WikiLeaks Latest: A Minefield in Eastern Europe
An interesting batch of WikiLeaks documents—probably the most disquieting to date—was published by the Guardian earlier this week. Some concern the decision, made by NATO’s Military Committee less than a year ago, “to expand the NATO Contingency Plan for Poland, Eagle Guardian, to include the defense and reinforcement of the Baltic States.” Others indicate that the Administration has told Poland that a proposed missile shield system, ostensibly meant to defend against potential rocket attacks from Iran, could be adapted to stop “missiles coming from elsewhere”—i.e. Russia—thus disproving numerous official statements to the contrary. In addition, senior U.S. officials have discussed a range of possible American military deployments in Poland in response to the demands from Warsaw for some U.S. “boots on the ground.”
CONTINGENCY PLANS—At the end of 2009, Paul Teesalu, the director of the Estonian foreign ministry security department, and Sven Sakkov, Estonia's defense ministry senior official, were thrilled when NATO agreed to expand the plan of Poland's defense to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Teesalu called it "an early Christmas present" and agreed that all details should be conducted out of the public eye.
A month later (January 26, 2010) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informed U.S. diplomatic posts in NATO countries that the expansion of Eagle Guardian was “a step toward the possible expansion of NATO’s other existing country-specific contingency plans into regional plans... the first step in a multi-stage process to develop a complete set of appropriate contingency plans for the full range of possible threats—both regional and functional—as soon as possible.” They were advised that such planning should not be discussed publicly, however, as
[a] public discussion of contingency planning would also likely lead to an unnecessary increase in NATO-Russia tensions, something we should try to avoid as we work to improve practical cooperation in areas of common NATO-Russia interest. We hope that we can count on your support in keeping discussions on NATO contingency planning out of the public domain.
The plans amount to U.S.-NATO preparations for a fully-fledged war with Russia, including immediate deployment of nine American, British, German and Polish divisions in case of a Russian incursion into the former Soviet Baltic republics. The plans also specify Baltic ports through which naval assault units would disembark, and US and British warships securing them. It should be noted that the documents do not reflect any debate on the strategic implications of such deployments.
MISSILE SHIELD—The decision by the Bush administration to deploy missile interceptors for the proposed anti-ballistic missile defence system in Poland had caused a crisis in U.S.-Russian relations. The Poles had indicated that they did not feel threatened by Iran but continued to regard Russia as a threat, asked “a series of hypothetical questions on the adaptive nature of the system vis-a-vis the changing threat.” Brigadier-General John Hesterman of the joint staff replied that “sea-borne platforms could provide surge capability against threats from an unforeseen direction, land-based sites could be upgraded with more interceptors if the scale of the threat were increased, and radars could be reoriented.” In November last year, Alexander Vershbow, the assistant defence secretary for international security, offered the Poles to host a land-based Standard Missile-3 System (SM3).
U.S. DEPLOYMENT IN POLAND—Polish officials insist to Americans that Russia, not Iran, poses the greater threat to Poland. “How long will it take you to realize that nothing will change with Iran and Russia?” a senior Polish official asked three visiting U.S. Senators in May 2009. “The Polish prime minister’s chief of staff, the president’s deputy national security advisor, and the speaker of the Polish parliament expressed unanimous support for a large US military footprint in Poland,” the Embassy reported; “Most important for Poland is US involvement in Polish security, through physical presence of American forces in Poland,” because the Poles “still have [their] doubts” about NATO’s readiness to honor its Article 5 commitment to Poland. Six months later, Vershbow replied with the offer of a package including
1) a quarterly rotation of F-16s, and the establishment of a small permanent support detachment, which would focus on enhancing Polish fighter capabilities [...]; 2) quarterly C-130 rotations from Ramstein [USAF base in Germany], also with a small permanent support detachment in Poland with the goal of increasing Polish readiness and ability to support own and NATO operations; 3) the relocation of a US naval special warfare unit from Stuttgart to Gdansk or Gdynia.
Explaining to visiting U.S. Senators why the U.S. needs to be more involved in defense of Polish territory, Polish parliament speaker Komorowski counted among Russian threats to Poland the fact that they were “acting against Poland's interests in Ukraine.” Most important for Poland, he went on, is “U.S. involvement in Polish security, through physical presence of American forces in Poland, NATO facilities in Poland, fulfilling the commitment to provide Patriot missiles, and greater U.S.-Polish cooperation.”
*****
To appreciate the geopolitical implications of these cables it is necessary to imagine the reaction in this country (1) if China were to sign a military pact with Cuba and Venezuela guaranteeing to defend them; (2) if it made plans for an immediate deployment of nine divisions in case of an American attack; (3) if it agreed to station troups and weapons systems in both; and (4) if it accepted as legitimate claims by Hugo Chavez that a reasons for some additional Chinese muscle on the ground was that the U.S. was “acting against Venezuelan interests in Mexico.”
The true significance of the above cables for the security of the United States is that Russian missiles will remain targeted on American cities, “reset” or no “reset.” While this may be of no consequence to the denizens of Warsaw, Riga or Vilnius, it should focus the minds in New York, Chicago, or Omaha. By extending its protectorate in Eastern Europe the United States has acted irrationally because this country’s own security has been diminished. There has never been any geopolitical logic in extending NATO beyond the Oder, let alone pushing it to the suburbs of St. Petersburg. The only rational reason for a country to enter into an alliance is to enhance its security. By expanding NATO Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have done the opposite.
The cables also indicate that former Soviet satellites have a vested interest and an even more acute psychological need to treat Russia as the enemy. They all proclaim their undying devotion to the ideological assumptions of the new NATO—individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, und so weiter—but their real agenda is twofold: to have an American security guarantee against Russia—“boots on the ground” included—and to strengthen their own position vis-à-vis those neighbors (above all Russians, of course) with whom they have an ongoing or potential dispute in places like Ukraine.
The cables prove what Western NATO apologists have denied for over a decade: that extending NATO into Eastern Europe is a threat to Russia, and that it recreates the division of the continent that was supposed to be lifted two decades ago. Their fears of Russia may be based on some real experiences of many years ago. Instead of pandering to their insecurity, the United States should have encouraged them to follow, in relation to Russia, the Franco-German model of overcoming ancient grievances as developed by de Gaulle and Adenauer.
The cables indicate that the Poles and their Baltic neighbors are always insisting on additional assurances that Article V of the NATO Charter—an attack on one is an attack on all—will be honored come what may, and that the Poles also demand American GIs on their soil as a tripwire. There is no logic, no moral or pragmatic reason for the United States blithely to agree to enhance its protective cover over its weak yet resentful clients, right in Russia's geopolitical backyard, in an area that had never been deemed vital to this country's interests.
The cables show that the United States is serious about risking a thermonuclear war for the sake of, say, Estonia's border with Russia, which is pure madness; or else that it would eventually renege on its promises—like Britain and France did in Munich—which is fatal for a great power’s global standing. The new strategic doctrine for the Alliance, adopted in Lisbon last month, came up with a whole range of eccentric, unbelievable and even funny reasons for NATO’s ongoing “mission.” The core problem remains unanswered: what is the political rationale for the continued existence of a colossal military structure, when the threat it was created to contain no longer exists? NATO’s Cold War area of hostility has all but disappeared, but its self-awarded areas of activity and authority are still proliferating.
The cables reveal the extent to which the key issue of grand strategy, NATO’s attitude to Russia, remains unresolved. “NATO poses no threat to Russia,” we were told in Lisbon, with which it seeks “a true strategic partnership.” Even before the WikiLeaks cable became known Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin offered an apt reply: “The NATO gamekeepers invite the Russian bear to go hunting rabbits together. The bear doesn’t understand: why do they have bear-hunting rifles?”
In the final analysis the cables show that NATO is not only devoid of a coherent mission and strategic purpose, but also dangerous. Between 1949 and 1991 it was successful in providing collective security of limited geographic scope against a potentially hostile totalitarian power. In subsequent years it was reduced to a tool for the attainment of misguided American strategic objectives outside its original area. Its ongoing quest for a new mission has the potential to make NATO irrelevant, or—as the cables indicate—to make it even more dangerous and destabilizing than it proved to be during the attack on Serbia in 1999. Either way, in terms of realist grand strategy, NATO is detrimental to the American interest and should be abolished.
Entries(RSS)
Srdja Trifkovic, thanks for all the great articles and information you put out. I read as much as possible of your work and see things from a similar perspective, especially with regards to the US Empire, the EU and the Balkans. Thanks!
NATO is a big part of the US Military Industrial Complex, and is the vehicle most used to justify military incursions everywhere, to give it a cover of global legitimacy. The scary thing is the thought processes these cables reveal. It is too reminiscent of the jockeying for position prior to both world wars. And of course it revolves around Poland and the just as worthless Baltics. Look for some ethnice trouble in the Baltics with regard to the Russian minorities there to cause quite a stir when the need arises for more defense spending.
But we already knew about the CIA using former soviet prisons in Lithuania and Poland to sweat confessions out of jihadists and other enemies of the state. NATO must protect those assets -- preferably by sabre rattling. I'm sure an accountant at Langley crunched some numbers, and figured that it was easier to recycle an existing prison than to construct new ones.
"Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies. Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin'. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do."
-- Major Kong in "Dr. Strangelove."
This insane desire on the part of our "elected elite" - an oxymoronic term at several levels - to antagonize the Russians is simply a collective brain spasm. Astonishing to behold.
Now, let me get this straight... when Stalin was in power murdering Ukrainians, Russians and anyone else he could get his hands on, our country couldn't wait to appease him and cover up his crimes. While he brutally killed Christian clergymen, we turned a blind eye. Now that the CPSU is gone and the churches are back in Russia, we want to make an enemy of a great power who shares our fear of militant Islam and an aggressive China.
I agree that NATO has long since outlived its usefulness and that the United States should withdraw. I also agree that the United States should seek friendship with Russsia. But I can't blame the Poles and the Balts for being wary of the Russians. After all, they got to experience Tsarist occupation and then Soviet occupation and don't want to ever experience post-Soviet occupation. No one in those countries harbors any nostalgia for any period of Russian domination for the good reason that there was nothing about Russian domination to inspire such nostalgia. Far from it.
I do not blame any Poles, Letts etc. for wanting America do be 101% committed to fighting a thermonuclear war in defense of their frontiers, come what may. I DO blame our political geniuses of both parties and their "foreign policy community" cohorts for pandering to that eminently reasonable desire.
And BTW, Poland's policy in Ukraine has been brazenly mendacious for years. Nothing to do with "being wary of the Russians," more like brazenly provoking them, and pursuing an old irredentist agenda, under the NATO-EU cover.
It is all about money and the excuse to perpetuate the huge and uneccesary military industrial complex and get rid of any potential monkey wrenches in the aim for "global" governance.
The real "war" to worry about is that among European countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, to see which can most quickly commit demographic suicide. Here are some rates of births per woman, 2005-10 (about 2.1 is replacement):
Lithuania 1.23
Poland 1.28
Latvia 1.30
Germany 1.41
Russian 1.41
Serbia 1.38
Croatia 1.35
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.23
Estonia 1.49
Ukraine 1.22
Belarus 1.20
Any war, assuming it didn't go nuclear, still would kill large numbers of young men, further worsening the demographic crisis.
What Europeans need to do is return to Christian social policies, end NATO, send the American troops home, and get rid of their welfare states. They won't.
So it's an accelerating demographic death march.
John,
What all encompasses your term Christian social policies? I ask that becausethat usually refers to some form of socialism under the guise of Christian ethics, ie Christian progressives, etc.
While I feel sadness for the persecution the Polish people have gone through in the last 70 years, it seems that their politicians have not learned an obvious lesson from their past, which is that military alliances with superpowers are more of a risk than an investment since their agendas change with the winds.
The best thing they could do for themselves is build up a thriving industrial economy, if the Russians depended on the Polish for imports like they do on the Germans, Poland wouldn't have to worry about any long term existential threats. Like Mr. Seiler has noted, the biggest problem Europeans face is an internal rot of their own society and spirit, along with an economic model non-conducive to large native families.
What, no Wikileaked cables about China or Russia or an Islamic-Latin American alliance seeking to restore the sovereignty of the Confederacy? The Lakota Sioux nation? Hawaii? Not that much symmetry amongst the empires....
I tend to favour a Huntington-type strategy whereby the US and Russia both seek a stable border between the Western and Orthodox civlisations. For the US this would mean fully incorporating the Catholic (Poland) and Protestant (Baltic) nations into the West, while actively discouraging those nations from interfering in nations within the Russian and Orthodox sphere - certainly Georgia, and Ukraine if Ukraine is to remain unified rather than partitioned along Uniate/Orthodox lines.
Aaaaaaa hoooooo! Aaaaaaa hoooooo! Aaaaaaa Wooooooo!"
Major Kong- Dr. Strangelove
I do not accept the "geopolitical implications of these cables", and the analogy of hypothetical Chinese actions in this hemisphere with those being discussed by the United States and its allies in Europe, for the following reasons:
China has no history of military involvement in the Caribbean or in South America, as the United States does in Europe. We have payed dearly in blood and treasure for the better part of a century to have a seat at that table; the Chinese have nothing of the sort to legitimize their incursions into the West. For the Chinese to make military pacts within this region would be a thunderbolt out of the blue, while the U.S. proposes nothing more than to make an adjustment to a long-existing pact in Europe;
China has no cultural ties to the peoples of this region, as the United States does to Europeans, Latin Americans and Cubans;
Past American intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean cannot be compared to the Russian/Soviet takeover of half a continent; any threat the U.S. poses pales beside that of Russia's;
Removal of American targets from the crosshairs of Russian missile crews was never in the cards to begin with, and will never come to pass as long as Putin and his KGB trained successors control the country.
NATO has many faults, but to characterize it as a "threat" to Russia is a stretch, to put it mildly. In fact, this comes closer to the paranoia Dr. Trifkovic imputes to Poland, the Balts, Ukraine, etc., than anything these vulnerable nations feel. The Russians have an expanse covering eleven time zones to fall back on; these nations have nothing. It takes great courage for these people to "go rabbit hunting with the Russian bear", and to do so without a good bear rifle within reach would be foolhardy. I find it especially disturbing that the author would resort to a Soviet-style psychologizing of the natural fears of these nations: "an acute psychological need to treat Russia as the enemy" sounds like the prelude to "we had to hospitalize him for his own good".
#15 @Gilbert Jacobi, you take Trifkovic' analogy further then he intended and your seeming anti-Russian bias prevents you from accepting the “geopolitical implications of these cables” and the fact that perhaps the Russians indeed have valid security concerns, having mostly unsympathetic (with good reason) nations surrounding it.
You forget or do not understand the following:
- The US has no history in eastern Europe.
- Russia paid dearly in blood defeating Nazi Germany to have a seat at the eastern European table. They own the table. Too bad they didn't give it back sooner.
In writing that "the U.S. proposes nothing more than to make an adjustment to a long-existing pact in Europe" you completely ignore the evidence Trifkovic presents to the contrary.
The US has Russia in its cross-hairs; why would Russia remove the US from its cross-hairs?
Your claim that the past "American intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean cannot be compared to the Russian/Soviet takeover of half a continent; any threat the U.S. poses pales beside that of Russia’s" is plain stupid.
Russian takeover of eastern Europe was a necessity in defeating Nazi Germany, a vastly more important issue than staving off communist quislings in central and South America.
As a Pole, I'm not exactly a Russophile but Russia took over "half a continent" at great price in its fight against Nazi Germany, with some of the taken over countries having participated in the German invasion of Russia. I shed no tears for their Russian subjugation.
Remember that there are still American troops in Germany. Of course, American occupation is to be preferred to Russian occupation.
Communism in eastern Europe retarded (and in some countries advanced) the region but cannot be compared to the butchery and suppression the US was proxy to in many central and south American countries after WWII. Compare eastern Europe today to the countries the US meddled in, in the Americas.
Also, it is indeed ridiculous for Poland to claim that Russia is dangerous because it is harming Poland's interests in the Ukraine, ridiculous in the extreme. Ukraine was part of Russia until relatively recently and it is Russia's near abroad, with millions of Russians living there. Poland is absolutely ridiculous in this. The Venezuelan analogy is quite apt.
Perhaps if you were from eastern Europe you would be able to see the truth in what Trifkovic writes but your own anti-Russian bias makes this difficult.
Chris,
The Soviets invaded Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and eastern Poland as the ally of Hitler, not his enemy. Just why the Russians win a moral prize for ceasing to be an ally of Hitler only after he had invaded them eludes me but, then again, I'm not trying to defend Russian domination of Eastern Europe.
And the US has a history in Eastern Europe. We provided the military muscle that made the liberation of Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism possible. In my visits to Poland, the people I met were quite grateful for the role America played in defeating the USSR. I must not have visited the part of Poland where people long for Russian domination.
Chris,
We all understand the stupidity of unnecessarily provoking Russia, and the insanity of expanding NATO into Russia's 'near abroad' is insane in my view. Russia cannot be treated like a criminal regime. However, Russia as it is today is not the same as the Soviet Union sixty or eighty years ago. It's a completely different ball game.
By the way, Ukraine is also in Poland's near abroad, and large parts of it were once part of Poland. Poland has interests here.
'I shed no tears for their Russian subjugation'. This statement, Chris, is callous in the extreme, and tells us all more about you than it does about what went on in Eastern Europe back then. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the history of Eastern Europe during the first half of the twentieth century.
Calling someone 'just plain stupid', or implying it, is not a valid response to an honest statement. I suggest you learn some manners, and by the way, they really cannot be compared. Those are two very different ball games, but now, the Soviets were supporting subversive movements all over Latin America for decades, not to mention the rest of the world.
I suppose Cuba is not in 'America's near abroad'? Certainly we must not have any valid interests there, or in Nicaragua, or El Salvador?
Tom,
The Germans rolled back the initial Russian invasion of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and eastern Poland and went into Russia.
Perhaps if Germany stopped at Russia's borders Russia wouldn't have rolled back the Germans half way into Germany and there wouldn’t have been any subsequent Russian domination of central/eastern Europe. Maybe Poland would be full of Autobahnen today too. Talk about enticing!
I think most Poles will agree the Russian occupation was of a lesser evil compared to the German occupation, especially had the German occupation dragged.
Can't blame the Russians for staying, the western Allies did too. Can you blame Russians for staying, especially in that time after the war when the western Allies pondered a rollback of Russia, with some advocating nukes (the only feasible possibility)? Can you blame Russia wanting a buffer after going through the most devastating butchery in world history (please correct me if there were worse in a similar time span)?
I don't know about moral prizes, nobody is talking about morals here. Don't bring in irrelevant rhetoric, you’re just muddying the waters.
By history in Europe I was using #15's reasoning. Of course the US has a history in Eastern Europe but not of military muscle in the actual region in WII. Is there a region in the world where the US does not have history?
Keep in mind that it was Russia that defeated Germany. And Hitler did state at the end that the Slavs defeated the Germans. I don’t know that he dealt equal blame to the Anglo-saxons. And yes, I’m aware of the role of the western powers in the defeat of Nazism.
Also, Tom, of all people I would think you would have a better grasp of reading comprehension skills. Nowhere did I imply that anyone in Poland longs for Russian domination. More irrelevant rhetoric muddying the waters.
Nobody said the US didn’t have a role in defeating the USSR, but the USSR fell apart because of its own rot, helped by the West. If I recall, Reagan asked Gorbachev to tear down the Wall, he didn’t go tear it down himself.
And HOW did US military muscle make the liberation of Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism possible? Have you considered the possibility that Russian occupation of eastern Europe persisted so long because of unfriendly western military presence on the other side? Hard to trust him because of his Yugoslav wars of secession/succession propaganda but Roy Gutman wrote once that Soviet officials said they would pull back from the needless and expensive occupation of central and eastern Europe but strong western military presence prevented this and we have STRONG evidence of the validity of these concerns with the presence of NATO at Russian borders, when NATO should have been disbanded long ago as promised to Gorbachev.
How is it that you still don’t appreciate Russian security concerns with NATO at its borders, with Poland asking for American soldiers to be based in Poland?
Remember that any US military muscle launched at Russia to “save” eastern Europe would result in the US being turned into a parking lot. Would the US dare being decimated to “save” eastern Europe? What was it Pat Buchanan wrote of American boys dying to save Bialystok? I think we Poles would have preferred to stay under the Russian yoke than to be actualized as a buffer Russia intended Poland to be during any war.
You make a serious mistake in ignoring the possibility that perhaps the Russians had and do have valid security concerns themselves, being the nation that suffered the greatest in WWII.
Chris,
I already wrote that I think NATO should be dissolved and that the United States should withdraw. I also wrote that the United States should seek friendship with Russia, because I believe that to be in America's best interest. What made the USSR a mortal threat to the United States was the fact that it embodied a hostile totalitarian ideology, an ideology that is now defunct.
But I also wrote that I do not blame Poland and the Baltic States for wanting NATO protection against Russia. After all, most of Poland and all of the Baltic States were occupied by Tsarist Russia. Just because I don't think we should extend the NATO protection these countries seek doesn't mean I don't understand why they want it.
However, I take issue with your statement that you "can't blame the Russians for staying, the western Allies did too" and your suggestion that NATO was responsible for the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe. These statements ignore the fact that NATO arose as a defensive alliance among free, democratic countries. They ignore the Soviet record during World War II, which saw the Soviets invade Poland and the Baltic States and Bessarabia and Finland during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, actions which were followed by mass deportations to the Gulag and such atrocities as the Katyn massacre. They ignore the fact that the Soviets never held the free and democratic elections they promised in Eastern Europe, and instead imposed brutal Communist dictatorships. They ignore the bloody suppression of all dissent, from East Berlin in 1953 to Hungary and Poznan in 1956 to Czechoslovakia in 1968 to Poland in 1981. They ignore the systematic Soviet attempt to destroy Christianity, including such actions as the outlawing of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the general Soviet campaign against the Roman Catholic Church, including such atrocities as the murder of Fr. Popieluszko. Comparing America's role in Western Europe to Russia's role in Eastern Europe is absurd and offesnive and reminiscent of Communist propaganda.
Nor am I impressed by your invocation of what the Russians like to call the "Great Patriotic War." The Soviets began World War II as aggressors, by invading Poland, and ended it as brutal occupiers. And those who bore the brunt of the losses were those countries that were between the Nazis and Moscow, namely Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine. Ethnic Russians suffered lower proportional casualties than Poles or Belarussians or Ukrainians. But I don't see leaders in those countries suggesting they need to be surrounded by client states as a result of their experiences in World War II.
Chris wrote, "Russians had and do have valid security concerns themselves, being the nation that suffered the greatest in WWII."
Tom Piatak wrote, "Ethnic Russians suffered lower proportional casualties than Poles or Belarussians or Ukrainians."
So who is right? Did or did not Russian people die in greater numbers than most in WWII?
Prateek,
In his book on World War II in Europe, Norman Davies estimates that there were 18,000,000 civilians killed in the territory of the USSR between 1939-1945. Of these, he estimates that 1-2 million were Poles, 2-3 million were Russians, 3-4 million Belarussians, and 5-8 million Ukrainians. (Of course, not all these deaths are attributable to the Nazis, since the Gulag continued in operation throughout World War II).
@16 Chris, 17 December,
I could not know, nor am I obliged to know, how "far" Dr. Trifkovic intended his analogy to be taken. If an argument is being advanced by analogy, the counter-argument may dispute the analogy as far as logic permits; there is nothing illogical in my counter-argument.
Russia has vast advantages in territory, weaponry, natural resources, and armed forces that dwarf anything any neighbor possesses. A country cannot claim "valid security concerns" where the neighbors are puny by comparison and merely "unsympathetic" in attitude; these concerns are only valid when the neighbors are large and hostile, which is not the situation the Russians are in.
I said the United States has a history in Europe; is Eastern Europe now a separate continent? We connived with and aided and abetted the Soviet takeovers in the east; so far from not having a history there, it is the sordid nature of that very history which obliges us today to try to ensure the security of these nations. We can argue about how this may be done; to argue that we should butt out is reprehensible.
What Russia "paid dearly" for was making a bargain with the devil; part of the reason they did so was to get their share of Eastern Europe, and this was already under way before they were attacked; when the devil turned on them, they fought for their lives, not "to defeat Nazi Germany". They got lucky: Stalin's evil incompetence was slightly less fatal to the Russian soldier than Hitler's was to the German; the Japanese handed them an undefeatable ally. So they "won" - another forty-five years of slavery. But they did not win Eastern Europe, they stole it, after giving assurances they would not.
Bringing in new weapon systems to replace the old is done all the time; that is a normal part of treaty arrangements. Russian complaints about these defensive weapons only begs the question: "Why do they want their neighbors to be defenseless"?
The tell that someone's case is weak, the resort to the ad hominem, holds true here. Is the commenter making the claim that the American military footprint in this hemisphere has been the equal of the 200 plus division Red Army rollover of Eastern Europe and Germany? He must be capable of reading the future, too, because that's the only way one can know just how bad a fully communist South America and Caribbean Basin might have been, for the U. S. and their peoples.
But where it really gets mind-boggling - and coming from someone who identifies himself as of Polish descent - is the claim that communism merely "retarded the region"! Sure, all it did was knock a few points off Bulgaria's GDP! Had to put up with trashy Trabant cars and badly made clothes for a while, that's all. Meanwhile, U. S. "butchery and suppression" of hapless Chileans, for example, has turned that country into what - Romania? - Why no, it's an exemplar of democratic and economic success, which everyone but this commenter seems to know. I suggest the writer read the last few pages of Robert Conquest's fortieth anniversary re-issue of "The Terror" for the chilling testimony of Russians as to what communism did and continues to do to their country.
Perhaps it is fitting that the country that exported this vast evil to the rest of the world should continue to suffer from it, while the countries it subjugated for so long slowly drag themselves back to health, to God, and to sanity; but that doesn't lessen our obligation to remember what they did and to speak truthfully about it.
This is slightly off topic to the article, but has anyone here read Suvurov's
'The Chief Culprit', and if so, do you recommend the book?
Chris says:
"I think most Poles will agree the Russian occupation was of a lesser evil compared to the German occupation, especially had the German occupation dragged."
This is worth saying. Poland didn't have any good options during this period, but that doesn't mean the two bad options were equally evil. Basically it boiled down to:
Soviets win - Poland becomes an economically dysfunctional, moderately authoritarian Soviet client state
Nazis win - Poland ceases to exist as a country; Poles quite likely cease to exist as a nation
Not a difficult choice I think.
As for taking the POV of the actual E. European populations into account - great idea, let's do that. Polls show the following. Most Poles and Czechs were against the US missile shield installment in their countries. Most Poles and Czechs were against their countries' participation in the Iraq war. Most Ukrainians are against joining NATO. Many people in E./Central Europe claim they lived better under communism than they do now (a startling 72% in Hungary, according to a poll taken last year). Conclusion: what the political elites in these countries (and the US/NATO) is trying to sell is not nearly as popular as a lot of people think.
"Poland didn’t have any good options during this period, but that doesn’t mean the two bad options were equally evil. Basically it boiled down to: Soviets win – Poland becomes an economically dysfunctional, moderately authoritarian Soviet client state Nazis win – Poland ceases to exist as a country; Poles quite likely cease to exist as a nation."
Am I wrong to suspect this is perhaps too easy on the Soviets, who had, among other oppressive policies, a practice of deporting or relocating peoples in part based on nationality?
CMC:
Yes, that is far too easy on the Soviets. After the Soviets invaded eastern Poland in 1939, they deported approximately 1,000,000 Poles, about half of whom died. Between 1944 and 1956, the Communists arrested hundreds of thousands of Poles for political reasons, and executed some 20,000 of them. Poland was clearly a police state throughout the period Boleslaw Bierut was the Communist dictator. Even after Bierut died in 1956, the Communist Party in Poland continued to use violence and political repression to maintain a monopoly on political power, including such incidents as the murder of workers in Gdansk in 1970 and the imposition of martial law in 1981.
Mr. Piatak,
Thank you for stating the case so clearly. The Poles are a very tough people and more so after enduring such suffering from various vandals over the centuries and almost always for their Holy Religion.
Another people who will not be messed with for long are the Hungarians and people of St. Stephen's Crown.
Clovis converted but was far from being a saint, while St. Stephen became an authentic leader. The direct descendants of Clovis were not saints, but the son of St. Stephen, Amelric, truly was. We don’t realize that the name Americo in Latin languages honors St. Amelric, the son of St. Stephen. Our Continent America took its name from Americo Vespuccio, but Vespuccio was named Americo in honor of St. Amelric.
The one good thing that we can rely upon today is the vapid cruelty and ignorance of our enemies and this more than any other one thing is what the history of Poland before and after WWII still reveals.
Thanks, Robert. Living where I do, I know lots of people with Polish and Hungarian ancestry, including immigrants and their children. I have yet to meet any with warm feelings for the Soviets. (I have Polish ancestry myself, though my Polish ancestors came here around 1900).
Two stories: a law school friend of mine studied in Poland in the 1980s. He told of a group of naive American leftists who were thrilled to be in Communist Poland, since they assumed that most Poles were Communists and shared their hatred for Ronald Reagan. They were disabused of this notion when a Pole, upon hearing their anti-Reagan invective, proposed a toast to "Ronald Reagan, the greatest figure in world history." My friend also told me that, on election day in 1984, churches in Poland were crowded even by Polish standards, with people praying for Reagan's reelection. The reason for this affection, of course, was that, whatever his flaws may be, Reagan told the truth about Soviet Communism.
Re: "too easy on the Soviets"
Yes, Poland was a police state during the Stalin period. Yes, it was severely repressive (although it liberalized considerably after 1956). It was not, however, a country occupied by a genocidal regime, dedicated to wiping out its population or, at the mildest, reducing them to serfdom. That is the main difference between Soviets and Nazis in this context. When the Communists took over Poland, it had 24 million people; when they got kicked out, it had 38 million. No genocidal regime increases a country's population by over 50%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The dilemma as framed earlier was, Poland pre-WWII: "Soviets win – Poland becomes an economically dysfunctional, moderately authoritarian Soviet client state; Nazis win – Poland ceases to exist as a country; Poles quite likely cease to exist as a nation.”
BTW, as it happened the Poles fought both.
My argument is that the Soviets pre-WWII had proven themselves --perhaps more than any other regime on the planet in the recent history of that time, capable of the type of destruction that would make peoples suspect it 'quite likely' that they would 'cease to exist as a nation.' See, e.g. The Ukraine. Also, deportations and relocating populations, while certainly not as destructive as forced famine, would go a long way to destroying the existence of a people 'as a nation.'
An astute observer would perceive a similar evil nature in the Nazi regime.
But to frame one regime as presenting mere 'moderately authoritarian' 'client state' status while the other was presenting a likelihood of cessation as a nation seems incorrect. They both presented the latter.
To say "that is the main difference" misses the point, in context. The point is what _was_ the main difference presented pre-WWII? Given that context, I again question the hypothetical as too easy on the Soviets.
Citing the post-WWII record changes the context. Hence my comment naming the logical fallacy. Unless, of course, one believes that the war did not significantly change conditions.
CMC,
Thanks for your clarification. I think we are coming at the matter from different perspectives. I was not considering how people perceived things in 1939 or so, but rather trying to sum up the significance of WW2 and its outcome for Poland. Also I wanted to support Chris' POV, which is more common among Poles than many people think.
Tom Piatak has his anecdotes, I have mine. I've been to Poland several times since 1989 and can talk to the people in their own language and read their media. It's not hard to find people who defend aspects of the old system. This is reflected in political life; numerous times since 1989, millions of Poles have voted for "repackaged" communists, including crusty old partocrats like Leszek Miller. To say there is no nostalgia for communism in Poland is flat wrong. You may not like this, but it can be easily proven. The transition to capitalism has been hard for most of the population, and this has also led to widespread cynicism about democracy as a political system.
#33 Dr. Slop,
"To say there is no nostalgia for communism in Poland is flat wrong. You may not like this, but it can be easily proven."
Dr.,
But do you think the Polish desire for socialism is to the same degree and intensity today, having experienced its ill effects as well as its benefits, as it is in the United States?
Robert,
I think Poland and the US are too different for such a comparison to be productive (though I'm not sure I understand your question). Polish nostalgia for communism is largely rooted in the difficulty of the transition to capitalism. Also, in the 1980s there was a feeling in Poland (and other countries in that region) that all they had to do was get rid of the Communists and prosperity would arrive almost instantly. That set them up for a big disappointment as they realized how long it would take them to achieve Western living standards.
Dr.,
Thank you for your kind response. If you would care, since I know much less about Polish living standards than you, could you perhaps contrast Western living standards with those now being experienced by the Poles. Thanks you.
Mr. Piatak, I am astonished by the story of Polish people praying for Reagan in their churches. That is surreal.
I remember on another message board, one Polish man said that when Poles watched Star Wars, they did not say anything, but had a pretty good mutual understanding that for them, the Empire was the Soviet Union, Darth Vader was every cruel government official they have known, and Luke Skywalker was the one fictional person who represented what they all always wanted to do the Soviet Union. All these are words, and I can never imagine the intensity of feeling and passion about the Soviet's eastern empire must have existed in so many people every day.
Robert,
On the plus side: statistically, Poland has one of the best economies in the former Eastern Bloc. Also, its population has held fairly steady, and hasn't experienced the collapse that has afflicted a lot of other countries, such as Ukraine and Latvia. The major cities are a lot livelier and more modern than they used to be. Today's Poland is generally considered a pretty good place to do business.
On the other hand -
Unemployment has been very high ever since communism collapsed (in the 15-20% range). I suspect most Poles would say this is the country's biggest, most persistent problem. When Poland entered the EU, Polish workers flooded into England, Germany and other countries looking for work. Poland still has the usual problems of post-communist countries: crime, corruption, and poor infrastructure.
In addition, there is a certain amount of "culture shock" that you get when a country tries to Westernize as fast as possible - the sudden appearance of an aggressive, homogenized consumer society; breakdown in traditional relations (family, church, village); the need to work hard and promote yourself (not really necessary under socialism) - all these have left a lot of strain in society.
To end on a positive note: during my trips to Poland, I always had a good time, and I am cautiously optimistic about its future.