• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putin accuses Poland of colluding with Hitler in the Second World War

Litwin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
33,607
Reaction score
5,193
Location
GDL/Sweden
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Forget Putin, just his thing to nonstop mislead. Much like his buddy Trump.
 
Who gives a ****?

Anciant history.
 
Poland is our main ally from the former Soviet Union. They love freedom much like Americans it's no wonder they love Trump.
 
lemmiwinx said:
Poland is our main ally from the former Soviet Union. They love freedom much like Americans it's no wonder they love Trump.
Click to expand...

who trump loves more Poles or cooperative ozero&KGB?
 
The media hated Reagan then as much as they hate Trump now.

 
lemmiwinx said:
The media hated Reagan then as much as they hate Trump now.

Click to expand...

Reagan was hero and great leader for the entire planet , and KGB hated hated him , why KGB loves trump?
 
Litwin said:
Reagan was hero and great leader for the entire planet , and KGB hated hated him , why KGB loves trump?
Click to expand...

The KGB is no more like the Berlin wall Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down. Try to keep up Trump loves everybody even Russians who cooperate and share information.
 
lemmiwinx said:
The KGB is no more like the Berlin wall Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down. Try to keep up Trump loves everybody even Russians who cooperate and share information.
Click to expand...

The Russian intel and police services are in love with Trump, while their predecessors hated Reagan.
 
The headline is misleading. The article does not claim Putin accused Poland of colluding with Hitler in WWII. So often headline writers who are subeditors, not the reporters, appear not to have understood articles and this is an example. Putin made two claims and they are probably both correct. Certainly the first one is where he said the English helped Hitler to carve up Czechoslovakia by handing him Böhmen und Mähren in exchange for his signature on Neville Chamberlain's paper. I guess you could call that a Germany-England Non-aggression Pact. When the Soviet Union agreed to let the Third Reich have western Poland was this not what the English had agreed to in Munchen? Of course it was. The English had as much right to give part of Czechoslovakia to Germany as the Soviets had to let Germany have half of Poland. Secondly, Putin says the Polish ambassador to the Third Reich, Józef Lipski, was a rabid anti-Semite. I well believe this as Poles were profoundly anti-Jewish before WWII. Many Jews who were escaping the Nazis even during the German occupation of Poland found little help from the local population who had moved into homes vacated by Jewish refugees. In some Polish villages whole populations of Jews were murdered by Poles during WWII. The Poles like to keep this a secret. The Russians moved into Poland and stopped the Germans from crossing the River Bug. No bullets were exchanged because of the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Then, in 1945, all of Poland came under the thumb of Moscow. The Soviets had a lot of information already about the Poles and they added more. If Putin accuses Lipski of being a Jew-hater he probably has information to confirm that, knowing that his word alone will not be trusted in Poland today or by members of the European Parliament who started this latest row. It so happens Putin has the document which proves Lipski was anti-Semitic and he did look like a fat pig as well. So, when Putin referred to Lipski as “That bastard! That anti-Semitic pig,” he has a point. And the document? Citing archival documents, Putin told defense officials Tuesday that Poland’s envoy to Nazi Germany had promised to build Hitler “a beautiful monument in Warsaw” if he expelled the country’s Jews to Africa. "Thank God, we have enough archival documents that we attained as trophies from the European countries after World War II", said Putin. "But that’s not all. What really hit me hard, I’m telling you honestly, was how Hitler and the official representatives of Poland discussed the so-called Jewish problem. Hitler told the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and later bluntly said to the Polish Ambassador to Germany that he had a plan to send the Jewish population to Africa, to the colonies. Imagine, in 1938, to expel Jews from Europe to Africa. Sending them to their extermination. To destruction. And here is what the Polish ambassador wrote to the Polish Foreign Minister, Mr Beck: When I heard this, he wrote, I responded (to Hitler, he means), that if this happens and this issue is resolved, we will build a beautiful monument to him (to Hitler) in Warsaw. That bastard! That anti-Semitic pig – I have no other words."
Defence Ministry Board meeting • President of Russia


Anti-Semitic pig Lipski
 
Last edited:
lemmiwinx said:
The KGB is no more like the Berlin wall Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down. Try to keep up Trump loves everybody even Russians who cooperate and share information.
Click to expand...
yes,
trump and KGB shares information with each other
nowadays, thats why CIA & FBI dont trust him
 

That is revisionism. Britain did not share in any territorial spoils with Hitler regarding the Austria/Sudetenland Anschluss.

Russia did share in territorial spoils with Hitler in the carving up of Poland.
 
Rogue Valley said:
That is revisionism. Britain did not share in any territorial spoils with Hitler regarding the Austria/Sudetenland Anschluss.

Russia did share in territorial spoils with Hitler in the carving up of Poland.
Click to expand...

How did I revise history? Did not the English and French agree to let Hitler have Böhmen und Mähren? Of course they did, just as the Soviet Union agreed to give western Poland to Germany. Now the European Parliament is claiming this is how the Soviet Union contributed to the outbreak of WWII. This is hypocrisy as the British and French can equally be regarded as causing WWII by appeasing Hitler. Nothing I wrote attempts to change historical fact.

Secondly, you are now claiming that English appeasement was different from the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement because the Soviets benefited from a land grab of eastern Poland as well as the Baltic states. You are referring to the protocol which was attached to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and was an agreement between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union regarding spheres of influence. The English did not seek such a sphere of influence nor did the French. This bears no significance on their forfeiting of Czechoslovakian territory to Hitler when it was not theirs to bargain away. The European Parliament is claiming that the surrender of western Poland by the Soviets was a contributing factor to WWII not the attached protocol concerning spheres of influence. You are muddying the argument by somehow referring to the protocol when this was not part of the EU parliament's argument. It is a different matter which does not impact on the Munchen appeasement nor change its essential cowardly treachery by the English and the French who had a treaty with the Czechs to defend their territorial sovereignty.
 
The USSR, France, and Britain all share the blame for failing to present a united front against Hitler in 1938.

But this is done with the benefit of hindsight. In 1938 the British and French had plenty of reason not to trust the USSR and vice versa.

And while inter-war Poland was not a paradise or a saint, it doesn't change the fact that it was ultimately Hitler who was the primary actor, and WWII doesn't happen without him.
 

Bear in mind that this topic was started because of a resolution by the European Union which accused the Soviet Union of contributing to the outbreak of WWII on account of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Putin rightly compared the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 1939 to the Munich Betrayal of 1938. He was correct to point out the hypocrisy of the European Parliament to accuse Russia without blaming the English and the French who did the same a year previously and which allowed the Germans to have a "sphere of influence" in the ethnic German area of Czechoslovakia, namely Böhmen und Mähren (Bohemia and Moravia).
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the 80th anniversary of the start of the Second World War and the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe

You are correct that hindsight provides a clearer understanding of history but the European Parliament got it wrong by omitting any reference to the western democracies also granting Hitler his wish to unite all German-speaking people into the Reich which was a prime cause of the war both in Czechoslovakia and Poland.
 

Attachments

  • xBM_Mi_083_084.jpg.pagespeed.ic.QGfETvotc5.webp
    14.7 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
Jean-s said:
How did I revise history? Did not the English and French agree to let Hitler have Böhmen und Mähren? Of course they did, just as the Soviet Union agreed to give western Poland to Germany.
Click to expand...

Comparing the Sudetenland to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pack is dishonest. Hitler was going to take that small parcel of land regardless of Britain and France.

The Berlin/Moscow mutual agreement to carve up of Poland and the Baltic States however is a totally different animal. Millions would perish as a result.
 

Unlike Stalin, the British and the French did not actively help assist the Wehrmacht in its build up and training. They certainly didn’t partition a neutral country with Hitler. They didn’t have their followers actively assist the Wehrmacht pretty much up until the minute Barbarossa hit either. There were still trains full of resources rolling westwards into German territory almost until the exact day of Barbarossa.

Without a free eastern flank Hitler’s plans would have been hindered substantially. The Soviets gave him that freedom.
 

What do you mean by "dishonest", I wonder. I cannot guess.

Fundamentally, the nature and consequence of the Munich Treason is similar to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact because both involved agreeing to allow Germany to take land which did not belong to the signers of the treaties. The English and French gave the Sudetenland which was part of Czechoslovakia to Germany and the Soviets gave western Poland to Germany. You say that Hitler would have taken it anyway, as if that mattered. He would have taken western Poland just the same since that was largely part of Germany until it was taken away in the Versailles Treaty. There was a large German-speaking population there and East Prussia was carved away from Germany including Danzig. What the Soviet Union did was put a limit to Third Reich expansion by demanding that they would occupy eastern Poland as well as the Baltic States which stopped Hitler taking them in 1939 thereby delaying the Nazi implementation of the Final Solution until the Soviet Union itself was invaded by Hitler. The French and English did not insist that Hitler only occupy the German-speaking Sudetenland but stood by while the rest of the Czech territory was added to the Reich as a Protectorate and allowed Slovakia to become a puppet state of the Reich. So, it can be argued that the Soviets acted as a break on German expansion at least for a couple of precious years. Russia suffered more than any other country at the hands of the Germans and it is particularly obscene to accuse them of starting the war against themselves. That European Union resolution is both insulting and bizarre.
 
Last edited:

Come come now. The appeasement of Hitler by the English and French a full year before the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact emboldened Hitler up to the day he moved into the former East Prussia (Danzig) and the rest of western Poland. If the English and French were willing to sacrifice Czechoslovakia to stay on good terms with the Germans, the Soviets cannot be held to a higher standard because they had a non-aggression treaty with the Germans. Naturally, countries not at war do trade.
 
Last edited:

Bullocks.

First, the European Parliament resolution(s) and days of remembrance have long pilloried the pact and the protocols as a cause of WWII. Most recently, the resolution of the EU parliament explicitly noted (edited excerpts from a very long resolution):


Cont...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…