Russians did not kill Poles in Katyn

Keith, this is _Michael_. "Facts" in his dimension don't actually reflect
events on our planet. While I commend your staying power, its never going to
get Michael to the point of saying, "You know, I was wrong - the Soviets did
this." because he _can't_; he was bred to accept any farflung story that
praises the Stalinists and absolutely and fervently refute anything from the
west. Not his fault - he is fulfulling his programming.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
Keith, this is _Michael_. "Facts" in his dimension don't actually reflect
events on our planet. While I commend your staying power, its never going
to
get Michael to the point of saying, "You know, I was wrong - the Soviets
did
this." because he _can't_; he was bred to accept any farflung story that
praises the Stalinists and absolutely and fervently refute anything from
the
west. Not his fault - he is fulfulling his programming.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR


True enough

Michael lives in a world in which Stalin and Beria were peaceful
social democrats deperately fending off attacks by that well known
warmonger Neville Chamberlain and manfully defending the
demi-paradise of the USSR against the invading Finnish hordes.

Keith

Michael lives in a world in which Stalin and Beria were peaceful
social democrats deperately fending off attacks by that well known
warmonger Neville Chamberlain and manfully defending the
demi-paradise of the USSR against the invading Finnish hordes.

BINGO!

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...


(2) Should one of the Contracting Powers become engaged in
hostilities
with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which
threatened the independence or neutrality of another European
State in
such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that
Contracting Party, the provisions of Article 1 will apply, without
prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State
concerned.

WOW! "another European State" now.
------------------


Irony Mode On
Gee what a surprise when the original treaty referred to
'a European State' it really meant 'a European State'

Exactly. according to this SECRET PROTOCOL Britain and Poland agreed
to start aggresive war against "a European State" using ANY action
of that "a European State".


Try again Michael , the agreement states clearly that this only applies
if the action of that European states threatens the security of either
Britain or Poland.

Too wide range of cases to be true defensive pact.

In your opinion

Not only. No government in a good mind would enter a
devensive pact with other goverment which can be triggered
by ANY action of third party goverment. It is basurd and nonsense,
unless of course this (first goverment) knew in advance that it
was not going to do anything to fulfil its obligations.


Who will decide what is threat and what is not?
Imagine for a moment if Poland invaded Lithuania
in 1939 and USSR moved forces to protect
it against Poland would it "threatens the security of
either Britain or Poland"?

Possibly but then that would not have happened
as a result of another European Nation but of
Poland which would give Britain an out.

Sure? Poland betraied France at least three times
in 38-39 having a defencive deal with France and
despite of all French efforts. After all that what
was a basis to trust Poland at all?



Very probable scenario
in 1939 by the way. Poles tried actually ones and were
stoped by strong Stalin reaction only. I think this is
why Mr. Halifax signed that mutual assistence pact
with (Keith note) THE SECRET PROTOCOL. His hopes for
big war in eastern europe of all against USSR were quite
real.

That is possibly the silliest statement ever posted in this
newsgroup.

Nevertheless it is most common views on the eurpean "real
politics" here on east. You do not like that? Well...
We do not expect any better from our "partners".

The one thing that characterised Chamberlain's
government was the view that virtually anything was preferable
to fighting a war.

But one thing, big war between all and USSR in 1939.
Hey Keith, what's was the british goal until sept 39.
Right?


In august 1939 there were two states who were practicing
aggresive attacks against its neibours namely Germany and
Poland, and both were united in pathological hate of USSR.


Oh puleeze, it wasnt Poland that invaded Lituania, Latvia, Estonia
and Finland.

Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
than voted on referendum to join USSR. All the rest are just
a empty talks. Actually all British colonies were captured
even without such kind of formalities. Nobody even asked local
population opinions.

In any case it was in 1940 when the WWII was going on. Britain
army had already invaded many foreign countries and even
attacked French NAVY, its former ally. I see no reasons
why we russians should behaive any better when
enemies were in front of us.

In 1939, official peace time, as I said there were two states
who were practicing aggresive attacks against its neibours
namely Germany and Poland. With both of them British goverment
was trying to make some sort of tricky deals.


Stalin signed a defensive pact with Hitler.

That allowed him to 'defensively' invade and annexe the
Baltic States,

In 1940 and with all neccessary formalities, like
deal to invite russian army and referendum.
No matter what but all formalities were done
properly.

Finland

It was not annexed, although it could be. Why is that?
We just moved borders a bit further from Leningrad
and leased a few islands to protect Leningrad
from the sea. BTW these borders are internationally
accepted now including by UK.

and Poland

Polish state voluntarily seased to exist on Sept 16
when Polish goverment cowardly escaped to Rumania.
If not USSR germany would occupy that part of Poland.
So what choice Stalin had? However in 45 he (stalin)
voluntarily restored Polish state. why is that?


Mr. Halifax signed aggresive pact with Poland.

That caused Britain to declare war on Germany after
Germany invaded Poland

Hoping for Polish resitence. I can imagine their
degree of british surprise of speed of Polish
goverment escape from the battle field. But it was
alrady too late.


Both had secret protocols. Feel the difference.


Good advice, why don't you take it.

So Keith, you do not deny any more the very existence
of the secret protocol in Btitish international
practice dealing with aggressor states. Tell
me know why Stalin would have to behaive any
better than others did?

Michael

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...


But one thing, big war between all and USSR in 1939.
Hey Keith, what's was the british goal until sept 39.

Peace

Right?


Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
than voted on referendum to join USSR.

Michael if you really believe this you are beyond hope.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...


But one thing, big war between all and USSR in 1939.
Hey Keith, what's was the british goal until sept 39.

Peace

Tell this **** to somebody else. Agreement with Stalin in 38 -39
would 100% guarantee peace in europe, but brits prefered to
"pacify" Hitler causing millions of deaths.


Right?


Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
than voted on referendum to join USSR.

Michael if you really believe this you are beyond hope.

cheap demagogy. Whether you like it or not the aggrements and
the referendum are historical facts and it will stay forever.

Michael


Keith

Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
than voted on referendum to join USSR.

Michael if you really believe this you are beyond hope.

cheap demagogy. Whether you like it or not the aggrements and
the referendum are historical facts and it will stay forever.

For starters, I'd sure like to see the document where the Baltic
countries "officially invited" Stalin's Red Army to their terri-
tories. Wonder what the _heck_ would've they invite them for?

In reality though, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were
given flat out ultimatums with 48 hour timeframes for "partnership
treaties" to allow military bases with overpowering Soviet military
numbers, or be considered Russia's enemies, face war and be overrun
by Soviet forces in several times the manpower (not to mention hard-
ware) that was already stationed near their borders. Since the
Western allies were at war and quite busy themselves at this point,
and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (existance of which the Soviets
had denied well into the 1990ies, but the originals not to mention
official copies of which have been found) gave free hands by Hitler
to Stalin to do with Baltics/Finland as he wishes, there was no help
expected from Germany either.

So the governments of the Baltic states made the grave mistake
and accepted the terms of the ultimatums. Unfortunately, by at-
tempting to avoid war and save lives by choosing not to attempt
military resistance (they did *not* consult with their nations
nor even considered military resistance against enemy 100 times their
size), they actually settled the grounds of the 50-year old
occupation that followed, and allowed people with misconceptions
such as yours to even exist. Fortunately, Finland (who received
the ultimatum last) witnessed the fate of the Baltic states and
knew better -- they refused, and as a result, indeed faced their
bloody Winter War, but instead of being turned into the Finnish
SSR they were able to keep their independence despite losing some
of their territory in the end.

In the Baltics, after a few months (in 1940) the Soviet government
quoted some BS as grounds for "breaking" the "partnership treaties",
demanded _unlimited_ number troops to be stationed in the countries
(in case with Estonia, 90,000 vs 15,000 of Estonia's own army),
and flat out demanded for new, "Soviet-friendly" government to be
installed, this time with just 8 hours to comply. Being surrounded
and outnumbered by enemy troops in their own country, they complied
again. Communist "revolutions" were staged (I loved a photo from
that day in Tallinn with a column of "revolutionaries" marching
up to the government buildings, which many newspapers printed..
after cropping away the Soviet tanks that lined the crowd from
both sides, that is), Stalinist-style "elections" were held for
the puppet government (with only Soviet-approved communists as
candidates), which in turn declared the countries Soviet Socialist
Republics and "pleaded" access to Soviet Union a few months later.

It's worth mentioning that despite all that stuff that took place
in the Baltics 1940 being unconstitutional, illegal under inter-
national law and with utmost clarity against the will of the
people.. there *never* were *any*, not even obviously fabricated
Communist-style, referendums neither about allowing Soviet bases in
the countries, nor about joining the Soviet Union. If you're
quoting Soviet history books, you might as well quote THOSE right.

"Michael Petukhov" wrote

cheap demagogy. Whether you like it or not the aggrements and
the referendum are historical facts and it will stay forever.


Sure. Just like you 'invite' a mugger to share the contents of your wallet.

Pete

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
that's all I wanted to say.


We take your promise seriously and expect it to be upheld without question.

pigdog wrote in message ...
Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
than voted on referendum to join USSR.

Michael if you really believe this you are beyond hope.

cheap demagogy. Whether you like it or not the aggrements and
the referendum are historical facts and it will stay forever.

For starters, I'd sure like to see the document where the Baltic
countries "officially invited" Stalin's Red Army to their terri-
tories.

The official agreement was signed with soviet military bases
allowed in, period The text is not secret and can be found if
you want. Moreover I am sure you have seen that. am I right?

Wonder what the _heck_ would've they invite them for?

There could be many reasons. Poland and Germany for
instance had official territorial demands to Lithuania.
But three smalls had borders with three europen powerfull
military powers and they new that neutral status will
no be allowed. That's why I guess.


In reality though, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were
given flat out ultimatums with 48 hour timeframes for "partnership
treaties" to allow military bases with overpowering Soviet military
numbers, or be considered Russia's enemies, face war and be overrun
by Soviet forces in several times the manpower (not to mention hard-
ware) that was already stationed near their borders.

What ultimatums? They were politely offered a deal. And decided
they have better to sign it. That's all.

Since the
Western allies were at war and quite busy themselves at this point,
and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (existance of which the Soviets
had denied well into the 1990ies,

What? It was published immidetaly, without secret protocol certainly,
exactly because it was a secret protocol.

but the originals not to mention
official copies of which have been found)

Although no originals are found so far, and available
copies have marks of fake. Nerver mind, though. I ask you
what is so bad about this protocol? Two states
defined its respective "spheres of invluence" in a
very hypothetical case of political and economical
restructure of Poland state. That's all. Absolutely legal
and after all western states done toward USSR in 1938-39,
100% moral act towards those states and Poland.

gave free hands by Hitler
to Stalin to do with Baltics/Finland as he wishes, there was no help
expected from Germany either.

So what? Hitler was indepedent of USSR and as such had free hands.
It was not in Stalin power to forbid something to Hitler. Stalin
got a deal protecting (at that time) its own country and a few
neibouring countries of interest against German and Polish invasion.
100% legal, moral and necessary steps.


So the governments of the Baltic states made the grave mistake
and accepted the terms of the ultimatums.

So you admit they accepted terms. Good. What's the problem?

Unfortunately, by at-
tempting to avoid war and save lives by choosing not to attempt
military resistance (they did *not* consult with their nations
nor even considered military resistance against enemy 100 times their
size), they actually settled the grounds of the 50-year old
occupation that followed, and allowed people with misconceptions
such as yours to even exist.

Were Swedish rule over Baltics in 17 century and russian rule in
18 and 19 centuries an occupation as well? These three smalls
were always under someones occupation. It is their normal state
of business. They economically, politically and military
cannot be indepedent and the only thing they can do is to sell
themself to someone who pays more at any given moment. This
sort of business includes certain inconviniences like
occupations or even deportations.


Fortunately, Finland (who received
the ultimatum last) witnessed the fate of the Baltic states and
knew better -- they refused, and as a result, indeed faced their
bloody Winter War, but instead of being turned into the Finnish
SSR they were able to keep their independence despite losing some
of their territory in the end.

True to some extend. They did not accept and they fought
resulted in some sort of independence. BTW why do not
you ask yourslef why Stalin did not occupied Finland in
1944 and did not convert it into Finish SSR? He had all
means and excuses for that? After all Finland joint Hitler
in 1941. So why is that? What is your theory? As for me
I believe it was true Stalin's crime.


In the Baltics, after a few months (in 1940) the Soviet government
quoted some BS as grounds for "breaking" the "partnership treaties",
demanded _unlimited_ number troops to be stationed in the countries
(in case with Estonia, 90,000 vs 15,000 of Estonia's own army),
and flat out demanded for new, "Soviet-friendly" government to be
installed, this time with just 8 hours to comply. Being surrounded
and outnumbered by enemy troops in their own country, they complied
again. Communist "revolutions" were staged (I loved a photo from
that day in Tallinn with a column of "revolutionaries" marching
up to the government buildings, which many newspapers printed..
after cropping away the Soviet tanks that lined the crowd from
both sides, that is), Stalinist-style "elections" were held for
the puppet government (with only Soviet-approved communists as
candidates), which in turn declared the countries Soviet Socialist
Republics and "pleaded" access to Soviet Union a few months later.

OK? What fraction of population came and vote for that?
How do you know that majority did not want exactly that?
Oh, I see those were Stalinist-style "elections". So
if it was British-styled "election" there would an opposite
result. Is that what do you really mean?


It's worth mentioning that despite all that stuff that took place
in the Baltics 1940 being unconstitutional, illegal under inter-
national law and with utmost clarity against the will of the
people.. there *never* were *any*, not even obviously fabricated
Communist-style, referendums neither about allowing Soviet bases in
the countries, nor about joining the Soviet Union. If you're
quoting Soviet history books, you might as well quote THOSE right.

Well baltic countries separation from USSR was also unconstitutional.
Before that was unconstitutional 1917, Swedes also believed that
Baltics was their integral crown lands just before Poltava battle
before that there were poles, russians, germans and one god
knows who else. So what?

Tell us the true. You simply hate only russians and therefore
whatsoever they did wrongly or correctly is unconstitutional
and illegal. Am I right?

Michael