http://russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-09-01/poland-destruction-ussr-ww2.html


Russias Foreign Intelligence Service has published documents revealing the pre-WWII Polish leaderships plans for the partition and subsequent annihilation of the Soviet Union, informs RIA Novosti news agency.


The secrets of Polish policies, 1939-1945 was collected in archives by the General-Mayor of Russias Foreign Intelligence Service Lev Sotskov. The collector insists that the set of declassified documents is much more informative than the Polish leadership has at its disposal.

Soviet intelligence had a brilliant network in Europe before the Second World War and managed to obtain top-secret documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry and Polish Joint Staff.

Read more

Lev Sotskov says that the declassified documents contain incontestable evidence of aggressive plans by the Polish leadership before the WWII.

These declassified documents testify that the Polish Joint Staff created a special subdivision to work with minor nationalities on the territory of the Soviet Union, shared Sotskov.

The main task of the project was the destabilization of the situation in USSRs Ukraine, Caucasus and Volga region to spark separatist movements.

To do so, Polish secret services created the Prometey organization, financed by Warsaw and with headquarters in Paris, told Sotskov.

He also supposed that similar documents could be in the possession of the US or UK because after the invasion Germany seized Polish archives and later on they could be taken by the ally forces in Europe and brought overseas.

All the documents, almost 400 pages worth, are being published for the first time, said the general. Among them include documents on: Polish-British relations; Hermann Görings talks with the Polish leadership; Polish Joint Staff secret documents on intelligence against Soviet Union; and documents of Polish diplomatic missions in Europe.

Lev Sotskov believes that the reason for the falsification of history on the state level in Poland has direct connections with his belief that Poland helped Nazi Germany to start WWII.

They mean to put the blame of untying the war on the Soviet Union and equate it with Nazi Germany.

General Sotskov considers that ambitions of the Polish leadership in 1930s and its cooperation with the Hitler government became fatal for Polish state.

It was Warsaw who categorically rejected the very idea of creating an anti-Hitler front in 1939, but this decision was not spontaneous and Poland was following the same tracks for years.

During his visit to Poland in 1937 Hermann Göring and Polish Marshal Edward Rydz-migy agreed that it was not just Bolsheviks who are dangerous, but Russia itself as a state. The same year the Polish Joint Staff issued directive 2304/2/37, which proclaimed the elimination of any Russian state as a final aim of Polish policies. Separatism was named as the instrument to attain this.

Elimination of the Polish sovereign state is the result of short-sighted policies of Polands politicians, said Sotskov. We could have put Germany between two fronts as the Triple Entente did during WWI.

Even the Polish army of Wladislaw Anders, which was created on Soviet territory, followed instructions of the Polish government in exile in London and was collecting intelligence against the Soviet Union for the needs of a future uprising in Poland and creating intelligence cover for full-scale intelligence work after the war.

---

FAAKHER E CHAAMB

Yeah, I'm sure the Soviets were trembling in their boots at Poland dismantling the Soviet Union whilst also signing the Mototov-Ribbentrop pact. Poland was surly the blame for the war.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Poland had its share of nasty deeds, and most importantly they had a lot of ambition to gain new territory prior to WW2. Whether they could accomplish that is largely irrelevant, the thought was there.

--------------------------------------------

well poland was a mighty power in middle ages. they were the one who had checked the growth of turks in europe.

SURRENDER OF PAKI ARMY IN 1971
1N 1971 A NEW HISTORY AS WELL AS A NEW NATION WAS CREATED BY WE THE INDIANS..

It's like Vietnam threating to wipe out China...

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

Poland had its share of nasty deeds, and most importantly they had a lot of ambition to gain new territory prior to WW2. Whether they could accomplish that is largely irrelevant, the thought was there.

Indeed, it went about reforming the Commonwealth the wrong way, it is a shame. However, being aggressive was forced onto Poland, being stuck between the at the time crumbling Russian Empire and later Soviets and a stagnant German Empire then Nazi Germany, you'd be forgiven.

Also, if the Poles were serious about harming Russia, they would have thrown full support behind the White Russians against the Bolsheviks, though in reality, they didn't and got attacked for it. A dying Russian Empire would have been better for Poland then a resurgent Russia under a new banner.

Lev Sotskov believes that the reason for the falsification of history on the state level in Poland has direct connections with his belief that Poland helped Nazi Germany to start WWII.

Its that line that is just a laugh. Russians always try and limit their part in starting the World War because they were the 'hero' of everyone.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Poles were serious about doing as much as they could to bring Russia down, but during the Russian civil war they were too disorganized to do much harm. Their violent rhetoric and planning against the USSR was the primary cause behind what happened at Katyn.

--------------------------------------------

Poles were serious about doing as much as they could to bring Russia down, but during the Russian civil war they were too disorganized to do much harm. Their violent rhetoric and planning against the USSR was the primary cause behind what happened at Katyn.

That is not a justification for cowardly killing thousand of surrended men with a Tokarev in the neck.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

The Polish officers killed at Katyn would almost certainly have founded an insurgency against the Soviet army. Strategically and tactically it was the right move to make. These were the elites of the Polish army and their liquidation broke the back of the insurgency before it even started. Morals and ethics are for peace time.

In 1920 the Poles had no problem summarily executing captured Bolshevik officers.

We should have liquidated every Chechen male who served as an NCO or officer in the Soviet army back in 1994 too, it would have saved us a lot of losses later.

It saved the lives of Soviet soldiers and such is war.

--------------------------------------------

bingo.

Poles were serious about doing as much as they could to bring Russia down

Most likely, since Russian leadership as the cunning snakes they are didn't want a independent, resurgent Poland on their boarder, as shown by the offensive Soviet-Polish war. I doubt the Russians wanted that at all, after all, the repression faced by Poles was some of the worst, I doubt very much Poles wanted to be back under that yoke.

The Polish officers killed at Katyn would almost certainly have founded an insurgency against the Soviet army. Strategically and tactically it was the right move to make. These were the elites of the Polish army and their liquidation broke the back of the insurgency before it even started. Morals and ethics are for peace time.

In 1920 the Poles had no problem summarily executing captured Bolshevik officers.

Even in peace time the Soviets conducted immoral things. Soviets were Soviets, I don't the Russians for that fact.

In 1920, the Soviets imposed a war on the Poles and were executing soldiers they caught or sent them to labour camps. Having a reaction of executions is normal. Its a shame the Poles didn't have the manpower or strength to push on, the Soviets would have crumbled before they even began as the whole 'Union' would have erupted in rebellion. All ifs and buts now.

It saved the lives of Soviet soldiers and such is war

The Soviet leadership, other then Zhukov, didn't give two ****s about saving Soviet soldiers lives.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Soviet leadership cared about winning a war and you cant win a war if you dont have the troops. What happened at Katyn was a strategic move and in turn it saved the lives of our soldiers. Those officers knew the risk when they started plotting against USSR.

--------------------------------------------

Soviet leadership cared about winning a war and you cant win a war if you dont have the troops.

Thats why they recruited more from the East. The problem was never manpower.

What happened at Katyn was a strategic move and in turn it saved the lives of our soldiers. Those officers knew the risk when they started plotting against USSR.

Once more the Soviets invaded first, then executed people who didn't even so much as raise a fist at the Soviets. Priests and University professors I doubt needed to be killed at all.

Soviets are Soviets, it was going to happen, like it or not. But defending the massacre of innocent people is just plain stupid. It would be like me defending the burning of Soviet villages by Nazi's.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Wrong. The so called priests and university professors constituted the leadership of the movement, who are you trying to fool? Nobody is denying that innocent people were caught in the slaughter which in itself is tragic, but we have to look at the overall aim of such actions.

When nazis burned villages in Belarus and Russia their primary goal was to exterminate an "inferior race", kids, women and elderly were all targeted when they posed NO threat to the advancing troops. What happened in Katyn was aimed as a strategic move first and foremost, designed to crack down on people who posed a real threat to Soviet troops. There were obviously innocent victims, some of whom were women and children, but they were not systematically targeted.

--------------------------------------------

I dont begrudge the Germans for killing commissars. That was the strategically correct card to play too. There are two ways to prevent an insurgency you either buy the loyalty of the elites in a country the way the Americans did in Iraq or you go the Russian way and you shoot the elites in the head. Either way, as long as the masses arent touched the war crime isnt evident to me. You dont deny that there would have been an insurgency had Katyn not occurred correct? Its taking preemption one step further. The logical end of the Bush doctrine if we are honest. The people killed were not neutral observes.

The Germans went to far when they started killing everyone be they male, female, young or old. Unlike Hitler, Stalin was never a baby killer. The USSR didn't burn any 8 year olds alive. This is why Russians can say we saved Europe with a straight face because we did.

"The Soviet leadership, other then Zhukov, didn't give two ****s about saving Soviet soldiers lives."

This is flatly incorrect and a common misconception arriving out of Cold War propaganda. Soviet infantry were the only infantry in WW2 to see any kind of wide scale use of body armor. Does that sound like an army that just throws men to their death? This BS grows out of the same stereotype that has people believing the Red Army only had 1 gun for every 2 soldiers and you had to wait for the soldier with the gun to die before you could get a rifle. The USSR produced more small arms than Germany and the US combined!

You can thank "enemy at the gates" for that bullsh1t, along with all the crap about fighting for Stalin.

--------------------------------------------

^^Call of Duty 2 as well.

I remember the stage you play as Russian conscript at Stalingrad you start with 0 weapons. LOL.

Poland who? Come on give them a break, does it look possible that Poland can destroy USSR? ROFLOL!!!! Those poor Polish ppl are lucky to be safe and alive, leave them that way.

@Russkies- What was the name of the sub-machine gun the Soviets made during WW2? Read a book wriiten by a Russian "Russian History in Tales" and in the photos of WW2 in the book every 4th or 5th Russian seemed to have been armed with the sub-machine gun (the one with the drum magazine).

Dont know about their tactics but i am sure manpower and firepower was never a problem for the red army. I mean have you seen pictures of their Katyusha barrage? Rows and long rows of trucks lined together and firing of their rockets, its like they were firing one rocket for one nazi soldier each, the pics i have seen look astounding.




colours of Kaziranga

Wrong. The so called priests and university professors constituted the leadership of the movement, who are you trying to fool? Nobody is denying that innocent people were caught in the slaughter which in itself is tragic, but we have to look at the overall aim of such actions.

What is wrong? They were priests and University professors along with army personnel. They were not soldiers. You can try and deny it all you want, they were innocent people, even if they had some aim to undermine an invading force.

The aim wasn't just to counter possible insurgency, but to kill off any sort of intelligent resistance to Soviet propagation. Basically, you wanted only dumb peasants you could mould and control easier like happened in all of Soviet Russia (most other States were just peasant states anyway).

When nazis burned villages in Belarus and Russia their primary goal was to exterminate an "inferior race", kids, women and elderly were all targeted when they posed NO threat to the advancing troops. What happened in Katyn was aimed as a strategic move first and foremost, designed to crack down on people who posed a real threat to Soviet troops. There were obviously innocent victims, some of whom were women and children, but they were not systematically targeted.

It was also strategic, to stop the Soviet insurgence from being able to get supplies and have support from the villagers. Don't fool yourself, these were aimed at real insurgence not some 'possible' insurgence that never even came to fruition.

I don't put them in the same boat as the Nazi's, who yes, had a larger agenda, but what they did wasn't even seen in Poland, it was a strategic move to counter the Partisan movement.

You dont deny that there would have been an insurgency had Katyn not occurred correct?

No, because the Germans back stabbed you quicker and the reality is the Soviets would have massacred far more people if it did happen. Also, the Soviets had the less populated side with only 1/3 of the Polish army, the rest evacuated to Romania or was caught at Warsaw or on the German side of the occupation.

This is why Russians can say we saved Europe with a straight face because we did.

The Soviets did save it, only to enslave half of it. I don't deny the Soviets defeated a greater threat, but the other outcome wasn't in the eyes of Poles or most other 'Eastern' Europeans, much better. Choosing the lesser of two evils if you will.

Soviet infantry were the only infantry in WW2 to see any kind of wide scale use of body armor. Does that sound like an army that just throws men to their death?

Wide scale is in comparison to the number of troops fielded which was about 3-1 in favour of the Soviets compared to Allied forces. It only came into effect around 1944, when resources allowed for it, till then, Soviet troops were badly resourced at best.

This BS grows out of the same stereotype that has people believing the Red Army only had 1 gun for every 2 soldiers and you had to wait for the soldier with the gun to die before you could get a rifle. The USSR produced more small arms than Germany and the US combined!

It was as much propagated by the Soviets as it was the West. The Soviets wanted the peasants to believe that heroism is what faced the Nazi's with one gun for 2, not masses of infantry well armed. It inspired more that way.

And the BS you claim isn't at all BS, the Soviets were completely caught off guard (actually Stalin was, the spy network knew the date, time and invasion points!) and there was a point where such a scenario existed. The BS is that it lasted for longer then a year.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

@ Free nation

The PPsh-41.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

I would add that by 1920 or 1939 every non-communist country in the world yearn for the end of USRR...

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

"What is wrong? They were priests and University professors along with army personnel. They were not soldiers. You can try and deny it all you want, they were innocent people, even if they had some aim to undermine an invading force."

The church was one of the leading proponents of a nationalist movement and they would assist the armed insurgency with any means necessary. They were the brains behind the operation, along with some of the so called "professors". Are you denying that?


"It was also strategic, to stop the Soviet insurgence from being able to get supplies and have support from the villagers. Don't fool yourself, these were aimed at real insurgence not some 'possible' insurgence that never even came to fruition."

There was no need to go after women and children if your aim was to put down a possible partisan uprising, therefore all of the above is nonsense.

"It was as much propagated by the Soviets as it was the West. The Soviets wanted the peasants to believe that heroism is what faced the Nazi's with one gun for 2, not masses of infantry well armed. It inspired more that way."

Soviets did glorify acts of self sacrifice, but the above again is nonsense.

"And the BS you claim isn't at all BS, the Soviets were completely caught off guard (actually Stalin was, the spy network knew the date, time and invasion points!) and there was a point where such a scenario existed. The BS is that it lasted for longer then a year."

Stalin knew that an attack was coming, fortification in the East started poping up all the way back in '39. You could also look at a sharp spike in armor production a year prior to launch of Barbarossa.

--------------------------------------------

The church was one of the leading proponents of a nationalist movement and they would assist the armed insurgency with any means necessary. They were the brains behind the operation, along with some of the so called "professors". Are you denying that?

Basically, you are saying anyone could have been a target if they looked like they would support an insurgence.

There was no need to go after women and children if your aim was to put down a possible partisan uprising, therefore all of the above is nonsense.

Says the pot to the kettle. They demolished entire villages, women can also assist insurgence, your above logic just made them war targets. As for the children, there is no excuse, but as you put so bluntly in another thread, someone might need to teach you about war.

Soviets did glorify acts of self sacrifice, but the above again is nonsense.

So you deny the propaganda posters that glorify the soldiers running to their deaths with nothing but a pitch fork or knife? The hell is with your selective mentality?

Stalin knew that an attack was coming, fortification in the East started poping up all the way back in '39. You could also look at a sharp spike in armor production a year prior to launch of Barbarossa.

He did know because of the intelligence agents telling him, I just said that. He however, did nothing on the date he had in his office in a letter that told him the attack was coming, and so, entire Russia armies were taken prisoner or destroyed. As for the build up, compared to the Nazi's build up, it was rather slow.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."