All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I don't wish to have a historical debate in a script's thread. I'll respond once here since it does potentially impact the development of the story.
Wikipedia was not the source for anything I said. Thus the "edit". After I posted, I went to wiki and glanced at it.
I don't really have time begin new research on a subject I am familiar with anyway. There is really no question Stalin was taken by surprise, despite numerous warnings. The Russian military was clearly caught off guard. Warnings were ignored or not believed. To suggest otherwise is to cut completely against the grain of conventional historical thought.
People might quibble over whether it was an "alliance" or not, and parse the meaning of alliance. But the world at the time viewed this as an alliance. Even American communist newspapers, and newspapers secretly run by Stalinists, suddenly became more pro-German, against US involvement in the war.
What purpose does Wiki have in making the "alliance" up? What bias does it serve? The pro-Ribbentrop support club? The quote is even footnoted.
But as far as Stew's story, the main issue is why would there be a Russian partisan in Poland? One can always concoct a reason. For example, he's married to a Polish girl. But to muddy waters this way would be a poor choice. My impression was that there was more than one Russian partisan, but I could have been mistaken in that. Certainly, the Russian is prominent, which would be unusual. And the writer has already admitted this was a mistake on his part. He clearly wrote this with the idea in mind that the Russians were then at war with Germany. The main purpose of my post was to point out that they were not. They were in an alliance at the time, though an uncomfortable one and a temporary one.
Consider the fact that Russia was at war with Poland. They had invaded from the east, part of their deal with the Nazis. And the Russians and Poles had been enemies for a thousand years. At one time, it was the Poles who terrorized Russia with invasions. In fact, even in the struggle after the Lenin Bolshevik takeover of Russia, a large Polish army invaded. It's inconceivable that a partisan Polish militia would accept a Russian soldier within their number, let alone as their leader. Inconceivable.
In a sense, one can go ahead in a story and put anyone with those partisans. You might choose to place an American or a an Englishman. But these can't be just random choices on the part of a writer. Having an American there would be very unusual, which means it would have to be a conscious choice of the writer and play some critical part in the story.
Vault, I love historical discussion. The issue is time, however. These are pretty much settled matters of history, but I am open to unsettling any matter for the sake of discussion. I am open to alternative views. The problem is time. I have work to do, and I want to finish these scripts in this 7WC as well. In my reviews, I always make clear that I am an amateur writer. One of the reasons is because I don't sugar coat. I give me thoughts straight, because I think that helps the writer the most. I expect the same on my work. But I know this kind of thing occasionally rubs someone the wrong way, provokes a reaction. "Who the heck is this guy?" I choose to risk that, because I'm trying to help. Stew will no doubt apply the same honest approach to my own material. He knows I'm a fan of this story, and that's why I'm willing to put in the time.
Dear Moderators, we have digressed from the script itself, but only a bit. Please, don't delete this, since it has to do with the reality of a certain character being where he is
Naw...you guys are good. And if Stew is reading all of this with an eye towards story, there may even be something valuable to be taken away.
And if memory serves, doesn't Kev have a history degree from somewhere? Of course, that does not preclude him spouting utter B.S. -- I am certainly no expert -- but at least it lends him a little extra cred in these matters. Sounds like you guys are wrapping it up yourselves, anyway.
But this type of discourse is hardly the stuff that gets deleted. Just saying. And don't call me "dear" -- I am nothing of the sort haha.
I do have a history degree, but to be fair, that adds little weight to what I'm saying on this subject. My specialization was 17th and 18th century European intellectual history. Ewww. No one wants to see any of that! Including me!
The points I made were just to help Stew. They are easily verified, and Stew himself recognized the mistake as soon as it was pointed out. The issue was partisan Russian fighters in 1940 Poland, and it would be extremely unusual to find them there. Pretty close to impossible.
BTW, Stew's got a very nice script going here. Very talented guy. I'd be proud to do half as well with a script.
The issue was partisan Russian fighters in 1940 Poland, and it would be extremely unusual to find them there. Pretty close to impossible.
I don't know what else I can add to what I have already said on this matter. Thousands of Russians lived in Poland in 1930's, many of them in the Nazi occupied territories, being Polish citizens. Why they can't be partisans? Why one of them can't be a small partisan group leader? Is it a national thing, "if you're not Polish -- don't fight?"
Having changing this character to a Jew or something wouldn't be much out of the ordinary. It's a fine choice, but we're aiming above fine, right? It's like having a criminal character being forgiven by someone - if we make him being forgiven by some random priest, it's nothing out of the ordinary, we get it - yeah, OK, priests forgive people all the time. But if we make him being forgiven by his victim's relative that's a whole different question. A poor analogy, I know. What I'm saying is, if I see Andrei, I think "Hm, interesting." If I see a Jew in his place, I think, "Oh, OK, moving on."
I have no problems with the history discussion - I've been interested in modern history anyways, so it's no problem. The insightful discussion is also helpful to me too. Even though the story contains some 'fantastical' elements - I'm still trying to place the story amidst true events.
Vaultman, you do understand, and I have said so above, that the Russians invaded Poland with Germany, right? I mean, I suppose there could be German partisans fighting alongside the Poles too, but it would be a little strange, wouldn't it?
If the writer chooses to do something unusual, like place a Russian partisan in a country that Russia is at war with, fighting a country Russian has joined with, it has to be a choice that is filled with meaning for the story. Because to anyone that knows the history, it will draw attention away from the main story. Which might be ok, if this is going to become a central part of the story.
Stew: In the old balance of power games played by European powers for centuries, it was not unusual for allies and enemies to switch and change, based on new treaties. The Russians and Poles had been enemies for a thousand years. The Russians and Germans had been allies, for example the Napoleonic Wars, and enemies, such as WWI. It was expected they would soon fight again, as they were the main powers in the region.
In a shocking development, the Russians signed a deal of cooperation with the Nazis. A series of deals, actually. The gist of it was they agreed to a 10 year peace, and agreed to divide up Eastern Europe. The biggest target, and relevant here, was Poland. The Germans invaded from the west, did most of the work, but the Russians came from the east, and absorbed the parts of Poland agreed to with the Germans. This was the final coup that really ended Polish resistance.
So you can imagine how most Poles felt about the Russians in 1940. If for some reason there was a Russian fighting with the Polish partisans, he would be the quietest guy in the bunch. Not the leader.
If you're going to keep a Russian partisan, I think you have to keep all this in mind.
Vaultman, you do understand, and I have said so above, that the Russians invaded Poland with Germany, right? I mean, I suppose there could be German partisans fighting alongside the Poles too, but it would be a little strange, wouldn't it?
By the time the Soviets entered Poland, Polish government had long fled. There was no law in the territories that became part of the Soviet Union. The choice was, either these lands go to Nazis, or they go to Soviets. I understand that you see no difference here, but it was there, and was quite significant. If Russians that stayed in Nazi part of Poland were genocided and treated like animals and untermenschen alongside with all the others, why wouldn't they fight? It makes no sense to bring up German partisans here.
If the writer chooses to do something unusual, like place a Russian partisan in a country that Russia is at war with, fighting a country Russian has joined with, it has to be a choice that is filled with meaning for the story.
If my memory serves me well, there were cases of Germans (very, very few, but they were, especially in the first days of the German invasion into the USSR) fighting alongside with Soviets against Nazis. I can remember at least one case of this, and I won't be much surprised if there were more. If that crazy alliance is possible, then Russian families, for many generations living in Poland, trapped on the Nazi part of it, fighting alongside their Polish brothers, makes even more sense than Germans fighting alongside with Soviets.
The biggest target, and relevant here, was Poland. The Germans invaded from the west, did most of the work, but the Russians came from the east, and absorbed the parts of Poland agreed to with the Germans. This was the final coup that really ended Polish resistance.
I asked you before, and you chose to ignore it. I will try again: are you saying that those territories had to be given to Nazis? Would the SS battalions do better in those eastern Polish territories? And to add to that, would the Polish resistance be able to fight successfully, without any official Polish government, against Nazis on its own (meaning, without Soviet involvement)?
I asked you before, and you chose to ignore it. I will try again: are you saying that those territories had to be given to Nazis? Would the SS battalions do better in those eastern Polish territories? And to add to that, would the Polish resistance be able to fight successfully, without any official Polish government, against Nazis on its own (meaning, without Soviet involvement)?
I'm not sure what I ignored. Actually, I'm not even sure what this question means.
I am going on memory, not any current research. I don't have time, I'm afraid. The Polish government abandoned ship early enough, but there were still active Polish armies which survived by moving east. There were discussions of regrouping and continuing resistance. And there was still a government in exile, with the army if I remember correct. When the Russians invaded from the east, that ended all discussion of regrouping and resisting with the sizable remaining army. And the exiled government moved to London for the duration. Where they were betrayed by Stalin and forced to suffer behind the Iron Curtain until Welesa.
I'm not sure I can answer what I don't understand as far as the question. The Nazis and Russians worked out what territories would be theirs. The Soviets took the Baltic states and part of Poland. The Germans got most of Poland. There may have been an understanding about the Slavic states in eastern Europe such as Yugoslavia, where they had competed, but I'm not sure about that.
SS battalions in eastern Poland: not sure what you mean. The issue was whether the Germans would have to fight the Russians in eastern Poland. That's why the Nazis worked out the alliance. So they would not have to.
Partisans generally don't work under a government. If there is a government in exile, they may cooperate, and usually do. But the very idea of a partisan is that they fight locally within a conquered territory. An independent command.
I'm not sure what I ignored. Actually, I'm not even sure what this question means.
It seems to me like you are equating the German attack on Poland and the Soviet taking of Polish east. The bottom line is: if the Soviets didn't have that treaty and Germans didn't give the east of Poland to them, the Nazis would have taken it themselves, bringing the same hell they brought to western Poland to all of it. Therefore, Soviets receiving part of Poland was, in fact, a blessing to those who lived in the east. Because the alternative was Nazis.
And the exiled government moved to London for the duration. Where they were betrayed by Stalin and forced to suffer behind the Iron Curtain until Welesa.
This is a bit confusing. Who was betrayed by Stalin? The Polish government that abandoned their country in the time of troubles? And they were betrayed by Stalin in London? And they suffered in London behind the Iron Curtain that was "invented" by Churchill?
SS battalions in eastern Poland: not sure what you mean. The issue was whether the Germans would have to fight the Russians in eastern Poland. That's why the Nazis worked out the alliance. So they would not have to.
If eastern Poland didn't become Soviet territory, it would have become German territory. With all the consequences to the population. That's what I was saying.
Partisans generally don't work under a government. If there is a government in exile, they may cooperate, and usually do. But the very idea of a partisan is that they fight locally within a conquered territory. An independent command.
I wasn't talking about partisans there, sorry for the confusion. You said that the final coup that ended the Polish resistance, meaning the army, as far as I understood, and not the partisans, was Soviets absorbing east of Poland. What I was asking was, would that official resistance, the remains of the army, be able to successfully oppose Nazis if the Soviets didn't attack them in the back?
I'm not sure how I want to approach this. I opened this last post with the intention of negotiating my own peace: the Treaty Of Kev/Vaultman. And I intended to try and make the first gesture. Perhaps I still can. We'll see how it goes.
Because I forgot, though. In my last post, I laid a trap. A bear trap.
I have been frankly surprised by this whole discussion from the start. The things I said were pretty much accepted history. That doesn't mean they're true. Accepted history is turned on its head once in a while.
But when you took on this debate, from the first post, I almost sensed...anger. And I couldn't really understand the source of it. At first I blamed myself. I know I rub people the wrong way in here, no matter how hard I sometimes try. So I figured it must be me, and that's what forced you into arguing a rather unusual position.
But the more I thought about it, that didn't seem to be it. You haven't been here long enough to hate me yet!
So it had to be something in the historical stuff I was alluding to. And you seemed to be taking it personally. There were only two things I could think of that might cause that when discussing the German-Soviet treaty. Either you were Russian, or you are...naw, can't be. Well maybe. We'll get to it soon.
Let's consider the first. That you might be Russian. Well, I respect the Russian people. I don't think anything anti-Russian was stated. And I don't think the treaty with Germany reflects too poorly on the Russians. It reflects more on Stalin. The Russians had little control over that.
So could it be...? Are you a communist? Wow, I haven't met a communist since college. And they weren't REAL communists. They were just spoiled kids looking for a cause. Now they are Occupiers.
But a real live honest to good communist! That would be neat. Is that what we're talking about here? Is that why you are so defensive of the Soviets?
Back to the discussion. Yes, the Germans could have taken all of Poland. And did in 1942 under Barbarosa when they attacked the Soviets. But this is all besides the point. The Polish people did not know that was going to happen in 1940. All they knew was that the Russians had invaded. And, I'm sorry, but they invaded in a cowardly way. They waited until the Germans took the brunt. I suppose cowardly could also be called devious and clever. Either way you prefer, I promise you, the Poles were not happy about it. You would not want to be caught by yourself near a Polish village speaking Russian in 1940.
Chruchill coined the phrase Iron Curtain, yes. After the war. But the curtain itself came down long before. The English tried and tried to help the Poles. They felt obligated, because they went to war in the first place for that reason. They achieved several promises out of Stalin that the Polish government in London would be given a say. That there would be elections. Churchill even flew out to Moscow to negotiate that very thing. The problem was, Stalin was lying. The Brits new he almost certainly was. There was nothing they could do. The Soviet Army was already the most powerful in the world. So when the terrible oppression that WAS Stalinism and IS Communism came down on the Poles, the world could do nothing but watch.
A reign of terror descended on that part of the world that lasted a half a century. Communists might tell otherwise. Believe them at your peril.
And the wave of freedom that finally freed Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union began in...Poland.
Could the Poles have held out in 1939 if the Russians had not advanced? No, though they were game for trying, and that's part of the record; and that would have tied up the Germans, used up resources that were later used in France.
The question is this: would the Germans have attacked Poland if they new the Russians, along with the English and French, would have backed the Poles?
I don't know the answer, and I'd love to see a historian answer that question. It's not as obvious as it seems. We look now at how the Germans attacked the Soviets anyway in 1941. But that was different. Because France was cooked by then. The thing that Germany needed to avoid was a two front war. They had feared it for a hundred years, and it proved to be their undoing in WWI. If the Russians had joined the allies in protecting Poland, I feel confident Hitler would not have attacked Poland. German strategy depended on knocking Poland out in a few weeks, before the Allies could mobilize, before the Brits could move troops to the continent. The treaty allowed them to do that. They took out Poland, then immediately transported most of the troops to the French and Belgian border.
But they could not have done that if Russian armies were advancing on them. And Polish troops would have stayed in the game. They actually had quite sizable armies remaining in the field.
Look history is...history. It's in the past. There is no denying what the Soviets did to Poland was terrible. Both in 1939 and after the war. And if Stalin was not evil, there's no such thing as evil. But it's water under the bridge. Like I said before, historically, back in the middle ages, the Poles were powerful and invaded and enserfed the Russians over and over. It's time for new history. A fresh start. Bygones be bygones.
As long as it's without communism. Humanity should not have to keep making that mistake.
I have been frankly surprised by this whole discussion from the start. The things I said were pretty much accepted history. That doesn't mean they're true. Accepted history is turned on its head once in a while.
You were partly right in your "suspicions." I am Russian. I don't live in Russia. No, not a communist, too. The reason I got a bit emotional is, I hear most of those facts you listed on a daily basis from quite educated people. I understand that this is mainstream, conventional thought. I presented my reasons for why these things are not true. Simple reasons that are often overlooked.
And, I'm sorry, but they invaded in a cowardly way. They waited until the Germans took the brunt. I suppose cowardly could also be called devious and clever. Either way you prefer, I promise you, the Poles were not happy about it.
The Polish elites have fled. The Polish army will be destroyed in a matter of days and the people of the territories not yet German soon will be become theirs. It's not coward or clever, it's normal - why, in the world, give these territories to Nazis? And if they attacked at the same time as Nazis, that would be more noble?
The English tried and tried to help the Poles. They felt obligated, because they went to war in the first place for that reason.
No, they didn't. They liked to talk a lot, though. Phoney War, that's what it was later called, right? For those several weeks Germans were in Poland neither French nor British did a damn thing, even though they declared the war to Germany. And they could have defeated Germany in those days, as some astonished German generals later recalled. When Polish army asked them to bomb Germans, they first received an answer from the French that they will, then that they do. But they didn't.
The thing that Germany needed to avoid was a two front war. They had feared it for a hundred years, and it proved to be their undoing in WWI. If the Russians had joined the allies in protecting Poland, I feel confident Hitler would not have attacked Poland.
This is true. They feared a two front war and were terrified when Brits and French declared the war. And were awed when nothing followed later on.
And I must correct you: not "If the Russians had joined the allies in protecting Poland," but "If the allies agreed to join Russia and convince Poland that it needs protection." Britain and France refused making an alliance when the Soviets proposed one in mid-April 1939. They wanted Soviet help in case of German attack, but they didn't want to sign anything significant that would bind them to help the Soviets. But that's normal politics. The thing that astonishes me the most is that Poland itself refused Soviet help, many times in 1939. It thought of itself as a barrier that protected Europe from communism.
And how could the Soviets go to war with Germany without having any common border with them? Poland refused to let them through their land. And if the war started in this case, Soviets would have to passively wait until Germany crushes Poland and only then engage in combat. How reasonable is that? If Poland allowed them, they would have been able to oppose the Germans alongside Polish armies. But Polish were too stubborn. How were they supposed to act? Help Polish out against their will?
But it's water under the bridge. Like I said before, historically, back in the middle ages, the Poles were powerful and invaded and enserfed the Russians over and over. It's time for new history. A fresh start. Bygones be bygones.
It is a mistake to say so. History can be perverted in any way, and then just add: bygones are bygones, why do you bother? It's the past, anyway.
Please, don't get me wrong: my goal is not to prove that you are wrong. I do understand I am taking your time. We can stop this any time you want. I, personally, don't see any reason to argue here if you will think that I am saying this because it is personal and only because of my nationality. I would have said the same things if I was anything other.
I agree with much of your latest post. And I'm glad to learn of your first hand and family related accounts from that part of the world. If only I could visit and hear them first hand! I would enjoy your opinions.
I agree that it's a mistake to think the water is truly under the bridge. When it comes to these things, it never is. Memories are long, lasting beyond generations, and in this case, many of the witnesses to that history are still alive. I made this suggestion of bygones being bygones as a conciliatory gesture. I would rather have peace with you than war.
I am grateful that you at last recognize that my presentation of the historical facts is indeed how history has recorded things. As I said, the recording of history sometimes changes as new facts or arguments come to light. But the things I have been saying are what is conventionally thought to have happened. I welcome to hear your alternative version, but it is important that you recognize that it is in fact alternative. You need to recognize that because this is a thread for someone's script, and he should know that some of your suggestions are unconventional.
The Soviet Invasion of Poland: I don't think you are really suggesting this was noble, or done for the Poles. The Russians and the Germans had been gobbling up Poland for two hundred years. This was only the latest effort at that. Whether the Nazis would have taken the eastern territories is irrelevant to assessing the motivations of the Soviets. And I'm quite confident in how the Poles felt about it.
the Soviet/Nazi Treaty: did those two years result in the Nazi defeat? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Certainly the Russians bore the brunt of the burden of that war. But let's not impart some nobility on that treaty through the magic of hindsight. The Germans were not that strong in 1939. Their armaments were not ready. They went to war anyway. The Soviets were vulnerable because of Stalin's paranoid officer purges, which decimated the Soviet armies. And yes, the Soviets and the Allies had been negotiating. And yes, the Poles did refuse to allow Russian armies onto their territory. Very understandable, given the history, and knowing what we now know came with Russian occupation later.
The treaty was purely a chance for the Russians to expand their territory and influence. The Soviets were very expansionist at the time, as the Fins could tell you. You could take the position that this was business as it had been for centuries in Europe, as nations played their game of empire. But there was no higher or noble cause involved.
When I said the English tried to help the Poles, I was talking about efforts to get Stalin to agree to let the Poles determine their own future after the war. The Brits were powerless to land armies in Poland. That would have been suicide, at any time. The British land forces were tiny compared to German or Russian forces, and the distance was too far to support them. The only power they had was diplomacy. And Stalin was a snake, so there was not much to be done. But they did try.
This idea that the Soviets invaded Poland in 1940 to either protect the Poles, or as an advance step toward thwarting the Germans...come on, Vault. That's not gonna stand, if that's your position. It's just not gonna stand. It's really hard to avoid the determination that you are twisting historical facts to avoid conclusions you are uncomfortable with. The Russian presence in that part of the world was not positive. It was hardly better than the Nazis, if at all. I'm not knocking the Russian people. Communism and Left Wing extremism is the problem. Notions of central planning, not just of the economy, but of society itself were grafted onto the 19th Century impetus of nationalistic empire, and the result was brutal oppression.
No doubt, as the Soviet occupation left behind Russian families in the former parts of its empire, it can be very uncomfortable for them. I don't have an answer to that problem. Certainly the solution has to lie in an honest reckoning of the history, and not one which is designed to avoid discomfort of the former occupiers. Whatever the case, I hope things are worked out peacefully.
I welcome to hear your alternative version, but it is important that you recognize that it is in fact alternative. You need to recognize that because this is a thread for someone's script, and he should know that some of your suggestions are unconventional.
I didn't make this version up. Conventionality is set by the dominating ideology. The one that dominates now is attempting to equate Soviet communism and Nazism, after which rehabilitate the latter. This is why the version I am presenting is called alternative, not because it is far from true or is speculative. You almost blamed me for speaking from a communist position. The thing is, I'm not the one here who's arguments are influenced by ideology.
Whether the Nazis would have taken the eastern territories is irrelevant to assessing the motivations of the Soviets.
It isn't? Really, why would Soviets care if Germans, a year or two before a new war, will gain some more territories, some more people. The Germans were stopped for the first time 70km before Moscow. That is less than the Polish territory that went to the Soviets, if I'm not mistaken. Without it, Moscow would have been lost. Why would we think of this as of an irrelevant fact?
And yes, the Poles did refuse to allow Russian armies onto their territory. Very understandable, given the history, and knowing what we now know came with Russian occupation later.
Very wise and understandable. Especially considering the fact how close the Poles and Nazis were, occupying certain countries' territories together. I am not claiming anything right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if Poles were dreaming of going east together with their Nazi friends. And anyway, being occupied by their friends, the Nazis, is much better that allowing Soviets fight for them along with Brits and French, isn't it?
The Soviets were very expansionist at the time, as the Fins could tell you.
The friends of Nazis, the Fins, could tell us a lot. They could, for example, tell that their soldiers wounded several and killed at least one Soviet border guard. They could also tell that they had blue swastikas painted on the wings of their planes in 1940 and helped Nazis besiege Leningrad later on, killing a million people there. Which, of course, is understandable and didn't mean anything. Did it?
The expansionists, by the way, were exactly the people that were purged in 1937-1938. They were the people that saw Russia as firewood for the world revolution. Stalin stopped that.
This idea that the Soviets invaded Poland in 1940 to either protect the Poles, or as an advance step toward thwarting the Germans...come on, Vault. That's not gonna stand, if that's your position. It's just not gonna stand. It's really hard to avoid the determination that you are twisting historical facts to avoid conclusions you are uncomfortable with.
They did invade their part of Poland as an advance step. Why is that such a surprise for you? You do know that strategic decisions tend to get made in politics. And if the Soviets realize that Germans will occupy certain countries to use them as a springboard for attack in a matter of a dozen or two months, it is understandable that they want to take the lead, a first step of which was to try to make an alliance with the West. What should they do when the alliance doesn't work out (thank you, Poland)? Say screw it, let them have their Poland? The actions of the Soviet side are very sequential, but they don't fit the picture where them and Nazis are allies.
And now it turns out that I'm twisting facts? It would be very interesting to know what facts exactly did I twist.
Vault, I'm sorry, I have to bow out of the argument. You've become irrational. It's a waste of my time. The fact that you would defend the Soviet invasion of Finland, even using the old Soviet ruse of a scuffle on the border with a guard. Unbelievable, really. You live in some Stalin created propaganda world. No one will ever reach you there. If only we could all create our own worlds to inhabit. Have fun in there.
Pages: 
Author
The Secret War - 7WC
Logged
Locked Board