>>21630
Not necessarily. It might be a good idea to look into the problem a little closer. Now I think I'll play the devil's advocate and try to argue in favor of what he says. This will take several post, not even sure if I'll finish it.
The first thing maybe to question is the importance of Poland for the Soviet. For this we should try and see the Soviet intention and motivation.
Originally at the bolshevik takeover the idea of exporting communism and creating the World Revolution was an ideal they wished to reach, this is an idealistic approach we could put it in another way: they wanted to take control not just in Russia but the other parts of the world. During the history of communism, they managed this partially both in direct and indirect ways, at the end WWII they basically conquered half of Europe, and during the Cold War quite a few places "converted" to communism/socialism all over the world. Both can be considered as the "export of communism".
But right after the bolshevik takeover the export proved to be an impossible thing, all the other places the communist revolution failed. In the Hungary it went for a while but because they didn't get support from Russia, in the end it failed here too. Does this mean they forgot about it? I don't think so, simply froze the plan for a while and started play a long game.
Than Stalin came to power, who might not seem to be an exemplar communist, much greater egoism. But this isn't going against the original idea simply it means a more practical imperialist approach (instead of idealistic "export communism") which uses the idea of world revolution to make others bow to his power. He still played for the whole world.
So Poland herself wasn't that important, they wanted Europe.