Why Poland began to be appeased long before Yalta-45


As you know, nothing else unites as quickly as a common enemy. Almost immediately after the attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union, the Polish government in exile from the filing of British diplomacy went to restore relations with the USSR. Already on July 30, 1941, the well-known Maysky-Sikorsky treaty was signed, according to which the Soviet side exchanged ambassadors and recognized the treaties with the Germans on territorial changes in Poland as invalid.


The long road to freedom


However, the path from the abolition of the notorious "fourth partition" of Poland under the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact to real territorial increments for this country turned out to be very long. Nevertheless, the well-known decisions on the borders of Poland, adopted at the Yalta Conference of 1945, were prepared much earlier, and prepared on the basis of the political and military realities of that time.

Why Poland began to be appeased long before Yalta-45

The border issue again became relevant only in the spring of 1943, after a number of Polish politicians actually joined the dirty propaganda campaign unleashed by Goebbels’s department about the tragedy in Katyn. This, by definition, could not but hurt the Soviet leader I. Stalin, to whom many modern historians are ready to attribute nothing more than fears that "the true authorship of this crime may come out."

We will not understand here how justified such speculations are justified, as well as why and why in modern Russia it was decided to “confess”. But the stimulus itself was very strong. There is no doubt that the Soviet leadership was very sensitive to the appeal of the Polish ministers of defense and information from the London émigré cabinet, Sikorski and Stronsky, to the International Red Cross.

The Kremlin’s response was not only the formation of a powerful propaganda Union of Polish Patriots (SPP), led by writer Wanda Vasilevskaya. In addition to the SPP, almost the entire left-wing world press has angered the London Poles. But propaganda was by no means the main one, although Stalin even decided to personally support this campaign, having sent letters to Roosevelt and Churchill, written almost under a carbon copy.

The main thing, of course, was something else: the Soviet Union immediately sharply accelerated the formation of the Polish Army on its territory, which was actively presented not as an alternative to the Home Army, but as a kind of Polish replenishment on another front. As early as May 14, 1943, the legendary 1st Infantry Division of the Polish Army named after Tadeusz Kosciuszko began to form on Soviet territory.


To the American and British leaders all this was clearly explained in Stalinist terms by purely pragmatic reasons. The USSR, which had already suffered enormous losses in the war, could no longer afford the luxury of not involving hundreds of thousands of Poles in the country in the liberation of Europe.

Particularly emphasized was the fact that many of the Poles spent two years under German occupation, having a good idea of ​​what the Nazis did in their homeland. Naturally, they literally burned with a desire to avenge and fight for a free Poland. Someone, of course, would like to fight along with other allies, but after all, from Russia the path to Warsaw, Krakow and Gdansk was much shorter than from North Africa and even Italy.

And what will Comrade Churchill say?


The reaction of the Western allies was also quite pragmatic, although Churchill did not hide his surprise at Stalin's unexpectedly harsh stance. However, to begin with, he hastened to condemn the very idea of ​​investigating the events in Katyn under the auspices of the Red Cross, calling it in an interview with the Soviet ambassador Maisky “harmful and absurd,” which threatens the unity of the anti-Hitler coalition.

In a letter to Stalin, the British prime minister admitted that "such an investigation" (by the Red Cross. - AP), especially in the territory occupied by the Germans, "would be a fraud, and his conclusions would be obtained by intimidation." Following W. Churchill, the position of the Russians was unequivocally recognized by the president of the USA, F. D. Roosevelt, as well.

True, he made a reservation that he could not believe in the collaboration of the Prime Minister of the Polish "London" cabinet Vladislav Sikorsky with the "Hitler gangsters", but admitted that he "made a mistake by raising this particular question before the International Red Cross." Roosevelt immediately expressed the hope that the "London Poles" will be slightly adjusted by the brains of none other than Prime Minister Churchill.


Vladislav Sikorsky unsuccessfully demanded that Britain break off relations with the USSR

Nevertheless, the extraordinary aggravation of Soviet-Polish relations immediately became an occasion to recall the question of borders, which Churchill did not slow to pull. And again the old idea surfaced to draw a new Soviet-Polish border along the “Curzon line” (Find the answer to the British ultimatum!).

The English politician wisely wanted to simply blame the Poles themselves for further discussions on the return of the eastern territories to Poland. He seemed to have forgotten how England and France in 1939 literally overwhelmed Poland with promises to return to it from the Germans the original Polish lands, primarily the Poznan duchy. However, Poland fell, a “strange war” dragged on the western front, and the promises, as you know, remained promises until 1945.

It was unlikely that Churchill, firmly convinced of the strength of the positions of the "London Poles", could then have guessed which politicians would eventually come to power in Poland after the war. And he hardly believed that Stalin would not think much of breaking away from this longed-for line, but would initiate increments to Poland in almost all other directions.

Unlike the British prime minister, Anthony Eden of the United Kingdom, on the other hand, was convinced that it was Stalin who "needed the Curzon line, as well as the Baltic states," which he spoke about in an interview with Maisky on April 29. This, by the way, was already after the severance of Moscow’s relations with the Polish government in exile.

It seems that Eden, and by no means Churchill, understood well that the Russians were unlikely to put up with the presence of an openly hostile state on their western border. He wondered: “Or maybe Stalin is afraid that Poland might become a spear against Russia in the future?”

Obviously, a similar question arose in Churchill’s head, but he stubbornly continued to operate with momentary categories. And it is quite obvious that the unexpectedly “red Poland” became one of the main irritants that made him break out shortly after the war with the famous speech in Fulton.

Matchstick game


It is very characteristic that the question of the Polish border, and clearly in the English version, before and after the spring of 1943 was regularly discussed at all meetings of the Allies, but only those where there were no Soviet representatives. The Polish question was one of the key ones at the conferences in Moscow and Tehran, which took place shortly after the Russians divorced from the "London Poles."

The Moscow meeting of foreign ministers in October 1943 did not touch on the borders of Poland. The matter was limited only to the desire expressed by the People's Commissar Molotov for a government loyal to the USSR in Poland. But a month later, in Tehran, all three allied leaders repeatedly spoke about Poland, and Stalin and Churchill alone, but the famous decision with matches became the key to the decision, albeit a preliminary one.


Tehran 43. These were not only meetings and visits, but also spy hunting

At the second meeting of the heads of government on November 29, the British prime minister, taking three matches depicting Germany, Poland and the Soviet Union, elegantly moved them to the left - to the west, showing how the borders of the three countries should change. Churchill had no doubt that this would ensure the security of the western borders of the USSR. He always considered Poland as a buffer, although a rather strong state between two potential opponents.

A year later, in Dumbarton Oaks, or, in the English manner, Dumberton Oaks, a not too luxurious but roomy estate in Washington, turned into a library, American, English, Soviet, and Chinese experts were surprisingly friendly in preparing the creation of the UN instead of the incompetent League Nations. Nobody even remembered about Poland there, although, like in Moscow, the topic of the possible creation of a confederation in Eastern Europe and even a federation of small states actually surfaced.

And only in Yalta all the points on the "i" were practically placed. Apart from Poznan, not only most of East Prussia, this “aspen nest of German militarism”, but Silesia and Pomerania also got the Poles with Stalin’s light hand. Danzig regained the Polish name of Gdansk, Breslau with a 700-year-old German history became Wroclaw and even the crown Stettin, the birthplace of two Russian empresses at once, turned into a hard-to-pronounce Szczecin.

Then there was also the story of Lemberg returning under the wing of Russia, that is, Lvov, which, according to Churchill, was never part of Russia. There was, though not Russia, but also Kievan Rus. But Warsaw was definitely part of the Russian Empire, which Comrade Stalin drew the attention of Mr. Churchill to. And the Russian emperor bore the title of Tsar of Poland with the full consent of all the great European powers.

However, even starting with Alexander I, the Russian monarchs were not too eager to leave behind a "Polish bone in the Russian throat." Even Nicholas I wrote to Field Marshal Paskevich about strategic problems associated with the need and obligation to “own” the Polish crown. It was up to Alexander II the Liberator to crush another Polish “rebellion”.

His son, number III, who was far less inclined toward reform and democracy, was ready for order, counting on the future independence of the western neighbor, for tougher measures. A project was prepared for the accession to the throne of Nicholas II, which was supposed to cut off all the lands from the Polish provinces with mainly Ukrainian and Belarusian people. The project was completed only after the first Russian revolution.


Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov himself got involved in the world massacre not only for the freedom of Serbia and the capture of the straits, but also for the reconstruction of “integral Poland”. This was even said in a special “Appeal to the Poles”, which had to be signed by the Commander-in-Chief Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Uncle lee 17 February 2020 06: 04 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    With a light hand of Stalin
    do not do good, there will be no evil!
    1. tihonmarine 17 February 2020 06: 49 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      do not do good, there will be no evil!

      Yeah, a good person will not be happy.
      1. Olgovich 17 February 2020 10: 03 New
        • 11
        • 13
        -2
        Quote: tihonmarine
        Yeah, a good person will not be happy.

        Poland-eternal enemy and rival of Russia and strengthen it, why?!.

        And only in Yalta all the points on the "i" were practically placed. With the easy hand of Stalin, the Poles got, in addition to Poznan, not only most of East Prussia - this "wasp nest of German militarism", but also Silesia with Pomerania. Danzig regained the Polish name of Gdansk, Breslau with 700 years of German history became Wroclaw and even the crown Stettin, the birthplace of two Russian empresses at once, turned into a hard-to-pronounce Szczecin.


        Why reinforce ... the enemy? belay Even if today he is an ally, but you need to think not ten years in advance, but on centurywhich show that there is no more consistent and ever-present enemy than Poland.
        After all, there was a sensible proposal to divide Germany into a dozen weak states. Why create STRONG states where invasions have always come from?

        But even before Russia tried to live in peace with Poland, there was experience, but it ended up with the three powers having to share an aggressive neighbor. The experience is neglected.

        the rationale for the increment of Poland from the west by Stalin in Yalta, they say, for Russians, the question of Poland is ..... "a question of honor" belay and:
        A matter of honor because Russians in the past had many sins before Poland. Soviet government seeks to make amends for these sinand.

        So here it is: the Russians have sins, but the Poles have NO. I-gave the Poles hundreds of thousands of kilometers of German lands conquered by the USSR, as a result of which Poland became the most MAIN beneficiary of WWII — no one else received it. And this is exactly what remains to this day. and not the ephemeral "alliance", "brotherhood", which sunk into oblivion immediately, as they weakened the grip on Poland.
        author:
        Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov himself got involved
        into the world massacre not only for the freedom of Serbia and the capture of the straits
        an interesting document on Russia's decision to attack someone ("tying"). Government pre-war document on the capture of the straits.
        if they are not (and they are not). then why this lie?
        and about Serbia and the goals of the war, everything is clear and very different. set out in the Manifesto of the Emperor about the outbreak of war:
        Having despised the Serbian Government’s compliant and peaceful response, rejecting the benevolent mediation of Russia, Austria hastily embarked on an armed attack, opening the bombardment of defenseless Belgrade.

        Forced, due to the created conditions, to take the necessary precautionary measures, We ordered to bring the army and navy to martial law, but, cherishing the blood and wealth of our subjects, we made every effort to a peaceful outcome of the negotiations that began.

        Among friendly relations, an allied Austria Germany, contrary to our hopes for a centuries-old good neighborhood and without heeding our assurance that the measures taken by no means have any goals hostile to it, began to solicit their immediate cancellation, and having met the refusal of this requirement, suddenly declared war on Russia.

        Now we have to defend only for the unjustly offended, kindred country, but to protect honor, dignity, integrity of Russia
  2. Dart2027 17 February 2020 07: 07 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    ... From this we can draw a conclusion that has been repeatedly confirmed - woe to the one who multiplies someone else's power, because it is obtained by skill or force, and both of these advantages do not inspire confidence in the one who gets power ...
    (Mikolo Machiavelli "Sovereign")
  3. rocket757 17 February 2020 07: 22 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    And only in Yalta all the points on the "i" were practically placed. With the easy hand of Stalin, the Poles got, in addition to

    As always, the rules can be created only by someone who has REAL FORCE in their hands !!!
  4. Lamata 17 February 2020 07: 27 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Gratitude is not peculiar to the Poles, especially, Not a single reproach to their Western allies for a strange war and actually a betrayal after 01.0.9.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX.
  5. Aviator_ 17 February 2020 07: 39 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov himself got involved in the world massacre not only for the freedom of Serbia and the capture of the straits, but also for the reconstruction of “integral Poland”. This was even said in a special “Appeal to the Poles”, which had to be signed by the Commander-in-Chief Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich.

    Well, do not refer to the propaganda paper in a historical note. In WWI, Russia got involved because of the French loans that it grabbed before her. Since there was nothing to give, I had to fight. And the "unfortunate" Poles, Serbs and other geopolitical calls for taking the Bosphorus with the Dardanelles there are for internal use.
    1. Lamata 17 February 2020 08: 10 New
      • 6
      • 7
      -1
      pralno, but you’ll begin to explain what people will put for other people's grandmothers.
      1. Fat
        Fat 17 February 2020 20: 07 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Quote: Lamata
        pralno, but you’ll begin to explain what people will put for other people's grandmothers.

        Vapsche nonsense! You borrow strangers in debt, but you have to give your own. Not?
        The French bred the monarch for the development of Northern China and the Korean Peninsula. Bottom line: Russian-Japanese war. Anglo-Saxons against the French in distant lands and alien forces. It's sad to take it now. But what was, was.
    2. Kapellan23 17 February 2020 10: 24 New
      • 4
      • 8
      -4
      Did the USSR “get involved” in World War II because of Anglo-American “loans”?

      1. Aviator_ 17 February 2020 19: 05 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Read - not Anglo-American, but French. And not in the second, but in the first. Because of them, the USSR found itself under sanctions after the end of the Civil War - the French demanded payments, and the delegation of the USSR presented to the whole Entente an invoice for the intervention, offering offsetting. But it didn’t work, I had to negotiate with the German Weimar Republic, from then on German-Soviet cooperation went on until 1933, and then a little in 1939-1941.
    3. Dart2027 17 February 2020 13: 03 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Aviator_
      WWI Russia got involved because of the French loans that it grabbed before her.

      There is only official correspondence between the Russian tsar and the German Kaiser, in which for some reason no French are mentioned. And do not remind - who declared war to whom?
  6. Ros 56 17 February 2020 08: 48 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    I immediately remembered the song Shapoklyak - Who helps people, he spends time in vain ........
    Not for nothing that the mother once spoke about such ungrateful pigs - a filthy matchmaker even honey in Wed ... u, you still will remain bad.
  7. Chervonny 17 February 2020 09: 58 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    Nobody appealed to Poland. She was given the territory of Germany. The question was once and for all to put an end to German imperial ambitions. For this, part of the territory given to Poland was torn away from Germany. In the same way, in exchange for the territories of the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus captured and occupied by Poland as a result of the Soviet-Polish war and returned, liberated from Polish lords in 1939.
    1. Kapellan23 17 February 2020 10: 26 New
      • 3
      • 5
      -2
      Why did they give Poland, not the USSR, which shed so much blood for it?
      1. Gene84 17 February 2020 10: 42 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        We do not need a foreign land. The USSR did not have imperial ambitions. We liberated our land, our territory, saved the Eastern European countries from the brown plague. Germany was punished for starting a war against the USSR.
        1. Dart2027 17 February 2020 13: 04 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Gene84
          We do not need a foreign land.

          And then why did they join Kaliningrad?
        2. Olgovich 17 February 2020 13: 45 New
          • 2
          • 9
          -7
          Quote: Gene84
          We do not need a foreign land.

          hundreds of thousands of km2 of land were taken from the Germans.
          Gave them away ...to the Poles
          1. sidoroff 17 February 2020 16: 42 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            everything came into the pockets of the jacket of comrade Stalin. but what to call this “pocket” didn’t make much difference - the NDP or even the SSR. but he
            decided that it would be more convenient to be on the sidelines of a "country of popular democracy" who knew that it was only a lease for 50 years.
            1. antivirus 17 February 2020 21: 45 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              from the very beginning it was known that everything in the world is temporary, but the one who walks will have the road, and not the one who sings in Sopot.
              As it became more important to appear as a friend and a drinking companion at the festival (and in what tie) - so ended the expansion, the seizure of "their land." except for the GDR, the rest were not reliable allies.
        3. fuxila 17 February 2020 14: 45 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          It’s just that South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands do not fit here ... But even if you consider that these are former Russian territories, then Port Arthur and the CER, for which tsarism was branded, do not climb into any gates. I'm not talking about the preparation of a war with Turkey, the Second World War field for the Armenian Kars and for the Dardanelles that were not mentioned by night. So Prussia had to be attached to the RSFSR, and not just a small piece with Königsberg, as well as not returning Poland to Bialystok and Suwalki, where our relatives still live, I don’t know to whom they now relate themselves - to Russian or Belarus .
      2. Bagatur 17 February 2020 16: 37 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        The map with the Russian border on the Oder and Nisa will be interesting)))
  8. Fitter65 17 February 2020 10: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Crown Stettin, the birthplace of two Russian empresses at once, turned into a hard-to-pronounce Szczecin.
    Yes, it is so, while according to the rules of Polish writing you pronounce the first "U", you squeeze out all your front teethSzczecin . I won’t say that during the years of service I used to be there very often, but every couple of months it’s stable, and before the change it happened more often ...
    1. fuxila 17 February 2020 14: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The most interesting thing is that the city was founded by the Pomeranians and was called Shchetin, and after its Germanization in the 14-15 centuries. became Shtettin, and in Szczecin the Poles had already shifted it in their own way, as well as the ancient Pomeranian Kolobreg (German Kolberg) to hissing Kolobrzeg. Even the Silesian Ratibor, whose name even the Germans did not encroach on, has now become the proud Polish Raciborz.
  9. Operator 17 February 2020 10: 53 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Before the phrase "the Polish government in exile", as well as before its "ministers", it is imperative to put the so-called ones, otherwise the impression is made of the legitimacy of people who emigrated at a time when the Polish army was still fighting with the German invaders who had tarnished their state and putting their people on the brink of extinction.
  10. alebor 17 February 2020 11: 36 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The map shows the post-war territorial acquisitions of Poland at the expense of the lands of defeated Germany and does not show the territories obtained from the lands of the victorious Soviet Union. As you know, in 1939 the city of Przemysl was included in the Ukrainian SSR, and the city of Bialystok in the Byelorussian SSR. But after the war, these cities and the territories adjacent to them were given to Poland.
    In general, no matter how absurd it sounds, but, judging by the territorial acquisitions of Poland, in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. The USSR defeated Germany, but lost to Poland.
    1. Olgovich 17 February 2020 13: 48 New
      • 3
      • 7
      -4
      Quote: alebor
      In general, no matter how absurd it sounds, but, judging by the territorial acquisitions of Poland, in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. The USSR defeated Germany, but lost to Poland.

      I say differently: judging by territorial acquisitions, then WWII won ...Poland
      1. Alexga 17 February 2020 15: 35 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        I add, according to the results of the Second World War, in addition to Germany, there is also Belarus suffered territorial losses. Like this.
  11. Undecim 17 February 2020 14: 09 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Why Poland began to be appeased long before Yalta-45
    Another alternative fantasy that someone "appeased" Poland. The formation and recognition by the allies of the post-war Soviet-Polish border is the result of a tough political struggle that lasted until 1945. Only the leading role of the USSR in the anti-Hitler coalition made it possible to implement the Soviet program of state-territorial reorganization in Eastern Europe. No “pleasures” were provided for in this process. Stalin toughly and consistently realized his foreign policy goals by setting the allies before a fait accompli. So he did with Poland.
  12. ZIS
    ZIS 18 February 2020 18: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But didn’t Belarusians get anything? Why make a whole of them, will we wait when it arrives? A map of five countries in the studio!