the price of beat is beyond me. The government is totalitarian and has the country's armed forces under control. How does that conrtradict my opinion?

What exactly is so funny about the communist regime in Poland being totalitarian? And what difference does it make whether the Polish government wanted to compromise with Solidarity? That 'compromise' was never going to include the government giving up the reigns of power and that did not happen while the government had armed force on its side.
And, in Romania, it was NOT a question of anti-communists again pro-communists ,but the fact is that the population wanted to get rid of an old,senile and failed dictator . The number of anti and pro-communists in Romania were almost equal = non-existent .
If there were anti and pro communists then clearly there was a question of anti--communists against procummunists, but that is entirely irrelevant in any case. The fact that is relevant to this discussion is that NC did not fall until the armed forces turned against him.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by gebhk » 05 Feb 2022 15:16

Hi Gorque

I dion't think Black Thursday will be much of a break from dark thrillers! The historical reality makes it pretty unrelentingly grim.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13150
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 05 Feb 2022 19:48

gebhk wrote:
05 Feb 2022 15:10
How exactly can an opinion be 'debunked'? It is an opinion.

What China has to do with the price of beat is beyond me. The government is totalitarian and has the country's armed forces under control. How does that conrtradict my opinion?

What exactly is so funny about the communist regime in Poland being totalitarian? And what difference does it make whether the Polish government wanted to compromise with Solidarity? That 'compromise' was never going to include the government giving up the reigns of power and that did not happen while the government had armed force on its side.
And, in Romania, it was NOT a question of anti-communists again pro-communists ,but the fact is that the population wanted to get rid of an old,senile and failed dictator . The number of anti and pro-communists in Romania were almost equal = non-existent .
If there were anti and pro communists then clearly there was a question of anti--communists against procummunists, but that is entirely irrelevant in any case. The fact that is relevant to this discussion is that NC did not fall until the armed forces turned against him.
1 China : the government is not longer totalitarian and can not afford to commit the army against the people, because a dictatorship that uses the army against the people is DOOMED .
2 Since 1956 the Polish government was not longer totalitarian .
Proofs : after 1956 it did not longer attack the church,because it could not afford to have the church as an enemy . There was something as a peaceful coexistence between both .
And I advise you to read something serious about this question, something as '' What sort of Communists are you ? ''
Exemples :
P 54 : Speech of Gomulka in 1948 to the Central Committee of the Party,where he openly attacked one of the saints of communism : Rosa Luxembourg .
Raik in Hungary and Slansky were executed after being fired . Gomulka not : thus already in 1949 was the totalitarian power of the Communist regime in Poland a fiction .
Mindszenty was arrested and put in prison, Wychinski was arrested and released by Gomulka in 1956 and later Gomulka and his successors were forced to negotiate with him . A totalitarian state does not negotiate with his enemies .
PP 159 and 160 .
''Stalin's death in 1953 was crucial for the communist regimes in Eastern Europe .
From that point onwards,it was possible to observe the gradual erosion of the Communist regime in Poland .''
See also the result of the desertion of Swiatlo .
'' The outgoing crisis was further aggravated by Krushchef's secret speech of 28 February 1956'' ( where he demonized Stalin .)'' and signaled the de-Stalinisation process across the entire Soviet bloc .''
Millions of communists were lost for the party and stopped to believe even one word of the communist propaganda .
Imagine that in 1961 Pope John 23 had demonized his predecessor (Pius 12),this would have resulted in millions of Catholics losing their faith and their trust in the church .
'' On 27 April 1956 ,the Sejm (Polish parliament ) voted the Bill of Amnesty,pardoning the political prisoners ''
Not very typical for a totalitarian regime .
The truth is that the agony of Communism started already in 1956 .There were less communists in 1966 than in 1956, less in 1976 than in 1966,etc..
Why ? Because every one could see that Communism did not work and was totally corrupt .
In the 1980s even most agents of the Polish secret police were no longer communist: after 1990 the new Polish secret service consisted mainly of veterans from the Communist secret police .
About Romania : there was no fighting between pro and anti-communists, the ruling ''communists 'conserved almost all their power, the only thing they did/had to do ,was to change their appellations and to claim that they were democrats ,and they got a lot of votes ,from people who knew for whom they were voting . See : Iliescu
It is the same in the former DDR where the Communists do call themselves now Die Linke .

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by gebhk » 05 Feb 2022 20:31

Ahh, once again, reinventing the English language, I see. Bless. Good luck with that one. And the usual distraction techniques when caught out in some tosh for which you have no answer.

To use your language, I would advise you to consult a serious dictionary, before lecturing others about the meaning of the English language.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13150
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 06 Feb 2022 07:46

I have given several sources who prove what I am saying, you have given no proofs.
And I see that you remain silent about the significance of the Bill of Amnesty .
I see also that you don't know that the Stalinist Bierut asked in 1954 (1954 ! ) the Kremlin for the rehabilitation of 30 members of the Polish communist party,killed before the war by the Cheka during the Purges .
This is not a proof of a totalitarian state .
I see also that you don't know that Iliescu belonged to the top of the Romanian communist party and that later this communist collaborated with the CIA ,giving Langley his consent for a secret detention camp in Romania where were interrogated 9/11 suspects by the CIA .
About the armed forces : any intelligent dictator will use them only in last instance,because the use of the armed forces is proving that the dictator has failed .

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by gebhk » 06 Feb 2022 11:14

This is not a proof of a totalitarian state .
Of course not but neither as you claim does it disprove it. And utterly irrelevant to a definition of totalitarianism. Since you clearly do not know about dictionaries (to use your language) here are a few 'proofs' of what totalitarianism means - the definition of totalitarianism taken serially from the top (to avoid accusations of selection bias) from a google search 'definition of totalitarianism':
of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
(Dictionary. com)
Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism
(Wiki)
centralized control by an autocratic authority
(Merriam-Webster)
A totalitarian political system is one in which there is only one political party which controls everything and does not allow any opposition parties.
(Collins)

That is probably sufficient, but this one is quite interesting:
A system of centralized government in which the State has total authority over society and manipulates all aspects of culture including the arts, in order to control the private lives and morality of its citizens.
Because it underlines some characteristic operational aspects of totalitarianism.

To any rational person, the PRL clearly fulfilled these criteria for a totalitarian state, especially when one assesses it against the antonym of totalitarianism - democracy.

As for the rest of the red herrings you present above, none have, self evidently, any bearing on the meaning of totalitarianism or on whether the PRL was one or not let alone being proofs of anything other than that totsalitarian rulers use all sorts of tactics to maintain their totalitarian system. I am silent about the Bill or Amnesty because it made no difference to Polands system. Bierut asking the Soviets nicely did not make the PRL a democracy. Iliescu's (grossly undemocratic, incidentally) activities long after the SRR was gone did not make it a democracy either.
About the armed forces : any intelligent dictator will use them only in last instance,because the use of the armed forces is proving that the dictator has failed .
Nice sounding fuzzy (definition of failure?) sound bite that, in any event, has zero impact on the meaning of totalitarianism. The point is that armed force is the ultimate backstop of any government and while it is in place that government cannot be changed against its will nor can it be forced to or prevented from doing whatever it pleases. The only difference between a totalitarian state and a democratic one in this respect is that the latter willingly submits itself periodically to re-election while a totalitarian one does not.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13150
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 06 Feb 2022 13:05

Your first definition of totalitarianism does not apply for Poland after 1956 : Gomulka and his successors are not totalitarian rulers, because your definition claims that a totalitarian state does not tolerate parties of differing opinion .
The fact is that the Communist Polish regime was forced to tolerate the existence of the Catholic Church who had a differing opinion and even an opposing opinion .
The Wiki and Collins definition also do not apply to Poland,neither does the last one as the Polish state did not control the private lives of its citizens : it could not and never did prevent its citizens from going to church .
The same applies for Hungary after 1956,or Czechoslovakia after 1968 .
Thus, other and better please .
About the armed Forces : there was in 1951 in Barcelona a general strike ( 300000 people ) for social reasons,and the military commander of Catalonia refused to commit the army .
This did not prevent the Franco regime to last til 1975 .
Thus, other examples and better ones .
Last edited by ljadw on 06 Feb 2022 15:04, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7194
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by wm » 06 Feb 2022 13:49

The Orthodox Church existed in Stalinist Russia too.
That fact didn't make the Soviet Union non-totalitarian.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1420
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by Gorque » 06 Feb 2022 14:22

Third Reich Germany also had to tolerate the Catholic and Protestant churches. Does that also mean that Third Reich Germany was not a totalitarian state? Does this mean that only a state that doesn't allow for practising a religious belief is a totalitarian state?

A rather restrictive definition. Which nation on this planet restricts religion?

In regards to the Wikipedia and Collins definition: You are being intentionally obtuse as you know for a fact the both of these definitions are referring to POLITICAL parties.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13150
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 06 Feb 2022 15:05

wm wrote:
06 Feb 2022 13:49
The Orthodox Church existed in Stalinist Russia too.
That fact didn't make the Soviet Union non-totalitarian.
The Orthodox Church did not oppose the Stalinist Regime .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13150
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 06 Feb 2022 16:21

Gorque wrote:
06 Feb 2022 14:22
Third Reich Germany also had to tolerate the Catholic and Protestant churches. Does that also mean that Third Reich Germany was not a totalitarian state? Does this mean that only a state that doesn't allow for practising a religious belief is a totalitarian state?

A rather restrictive definition. Which nation on this planet restricts religion?

In regards to the Wikipedia and Collins definition: You are being intentionally obtuse as you know for a fact the both of these definitions are referring to POLITICAL parties.
The Catholic Church in Poland was a strong and dangerous political power, more than today : it represented Polish nationalism .
And the regime was FORCED to make compromises with the church .
In 1979 the Polish bishops invited the Polish pope to Poland,and the regime was forced to accept this invitation .Stalin would not have accepted this, neither Hitler .
See (from JSTOR) :The election of Woytila and his visit to Poland were regarded as disaster for Poland's communist regime,as indeed they were .
By James Ramon Felak .
After more than 40 years of communist dictatorship, millions of Poles gathered to see ,hear and to listen to the pope .
The communist regime had failed to win the hearts of the Polish people and had failed to defeat its most important enemy .
About Germany : the catholic and protestant churches cooperated almost openly with the regime on a lot of points .
And the difference between communism and Nazism was that the former had as aim the destruction and elimination of church and religion, while the latter accepted the existence of the church as long as she was obedient .
In Russia priests were sent to the Gulag and were killed because they were priests , In Germany they were persecuted if they opposed the regime .

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by gebhk » 07 Feb 2022 18:44

About the armed Forces : there was in 1951 in Barcelona a general strike ( 300000 people ) for social reasons,and the military commander of Catalonia refused to commit the army .
This did not prevent the Franco regime to last til 1975 .
What on earth does that prove in the context of this discussion?
Gorque has already refuted your nonsense on the issue of church and religion. The church is not a party. It matters not two hoots if the church in Poland agreed/disagreed/cooperated with/not cooperated with the regime. It existed because the regime chose to tolerate it becuase it suited them and the notion that it could be forced to do so is laughable. The government had guns, the church did not and therefore the latter had no means of changing the government.
The communist regime had failed to win the hearts of the Polish people
And now you are arguing with yourself, becuase it was you that started this whole debate off by announcing that a country could not be ruled by a dictatorship that did not have the support of its people. Please make your mind up! I agree that the regime had failed to win the hearts of the Polish people an yet it remained in power while its armed might remained intact. You are now supporting my argument!
Thus, other and better please.
If by 'other and better' you mean those that fit your excentric assumptions about what 'totalitarian' means then finding them is your job not mine.
,neither does the last one as the Polish state did not control the private lives of its citizens : it could not and never did prevent its citizens from going to church .
You are again being deliberately obtuse, methinks. I am sure you comprehend that the last definition does not hinge on the success but on the methodology. The aim of totalitarianism is to control private life (ie what people believe and do in private) by influencing them through state control of culture. Going to church is not part of private life incidentally but, by definition, part of public life. And the Polish communist government self-evidently could stop people going to church when it wished to and sometimes it did.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13150
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 08 Feb 2022 08:04

gebhk wrote:
07 Feb 2022 18:44
About the armed Forces : there was in 1951 in Barcelona a general strike ( 300000 people ) for social reasons,and the military commander of Catalonia refused to commit the army .
This did not prevent the Franco regime to last til 1975 .
What on earth does that prove in the context of this discussion?
Gorque has already refuted your nonsense on the issue of church and religion. The church is not a party. It matters not two hoots if the church in Poland agreed/disagreed/cooperated with/not cooperated with the regime. It existed because the regime chose to tolerate it becuase it suited them and the notion that it could be forced to do so is laughable. The government had guns, the church did not and therefore the latter had no means of changing the government.
The communist regime had failed to win the hearts of the Polish people
And now you are arguing with yourself, becuase it was you that started this whole debate off by announcing that a country could not be ruled by a dictatorship that did not have the support of its people. Please make your mind up! I agree that the regime had failed to win the hearts of the Polish people an yet it remained in power while its armed might remained intact. You are now supporting my argument!
Thus, other and better please.
If by 'other and better' you mean those that fit your excentric assumptions about what 'totalitarian' means then finding them is your job not mine.
,neither does the last one as the Polish state did not control the private lives of its citizens : it could not and never did prevent its citizens from going to church .
You are again being deliberately obtuse, methinks. I am sure you comprehend that the last definition does not hinge on the success but on the methodology. The aim of totalitarianism is to control private life (ie what people believe and do in private) by influencing them through state control of culture. Going to church is not part of private life incidentally but, by definition, part of public life. And the Polish communist government self-evidently could stop people going to church when it wished to and sometimes it did.
You still refuse to accept the truth which is that the power of the Polish regime was smaller, much smaller than the power of Stalin,which was also limited .Stalin also was forced to accept that a part of the Soviet agriculture remained privatized .
Examples : the Polish regime abstained from attacking the church, which was an opponent of the regime and which was considered by the regime as a political enemy .
The regime did not stop people from going to church,because it could not do it ,otherwise it would have done it .
The regime abandoned its attempts to collectivize the Polish agriculture :in September 1956 10000 collective farms with 10 % of the Polish arable land, in December 1956 2000 collective farms .
Two examples, only two, there are countless other,of the failure of the ''totalitarian '' Polish regime .
About Barcelona : this is a proof that a dictatorial regime does not need the intervention of the army to suppress its enemies and to survive . It debunks your claim that a dictator needs the army to survive .
What happened in the Soviet Union is an other example for this .

Return to “Poland 1919-1945”