From what point was Germany doomed during WWII?

[red_elk]

Oh i think we need a source on that one.

What kind of source - poll results?
How do you think bolsheviks were able to stay in power in 1918-1922?
Despite civil war, German occupation, military intervention from several Entente states, Polish invasion?
Having to deal with all that threats simultaneously.
Was it possible without internal support from vast majority of Russian people?

 

[Junius]

What kind of source - poll results?
How do you think bolsheviks were able to stay in power in 1918-1922?
Despite civil war, German occupation, military intervention from several Entente states, Polish invasion?
Having to deal with all that threats simultaneously.
Was it possible without internal support from vast majority of Russian people?

Of course it was. It's called violence. How do any dictators or monarchs stay in power? Surely you don't claim they all have some sort of mandate. Not to mention inertia. Not everyone cares all that much what political system they are in. Look at the amount of people who vote in american elections. In 2008 64% of the people voted http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15306.html and that is as high as it gets. There will always be people who just go with the flow or people who have more imminent needs (food, shelter, illness, etc) so they can't march or fight for change. Not to mention the failure of the opposition to work together. Bolsheviks controlled many of the central railway hubs. Don't underestimate the importance of that. Plenty of reasons the Bosheviks won. Great popular support is not one of them. Would they have needed special units to shoot down deserters and retreating soldiers if morale and zeal was high? Terror was the greatest weapon they had.

In votes before they overthrew the assembly the Bolsheviks never once gathered a majority of the votes. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to prove that they did in fact have the support of the people? This sounds like some bizarre Soviet apologia.

 

[LightSpectra]

This sounds like some bizarre Soviet apologia.

If it sounds like a duck...

 

[Zardnaar]

The Bolshevik part of Russia in the civil war also contained most of the population and force was used to extract food and supplies form the peasants.

 

[Zardnaar]

Of course it was. It's called violence. How do any dictators or monarchs stay in power? Surely you don't claim they all have some sort of mandate. Not to mention inertia. Not everyone cares all that much what political system they are in. Look at the amount of people who vote in american elections. In 2008 64% of the people voted http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15306.html and that is as high as it gets. There will always be people who just go with the flow or people who have more imminent needs (food, shelter, illness, etc) so they can't march or fight for change. Not to mention the failure of the opposition to work together. Bolsheviks controlled many of the central railway hubs. Don't underestimate the importance of that. Plenty of reasons the Bosheviks won. Great popular support is not one of them. Would they have needed special units to shoot down deserters and retreating soldiers if morale and zeal was high? Terror was the greatest weapon they had.

In votes before they overthrew the assembly the Bolsheviks never once gathered a majority of the votes. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to prove that they did in fact have the support of the people? This sounds like some bizarre Soviet apologia.

Thats red elk. hell the Nazis had a higher level of popular support at around 34% IIRC.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Of course it was. It's called violence. How do any dictators or monarchs stay in power? Surely you don't claim they all have some sort of mandate. Not to mention inertia. Not everyone cares all that much what political system they are in. Look at the amount of people who vote in american elections. In 2008 64% of the people voted http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15306.html and that is as high as it gets. There will always be people who just go with the flow or people who have more imminent needs (food, shelter, illness, etc) so they can't march or fight for change. Not to mention the failure of the opposition to work together. Bolsheviks controlled many of the central railway hubs. Don't underestimate the importance of that. Plenty of reasons the Bosheviks won. Great popular support is not one of them. Would they have needed special units to shoot down deserters and retreating soldiers if morale and zeal was high? Terror was the greatest weapon they had.

Then almost no government ever has enjoyed "the support of the majority of the people," even representative democracies.

The Tsar defended his regime with violence as well, didn't stop revolts against him then. Hell any government would defend its power with violence. Most Western European countries did just that around this same time period. I guess that means the British, French, German, Italian, and Spanish governments are illegitimate too.

In votes before they overthrew the assembly the Bolsheviks never once gathered a majority of the votes. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to prove that they did in fact have the support of the people? This sounds like some bizarre Soviet apologia.

The Triumphal March of Soviet Power. Look it up. Bolsheviks or Bolshevik-led alliances won majorities in nearly every soviet in the country.

The Bolshevik part of Russia in the civil war also contained most of the population and force was used to extract food and supplies form the peasants.

Things like that have to happen when you control the majority of population centers but not majority of food producing centers.

 

[red_elk]

Of course it was. It's called violence. How do any dictators or monarchs stay in power? Surely you don't claim they all have some sort of mandate.

They use army or police to suppress resistance. They may get military help from other countries. All of that worked against Reds.

Bolsheviks controlled many of the central railway hubs. Don't underestimate the importance of that.

You might also say that in 1922 they controlled whole country.
In 1917 Bolsheviks did not control anything - yet somehow thay were able to take power and win civil war.

Plenty of reasons the Bosheviks won. Great popular support is not one of them. Would they have needed special units to shoot down deserters and retreating soldiers if morale and zeal was high? Terror was the greatest weapon they had.

Can you tell me which side didn't use terror during civil war, and which side had more popular support than the Reds had?

In votes before they overthrew the assembly the Bolsheviks never once gathered a majority of the votes. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to prove that they did in fact have the support of the people? This sounds like some bizarre Soviet apologia.

Again, I don't know what kind of evidence you are asking for.
The outcome of revolution and civil war in that circumstances speaks for itself.

Objective circumstances alone, therefore, did not mean that the victory of the Red Army was a foregone conclusion. Had the Bolsheviks not enjoyed greater political support than their enemies the advantages provided by their objective circumstances would have been much less decisive. Equally, factors which are deemed to be “objective” on the White side – difficulties with recruitment, a dependence on unreliable allies like the Cossacks, the vacillations of the Allied powers and the lack of co-operation between armies – are all coloured by the political choices that they and other groups in society made.

The White regimes returned the land to the landowners and the factories to the owners, denied trade union rights to workers, and were characterised by corruption, decadence, speculation and bitter repression of the population. The class in whose name the Whites fought was weak and crumbling, and was savagely lashing out in its decay. Within industrial centres controlled by Whites a reign of terror against workers was routine. In the Donbass, one in ten workers were shot if coal production fell, and “some workers were shot for simply being workers under the slogan, “Death to callused hands”. [93]

Both Kolchak and Denikin saw their mission as the restoration of a “great and undivided Russia”, a policy which alienated their potential allies among the Cossacks – many of whom refused to fight in the last battles of the civil war. Much of the population under Denikin’s rule consisted of non-Russians who had no interest in returning to the oppression of the tsarist “prison house of nations”.

The White regimes failed to mobilise large numbers of people in their support. The classes that identified with them – the officers, landowners, factory owners, middle class and intelligentsia – were certainly sufficient for the task of building a strong army and attracting outside aid, but the wider uprisings against the Bolsheviks that they hoped for did not materialise. However much Denikin tried to base the Whites’ “ideology on simple, incontestable national symbols”, by his own admission, “This proved extraordinarily difficult. ‘Politics’ burst into our work. It burst spontaneously also into the life of the army”. [94]
...
The Whites lost because they were less popular among the majority classes in Russia, a factor which hindered their military abilities once it became necessary to build a large conscript army. As Lenin pointed out in July 1919, “A general mobilisation will finish Denikin off, just as it finished off Kolchak. So long as his army was a class one, consisting only of volunteers of an anti-socialist character, it was strong and reliable ... but the greater the size of his army, the less class conscious it was, and the weaker it became.” [96] This was precisely what happened – revolts at the rear of Denikin’s army forced him to send troops back from the front, and having to conscript a hostile population increased the difficulties, weakening his ability to push forward to Moscow.
...
A memo to the British war cabinet in July 1919 illustrates the point: “It is impossible to account for the stability of the Bolshevik government by terrorism alone ... When the Bolshevik fortunes seemed to be at the lowest ebb, a most vigorous offensive was launched before which the Kolchak forces are still in retreat. No terrorism, not even long suffering acquiescence, but something approaching enthusiasm is necessary for this. We must admit then that the present Russian government is accepted by the bulk of the Russian people”. [102]

http://www.marxists.de/russrev/trudell/civilwar2.htm#why

 

[Junius]

Then almost no government ever has enjoyed "the support of the majority of the people," even representative democracies.

The Tsar defended his regime with violence as well, didn't stop revolts against him then. Hell any government would defend its power with violence. Most Western European countries did just that around this same time period. I guess that means the British, French, German, Italian, and Spanish governments are illegitimate too.

Not sure why you would take that view of what i wrote. Surely legitimately elected modern governments are just that. Violence doesn't necessarily lead to illegitimacy. The scale of the violence is important. Some protests or strikes and millions dead are not equal. I wrote that to describe why the bolsheviks could win power without having great popular support. I would suggest that governments that resort to violence to rule probably don't have popular support. Seems self-explanatory.

The Triumphal March of Soviet Power. Look it up. Bolsheviks or Bolshevik-led alliances won majorities in nearly every soviet in the country.

Well i'm no expert, but if they were so popular why did they expell opposition parties from the soviets in mid-1918? It would seem plausible (though it's not universally accepted) to suggest they had popular support in late 1917-early 1918, but to say, as Red Elk did, that it translates to popular support thoughout the civil war period, seems to me unproven.

Things like that have to happen when you control the majority of population centers but not majority of food producing centers.

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, right?

 

[red_elk]

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, right?

Have you seen any examples in world history, when revolution and subsequent civil war happened without terror and bloodshed?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not sure why you would take that view of what i wrote. Surely legitimately elected modern governments are just that. Violence doesn't necessarily lead to illegitimacy. The scale of the violence is important. Some protests or strikes and millions dead are not equal. I wrote that to describe why the bolsheviks could win power without having great popular support. I would suggest that governments that resort to violence to rule probably don't have popular support. Seems self-explanatory.

But your definition of "popular support" is so impossible to meet as to either be meaningless, or to place the legitimacy of Soviet rule on par with the legitimacy of Western democracies.

You will note, of course, that Sovnarkom and then the Soviet Union was regarded as a democracy even outside of the country until the early 1930s.

Well i'm no expert, but if they were so popular why did they expell opposition parties from the soviets in mid-1918?

They didn't. They formally expelled most of the Right S-Rs and Mensheviks, because they walked out willingly in protest in October 1917, and their party organization turned to counter-revolution and terrorism against the Bolsheviks. Some remained, however, and continued to serve in the soviets, or joined the newly-formed Communist Party of Russia. Positions for these parties were reserved in the Soviet government well into the 1920s, before the Mensheviks were formally illegalized.

It would seem plausible (though it's not universally accepted) to suggest they had popular support in late 1917-early 1918, but to say, as Red Elk did, that it translates to popular support thoughout the civil war period, seems to me unproven.

Given the extreme fragility of soviet rule pretty much anywhere, it can be pretty well concluded that until at least 1921, any soviet rule was consensual soviet rule.

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, right?

Quite so. However, that was not my point. The expedience of the situation demanded grain requisitioning. It was not a consequence of soviet tyranny over central European Russia, it was a consequence of counter-revolution in the Ukraine and western Siberia.

 

[Junius]

But your definition of "popular support" is so impossible to meet as to either be meaningless, or to place the legitimacy of Soviet rule on par with the legitimacy of Western democracies.

There seems to be some confusion. I was merely addressing how it was possible to rule a country in such turmoil without widespread popular support. I'm not trying to create a basis for legitimacy. Merely stating that the act of being in power does not imply consent of the governed.

Have you seen any examples in world history, when revolution and subsequent civil war happened without terror and bloodshed?

Can you tell me which side didn't use terror during civil war, and which side had more popular support than the Reds had?

I won't dispute that civil wars and revolutions are quite bloody and no side should be spared blame or excused their atrocities. I'm merely pointing out that millions died and that isn't something that should just be swept aside.

Think about what website you linked. You should know i can't accept that as an unbiased source.

 

[red_elk]

Merely stating that the act of being in power does not imply consent of the governed.

And I never claimed that it does imply.

Think about what website you linked. You should know i can't accept that as an unbiased source.

Source is not website, source is article. I can find the same article published on another website if you wish.
Also it would be nice to know your position - which side in Russian civil war had the most popular support, if not the Reds?

 

[Junius]

And I never claimed that it does imply.

Source is not website, source is article. I can find the same article published on another website if you wish.
Also it would be nice to know your position - which side in Russian civil war had the most popular support, if not the Reds?

You asked in post 301 if it was possible to win the civil war and survive all that entailed without popular support. I said it was possible and that victory does not necessarily equal popularity in those situations. That is what i have been responding to.

I don't imagine that any one group had long-term support from the bulk of the people. It's possible the Bolsheviks had the support of more people than any other single group, but i find it hard to believe they had the support of the majority of the former Russian Empire.

They didn't. They formally expelled most of the Right S-Rs and Mensheviks, because they walked out willingly in protest in October 1917, and their party organization turned to counter-revolution and terrorism against the Bolsheviks. Some remained, however, and continued to serve in the soviets, or joined the newly-formed Communist Party of Russia. Positions for these parties were reserved in the Soviet government well into the 1920s, before the Mensheviks were formally illegalized.

In protest of the October Revolution? That would seem to be understandable.

 

[Domen]

Bolsheviks won because they had support of great majority of people in Russian Empire.

Oh i think we need a source on that one.

I agree with Junius - we need a source on that. Below posted sources say something completely different:

As for claims by Red Elk and Cheezy the Wiz that Bolsheviks had large public support:

Regarding the issue: "Why the Bolsheviks were able to hold against all those threats at the same time" - here is the answer:

"At its peak strength in 1920 the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army (RKKA) numbered 5.5 million men (...). The White armies, for their part, never totaled more than 640,000 men at best, although they made up somewhat for their inferiority by the high proportion of trained officers in their ranks."

So 5,500,000 (+ allies) vs 640,000 (+ allies). No surprise they won and even had enough forces to invade Poland (with her weak & small army).

But this doesn't mean that Bolsheviks had public support of those 5.5 million who served in the Red Army:

Do you know what were desertion rates in the Red Army during the civil war? You don't? Check this:

"Both sides relied on a small, solid core of ideologically committed volunteers, while the bulk of their forces consisted of reluctant peasant conscripts who were essentially indifferent to the political quarrels involved. Loyalties were particularly weak, and large-scale desertions were common on both sides. Between January 1919 and December 1920 the Red Army tallied 2,846,000 cases of desertion or otherwise absent without leave. The fidelity of most soldiers was ensured by harsh discipline and consistent military success rather than any sort of political allegiance. Indeed, so great was the reluctance to fight in Russia that the Red Army throughout relied heavily on the military skills of former German and Austro-Hungarian prisoners of war who had converted to communism. About 50,000 Hungarians, Czechs, Germans, and other nationalities fought on the Soviet side during these years and accounted for as much as 10 to 11 percent of the Red Army's strength in late 1918."

As you can see at the beginning (1917 - 1918) foreigners - not Russians - were over 10% of Red Army's strength.

Both quotes are from this article (posted here by Oleg Grigoryev) - "Russian Civil War and the use of Cavalry":

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=25572#p234391

Other sources also confirm that nearly 3 millions of Red Army soldiers deserted during the civil war:

http://www.google.pl/search?q=deser...&rls=org.mozilla:pl:official&client=firefox-a

Belorussia is known as one of the most active "partisan regions" in USSR in WW2.

Because in Belorussia both Russian and Polish partisan detachments operated.

Another thing is that cooperation between Russian and Polish partisans was not exactly perfect (at least not during entire war).

But there were some joint anti-German battles of Russian and Polish partisans though (for example Sturmwind I & Sturmwind II).

No better - but somehow life expectancy was doubled in a few decades, and after WW2 reached the level of developed countries.
Literacy rate increased from ~20% to almost 100%

Similar progress was observed in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the same time.

Also in least developed regions of the world - such as Africa - life expectancy was doubled (or tripled) during the same decades.

What about that?
In Western Ukraine it was significant.
In Belorussia - not so much, less than in Poland.

Don't know any examples of pogroms involving local inhabitants in German-occupied (as of IX 1939 - VI 1941) part of Poland.

Only in pre-war eastern parts of Poland (Soviet-occupied). Of course some of them involved local Poles (Jedwabne in Western Belorussia).

No, how many?

Few hundreds thousands.

Some historians claim 800,000 - this is most probably exaggerated but still Soviet documents show few hundreds thousands (I believe the exact numbers were posted on Axis History Forum somewhere - I will try to find this thread where I read about it again).

This includes all death sentences in the Red Army during WW2, not just those for desertions.

And remind me, what was the policy of treating deserters in wartime in other countries?

Either the policy was less harsh or desertions were not as common, or military judicature was less efficient in chasing & punishing.

Anyway - number of executed was smaller in other armies (even in the German army it was much smaller).

If you don't know, as a result of German occupation in 1941-1944, Belorussia lost 25% of its population.

This also includes losses during the Soviet occupation (1939-1941) and as the result of 1944-1947 expulsion of ethnic Poles from Belarus?

Or this includes only losses during the German occupation of 1941-1944 and doesn't include losses mentioned above?

German terror against civilians was to large extent caused by partisan activity there.

Previously you claimed that German terror in Belarus started since the first day?

 

[red_elk]

So 5,500,000 (+ allies) vs 640,000 (+ allies).

So big difference. How could it happen?

No surprise they won and even had enough forces to invade Poland (with her weak & small army).

War with Poland started when civil war was not over yet. The Reds were forced to withdraw forces from other theatres to repel Polish aggression.

Because in Belorussia both Russian and Polish partisan detachments operated.

In 1943, number of Soviet partisans in Belarussia estimated as ~150.000
Around 65% of them were locals.

Similar progress was observed in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the same time.

Which country in Europe improved literacy rate from ~20% to ~100% in the period between 1920-1935?

Also in least developed regions of the world - such as Africa - life expectancy was doubled (or tripled) during the same decades.

In which of these regions, life expectancy also reached the level of Western Europe and North America?
May be in some places like Japan or Singapore - which are now examples of outstanding economic growth in second half of XX century?

Don't know any examples of pogroms involving local inhabitants in German-occupied (as of IX 1939 - VI 1941) part of Poland.

Only in pre-war eastern parts of Poland (Soviet-occupied). Of course some of them involved local Poles (Jedwabne in Western Belorussia).

So, Jedwabne pogrom was not Polish?

Few hundreds thousands.

Either the policy was less harsh or desertions were not as common, or military judicature was less efficient in chasing & punishing.

Yes, there were deserters in Red army and many of them were executed.
Make your point.

This also includes losses during the Soviet occupation (1939-1941) and as the result of 1944-1947 expulsion of ethnic Poles from Belarus?

This doesn't include losses during Polish occupation 1920-1939.
And there was no such thing as Soviet occupation of Belorussia

Previously you claimed that German terror in Belarus started since the first day?

Yes, it started since the first days.
But Belorussians were so welcoming to Germans, that later Germans had to make a number of anti-partisan operations in the region.
Which, in turn, further escalated resistance.

 

[Domen]

No matter how you name it - there was Soviet occupation of eastern Poland / Soviet rules in Belarus.

So - does these figures include population losses in Belarus during the 1939 - 1941 period?

And does it include population decrease due to expulsion of ethnic Poles from Belarus to Western Poland after 1944?

So, Jedwabne pogrom was not Polish?

You don't read English or what? I just wrote:

"Of course some of them involved local Poles (Jedwabne in Western Belorussia)."

Which country in Europe improved literacy rate from ~20% to ~100% in the period between 1920-1935?

???

On paper and in propaganda - Soviet Russia.

In fact and in reality - no country.

So big difference. How could it happen?

Much more efficient apparatus of terror, centralized military power (while Whites did not have one, unified command).

Reds were one, unified force under Bolshevik terror. Whites were dispersed and individual generals didn't cooperate with each other.

Reds controlled most densely inhabited areas and most of population.

In which of these regions, life expectancy also reached the level of Western Europe and North America?

What does this "also" mean? You claim that in Soviet Russia it did reach this level?

This doesn't include losses during Polish occupation 1920-1939.

There were no population losses during the "Polish occupation" of 1920-1939.

Let's compare the number of inhabitants of voivodeships which are now mostly parts of Belarus:

Voivodeship - inhabitants 1921 --------- inhabitants 1931 (inhabitants in thousands):

Nowogródzkie - 823,1 ------------------- 1,057,1
Wileńskie - 977,9 ------------------- 1,275,9
Poleskie - 881,0 ------------------- 1131,9

Total - 2,682,0 ------------------- 3,464,9

So there was an increase of 782,9 thousands (and further increase between 1931 and 1939).

Sources:

http://www.igipz.pan.pl/wydaw/Monografie_5/rozdz4.pdf

Maps:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/II_RP_adm.png

http://www.polityka.pl/historia/1511502,2,co-my-wiemy-o-bialorusi.read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voivodeships_of_Poland

 

[red_elk]

No matter how you name it - there was Soviet occupation of eastern Poland / Soviet rules in Belarus.
So - does these figures include population losses in Belarus during the 1939 - 1941 period?
And does it include population decrease due to expulsion of ethnic Poles from Belarus to Western Poland after 1944?

As I said, these are losses during German occupation in period 1941-1944.
All the other losses (Polish occupation, Soviet repressions) are not included.

You don't read English or what? I just wrote:
"Of course some of them involved local Poles (Jedwabne in Western Belorussia)."

I read English
I wrote that collaboration of Belorussians in Jewish pogroms was less significant than the Polish one.
Your answer:
"Don't know any examples of pogroms involving local inhabitants in German-occupied (as of IX 1939 - VI 1941) part of Poland."
What about Jewish pogrom which happened in VII 1941, on German-occupied Polish territory? Does it count?
And how do you think, why it didn't happen before Germans occupied that area? May be because evil commies prevented local Polish population from massacring Jews?

???
On paper and in propaganda - Soviet Russia.
In fact and in reality - no country.

Russia, 1917 - ~20% literate people
RSFSR, 1939 - ~90%
USSR, 1950 - ~100%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez

Ok, I was not fully correct with 1935 year.
The same question, which country in Europe managed to achieve similar results, as USSR did in 1917-1939?

What does this "also" mean? You claim that in Soviet Russia it did reach this level?

Yes.
Of course, life expectancy was not the same in all countries of Western Europe and North America, but generally USSR reached the same level approximately in 1960-1980. In 1917, life expectancy in Russia was less than in developed countries by 10-15 years. As it is now.

 

[red_elk]

Much more efficient apparatus of terror

Arguable. Who said that the Red terror was more efficient than the White one?

Whites were dispersed and individual generals didn't cooperate with each other.

Incorrect. They cooperated wherever it was possible.

centralized military power (while Whites did not have one, unified command).

That's rather result of Red's superiority in the battlefield, than the reason of it.

Reds controlled most densely inhabited areas and most of population.

This one is correct. How do you think, why they controlled most of population?

 

[Domen]

War with Poland started when civil war was not over yet. The Reds were forced to withdraw forces from other theatres to repel Polish aggression.

Polish-Soviet (and Ukrainian communists) and Polish-West Ukrainian (Ukrainian nationalists) frontline in February 1919 (two maps):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=296120&stc=1&d=1311280245

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Frontwschodni_luty1919.png

Forces of general Iwaszkiewicz and general Listowski (facing the Red Army and Ukrainian People's Army - while the other 3 generals were facing Western Ukrainian Army) numbered only 12 infantry battalions (ca. 7200 bayonets), 12 cavalry squadrons (ca. 1800 sabers) and 3 artillery batteries (12 guns).

Do you think that Poland wanted to invade the Soviet Union with 9000 fighting soldiers supported by 12 artillery guns ???

The Red Army alone (without forces of Ukrainian communists) at that time numbered nearly 2 million (at least 1,7 million) men.

In June 1919 the Red Army had yet 2,32 million men (including 1,3 million in combat units, of them 0,4 million bayonets & sabers).

So who invaded whom?

The first battle was near the town of Mosty (see the map) on 14 February.

And Poles were defending in that battle.

But no - you continue to claim that Poland wanted to conquer the entire Soviet Union with a "huge army" of 9000 fighting soldiers Most of Polish forces were involved in combats for Lwow (see that Polish "bridgehead" surrounded by Ukrainian forces from north, south and east?) against West Ukraine.

In February Poles had no forces to provoke the Soviet Union - it was the Soviet Union which attacked first (in February of 1919), Poles only counterattacked in March ("Kiev Offensive" - which started on 5 March 1919 - one month after the Soviet attack near Mosty). Even before Mosty there were some clashes in Wilno between local Polish self-defence and advancing to the west Soviet forces, which captured Wilno.

And by the way - if anything - Poland was not capturing Soviet land but was capturing German-administrated areas of Oberst-Ost.

Oberst-Ost was handed over by German forces to Polish forces as the result of Polish-German agreement.

Ober-Ost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ober_Ost

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ober-Ost

Polish forces were capturing lands just recently abandoned by withdrawing German forces - which handed over these lands to Poland.

There were numerous combats between withdrawing German forces and Bolsheviks invading Europe (and Poland on their way).

Lithuanian, Latvian & Estonian forces - with help of withdrawing Germans - were also resisting (and later counterattacked) the advancing Soviets.

So not only Poland got invaded by Bolsheviks in 1919 - also Baltic States.

 

[Domen]

As I said, these are losses during German occupation in period 1941-1944.
All the other losses (Polish occupation, Soviet repressions) are not included.

Ok. Thanks.

This one is correct. How do you think, why they controlled most of population?

Because Bolsheviks started their coup d'état in areas which had most of population.

Incorrect. They cooperated wherever it was possible.

Ok. But it was very rarely possible because Reds controlled central regions of the country while Whites only north, east and south edges.

Arguable. Who said that the Red terror was more efficient than the White one?

Well - the Reds (10% of whom were foreigners - Germans, etc. - in 1918) managed to forcefully conscript more men to their army than the Whites.

Plus international community sympatized with the Whites, not with the Reds.

While for example today international community supports Libyan rebels - not Gaddafi.

Also because Gaddafi is the one whose terror is more efficient.

Your answer:
"Don't know any examples of pogroms involving local inhabitants in German-occupied (as of IX 1939 - VI 1941) part of Poland."
What about Jewish pogrom which happened in VII 1941, on German-occupied Polish territory? Does it count?

I clearly wrote that my statement was refering to German-occupied territories in period IX 1939 - VI 1941.

Jedwabne was Soviet-occupied since September 1939 until the German Invasion of the Soviet Union in the Summer of 1941.

So Jedwabne doesn't count because it was in the Soviet occupation zone (Western Belarussia) in period 1939 - 1941.

In July 1941 Jedwabne was on German-occupied Soviet territory (as before June 1941 it was part of Soviet "Western Belarus").

And how do you think, why it didn't happen before Germans occupied that area? May be because evil commies prevented local Polish population from massacring Jews?

In German-occupied Poland nobody prevented Polish population from massacring Jews in period 1939 - 1944. The opposite - Germans encouraged.

Yet no pogroms organized by local population - similar to Jedwabne (in Jedwabne also Germans participated, but nvm) - happened there.

So no.

On the other hand, in Soviet-occupied Poland (Jedwabne included) hatred of local population towards the Jews increased in period 1939 - 1941, because there was a common opinion that Jews were significant part of the Communist apparatus of terror (the stereotype of so called "Jewish Communism").

That is why when Germans invaded that Soviet land in 1941, there was more anti-Semitic sentiment among local population there, than had ever been among indigenous population of German-occupied Poland. The same refers to Ukrainians. And Belarussians were involved in anti-Jewish pogroms too.

But only those from territoies which had experienced Soviet occupation (Soviet rule - if you prefer) before the Nazis entered there.

Russia, 1917 - ~20% literate people
RSFSR, 1939 - ~90%
USSR, 1950 - ~100%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez

Ok, I was not fully correct with 1935 year.
The same question, which country in Europe managed to achieve similar results, as USSR did in 1917-1939?

Poland (within its 1921 - 1939 borders for both dates) had ca. 41% literacy in 1914 and ca. 85% in 1938.