Comment by brigadier132
2 years ago
> After World War II, the communist regime in Poland considered members of the resistance a threat to its existence, convinced that people who had risked their lives to free Poland of its Nazi oppressors could also act to undermine the new Soviet regime
Interesting fact from the article...
That was a huge issue in the Soviet invasion of German-occupied Poland. As I recall, on more than one occasion, the Soviets held back while the Germans slaughtered the Polish resistance before moving in to take over various cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
I don't think there was any going back from this...
The core of the Polish Home Army was made up of people belonging to the same social groups and their relatives or associates.
By 43-44 there were even a few cases of a limited truce or even some minor cooperation between the Germans and the Polish resistance since the Soviets turned on them immediately after entering (former) Polish territory in the east.
Not particularly surprising, IMHO.
A group that worked against one occupier is likely to work against the next as well.
The fact that that "next" occupier was also the initial co-occupier and massacred over 20,000 people from the same poll/social class the same resistance group was mainly composed from (army officers/intelligentsia/landowners/>=middle class in general and their associates) at very beginning of the war kind of left very few options.
Also the whole thing about letting them be massacred by the nazis during Warsaw Uprising without moving a finger...
Any type of "reconciliation" was pretty much inconceivable (not something the soviets were ever interested in the first place anyway).
It's less interesting when you learn that this is a common pattern. See: Old Bolsheviks, Sturmabteilung, Ba'ath party purge and others. At some point the instruments of a successful power grab must be disposed of to consolidate power.
> Interesting fact from the article...
That was the case in many countries. In France for example a huge part of the resistance was way too sympathetic with Stalin's ideas (and btw didn't join the resistance up until 1941 and Hitler's operation Barbarossa, when Hitler betrayed Stalin) so one of the very first thing the government did in France right after WWII was to disarm the resistance as much as they could. Most people don't read about that but it's well documented.
These (back then) superpowers were paranoid and rightfully so: the cold war started right after WWII and both blocks were very careful not to have ennemies from within.
> In France for example a huge part of the resistance was way too sympathetic with Stalin's ideas (and btw didn't join the resistance up until 1941 and Hitler's operation Barbarossa, when Hitler betrayed Stalin)
It's more subtle than that. Communist resistance certainly existed before 1941. Many of the veterans from the Spanish civil war for example engaged quite early, without waiting for Stalin's instructions. Repression against communists increased overnight when Hitler invaded the USSR, which led to more active resistance. But it's not like they just had been sitting quietly enjoying life under Pétain up to then.
After the war communist resistants, particularly those who came back from deportation, were seen with suspicion by the party's leadership, and the party ended up at the hands of people who hadn't been as active in the resistance, but were considered to be more loyal to Stalin. Which suited the Gaullists just fine and gave them the opportunity to push the narrative that only they had been the true resistants from the first hour.
Under Stalin starting an unsanctioned poetry club in college could send you straight to Gulag. Every aspect of social life had to be subordinate to the authorities. I'm surprised you're surprised.