PolishForums LIVE  /  Archives [3]    
 
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width69

Another WWII thread.


MareGaea  29 | 2751  
25 Sep 2009 /  #61
How do you explain the cold war between the USA and the USSR (two nations which face each other across a narrow sea) never turning hot?

Easy, the threat of mutual destruction. If you use nuclear weapons against us, we will use nuclear weapons against you. No more, no less.

About the English: Hitler still hoped that the UK would sue for peace after 1 September 1939 because he regarded the English as a fellow-Germanic ppl.

M-G (still busy)
sjam  2 | 541  
25 Sep 2009 /  #62
Is it your opinion that it was foolish?:)

At the time many in Great Britain belived it was. Hitler belived it was.

I believe if one makes a pledge one should always honour it, come what may and Great Britain IMO did just that—for the most part.

But it is also the opinion of some on PF that Britain did not honour its pledges to Poland in WWII. I do not wholly agree with this view as there was Churchill's obvious lies to General Anders about Poland's post-war future. This was Churchill's dishonour and is a different debate as to why Churchill was not honest with Anders.

About the English: Hitler still hoped that the UK would sue for peace after 1 September 1939 because he regarded the English as a fellow-Germanic ppl.

The British monarchy had strong historic family links to Germany so it was only natural that Hitler considered 'us' friends.
Harry  
25 Sep 2009 /  #63
I believe if one makes a pledge one should always honour it, come what may and Great Britain IMO did just that—for the most part.

For the most part? Which parts of the 1939 treaty did Britain not keep to?

Churchill's obvious lies to General Anders about Poland's post-war future. This was Churchill's dishonour and is a different debate as to why Churchill was not honest with Anders.

Point taken but the Hess affair shows that if Churchill hadn't been leader of Britain, Britain probably would have reached a peace deal with Germany.
sjam  2 | 541  
25 Sep 2009 /  #64
For the most part? Which parts of the 1939 treaty did Britain not keep to?

I would not argue about the treaty only that Anders recieved a personal pledge from Churchill that Poland's post-war future would be determined by Poles. This was not true as Poland's future had been determined at Tehran (without reference to Polish-government-in-exile) a year earlier than Churchill's pledge to Gen. Anders that the then legitmate Polish-government-in-exile would have some part to play in the homeland's future. For me this was the dishonour and betrayal of trust between the two Allies. But as we know there were many reasons how this situation came about; the total disunity of purpose bewteen the various in-fighting factions within the Polish-government-in-exile IMO was a big contributing factor as to their being sidelined from the descison making process, combined with their increasing military irrelavance as perceived by the major Allied powers in the defeat of Nazism in Europe.

if Churchill hadn't been leader of Britain, Britain probably would have reached a peace deal with Germany

I can go along with that.
Harry  
25 Sep 2009 /  #65
Anders recieved a personal pledge from Churchill that Poland's post-war future would be determined by Poles.

But Poland's post-war future was determined by Poles. There's no way that the Soviets would have been able to rig the 1946 referendum or to ensure that Poland had a compliant government if they had received no help from even a single Pole. The post-war history of Poland wasn't decided by Poles and it was most probably not determined by the majority of Poles but it certainly was determined by Poles. The present day attitude of 'all Poles were just victims of Communism because all Poles were good' helps nobody and is instead both harmful and dangerous.
sjam  2 | 541  
25 Sep 2009 /  #66
But Poland's post-war future was determined by Poles.

I am sorry Harry, but I disagree. Poland's post-war future was determined round a table in Terhan where no Pole was seated.

However I agree, that in post-war Poland, Polish communists did help USSR to impose and secure communist control over Poland, it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.

The present day attitude of 'all Poles were just victims of Communism

Don't you know there were no 'Polish' communists in post-war Poland only Jewish communists and Soviet communists running the country and armed forces, or so some would have us believe.
Harry  
25 Sep 2009 /  #67
Don't you know there were no 'Polish' communists in post-war Poland only Jewish communists and Soviet communists running the country and armed forces, or so some would have us believe.

You forgot the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Poland_(Mijal) - 'Albanian Chinese' communists in the opposition!
Piorun  - | 655  
25 Sep 2009 /  #68
Hitler never wanted to a war with Great Britain.

Perhaps but not for the reasons you have stated and the admiration bit is also over the top. You can acknowledge someone's successes and learn from their tactics but you would never ever admire anyone who you consider to be racially, mentally and culturally subservient to yourself. While Brits might have been considered a step above the Slavs, still you were not true Arian either, that honour was reserved for someone of the pure German blood only.

He admired the process by which little Britain controlled its huge empire by using 'locals' to do much of the administrative dirty work, a process Hitler was keen to emulate in the Nazi occupied territories.

He never planed on doing such thing. His plans for the East and its people are well documented by the historians. The very first days of the war had shown that the Nazi invader was devoid of any humanitarian feelings and had no respect for international conventions or rules for the conduct of war through which it had shown what was about to follow. Every day brought reports of atrocities being committed on the civilian population by the Wehrmacht in the territories they had overrun. The occupation authorities proved themselves as brutal and vicious, and devoid of any laws be it that of the local population or that of Germany itself but could have they done otherwise?, when they were just looking after the livestock, yet you make it sound like they would have govern these territories in Roman fashion. At least the Romans had respect for the local laws and traditions. Both the British and the Romens for the most part cared only about the profits from the conquered territories. Which was demonstrated by the British administration of India and other parts of the Empire, Nazis did not, as we all know they had an ideological element to their conquest which was even more important to their notion of the Great German Empire and a Thousand Year Reich.

But Britain foolishly went to war against Germany to honour its pledge to Poland. Some might argue this was Great Britains biggest mistake of 20th Century, apart from allowing the Poll Tax protestors bring down Thatcher's government :-)

This very much depends on your perspective. I would had argue otherwise but if you do admire the policy and the vision of the new world order under Nazi regime then you do have the point.

According to Zweites Buch (the follow up to Mein Kampf) a final struggle would take place between the United States and the combined forces of Greater Germany and the British Empire.

Who are you kidding, at this point Britain would have served its purpose, no longer needed by the Thousand Year Reich and would have been discarded as easily as one discards dirty pair of socks.

Both of you can praise the Nazi Germany and make a descent attempt of defending Hitler's policies as well as what his plans for alliance might have been or what if scenario, but deep down inside you both know the bitter truth and what the reality and consequences of such alliance might have been.
sjam  2 | 541  
25 Sep 2009 /  #69
Both of you can praise the Nazi Germany and make a descent attempt of defending Hitler's policies

How you can construe in any of my posts that I am praising Nazi Germany or defending Hitlers policy to try and murder my Polish grandmother at KZ-Ravensbruck and Sachsenhausen or his policy to deport my Polish father to Germany as a boy to a forced labour camp or his policy to execute my grandfather in a Warsaw street is quite beyond me. You obviously speak an alien language to me!

yet you make it sound like they would have govern these territories in Roman fashion.

I make no reference to a Roman fashion but to a British fashion. The words are not even similar sounding or in reading? Maybe you should re-read what I wrote and you will plainly see I wrote about Great Britain and her empire not the Roman empire!

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / Another WWII thread.Archived