Russians did not kill Poles in Katyn

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


what do you mean collusion?

Look the word up in a dictionary Michael

And what the actual basis to believe
that is right interpretation of the actual history.


The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
specifcally the secret protocols

So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
against which it is directed and what to do if there will
be need to change that "europen state" to another
"european state". It is defensive pact without secret
protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?


when this
was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
years ago.

Well it was admitted by state criminals, traitors and history
falcificators. Certainly you would not deny that if
documents found in a sealed package in the most secrete part
of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said it was, to national leader
eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can be pretty sure
that Gorby himself is involved in falcification of the history
and as such is state criminal and traitor, no matter what were
his or his subordinates real goals.


Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially found in the
GERMAN archives back in 1945

What traubles? I was talking about so called "Katyn documents"
which are found to be fakes. As for Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. All was done correctly
properly and in time. I see absolutely no traubles for us with
all that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

and the truth came out
during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck German Governor
of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet Union the Gauss
affidavit was entered into evidence. This was an account of the
contents of the documents which was drafted from memory by
Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the Nazi Foreign Office,
who drew up the non-aggression treaty between the Reich and
the Soviet Union.

Exactly this was non-aggresive treaty on 23.09.39 and later on.


He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop and
Stalin at which the agreement to carve up Poland was made.
All this came out 40 years before Gorby came to power.

So what but he was present at the meeting?

Keith I do not quite understand you. what you want to prove?

Michael


Keith

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


what do you mean collusion?

Look the word up in a dictionary Michael

And what the actual basis to believe
that is right interpretation of the actual history.


The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
specifcally the secret protocols

So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
against which it is directed and what to do if there will
be need to change that "europen state" to another
"european state". It is defensive pact without secret
protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?


when this
was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
years ago.

Well it was admitted by state criminals, traitors and history
falcificators. Certainly you would not deny that if
documents found in a sealed package in the most secrete part
of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said it was, to national leader
eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can be pretty sure
that Gorby himself is involved in falcification of the history
and as such is state criminal and traitor, no matter what were
his or his subordinates real goals.


Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially found in the
GERMAN archives back in 1945

What traubles? I was talking about so called "Katyn documents"
which are found to be fakes. As for Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. All was done correctly
properly and in time. I see absolutely no traubles for us with
all that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

and the truth came out
during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck German Governor
of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet Union the Gauss
affidavit was entered into evidence. This was an account of the
contents of the documents which was drafted from memory by
Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the Nazi Foreign Office,
who drew up the non-aggression treaty between the Reich and
the Soviet Union.

Exactly this was non-aggresive treaty on 23.09.39 and later on.


He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop and
Stalin at which the agreement to carve up Poland was made.
All this came out 40 years before Gorby came to power.

So what but he was present at the meeting?

Keith I do not quite understand you. what you want to prove?

Michael


Keith

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


what do you mean collusion?

Look the word up in a dictionary Michael

And what the actual basis to believe
that is right interpretation of the actual history.


The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
specifcally the secret protocols

So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
against which it is directed and what to do if there will
be need to change that "europen state" to another
"european state". It is defensive pact without secret
protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?


Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish mutual assistance treaty
of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and RACZYNSKI
and was far from secret. In fact the British PM wrote to Hitler on the
28th August specifically to inform him of its content so that there
would be no confusion, he then went on to make a public speech
in the house of commons about the subject. There was no doubt at
the time in anyones mind about the British position.

The Secret Protocol of the German Soviet agreement on
the other hand were definitely NOT well known at the time
and the Soviets were extremely upset when news of it
was released in 1946.



when this
was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
years ago.

Well it was admitted by state criminals, traitors and history
falcificators. Certainly you would not deny that if
documents found in a sealed package in the most secrete part
of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said it was, to national leader
eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can be pretty sure
that Gorby himself is involved in falcification of the history
and as such is state criminal and traitor, no matter what were
his or his subordinates real goals.


Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially found in the
GERMAN archives back in 1945

What traubles? I was talking about so called "Katyn documents"
which are found to be fakes. As for Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. All was done correctly
properly and in time. I see absolutely no traubles for us with
all that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

and the truth came out
during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck German Governor
of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet Union the Gauss
affidavit was entered into evidence. This was an account of the
contents of the documents which was drafted from memory by
Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the Nazi Foreign Office,
who drew up the non-aggression treaty between the Reich and
the Soviet Union.

Exactly this was non-aggresive treaty on 23.09.39 and later on.


He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop and
Stalin at which the agreement to carve up Poland was made.
All this came out 40 years before Gorby came to power.

So what but he was present at the meeting?


Yes

Keith I do not quite understand you. what you want to prove?


That the Soviet Government colluded with the Nazis to carve up
Poland between them. The Polish officer corps represented a
possible threat to Soviet hegemony and Stalin dealt with it
the same way he dealt with the officer corps of the Red Army in
1939, mass executions and deportations to Siberia.

Around 1 million Poles were sent to Soviet prison camps in
1940/41 and the Soviets forcibly imposed their own education
and governmental institutions in Eastern Poland. This was no
liberation, it was Empire building.

Keith

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


what do you mean collusion?

Look the word up in a dictionary Michael

And what the actual basis to believe
that is right interpretation of the actual history.


The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
specifcally the secret protocols

So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
against which it is directed and what to do if there will
be need to change that "europen state" to another
"european state". It is defensive pact without secret
protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?


Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish mutual assistance treaty
of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and RACZYNSKI
and was far from secret. In fact the British PM wrote to Hitler on the
28th August specifically to inform him of its content so that there
would be no confusion, he then went on to make a public speech
in the house of commons about the subject. There was no doubt at
the time in anyones mind about the British position.

Existence of Secret Protocols for HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact is
secret perhaps only for you, Keith. Anyone else can read the
pact and its secret protocol in many places including:

http://2ndww.tripod.com/Germany/390825.html
http://history.dodnetwork.com/index.....php&art_id=90

it says:

"...SECRET PROTOCOL

The Polish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom and
Northern Ireland are agreed upon the following interpretation of the
Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and
binding.

1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement
is to be understood Germany.
(b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the
Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting
Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

-----------------
My comment:

So not only Germany, Keith? And who else?

Article 2 of the HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact says that:

(1) The provisions of Article 1 will also apply in the event of any
action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or
indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and
was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to
resist it with its armed forces.

How do you like this ANY ACTION, Keith?

(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.
------------------

2. (a) The two Governments will from time to time determine by mutual
agreement the hypothetical cases of action by Germany coming within
the ambit of Article 2 of the Agreement.
(b) Until such time as the two Governments have agreed to modify the
following provisions of this paragraph, they will consider: that the
case contemplated by paragraph (1) of the Article 2 of the Agreement
is that of the Free City of Danzig; and that the cases contemplated by
paragraph (2) of Article 2 are Belgium, Holland, Lithuania.
(c) Latvia and Estonia shall be regarded by the two Governments as
included in the list of countries contemplated by paragraph (2) of
Article 2 from the moment that an undertaking of mutual assistance
between the United Kingdom and a third State covering those two
countries enters into force.
(d) As regards Roumania, the Government of the United Kingdom refers
to the guarantee which it has given to that country; and the Polish
Government refers to the reciprocial undertakings of the
Roumano-Polish alliance which Poland has never regarded as
incompatible with her traditional friendship for Hungary.
3. The undertakings mentioned in Article 6 of the Agreement, should
they be entered into by one of the Contracting Parties with a third
State, would of necessity be so framed that their execution should at
no time prejudice either the sovereignty or territorial inviolability
of the other Contracting Party.
4. The present protocol constitutes an integral part of the Agreement
signed this day, the scope of which it does not exceed.
In faith whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed
the present Protocol.
Done in English in duplicate, at London, the 25th August 1939. A
Polish text shall subsequently be agreed upon between the Contracting
Parties and both texts will then be authentic. "

So was the text of that Secret Protocol made public in august 1939?
You could know better history of your own country, Keith.




The Secret Protocol of the German Soviet agreement on
the other hand were definitely NOT well known at the time
and the Soviets were extremely upset when news of it
was released in 1946.



when this
was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments MANY
years ago.

Well it was admitted by state criminals, traitors and history
falcificators. Certainly you would not deny that if
documents found in a sealed package in the most secrete part
of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said it was, to national leader
eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can be pretty sure
that Gorby himself is involved in falcification of the history
and as such is state criminal and traitor, no matter what were
his or his subordinates real goals.


Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially found in the
GERMAN archives back in 1945

What traubles? I was talking about so called "Katyn documents"
which are found to be fakes. As for Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. All was done correctly
properly and in time. I see absolutely no traubles for us with
all that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

and the truth came out
during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck German Governor
of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet Union the Gauss
affidavit was entered into evidence. This was an account of the
contents of the documents which was drafted from memory by
Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the Nazi Foreign Office,
who drew up the non-aggression treaty between the Reich and
the Soviet Union.

Exactly this was non-aggresive treaty on 23.09.39 and later on.


He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop and
Stalin at which the agreement to carve up Poland was made.
All this came out 40 years before Gorby came to power.

So what but he was present at the meeting?


Yes

Keith I do not quite understand you. what you want to prove?


That the Soviet Government colluded with the Nazis to carve up
Poland between them.

How? documents do not say a word about carving up.
Actual history events also do not. After all Stalin restored
Poland although in a bit different borders. Why
he did not took it all? Who could stop him in 45?

The Polish officer corps represented a
possible threat to Soviet hegemony and Stalin dealt with it
the same way he dealt with the officer corps of the Red Army in
1939, mass executions and deportations to Siberia.

Note this is based on wrong assumption that Polish
officers were killed by NKVD. What if Germans did that?


Around 1 million Poles were sent to Soviet prison camps in
1940/41 and the Soviets forcibly imposed their own education
and governmental institutions in Eastern Poland. This was no
liberation, it was Empire building.

Keith you clearly do not like other Empire buildings.
British Empire building is Ok of course.

I see.

Michael


Keith

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


what do you mean collusion?

Look the word up in a dictionary Michael

And what the actual basis to believe
that is right interpretation of the actual history.


The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
specifcally the secret protocols

So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
against which it is directed and what to do if there will
be need to change that "europen state" to another
"european state". It is defensive pact without secret
protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?


Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish mutual assistance treaty
of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and RACZYNSKI
and was far from secret. In fact the British PM wrote to Hitler on the
28th August specifically to inform him of its content so that there
would be no confusion, he then went on to make a public speech
in the house of commons about the subject. There was no doubt at
the time in anyones mind about the British position.

Existence of Secret Protocols for HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact is
secret perhaps only for you, Keith. Anyone else can read the
pact and its secret protocol in many places including:

http://2ndww.tripod.com/Germany/390825.html
http://history.dodnetwork.com/index.....php&art_id=90

it says:

"...SECRET PROTOCOL

The Polish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom and
Northern Ireland are agreed upon the following interpretation of the
Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and
binding.

1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement
is to be understood Germany.
(b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the
Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting
Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

-----------------
My comment:

So not only Germany, Keith? And who else?


A European power perhaps

Article 2 of the HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact says that:

(1) The provisions of Article 1 will also apply in the event of any
action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or
indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and
was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to
resist it with its armed forces.

How do you like this ANY ACTION, Keith?


Its entirely consistent with the treaty.

(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'

Wow

Irony Mode Off

2. (a) The two Governments will from time to time determine by mutual
agreement the hypothetical cases of action by Germany coming within
the ambit of Article 2 of the Agreement.
(b) Until such time as the two Governments have agreed to modify the
following provisions of this paragraph, they will consider: that the
case contemplated by paragraph (1) of the Article 2 of the Agreement
is that of the Free City of Danzig; and that the cases contemplated by
paragraph (2) of Article 2 are Belgium, Holland, Lithuania.
(c) Latvia and Estonia shall be regarded by the two Governments as
included in the list of countries contemplated by paragraph (2) of
Article 2 from the moment that an undertaking of mutual assistance
between the United Kingdom and a third State covering those two
countries enters into force.
(d) As regards Roumania, the Government of the United Kingdom refers
to the guarantee which it has given to that country; and the Polish
Government refers to the reciprocial undertakings of the
Roumano-Polish alliance which Poland has never regarded as
incompatible with her traditional friendship for Hungary.
3. The undertakings mentioned in Article 6 of the Agreement, should
they be entered into by one of the Contracting Parties with a third
State, would of necessity be so framed that their execution should at
no time prejudice either the sovereignty or territorial inviolability
of the other Contracting Party.
4. The present protocol constitutes an integral part of the Agreement
signed this day, the scope of which it does not exceed.
In faith whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed
the present Protocol.
Done in English in duplicate, at London, the 25th August 1939. A
Polish text shall subsequently be agreed upon between the Contracting
Parties and both texts will then be authentic. "

So was the text of that Secret Protocol made public in august 1939?
You could know better history of your own country, Keith.


Which is essentially the same clarification of the treaty as was included
in Chamberlains letter to Hitler.

It was a Protocol to be sure but assuredly not a secret one
or are you suggesting Hitler didnt know the UK had offered
terrotorial gurantees to Poland



Keith I do not quite understand you. what you want to prove?


That the Soviet Government colluded with the Nazis to carve up
Poland between them.

How? documents do not say a word about carving up.

It uses diplomatic language (spheres of influence) for
the same thing. Note that the agrreements regarding
post war Germany also used similar language.

Actual history events also do not. After all Stalin restored
Poland although in a bit different borders.

Well now he was pressed rather hard on that matter at
Yalta and gain at Potsdam.

Why
he did not took it all? Who could stop him in 45?


He agreed to it long before 1945 and he was assuredly concerned
to get the Western Allies to demobilise, especially knowing
as he did through Klaus Fuchs and others just how close the
USA was to achieving nuclear weapons


The Polish officer corps represented a
possible threat to Soviet hegemony and Stalin dealt with it
the same way he dealt with the officer corps of the Red Army in
1939, mass executions and deportations to Siberia.

Note this is based on wrong assumption that Polish
officers were killed by NKVD. What if Germans did that?


The evidence of many sources including Soviet
and Russian governments suggests they did not


Around 1 million Poles were sent to Soviet prison camps in
1940/41 and the Soviets forcibly imposed their own education
and governmental institutions in Eastern Poland. This was no
liberation, it was Empire building.

Keith you clearly do not like other Empire buildings.
British Empire building is Ok of course.


No it was immoral.

I see.


I fear you dont.

Keith

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


what do you mean collusion?

Look the word up in a dictionary Michael

And what the actual basis to believe
that is right interpretation of the actual history.


The treaties signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939,
specifcally the secret protocols

So what? Standard practice for anyone. For istance
on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual assitance
with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact, which also
included a secret protocol defining who is "european state"
against which it is directed and what to do if there will
be need to change that "europen state" to another
"european state". It is defensive pact without secret
protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever heard about this?


Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish mutual assistance treaty
of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and RACZYNSKI
and was far from secret. In fact the British PM wrote to Hitler on the
28th August specifically to inform him of its content so that there
would be no confusion, he then went on to make a public speech
in the house of commons about the subject. There was no doubt at
the time in anyones mind about the British position.

Existence of Secret Protocols for HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact is
secret perhaps only for you, Keith. Anyone else can read the
pact and its secret protocol in many places including:

http://2ndww.tripod.com/Germany/390825.html
http://history.dodnetwork.com/index.....php&art_id=90

it says:

"...SECRET PROTOCOL

The Polish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom and
Northern Ireland are agreed upon the following interpretation of the
Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and
binding.

1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement
is to be understood Germany.
(b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the
Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting
Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

-----------------
My comment:

So not only Germany, Keith? And who else?


A European power perhaps

Article 2 of the HALIFAX-RACZYNSKI pact says that:

(1) The provisions of Article 1 will also apply in the event of any
action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or
indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and
was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to
resist it with its armed forces.

How do you like this ANY ACTION, Keith?


Its entirely consistent with the treaty.

(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".


Wow

Irony Mode Off

2. (a) The two Governments will from time to time determine by mutual
agreement the hypothetical cases of action by Germany coming within
the ambit of Article 2 of the Agreement.
(b) Until such time as the two Governments have agreed to modify the
following provisions of this paragraph, they will consider: that the
case contemplated by paragraph (1) of the Article 2 of the Agreement
is that of the Free City of Danzig; and that the cases contemplated by
paragraph (2) of Article 2 are Belgium, Holland, Lithuania.
(c) Latvia and Estonia shall be regarded by the two Governments as
included in the list of countries contemplated by paragraph (2) of
Article 2 from the moment that an undertaking of mutual assistance
between the United Kingdom and a third State covering those two
countries enters into force.
(d) As regards Roumania, the Government of the United Kingdom refers
to the guarantee which it has given to that country; and the Polish
Government refers to the reciprocial undertakings of the
Roumano-Polish alliance which Poland has never regarded as
incompatible with her traditional friendship for Hungary.
3. The undertakings mentioned in Article 6 of the Agreement, should
they be entered into by one of the Contracting Parties with a third
State, would of necessity be so framed that their execution should at
no time prejudice either the sovereignty or territorial inviolability
of the other Contracting Party.
4. The present protocol constitutes an integral part of the Agreement
signed this day, the scope of which it does not exceed.
In faith whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed
the present Protocol.
Done in English in duplicate, at London, the 25th August 1939. A
Polish text shall subsequently be agreed upon between the Contracting
Parties and both texts will then be authentic. "

So was the text of that Secret Protocol made public in august 1939?
You could know better history of your own country, Keith.


Which is essentially the same clarification of the treaty as was included
in Chamberlains letter to Hitler.

It was a Protocol to be sure but assuredly not a secret one
or are you suggesting Hitler didnt know the UK had offered
terrotorial gurantees to Poland

So Secret Protocol which was not "a secret one". Any other ideas like that?

Michael

"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.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

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


what do you mean collusion?

Look the word up in a dictionary Michael

And what the actual basis to believe
that is right interpretation of the actual
history.


The treaties signed between the USSR and
Nazi Germany in 1939,
specifcally the secret protocols

So what? Standard practice for anyone. For
istance
on 25.08.39 Britain signed agreement of mutual
assitance
with Poland, so called Galifax-Rachinsky pact,
which also
included a secret protocol defining who is
"european state"
against which it is directed and what to do
if there will
be need to change that "europen state" to
another
"european state". It is defensive pact without
secret
protocol and cab be aggresive with one. Ever
heard about this?


Nope cause it doesnt exist, the Anglo Polish
mutual assistance treaty
of 25th August 1939 was signed by HALIFAX and
RACZYNSKI
and was far from secret. In fact the British
PM wrote to Hitler on the
28th August specifically to inform him of its
content so that there
would be no confusion, he then went on to make
a public speech
in the house of commons about the subject. There
was no doubt at
the time in anyones mind about the British position.

The Secret Protocol of the German Soviet agreement
on
the other hand were definitely NOT well known
at the time
and the Soviets were extremely upset when news
of it
was released in 1946.



when this
was admitted by Soviet and Russian governments
MANY
years ago.

Well it was admitted by state criminals,
traitors and history
falcificators. Certainly you would not
deny that if
documents found in a sealed package in
the most secrete part
of Gorby archive allowed only, as he said
it was, to national leader
eyes, to be very row fakes, when we can
be pretty sure
that Gorby himself is involved in falcification
of the history
and as such is state criminal and traitor,
no matter what were
his or his subordinates real goals.


Trouble is Michael the treaties were initially
found in the
GERMAN archives back in 1945

What traubles? I was talking about so called
"Katyn documents"
which are found to be fakes. As for Molotov-Ribbentrop
pact
we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing.
All was done correctly
properly and in time. I see absolutely no
traubles for us with
all that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

and the truth came out
during the Nuremburg tial of Hans Franck
German Governor
of Poland. Despite the protests of the Soviet
Union the Gauss
affidavit was entered into evidence. This
was an account of the
contents of the documents which was drafted
from memory by
Dr. Wilhelm Gauss, legal adviser to the
Nazi Foreign Office,
who drew up the non-aggression treaty between
the Reich and
the Soviet Union.

Exactly this was non-aggresive treaty on 23.09.39
and later on.


He was present at the meeting between Ribbentrop
and
Stalin at which the agreement to carve up
Poland was made.
All this came out 40 years before Gorby
came to power.

So what but he was present at the meeting?


Yes

Keith I do not quite understand you. what
you want to prove?


That the Soviet Government colluded with the
Nazis to carve up
Poland between them. The Polish officer corps
represented a
possible threat to Soviet hegemony and Stalin
dealt with it
the same way he dealt with the officer corps
of the Red Army in
1939, mass executions and deportations to Siberia.

Around 1 million Poles were sent to Soviet prison
camps in
1940/41 and the Soviets forcibly imposed their
own education
and governmental institutions in Eastern Poland.
This was no
liberation, it was Empire building.

Keith




And guess who was in charge of Sovietizing Eastern Poland? One Nikita Sergeyiech
Khruschev.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"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.
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"? 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. 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.

Stalin signed a defensive pact with Hitler.
Mr. Halifax signed aggresive pact with Poland.
Both had secret protocols. Feel the difference.

Michael






Keith

"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

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.


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

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.

Stalin signed a defensive pact with Hitler.

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

Mr. Halifax signed aggresive pact with Poland.

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

Both had secret protocols. Feel the difference.


Good advice, why dont you take it.

Keith