Topic: 63 years since the uprising of 63 days

[head-case]

That's the Romanian tradition, too: US and England sold us (meaning the whole Central and Eastern Europe) to Stalin in exchange for him letting them alone.

Despite this, Romanians are today among the very few staunchly pro-US nations in Europe.

You're saying that the US should have started World War III by invading the Soviet Union in 1945?  If so, I think you may be posting from a mental hospital.

[Maciek]

you may be posting from a mental hospital.

Judging by your screen name you must have inside knowledge. Though if you knew anything at all about the subject you would be well aware of the fact that until very recently it was the mentally sane who were deposited in such institutions in Eastern Europe.

Your reply strikes me as thoughtless and uninformed. Were you aware, I wonder, of the fact that the Tehran Conference was held more than a year before WWII ended? What on earth could it then have to do with a possible WWIII? I also wonder if you are aware of the implication, present conspicuously in your post, that the USA and England lost WWII? And since you broached the subject, don't you think that it was cowardly of those two states to so eagerly sacrifice the life of millions of their "allies" for the questionable comfort of the many years of "Cold War" that were to ensue because of their, on the whole, rather inconsiderate decision...?

Ah, never mind... However, back on topic:

OK, I'm letting amazon be my guide.

I was going to recommend a book written by this guy's wife but it seems it either hasn't been translated or the English edition is very well camouflaged. So instead, the much thicker My Century by Aleksander Wat. Before the war he was a major futurist poet, and a communist. The book (which is a series of conversations led by Czeslaw Milosz) gives a detailed account of his unpleasant journey through various Soviet prisons. Frankly, Wat seems not to have been a very nice person. His diary (recently published over here) shows him to be terribly vain to the point of complete egomania. But this book is a very important testimonial and a surprisingly good read.




Another one on the Soviet subject, this time a report of one man's stay in the Gulag: Gustaw Herling's A World Apart. Gustaw Herling-Grudzinski was a major Polish 20th century writer (prose). The book has been criticized (and I agree with the criticism) for its apparent hypocrisy (evident in the ending scene): Herling tends to take a judgemental stance towards others but not himself. Yet it is a fascinating, detailed, often reflective account of life in a Soviet labour camp.




And finally, perhaps the most shocking book in Polish 20th century literature: Tadeusz Borowski's short stories. The author was a poet. His fictionalized accounts of life in Auschwitz are terrifying in their candid portrayal of human bestiality. As Borowski's stories reveal the author's general diagnosis of human culture, this is some of the most depressing literature ever written. Disillusioned with communism (to which he subscribed after the war) Borowski committed suicide in 1951.




Oh, please, one more! Zofia Nalkowska's Medallions, though much more reserved than the other books is no less shocking. Nalkowska was a master storyteller - one of the best traditional novelists of the interwar period. Even though ostensibly this is a book about concentration camps, Medallions is more about the world as it was after the war than the war itself. It was Nalkowska's attempt to give an account of the far reaching consequences of war in human society and in the psyche of individuals who lived through it and its terrible atrocities. Nalkowska gathered her material for this book while working at the Polish Committee for Investigating Nazi War Crimes - it was based on her experiences gained through conversations with both the victims and perpetrators of the concentration camp system.

[head-case]

Your reply strikes me as thoughtless and uninformed. Were you aware, I wonder, of the fact that the Tehran Conference was held more than a year before WWII ended? What on earth could it then have to do with a possible WWIII? I also wonder if you are aware of the implication, present conspicuously in your post, that the USA and England lost WWII? And since you broached the subject, don't you think that it was cowardly of those two states to so eagerly sacrifice the life of millions of their "allies" for the questionable comfort of the many years of "Cold War" that were to ensue because of their, on the whole, rather inconsiderate decision...?

Invading a country to prevent the country from essentially attacking its own citizens is not a viable motivation for war (unless, as in the recent conflict involving Serbia, the situation calls for a "turkey shoot" rather than a war).  Wars can only be sustained when you have to defend your own citizens from another country.  For the allies to defeat the Soviets at the end of WWII would have involved a bloodbath of epic proportions.   

[Maciek]

Invading a country to prevent the country from essentially attacking its own citizens is not a viable motivation for war  

Excuse me? "to prevent the country from essentially attacking its own citizens"?? Which country is that?!

And when did anyone over here mention invading the Soviet Union?

BTW, unlike the US, Britain entered into the war although it wasn't attacked.

[head-case]

Excuse me? "to prevent the country from essentially attacking its own citizens"?? Which country is that?!

And when did anyone over here mention invading the Soviet Union?

BTW, unlike the US, Britain entered into the war although it wasn't attacked.

If you are suggesting that the allies could have repelled the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe without starting an all-out war with the Soviet Union, I think the idea is absurd.  The Motivation for Soviet expansion into eastern Europe was to have a buffer between Russian and perceived hostile powers to the west and any interference would be interpreted by the Soviets as a provocation of war.

Britain entered the war when its its immediate allies were attacked by its historical enemy and it was obvious they were next.   The US also entered the war in Europe without any attack by Germany.

[PSmith08]

If you are suggesting that the allies could have repelled the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe without starting an all-out war with the Soviet Union, I think the idea is absurd.  The Motivation for Soviet expansion into eastern Europe was to have a buffer between Russian and perceived hostile powers to the west and any interference would be interpreted by the Soviets as a provocation of war.

Britain entered the war when its its immediate allies were attacked by its historical enemy and it was obvious they were next.   The US also entered the war in Europe without any attack by Germany.

Read up on the state of the Soviet military and government. Stalin, personally, almost lost the war in 1941 when he said that the Germans wouldn't attack in 1941. The Terror made it impossible for his subordinates to disagree, and it made it very hard to report the attacks while underway. Stalin, his Red Army political boss Lev Mekhlis, and the other politicians were such bunglers that they usually hurt things, rather than help. Kliment Voroshilov and Semyon Budyonny, the "personalities" were incompetent beyond belief - thinking military technology in 1918 to be sufficient for modern war. Zhukov and Koniev were, while wildly successful (and terribly brutal to all forces - USSR and German), beginning to be distrusted by Stalin for their prestige and popularity. He had himself promoted to generalissimo, in large part, to water down the marshals with a rank superior even to that. The Germans would have taken Moscow, if not for Lazar Kaganovich's Stakhanovite feat of moving the entire Far East army behind Moscow as reserves. Leningrad and Stalingrad are different stories, but with a few different turns of fate, those would have fallen, too. The Soviets were prepared to abandon Moscow, and Stalin kept everyone guessing until the last minute - a la Mikhail Kutuzov, when the Germans were at the door.

Stalin was no great military genius, he trusted antiques for advice, and terrorized everyone into keeping the Bolshevik, but not the right, line. A war with the Soviets would have been difficult, but hitting them in 1946 would have caught them just off-balance enough to make some major gains and force them to sue for peace. High officials like Vyacheslav Molotov would have been more than willing to listen, as would have - oddly enough - Beria.

[Maciek]

If you are suggesting that the allies could have repelled the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe without starting an all-out war with the Soviet Union, I think the idea is absurd.  The Motivation for Soviet expansion into eastern Europe was to have a buffer between Russian and perceived hostile powers to the west and any interference would be interpreted by the Soviets as a provocation of war.

Well, apparently we agree: it was an act of cowardice on the part of Churchill and Roosevelt. I'd say there's nothing more to discuss but, of course, there's always more to discuss...

Britain entered the war when its its immediate allies were attacked by its historical enemy and it was obvious they were next.   The US also entered the war in Europe without any attack by Germany.

I didn't mean to imply that the US was attacked by Germany. I meant the attack by Japan. The US declared war on Germany on December 11th 1941.

And it's something in this point that I mean to discuss further. You say that Britain entered the war when its immediate allies were attacked. I take it you count Poland among them. If Britain entered the war on account of its allies being attacked, why leave them out in the cold 5 years later? Obviously, allegiances had nothing to do with it. Neither Britain nor the US gave a damn about their allies. If you read a bit about Polish military contributions to World War II (here, I'll make it easy: follow this link), you will find out that, for instance, Polish troops took considerable part in what "Britain" achieved in, say, the Battle of Britain (where the all-Polish Squadron 303 had the highest number of kills of any Allied squadron). Now, isn't that a bit disingenuous? First, "use" your ally in battle, then don't give a fiddler's fart what happens to him...?

Another point, and definitely not a minor one, is that the costs of that decision were certainly far greater than Roosevelt and Churchill were pretending (before themselves?) they would be. We are still living in the aftermath of WWII - we wouldn't be so excited discussing it otherwise! And we could long have ceased to be in that situation. Economically and politically that decision had dreadful consequences. I can't imagine them ever being that bad had the "Allies" not backed out in Tehran and Yalta.

I find it a bit silly to deny the fact that what Churchill and Roosevelt did during those conferences was wrong, and contrary to popular opinion - NOT in their best interest.

Besides, leaving what happened after the war aside, what about the Warsaw Uprising? Do you seriously think there was a threat of war with Stalin if the Allies had assisted the insurgents? I don't think so. The fact is they were acting like sissies in negotiations with him because, apparently, he was an intimidating monster. But what sort of politics are those? Making decisions on account of fear?

There's a pretty good wikipedia article on this subject too: Western betrayal.

Now the interesting turn this discussion could take is if someone accused Poland of ruining it. No, not in the 1940s. Not even in the 1930s but during the signing of the Peace of Riga. Had Poles acted the way they ought to have acted, like true victors - Europe would have been completely different afterwards. As it happened, Russia came out of that war (which it lost, for crying out loud!) practically unharmed, its strength remained basically unchanged... Not being a professional historian I can't really back this claim properly but I suspect it's not completely irrational.

[Redbeard]

It was FDR who sold Europe to Stalin. At the end of
the war, FDR was THE boss, and WC a very secondary
partner. And that was done IMO for 2 reasons:
1) because FDR couldn't do anything at all to stop
the advance of the Red Army through Europe,and
2) because Japan was still in the war and Russia was
needed to fight them ( at least FDR thought so)

I definitely agree that it was FDR, and not WC that sold Eastern Europe to Stalin.  WC was under no illusions as to who/what Stalin and the Soviet Union were.  WC saw the alliance for what it was, a necessary evil to fight the Nazis.  FDR lived in a fantasy land when it came to the USSR, all of this encouraged by the pro Stalin reporter at the NY Times (Durranty) as well as the Soviet agents well placed in FDR's administration.

As to US ability to fight the Soviets, that is a much more difficult question.  Any answer here is purely speculative as to what the outcome would have been, but I've read that general Patton for one felt like it was worth doing.  Either way, FDR used his energy to hold WC back, not to challenge Stalin's expansion.  If he had tried it seems very likely FDR could have helped spare at least some of Eastern Europe.  FDR also took a fairly active role in ensuring that much of Asia fell under Stalin's domain.  He offered to let Stalin take the Japanese surrender in much of China and Korea if Stalin declared war on Japan before they surrendered.  Because of the spies leftover from FDRs administration, Stalin knew about Truman's plans to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Stalin declared war on Japan the day between the two bombings and thereby secured a large amount of territory and weapons for Mao in China, and his counterpart in N. Korea.

One more note on WC.  He gave his famous "Iron Curtain" speech in the US after FDR died and Truman was president.  Truman at this point still held FDR's favorable view of the Soviets and was so disturbed that WC would dare state the obvious that he withdrew an offer for a white house visit in retaliation.

[sidoze]

Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński, perhaps the finest Polish poet of the 20th century, died a soldier's death in the uprising on August 4th. He was only 23 years old but had already managed to produce poems of astounding depth, originality and beauty. It would impossible to imagine Polish 20th century literature without him.

As for musical losses, it might be worth pointing out that since the entire city was burned down, all of the manuscripts that were there perished. This includes the full text of Karol Szymanowski's only novel, a piece for piano and orchestra by Juliusz Zarębski, and countless other priceless compositions.

Thank you. I'm interested enough to follow this up, and there's a translated collection called White Magic and other poems. I admire Czeslaw Milosz very much (though I prefer to think of him as Lithuanian, as their culture needs him more than yours does ).

[Redbeard]

I didn't mean to imply that the US was attacked by Germany. I meant the attack by Japan. The US declared war on Germany on December 11th 1941.

I had to double check this, but Germany declared war on the US on that day not the other way around. 

BTW, great thread!  I've learned a great deal from your posts.  This topic isn't really covered in US schools or most history books.  I think this is because of FDR's position in American political history, as well as the galvanization that happened in American opinion following Senator McCarthy's disgrace.  Probably 99% of all historians tilt strongly to the left, and in the US that means FDR is off limits for even mild criticism.  As a result we've been told a sort of fable about FDR, much of which is incredibly simplified and doesn't square with the facts.  Beyond FDR, anyone who points out the evils of Stalin or his allies runs a great risk of being labled a "red baiter", with further discussion likely to be shouted down. 

[Redbeard]

I find it a bit silly to deny the fact that what Churchill and Roosevelt did during those conferences was wrong, and contrary to popular opinion - NOT in their best interest.

Besides, leaving what happened after the war aside, what about the Warsaw Uprising? Do you seriously think there was a threat of war with Stalin if the Allies had assisted the insurgents? I don't think so. The fact is they were acting like sissies in negotiations with him because, apparently, he was an intimidating monster. But what sort of politics are those? Making decisions on account of fear?

There's a pretty good wikipedia article on this subject too: Western betrayal.

I only skimmed through the article on the link, but the lumping together of WC and FDR really surprises me.  I've read from many different sources that this was one of the greatest sources of friction between WC and FDR (the other was the postwar fate of British Empire).  I can't recall the specifics, but wouldn't Greece have been part of the Soviet Bloc if WC hadn't intervened against the wishes of FDR (and of course Stalin)?  I don't have a lot of time to research this now, but I did find a line in Wiki's section on WC that I found especially relevant to the discussion:

Churchill opposed the effective annexation of Poland by the Soviet Union and wrote bitterly about it in his books, but he was unable to prevent it at the conferences.

[PSmith08]

I only skimmed through the article on the link, but the lumping together of WC and FDR really surprises me.  I've read from many different sources that this was one of the greatest sources of friction between WC and FDR (the other was the postwar fate of British Empire).  I can't recall the specifics, but wouldn't Greece have been part of the Soviet Bloc if WC hadn't intervened against the wishes of FDR (and of course Stalin)?  I don't have a lot of time to research this now, but I did find a line in Wiki's section on WC that I found especially relevant to the discussion:

FDR got on better with Stalin than did Churchill. Roosevelt thought, right or wrong, that he could charm Stalin into being an agreeable partner of the US and Great Britain. Stalin, for his part, played Roosevelt and Churchill off one another. Ultimately, though, Stalin was the big stick. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill could stop him from doing what he wanted. Stalin pretty well used his position to cut a cynical deal with Churchill deciding British and Soviet interests in various countries. To say Churchill fought Stalin's imperial expansion in eastern Europe is not quite forthright, if not an outright falsity. You also have to remember that the West had an idealized image of the Soviet Union, what with happy workers fighting fascism bravely. Men like Yezhov and Beria didn't have their crimes exposed until too late, and - even then - it was passed off as individual excess. The West knew that Stalin's Soviet Union was probably not the workers' paradise - but they didn't seem to know (intentionally or not) how gravely bad things were.

[Maciek]

Nothing substantial to add at this point, just wanted to thank you all for making this such an interesting discussion! Whatever the date the US declared war on Germany, I'm sure it must have been after Pearl Harbour, right? As for lumping WC and FDR - yeah, that probably wasn't very subtle of me (wherever the truth about WC's attitude lies), sorry.

I admire Czeslaw Milosz very much (though I prefer to think of him as Lithuanian, as their culture needs him more than yours does ).

Why on earth would Lithuanian culture need a Polish poet writing in Polish? They've got enough great poets themselves. (Did Milosz even know how to speak Lithuanian??)

Since we're speaking of politics and communism a lot on this thread, I might as well mention that Milosz is not universally admired over here. Many think that his political history was, er, "suspicious" to say the least - especially if one takes into account the judgemental stance he often took towards others in his essays and poetry.

[sidoze]

Why on earth would Lithuanian culture need a Polish poet writing in Polish? They've got enough great poets themselves. (Did Milosz even know how to speak Lithuanian??)

I don't think he knew how to speak Lithuanian, but like Mickiewicz he clearly laid out his sympathy for and connection with the old Grand Duchy, which is partly what I meant. I was also just joking around about his place of birth, like Mickiewicz, whom some Belarusians claim as their own. I'm surprised you'd respond so indignantly.

Anyway, I have been to Lithuania (Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipeda), and I came away with a large colleciton of Lithuanian verse. I'd be interested for you to tell me the names of all their great poets so I can see what I missed at the time.

[Maciek]

Did I come across as indignant? I meant to be playfully surprised, sorry...

Of the poets alive today Vytautas Bložė and Tomas Venclova are probably the best. But they have lots of very good poets, many of them much younger than these two.

[sidoze]

That's okay, I just wasn't sure what was going on for a moment. I wasn't entirely clear in my meaning anyway so it's understandable of course. Incidentally I've also bought the Borowski colleciton you mentioned above. I heard about it several years ago--back in the good old days--but for one reason or another didn't read it then. While at Amazon I also bought Shalamov's Kolyma Tales which I've wanted to read for a long while now. Add rereading Isaac Babel to the list and soon I'll be heading to the doctor for my first xanax prescription

[Maciek]

 


(Actually, I should have added Shalamov to my list. That's another very interesting book on the subject!)

[Redbeard]

FDR got on better with Stalin than did Churchill. Roosevelt thought, right or wrong, that he could charm Stalin into being an agreeable partner of the US and Great Britain. Stalin, for his part, played Roosevelt and Churchill off one another. Ultimately, though, Stalin was the big stick. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill could stop him from doing what he wanted. Stalin pretty well used his position to cut a cynical deal with Churchill deciding British and Soviet interests in various countries. To say Churchill fought Stalin's imperial expansion in eastern Europe is not quite forthright, if not an outright falsity. You also have to remember that the West had an idealized image of the Soviet Union, what with happy workers fighting fascism bravely. Men like Yezhov and Beria didn't have their crimes exposed until too late, and - even then - it was passed off as individual excess. The West knew that Stalin's Soviet Union was probably not the workers' paradise - but they didn't seem to know (intentionally or not) how gravely bad things were.

What you say about FDR is correct from everything I have read, but not so for Churchill.  He was very much against the Soviet Union from it's creation, and was instrumental in Britain's unsuccessful military attempt to overthrow it in the outset (see quote below).  He only believed in an alliance with the Soviets after they went to war with Germany.  It is actually quite uncanny how right Churchill was, especially given how alone he was at the time of his opinions.  Everything he wrote, said, and did is consistent with him being staunchly against the USSR from creation to WW II, then an uneasy ally out of necessity during the war, and after the war he went back to warning about the dangers of Soviet Russia.

I know Wiki isn't the best source, but it is an easy way to cut/paste and link and I've read the same in multiple history books as well:

in July 1917, Churchill was appointed Minister of Munitions, and in January 1919, Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air. He was the main architect of the Ten Year Rule, but the major preoccupation of his tenure in the War Office was the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Churchill was a staunch advocate of foreign intervention, declaring that Bolshevism must be "strangled in its cradle".[22] He secured, from a divided and loosely organised Cabinet, intensification and prolongation of the British involvement beyond the wishes of any major group in Parliament or the nation — and in the face of the bitter hostility of Labour. In 1920, after the last British forces had been withdrawn, Churchill was instrumental in having arms sent to the Poles when they invaded Ukraine.

And a famous quote on why he favored alliance with Stalin once Germany and the USSR were at war:

"If Hitler were to invade Hell, I should find occasion to make a favourable preference to the Devil,"

FDR and many others certainly had an idealized vision of Stalin as you say.  But the same was anything but true for Winston Churchill.

[Redbeard]

Nothing substantial to add at this point, just wanted to thank you all for making this such an interesting discussion! Whatever the date the US declared war on Germany, I'm sure it must have been after Pearl Harbour, right? As for lumping WC and FDR - yeah, that probably wasn't very subtle of me (wherever the truth about WC's attitude lies), sorry.

Sorry if I was unclear.  You had the date correct, but it was Germany who declared war on the US.  It is an easy (and common) mistake, because the US would likely have declared war on Germany anyway.  Hitler had promised this to Japan before Pearl Harbor as part of their alliance, and in doing so spared FDR the trouble of convincing congress to open a second front (a tough sell!).  For what it is worth, this is one area where FDR certainly got things right.  If the US hadn't entered the theater in Europe from the beginning and made it a priority over the Pacific like FDR did, things could have been much worse. 

I would suggest you dig a little deeper into WC as I think you will be surprised.  At any rate, as you said an interesting discussion! 

[bwv 1080]

  For what it is worth, this is one area where FDR certainly got things right.  If the US hadn't entered the theater in Europe from the beginning and made it a priority over the Pacific like FDR did, things could have been much worse. 

Aside from Lend Lease and the strategic bombing campaign (which would have likely occurred if the US had not made Europe a priority) US prioritizing the European theater did little to effect the eventual outcome.  The Soviets defeated Nazi Germany, not the Western Allies.  The western front was a secondary aspect of the war in Europe.