If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|