Sorry, my previous contributions to this thread have been made from work, so have, by necessity, had to be a bit on the brief side...
I think you could make convincing arguments for both points of view. Legbreaker’s point that NATO caused the most damage in the 1997 nuclear exchange is a perfectly good one (I may be mistaken but I think it was Trident missiles fired from a Royal Navy submarine that did for Warsaw). However, the use of propaganda has been mentioned several times in this thread, so I’d say it’s possible that NATO propagandists might try to put the blame for the destruction of Poland onto the Soviets (whilst at the same time the Soviets are blaming NATO). How widely each side’s propaganda is believed by the other is one of the many unknowns when considering this topic.
I think the Polish Government in Exile / Free Polish Congress / whatever you want to call it might enjoy a (very) brief flourish at the start of 1997 but would be pretty much out of the equation by the summer of that year (although I would expect it to serve as the main mouth piece for NATO propaganda in Poland until then). One point to consider is how few military units actually declared for it (two Border Guards Brigades iirc, but most of the Army remains loyal throughout most of the War, and when they do start to defect it is to local Governments such as Krakow and Silesia).
I have spent time in Poland with work; unlike BT I’ve never engaged in a direct conversation with a Pole that started “So, I play this RPG where your country is nuked to Hell...”, however I have spoken with Poles about the communist system, and one theme that I felt came across repeatedly was that communism encouraged conformity...you didn’t stand out from the crowd, didn’t put your head above the parapet...in a work environment you certainly didn’t suggest ways to do things that deviated from the established procedure...basically you didn’t display any individual initiative – you did what you were told. I just don’t see people like that rising up in mass revolt in 1997 (or later)...they were too indoctrinated (for lack of a better word), and as noted above, the Army remained loyal, which I think would be an influencing factor in any revolt.
That said, overall I remain inclined to agree with Targan. By the summer of 2000 I think most would be neither Pro Pact nor Pro NATO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
One more point I forgot in my original post, is that the locals, and it really doesn't matter what nationality they are, are likely to be friendly, or at least grudgingly supportive, of whatever military unit is in the vicinity, especially if they're making no signs of moving on. By being actively hostile, even passively resistant, they will invite the wrath of that heavily armed unit.
|
I think this is a very good point; I think the average Pole would have to be pragmatic about their situation and by the summer of 2000 any loyalty to pre War Governments would largely have ceased to exist - those living close to NATO cantonments, would ally with the NATO troops that are most likely keeping the marauders at bay, providing opportunities for employment, etc, whilst those close to Warsaw Pact Cantonments would side with the Warsaw Pact troops. Personally I don’t think it’s a case of allying with one side or the other– the average civilian simply has to look out for himself. It reminds me of a line in a Mike and the Mechanics song – “Swear allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer” (in this respect I don’t think the Poles are going to be any different from a number of other nationalities throughout Europe).
As others have said it’s certainly complicated...
