De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[gebhk]

And you are changing the subject - the usual diversion techniques when you are caught out.

As I have never suggested the Polish regime had greater or equal power to Stalin, or compared it to anyone else for that matter, I have no need to defend that position. It is self-evident that it did not because it was self-evidently a vassal of Stalin and his successors.

As others have already pointed out repeatedly, allowing people to go to church does not constitute a democracy. You are also wrong that the regime abstained from attacking the church - it did so daily by use of cultural levers of every kind when it weas not using brute force and coercion. Not that that is in any way relevant - what is relevant is that the very existance of the church and its ability to act in Poland was in the gest of the government's whim and not a right. The idea that the government could not stop people from going to church if it so wished is laughable. Please explain how that would have worked?

Your obession with church-going in this context is peculiar. I have to ask - do you consider the government of, say, Queen E£lizabeth I in England more democratic or more authoritarian? She prevented (and very sucessfully) people from attending one sort of church but forced them to attend another (by means of fines for non-attendance). And how does going to church equate with having democratic rights?

Since I never suggested that a dictatorial regime needs the intervention of the army to suppress its enemies, I still don't see the relevance of the 'Barcelona' example. The armed force is not necessarily the army incidentally and most of the time internal security forces are sufficient to maintain the regime in powereven when threatened. Indeed, by and large, no intervention is necessary at all because the population is kept in check by the knowledge that the armed force exists and will be used if needed.

So let's give all that nonsense a rest and concentrate on you providing examples from the 20th and 21st Century where a dictatorship or totalitarianism was overthrown by the population, despite the regime having full support of its armed forces - the ONLY thing that can support your argument that a dictatorship cannot survive without the support of the people.

[ljadw]

And you are changing the subject - the usual diversion techniques when you are caught out.

As I have never suggested the Polish regime had greater or equal power to Stalin, or compared it to anyone else for that matter, I have no need to defend that position. It is self-evident that it did not because it was self-evidently a vassal of Stalin and his successors.

As others have already pointed out repeatedly, allowing people to go to church does not constitute a democracy. You are also wrong that the regime abstained from attacking the church - it did so daily by use of cultural levers of every kind when it weas not using brute force and coercion. Not that that is in any way relevant - what is relevant is that the very existance of the church and its ability to act in Poland was in the gest of the government's whim and not a right. The idea that the government could not stop people from going to church if it so wished is laughable. Please explain how that would have worked?

Your obession with church-going in this context is peculiar. I have to ask - do you consider the government of, say, Queen E£lizabeth I in England more democratic or more authoritarian? She prevented (and very sucessfully) people from attending one sort of church but forced them to attend another (by means of fines for non-attendance). And how does going to church equate with having democratic rights?

Since I never suggested that a dictatorial regime needs the intervention of the army to suppress its enemies, I still don't see the relevance of the 'Barcelona' example. The armed force is not necessarily the army incidentally and most of the time internal security forces are sufficient to maintain the regime in powereven when threatened. Indeed, by and large, no intervention is necessary at all because the population is kept in check by the knowledge that the armed force exists and will be used if needed.

So let's give all that nonsense a rest and concentrate on you providing examples from the 20th and 21st Century where a dictatorship or totalitarianism was overthrown by the population, despite the regime having full support of its armed forces - the ONLY thing that can support your argument that a dictatorship cannot survive without the support of the people.

Where is YOUR proof for the claim that the Polish government could have stopped people from going to church ?
There is no such proof ,because if the communist government could have stopped people from going to church, it would ha done it .
It did not do it,because it could not do it .
And, NO the population in a dictatorial regime is not kept in check by the knowledge that the armed force exists and will be used if needed .
In March and April 1943 ,long before the fall of Mussolini,there were several strikes in Northern Italy ,although the Italian forces existed and although the OVRA and the Fascist militia existed .The armed forces were not used,not because they were needed,but because their use would be suicidal : it would prove that the regime could not longer expect the support of the population AND ,it was very uncertain that the armed forces would shoot on the strikers,as the armed forces are a reflection of the population and that the regime as failed,because strikes are caused by bad social situations .
The fact that there are strikes proves that the secret police has not done its job : its job is NOT to act against strikers,but to prevent people from striking .
A dictator who uses his army against his people is signing his death sentence and is hastening the end of the regime .
Ochab ordered to shoot on the strikers and was fired .
When his successor ,Gomulka ordered to shoot on strikers in 1970,he also was fired .
''Many historians consider the Poznan strikes as one of the events that .... precipitated the fall of communism in Poland .''
Source : Strikes in Poland in 1956 .
A dictator can do not much against strikes ( who are mostly non political ).
If he orders to shoot on them,their number will increase and the strike will become political .
The only thing he can do is to prevent the strikes by ameliorating the social situation .

[ljadw]

And, your claim that the power of the Polish regime in Poland was smaller than that of Stalin in the Soviet Union,had as cause that Poland was a vassal of the Soviet Union, is totally wrong : Albania was also a Soviet vassal (til 1960 ) but its grip on the population was much greater than that of the Polish communists and even greater than that of Stalin's successors .
Proof : In Albania ( with less than 10 % of the population of Poland and less than 1 % of the population of the Soviet Union ) between 5000 and 25000 people were executed (even minors ) for political reasons .
How many people were shot in Poland and the USSR after the war for political reasons ?
Other proof : the collectivization of agriculture in Poland was almost non existent compared to that in Albania .
The truth is ( but of course you will continue to deny it ) that the Polish regime was a dictatorial regime (all communist regimes are dictatorial ) but not a totalitarian regime,as it never had absolute power : its power was limited by the existence of the church and the influence of the church and those behind the church .And every year the power of the church increased and the power of the regime decreased .Power was shared,distributed between the regime and the church . And the population accepted the regime, unwillingly,as long as the regime could increase the standard of living ( people were not interested in a transition to democracy ),when the regime was no longer able to increase or even stabilize the standard of living, the population approached and supported more and more the other power .

[gebhk]

Where is YOUR proof for the claim that the Polish government could have stopped people from going to church ?

400K plus army, 80K plus police, 25K security pollice and 12K internal security forces and access to as many budozers and wrecking balls as necessary against old ladies with handbags and unbrellas, I would suggest, would be more than adequate for the job. I would point out that Elizabeth I managed this with very little difficulty and with incomparably less overwhelming power at her disposal. Let's be serious.

It did not do it,because it could not do it

And where's your proof for that? That sort of non-argument cuts both ways. Please explain exactly how unarmed civilians force a government backed by men with big guns to do anything.

A dictator can do not much against strikes ( who are mostly non political ).
If he orders to shoot on them,their number will increase and the strike will become political .

That is exactly what happened in Poland in 1956, 1970 and 1981. Despite the shootings the numbers of strikers didn't increase, quite the opposite. And, would you believe it, the government did not fall. On other occassions the liberal application of the rubber truncheon proved quite sufficient. Again, the government did not fall.

[ljadw]

Where is YOUR proof for the claim that the Polish government could have stopped people from going to church ?

400K plus army, 80K plus police, 25K security pollice and 12K internal security forces and access to as many budozers and wrecking balls as necessary against old ladies with handbags and unbrellas, I would suggest, would be more than adequate for the job. I would point out that Elizabeth I managed this with very little difficulty and with incomparably less overwhelming power at her disposal. Let's be serious.

It did not do it,because it could not do it

And where's your proof for that? That sort of non-argument cuts both ways. Please explain exactly how unarmed civilians force a government backed by men with big guns to do anything.

A dictator can do not much against strikes ( who are mostly non political ).
If he orders to shoot on them,their number will increase and the strike will become political .

That is exactly what happened in Poland in 1956, 1970 and 1981. Despite the shootings the numbers of strikers didn't increase, quite the opposite. And, would you believe it, the government did not fall. On other occassions the liberal application of the rubber truncheon proved quite sufficient. Again, the government did not fall.

In 1956, 1970,1981 it was the government that failed and lost :Ochab and Gomulka disappeared .How many strikers were executed after the events, how many were put in prison ?
If the number of strikers was decreasing in 1970,why was the government shooting on them ?
You can't use the armed forces for political aims, because that is a mortal danger for the government : millions of Poles, including parents of military were going to church.You see the danger of the use of the military to prevent their parents from going to church .
Besides, giving the military more power means less power for the party .

[ljadw]

In 1976,the Polish government imposed a mass increase of food products .The result was, again, big strikes ( 70000 strikers ) ,3 strikers were killed (the military were not committed ) and ...the government backed down ,the price increase was cancelled and the PM was fired .
Conclusion : a new defeat for the regime .Its 500000 + military and police officers did not help against 70000 strikers .
The government looked economically foolish and politically weak . A dangerous combination .
Source : the 1976 June protests .

[gebhk]

In 1956, 1970,1981 it was the government that failed and lost :Ochab and Gomulka disappeared .How many strikers were executed after the events, how many were put in prison ?

So are you saying that in '56 and '70 the PZPR was removed from power? If so that is simply not true. One set of puppets was partially replaced by another set of puppets at the behest of the Soviet Union and, I would suggest, not because they were displeased at the shooting but by the fact that Ochab and Gomolka had allowed the workers to get bolshie enough to dare to go on strike in the first place. And the show just went on. In 1981 the shooter wasn't replaced at all - in fact he was put in charge at Soviet behest to do what shooting. So how exactly did he fail?

How many strikers were executed after the events, how many were put in prison

A quick trip to even Wikipedia will provide you with the answers to these questions. And that's just the official figures which don't include the dozens of people who succumbed to 'accidents', 'unrelated murders' and disappearances. Off the top of my head, over 3000 arreasted in 1970.

You can't use the armed forces for political aims, because that is a mortal danger for the government :

To misquote the immortal words of Msr Poirot - "Don't talk the imbecilities, the Polish Government did". So ipso facto you can. And the government didn't fall, the soldiers by and large did their duty despite all their parents' churchgoing and, for that matter, taking part in the strikes.

The truth is ( but of course you will continue to deny it )

I am not denying the truth, whatever that might be, just your reinvention of the English Language. I have provided you with half a dozen definitions of the the word totalitarianism and by any reasonable measure the PRL was a totalitarian state. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. I'm afraid whether people were allowed to go to church or not is irrelevant to that definition. Of course it was also a dictatorship - the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Given the usual flood of distractions, I can only assume you cannot provide an example of an upopular dictatorship being forcibly removed while it retained the loyalty of the armed forces?

[gebhk]

The government looked economically foolish and politically weak . A dangerous combination .

Weak and foolish and everything else you would like to say it 'looked', it was still the government and that is all that matters in this conmtext.

[ljadw]

In 1956, 1970,1981 it was the government that failed and lost :Ochab and Gomulka disappeared .How many strikers were executed after the events, how many were put in prison ?

So are you saying that in '56 and '70 the PZPR was removed from power? If so that is simply not true. One set of puppets was partially replaced by another set of puppets at the behest of the Soviet Union and, I would suggest, not because they were displeased at the shooting but by the fact that Ochab and Gomolka had allowed the workers to get bolshie enough to dare to go on strike in the first place. And the show just went on. In 1981 the shooter wasn't replaced at all - in fact he was put in charge at Soviet behest to do what shooting. So how exactly did he fail?

How many strikers were executed after the events, how many were put in prison

A quick trip to even Wikipedia will provide you with the answers to these questions. And that's just the official figures which don't include the dozens of people who succumbed to 'accidents', 'unrelated murders' and disappearances. Off the top of my head, over 3000 arreasted in 1970.

You can't use the armed forces for political aims, because that is a mortal danger for the government :

To misquote the immortal words of Msr Poirot - "Don't talk the imbecilities, the Polish Government did". So ipso facto you can. And the government didn't fall, the soldiers by and large did their duty despite all their parents' churchgoing and, for that matter, taking part in the strikes.

The truth is ( but of course you will continue to deny it )

I am not denying the truth, whatever that might be, just your reinvention of the English Language. I have provided you with half a dozen definitions of the the word totalitarianism and by any reasonable measure the PRL was a totalitarian state. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. I'm afraid whether people were allowed to go to church or not is irrelevant to that definition. Of course it was also a dictatorship - the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Given the usual flood of distractions, I can only assume you cannot provide an example of an upopular dictatorship being forcibly removed while it retained the loyalty of the armed forces?

1 Gomulka was not a puppet but a nationalist communist ,who in 1956 demanded and obtained the removal of the Cheka agents in the Polish secret police .
2 The government failed : first it imposed a big increase of the price of food products,when the population protested,the government,which you call totalitarian,backed down . Who won ?
3 If a lot of strikers disappeared in ''accidents '',that means that the government was afraid,was unable to bring them for court,to condemn them, to execute them .And ,it is this government you call totalitarian .
Compare this to Albania,with a population of 10 % of that of Poland,where the government executed between 5000 and 25000 people,even minors .
Which of both deserves the appellation of totalitarian ?
4 An example of an unpopular dictator being removed while he retained the loyalty of the armed forces : Batista in Cuba .An other example : the Shah .
An other one : Chang Kai- Shek in China and in Taiwan .

[gebhk]

Gomulka was not a puppet but a nationalist communist ,who in 1956 demanded and obtained the removal of the Cheka agents in the Polish secret police .

What political label you apply to him is irrelevant to whether the was a puppet or not. It's like saying someone is not a sous-chef because he is a vegan. The only thing that is relevant is his ability to act independently as the head of his country - which was virtually nil where it mattered. Starting from the fact that he could only remain in his position if his Soviet masters consented to it. You say 'demanded', I say pleaded; in the end a piddling concession to his ego (no doubt only made because he could assure his masters that he could oppress the Polish people on their behalf without so much direct supervision) It hardly made any difference to the fact that he could not make any significant decisions without approval of his masters. That makes him a puppet in my book not whether he has this or that polictical science label. You can call him a 'nationalist communist' whatever that is, it makes no difference to the reality of his freedom of action. I note that he didn't 'demand' the removal of the Northern Group of Forces - the nominally 66K Soviet Troops stationed in Poland (I say 'nominally' because who knows how many there really were - the Poles had no operational control over them nor did they have any oversight. It is a fact that according to treaty the Soviet Union was limited to 39 bases in Poland but eventually built 79. Nuclear weapons were installed on Polish soil without the Polish Government even being informed. And there was diddly the Polish 'nationalist communistst' could do about it. Not really a plus in the 'not a puppet' column is it?). Incidentally, finding Cheka members in Poland to remove must have been quite a feat in 1956, given that the organisation was replaced in 1922!

The government failed : first it imposed a big increase of the price of food products,when the population protested,the government,which you call totalitarian,backed down . Who won ?

Evidently the government - it was still the gpovernment. And remained the government regardless of what the economy did or anything else until it lost the support of the Red Army. This inconvenient fact you cannot explain away with all the red herringss. Incidentally the price rises were'nt just about food and there weren't just rises - this of course had a particulalry inflammatory impact.

If a lot of strikers disappeared in ''accidents'',that means that the government was afraid,was unable to bring them for court,to condemn them, to execute them .And ,it is this government you call totalitarian .

How it murders its opponenets is irrelevant to a definition of totalitarianism. The fact that its organs of repression can act outside the law with impunity merely indicates a regime is not democratic. I call it totalitarian because it complies with every definition I know of a totalitarian regime. And yep, regardless how they murder their victims, all despotic regimes, totalitarian and otherwise, are always afraid. That is because deprived of e peaceful way of effecting fundamental change, disgruntled citizens have only the path of violence open to them to achieve it.

As for your examples:
The Shah wasn't removed but left Iran precisely partly bacause he proved unwilling to use his armed forces effectively which then led to a collapse in army morale and partly because he lost the military support of the US. And lest we forget, the interim government he appoointed to rule in his stead fell becuase of a revolution started by members of the armed forces (Air Force technicians) which only suceeded because the army remained essentially neutral.
Castro wasn't ousted by unarmed civilians and didn't have the backing of his army. In fact he was ousted by the army in a US-supported coup. So the very opposite of what you are claiming.
CKS remained president of Taiwan until his death having won 5 consecutive elections so is not even a runner - he was neither ousted nor was he, at the time of his death, unpopular. In mainland China his army was defeated in a civil war. In other words, he didn;t lose because he was unmpopuilar but because the other side had bigger and better armed forces.

[ljadw]

About the government : of course,it lost, because it had to cancel the price increases . Thus the strikers won .
That the ''government '' was not ousted (the PM was fired ! ) is totally irrelevant, as the aim of the strike was not to remove the government, but to force the government to cancel the price increases .And, maybe you have forgotten , but the government was forced to cancel the price increases .
And about Gomulka, I prefer the explanation of the Wilson Center (Poland in 1956 New Interpretations of the Social Protest and Political Crisis )

'' Using NATIONALIST themes ,Gomulka channeled the reforming desires of the population away from anti-communism and toward a limited ANTI-Soviet and general ANTI-STALIN direction,effectively creating what Machcewicz called ''a controlled,channeled revolution .''

The capital letters are mine .
The man you named a puppet was arrested in 1949 after having attacked publicly the Soviet Union .
And this man became party leader in 1956 to prevent a total catastrophe for the regime .
This man openly yelled to Krushchef that not Poland but the Soviets should yield and this man got what he wanted .And Krushchef was the loser .
And, when after the secession of Tito, Stalin ordered to eliminate, kill,the communist leaders in Eastern Europe, there was an exception for ..Gomulka,because Stalin was a realist who knew the consequences if he went too far .
And about the Poznan 1956 protests, to prevent them from becoming uncontrollable, Gomulka decided to become their leader .
About CKS : he lost in the mainland because the population decided to support the communists ,not because the population was pro communist, but because it expected a better life from a communist dictatorship than from the government of CKS.
Dictators govern by the grace of the people .
About Batista : he was supported by the army but still was fired .

[gebhk]

That the ''government '' was not ousted (the PM was fired ! ) is totally irrelevant, as the aim of the strike was not to remove the government, but to force the government to cancel the price increases .And, maybe you have forgotten , but the government was forced to cancel the price increases .

It is entirely relevant to a discussion about governments being ousted! That's just you trying to change the subject.
Yep I do seem to have forgotten. 1956? - what price rises? 1970? Nope - price rises were not cancelled. 1981? What price rises? Not that it matters.

About Batista : he was supported by the army but still was fired .

Nope - he was 'fired' by the army which by definition means he did not have the support of the army.

Dictators govern by the grace of the people .

Nice woke sentiment for which you have provided zero evidence. By evidence I mean examples of dictators who lost the 'grace of the people' and fell desapite having the sup[port of their armed forces. Whereas examples of the opposite are plentiful. I very much doubt that Hans Frank had the 'grace of the people' he governed. Or Jaruzelski's 'Crow'.

He lost in the mainland because the population decided to support the communists ,not because the population was pro communist, but because it expected a better life from a communist dictatorship than from the government of CKS.

Another unprovable or disprovable assumption based on zero reliable evidence. The only fact is that he militarily lost a civil war and was not ousted by 'the people' whatever that means. As I pointed out at the beginning, its all a pointless beating of the froth.

[gebhk]

The man you named a puppet was arrested in 1949 after having attacked publicly the Soviet Union .

Yep - the fact that he was arrested rather proves my point. The very decision whether Gomulka was allowed in or out depended on the whim of a foreign power. The odd tantrum aside, the very fact that he was leader depended on the say-so of a foreign power and lest we forget, Gomulka formally signed away Polands sovereignty with regard to foreign troops stationed on Polish soil and signed away operational control of the Polish armed forces (something, to use your vocabulary, even Bierut didn't dare do). He was prohibited from making any significant decision without approval from a foreign power and subject to the Breznev Doctrine. That in my book makes him a puppet, but you are free to label it anything you like - it makes no difference to Gomulka's freedom of choice or his mandate.

[ljadw]

Zero evidence ?
The fall of Communism
The fall of Mussolini
The nearing fall of Communism in Cuba and Venezuela
The fall of Peron
The fall of Saddam Hussein
The fall of the Czar

If the population no longer supports a dictator, the army can not save him .
Mussolini was ousted by the army because the population no longer supported him .
It was the same for the others .
And, a population abandons a dictator, not because he is a dictator, but be cause he has failed to give the people what it wanted = a better life .
Hans Frank was NOT a dictator but the deputy of Hitler in Poland .And, Jaruzelski was not Hans Frank .
When a dictator, a dictatorial regime has lost the support of the people,it has also lost the support of the army , because the army is a part of the people .
CKS lost because the CHinese people supported the Communists and not CKS .

[gebhk]

Mussolini was ousted by the army because the population no longer supported him .

You can imagine what the motives of the army command were as you like, you cannot know. The fact is that he was ousted by the army not by the population.

The nearing fall of Communism in Cuba and Venezuela

And I am guessing it hasn't fallen because the armed forcers support it?
Etc, etc, etc, the fact remains that while the guns are in place the regime remains, popular or not, while once they are gone the chips fall as they will. It is the guns as mandate for power that by definition make a dictatorship a dictatorship and not the 'support of the population'.