Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 95

Any apologies about Sikorski's 'murder'?


OP Harry  
4 Feb 2009 /  #31
Harry you are troll using diffenrent nick names on this forum

No I'm not. Ask any moderator about the IP address I use and the one whoever you think I am uses.

... but just read this book.

It is good that some Brrits and Americans write honest history books about Poland... British have tendency to believe only for "their" authors so fortuantly there are some.

The very simple fact is that the official government of Poland was invited to send representatives but didn't bother and that representatives of the Free Polish forces were also invited but that they refused to turn up because they thought that not enough of them were invited.

Does your wonderful book mention that the top pilot in 303 squadron wasn't Polish and neither was the third best pilot? Doubtful.

Harry: When is Poland going to write a letter to Ukraine apologising for stealing half of Ukraine and oppressing the people there after Poland stabbed Ukraine in the back while the two nations were supposed to be fighting together against the Russians.

That's marvellous information but I was talking about how Poland stabbed Ukraine in the back and stole half the country after the Polish-Soviet war of 1920-1921. Poland and Ukraine signed the treaty of Warsaw in 1920 in which Poland promised Ukraine that the countries would fight the Soviets together. Then, after the war was won, Poland promptly signed the treaty of Riga in 1921 in which the Soviets and Poles made a peace which didn't involve the Ukrainians (specifically forbidden under the treaty of Warsaw) and Poland stole half of Ukraine. The USSR paid Poland 30 million rubles and got the other half of Ukraine to do with as it wished.

Why not learn about the history that you claim to be so proud of?
Prince 15 | 590  
4 Feb 2009 /  #32
The very simple fact is that the official government of Poland was invited to send representatives but didn't bother and that representatives of the Free Polish forces were also invited but that they refused to turn up because they thought that not enough of them were invited.

Ok I trust more for authors I have mentioned and that British government had real reason to excuse Poles for this parade.

That's marvellous information but I was talking about how Poland stabbed Ukraine in the back and stole half the country after the Polish-Soviet war of 1920-1921. Poland and Ukraine signed the treaty of Warsaw in 1920 in which Poland promised Ukraine that the countries would fight the Soviets together. Then, after the war was won, Poland promptly signed the treaty of Riga in 1921 in which the Soviets and Poles made a peace which didn't involve the Ukrainians (specifically forbidden under the treaty of Warsaw) and Poland stole half of Ukraine. The USSR paid Poland 30 million rubles and got the other half of Ukraine to do with as it wished. Why not learn about the history that you claim to be so proud of?

Poland had taken Lwów, city with Polish majority and citizens who, 3 years ealier, had formed units from their childern to defend Lwów in war against Ukrainians.

Anny way Harry you vision of history is strange.
sjam 2 | 541  
4 Feb 2009 /  #33
The very simple fact is that the official government of Poland was invited to send representatives but didn't bother and that representatives of the Free Polish forces were also invited but that they refused to turn up because they thought that not enough of them were invited.

I think it was actually only sections of the Polish Airforce (PAF) that were reluctantly invited not the Polish land forces. So the PAF declined the invitation if the land forces were not to be present.

The British government had by then (1946) already recognised the Stalinist Polish government and the Polish-government-in-exile in London was derecognised and so illegitimate to the British; therefore the Polish 'free' forces could not be afforded official reconigtion by HM government—I believe the British F.O. knew that by only inviting a small section of PAF they would naturally refuse to participate.

One wonders why British goverment would apologise for not inviting the Poles if indeed they were invited? They could just as well have published the original invitation to refute the claim Polish forces were not invited? Afterall they have access to their own archives.
ukpolska  
4 Feb 2009 /  #34
Anny way Harry you vision of history is strange.

I the same as Harry have lived in this country for many years and Poles have warped sense of history that has been developed by carrying one of the biggest chips on their shoulders of all time.

I am fed up with Polish blaming everyone one else and taking no responsibility themselves, when in fact they are their own worst enemy.
Put the past to bed, and look to a brighter future and don't expect everyone to give Poland preferential treatment just because they think they deserve it.
Prince 15 | 590  
4 Feb 2009 /  #35
The British government had by then (1946) already recognised the Stalinist Polish government and the Polish-government-in-exile in London was derecognised and so illegitimate to the British; therefore the Polish 'free' forces could not be afforded official reconigtion by HM government

That is the main problem. Because Stalinist Polish government had no support in Poland.

I am fed up with Polish blaming everyone one else and taking no responsibility themselves, when in fact they are their own worst enemy.Put the past to bed, and look to a brighter future and don't expect everyone to give Poland preferential treatment just because they think they deserve it.

We are debating history.

"Poland Politics and History"
ukpolska  
4 Feb 2009 /  #36
We are debating history.

"Poland Politics and History"

Of course Prince who would question your debating skills here!!!
OP Harry  
4 Feb 2009 /  #37
I think it was actually only sections of the Polish Airforce (PAF) that were reluctantly invited not the Polish land forces. So the PAF declined the invitation if the land forces were not to be present.

That is almost entirely correct. Only representatives of the Free Polish airforce were invited. They refused to attend unless representatives of both land and sea forces were invited.

The British government had by then (1946) already recognised the Stalinist Polish government and the Polish-government-in-exile in London was derecognised and so illegitimate to the British; therefore the Polish 'free' forces could not be afforded official reconigtion by HM government—I believe the British F.O. knew that by only inviting a small section of PAF they would naturally refuse to participate.

I've never seen the logic in that position: Free Polish forces could not take part in the parade for fear of offending Stalin, so HM government invited Free Polish forces to take part. Doesn't make much sense.

One wonders why British goverment would apologise for not inviting the Poles if indeed they were invited?

Here's the point: no apology for not inviting Poles was issued. There was an expression of regret at no Polish forces had taken part. No apology and nothing about any invitation.

They could just as well have published the original invitation to refute the claim Polish forces were not invited? Afterall they have access to their own archives.

Because they are damned if they do ("Why can't the British open their archives about Sikorski after murdering him!?" "Britain still making pathetic excuses about her actions in WWII") and damned if they don't ("Polish forces weren't invited to the parade and the proof of this is the British government refusing to publish the invitation!") One of those things that is best just left alone for them really.

Anny way Harry you vision of history is strange.

Would you care to make any comment on the backstab move carried out by Poland in the treaties of Warsaw and Riga?

Thought not.

Poles have warped sense of history that has been developed by carrying one of the biggest chips on their shoulders of all time.

Quite right. You never hear a Pole talking about Eastern Betrayal but you'll hear plenty bleating on about Western 'Betrayal'. It's as if Britain split Poland 50/50 with the Nazis and then set about repressing the Polish people, but in reality it was the Poles who split Ukraine 50/50 with the Soviets and then set about repressing the Ukrainian people!
Prince 15 | 590  
4 Feb 2009 /  #38
Would you care to make any comment on the backstab move carried out by Poland in the treaties of Warsaw and Riga? Thought not.

Poland couldn't beat Soviets because White Russians were allied with allies from WWI, anti-commie Russians rejected Polish independence. Only peace with commie Russia was possible.

but in reality it was the Poles who split Ukraine 50/50 with the Soviets and then set about repressing the Ukrainian people!

As I've said. Lwów was Polish.

Belarus

polishforums.com/poles_belarus_minority_under_siege-32_30866_0.html

WTF! Who was splited ?

Where is this 50/50 ?

Why this cities after WWII were given for somebody ease? Milions of people were expeled. Poland was on allies side durring WWII.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Feb 2009 /  #39
Harry was referring to this idea of sharing Ukraine and running amok there.

However, Lviv/Lvov was Polish. Prince, what factors brought about the restoration of Lviv to Ukrainian control?
OP Harry  
4 Feb 2009 /  #40
Poland couldn't beat Soviets because White Russians were allied with allies from WWI, anti-commie Russians rejected Polish independence. Only peace with commie Russia was possible.

A seperate peace between Poland and the USSR was specifically forbidden by the treaty of Warsaw. Poland signed that treaty when it suited them and then did exactly what they had promised not to.

Harry: but in reality it was the Poles who split Ukraine 50/50 with the Soviets and then set about repressing the Ukrainian people!

As I've said. Lwów was Polish.

What about the rest of the territory Poland took following the treaty of Riga? If those areas were so Polish, why did the Polish government carry out a repressive program of Polonization, destroying non-Roman-Catholic churches and banning the use of all languages other than Polish?
Prince 15 | 590  
4 Feb 2009 /  #41
Poland signed that treaty when it suited them and then did exactly what they had promised not to.

Poland couldn't beat Soviets totaly because it would be the end of Poland. Occupation of Russian wasn't possible as well. Pilsudski said Moscov for Russians.

However, Lviv/Lvov was Polish

That is the problem - if there was Polish majority who fought aganist Ukrainains. What kind of sharing was that ?

what factors brought about the restoration of Lviv to Ukrainian control?

Yalta.

What about the rest of the territory Poland took following the treaty of Riga? If those areas were so Polish

Most of this lands had Polish majority I don't know anny facts about this oppersons . If you look on current problems with people who some how stayed there ...
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Feb 2009 /  #42
So, what is your interpretation of Roosevelt? From what I have read, he seems like a really weak politician.
Pinching Pete - | 558  
4 Feb 2009 /  #43
Probably the dumbest goddamn thing ever typed on this forum. As typical, a limey produced it.

A weak politician gets elected 4 times??? Wait don't you wait out in the car for now on son, chew some bubble gum or something.
Prince 15 | 590  
4 Feb 2009 /  #44
Yalta is long story and needs new thread.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Feb 2009 /  #45
He sold Poland down the river and couldn't face up to Stalin. Doesn't seem very strong to me.
IronsE11 2 | 442  
4 Feb 2009 /  #46
So, what is your interpretation of Roosevelt?

My favourite president. I got to vote in the Smithsonian :)

Probably the dumbest goddamn thing ever typed on this forum.

People in glass houses.... or should I say fish tanks?
Pinching Pete - | 558  
4 Feb 2009 /  #47
People in glass houses.... or should I say fish tanks?

Uhh huh.. tell me more about how Vietnam was about colonization. Hahaha.
OP Harry  
4 Feb 2009 /  #48
Most of this lands had Polish majority.

No it didn't. Not even the Polish government made such a stupid claim. Here is what they defined as the majority for each district in Poland on the basis of the 1931 census:

Map of population of Poland 1931
IronsE11 2 | 442  
4 Feb 2009 /  #49
He sold Poland down the river and couldn't face up to Stalin

He was elected to represent US citizens. Why would/should he have faced up to Stalin, and risked American lives for Polish independence?
OP Harry  
4 Feb 2009 /  #50
Haven't you heard? It is the responsibility of all people in every country of the world to lay down their lives if that is what is in the best interests of Poland.
IronsE11 2 | 442  
4 Feb 2009 /  #51
Uhh huh.. tell me more about how Vietnam was about colonization. Hahaha.

Firstly, you can stop licking the windows of your fish tank, visit dictionary.com and check out the definition of colonialism. Then you can do some reading on the US motives in Vietnam and admit you are complete tool.

Thank me later.

Colonialism:

1. the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people.
2. the system or policy by which a nation maintains or advocates such control or influence.
3. the state or condition of being colonial.
4. an idea, custom, or practice peculiar to a colony.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Feb 2009 /  #52
So the view on Roosevelt is quite clear then :)

I don't know enough about the man really. That much is clear.
Pinching Pete - | 558  
4 Feb 2009 /  #53
I don't know enough about the man really. That much is clear.

Uhh genius.. NO ROOSEVELT.. No lend lease for your sorry asses. No US intervention in WWII. Hitler's boots propped up in buckingham palace. Verstehen Sie?

BTW Prince: Roosevelt didn't owe the Polish anything. Get the hell over you were sold out. You took Stalin's hand actually.

US motives in Vietnam and admit you are complete tool.

What a complete f*uck. We didn't go in there to set up permanent shop.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Feb 2009 /  #54
Well, I knew that about him Pete. Sorry, he didn't get much coverage in my history classes and he should have. Ich verstehe ;)
IronsE11 2 | 442  
4 Feb 2009 /  #55
We didn't go in there to set up permanent shop.

I didn't say you did, just refer to the definitions I provided you:

1. the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people.
2. the system or policy by which a nation maintains or advocates such control or influence.


I think that pretty much applies.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
4 Feb 2009 /  #56
Do stop with the lies. The UK did not refuse to attack Germany and it was under no obligation to do so anyway. Read the treaty in question and you might not sound like a complete moron.

According to the treaty France was to begin the offensive operations within 3 weeks while England was to begin offensive fleet operations within the first seven days, neither did anything, learn history before you start tossing meat.

England was most certainly not next. The Nazi focus was on the East and building a vast empire there, not on fighting with fellow Aryan nations.

How about you stop that uneducated bullshit right now and not make yourself a complete fool ? Read Keitels biography, he states quite clearly that Hitler "would love Britain as long as it suited him but in the end it would not be allowed to remain".

The guy was in the inner ring of Hitlers supporters, if he's saying so i take his word over the word of a random uneducated guy.

Despite your masterly summation, the Nazi regime did not need war “to roll”. Read a little about what the Nazis actually wanted and you might learn something.

Yes it did, everyone expected war and wanted war, the Nazi regime was not capable of maintaining itself without an external enemy, also Hitler didnt just want "Germania" he wanted to be the sole power on the old continent ( again Keitels bio by prof Janson ) and as such would go to war with Britain sooner than later and without Russia to drain away Nazi resources England would be utterly crushed.

As is traditional at these times, I will ask the question that no Pole has ever answered, despite many being asked it: what would you like the UK to have done in September/October 1939 that it did not do?

Use its fleet to shell German harbors and attack both the merchant and military shipping on the baltic, establish a naval link with polish held harbors and naval bases and start offloading troops which is what it was supposed to do according to the treaty it signed.

Not a single ship even fired at a german vessel.
OP Harry  
4 Feb 2009 /  #57
According to the treaty France was to begin the offensive operations within 3 weeks while England was to begin offensive fleet operations within the first seven days, neither did anything, learn history before you start tossing meat.

Please stop with the lies. The Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland which was signed in London on 25 August 1939 contained no such commitment at all. Read it for yourself

avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp

How about you stop that uneducated bullshit right now and not make yourself a complete fool ? Read Keitels biography, he states quite clearly that Hitler "would love Britain as long as it suited him but in the end it would not be allowed to remain".

You mean the one written while he was awaiting execution and was translated by none other than David Irving? I'm sure that that is reliable.

Remind me what Adolf Hitler's favourite film was. And why he liked it so much. And what message he told people the film had.

Use its fleet to shell German harbors and attack both the merchant and military shipping on the baltic, establish a naval link with polish held harbors and naval bases and start offloading troops which is what it was supposed to do according to the treaty it signed.

Not a single ship even fired at a german vessel.

There were no Polish held harbors or naval bases after the first week of September. Attacks against German ports were started within two hours of war being declared. And do stop with the lies about what the British navy was supposed to do according to the treaty.

Why don't you tell us what the mighty Polish navy did? Their four best ships ran away from the fight even before the war started. Go read about the Pekin Plan and how Poland's naval heroes legged it to the safety of a British port before even a shot was fired anywhere. Then read about the battle of Gdansk bay when the remains of the Polish navy attempted to lay a minefield but instead dumped their mines over the side of the boat and ran back to port.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
4 Feb 2009 /  #58
Please stop with the lies. The Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland which was signed in London on 25 August 1939 contained no such commitment at all. Read it for yourself

All the support and assistance in its power, we're talking six battleships with their battlegroups in the vicinity, we're talking aircraft carriers which could sit in the Baltic and aid coastal efforts, we're talking all german shipping sunk or confined to its harbors, instead not a single ship was moved, i understand you hate Poland and will generally discuss against it but the fact is that the aid UK could have given was huge and instead it sat on its ass twiddling its thumbs.

You mean the one written while he was awaiting execution and was translated by none other than David Irving? I'm sure that that is reliable.

Irving simply recorded his auto-biography but if you really want why not read Speers memoirs in which he explicitly states that Hitler remarked that he doesnt want war with Britain but "sooner or later it would have to be put down".

Germany would fight and defeat Britain after it was done in the mainland, you can scream that its unreliable all you want but two of Hitlers inner ring claim so and their word holds over yours.

There were no Polish held harbors or naval bases after the first week of September. Attacks against German ports were started within two hours of war being declared. And do stop with the lies about what the British navy was supposed to do according to the treaty.

There werent ? So Hel penninsula which defended for 5 weeks and could accept shipping is what ?

And do stop with the lies about what the British navy was supposed to do according to the treaty.

It was supposed to give all aid possible as soon as possible, it gave no aid at all, there's no lies here, just truth you're uncomfortable with.

Why don't you tell us what the mighty Polish navy did? Their four best ships ran away from the fight even before the war started. Go read about the Pekin Plan and how Poland's naval heroes legged it to the safety of a British port before even a shot was fired anywhere.

Given that polish navy consisted of 8 light ships they could either suicide themselves against german navy which operated 9 cruisers alone in the area or join the Brits.

Britain risked nothing in a naval engangement, they were infinitely more powerfull and could easily strangle any shipping, raze coastal bases to the ground and even liberate coastal cities like Gdynia or Gdańsk without Germans being able to do anything.

I repeat, you hate Poland and spit venom at every possible turn but the facts are irrefutable, despite having massive resources and capacity to help, despite being bound by a treaty that stated any and all aid available will be given England did not fire a shot, that is called betrayal.
OP Harry  
4 Feb 2009 /  #59
All the support and assistance in its power, we're talking six battleships with their battlegroups in the vicinity, we're talking aircraft carriers which could sit in the Baltic and aid coastal efforts, we're talking all german shipping sunk or confined to its harbors, instead not a single ship was moved, i understand you hate Poland and will generally discuss against it but the fact is that the aid UK could have given was huge and instead it sat on its ass twiddling its thumbs.

So you can’t find anything to support your lie about timing or precise obligations. What a surprise.

I love your line about not a single ship moving. Would that be how you explain 518 British sailors being killed on 14 September 1939 alone? And your claim does somewhat fly in the face of the order issued by the Admiralty on 24 August 1939.

No doubt a keen military brain such as yours knows what happens when surface ships face land-based bomber aircraft. If not, read up on what happened to HMS Prince of Wales. Now explain why it would have been such a good idea for the British navy to have sailed into confines of the Baltic and its long coastline filled with German airbases.

Germany would fight and defeat Britain after it was done in the mainland, you can scream that its unreliable all you want but two of Hitlers inner ring claim so and their word holds over yours.

No, it is your version of what they say. You haven’t backed a single claim you make with any kind of source.
I note that you have completely ignored the tiny matter of Hitler’s favourite film. I wonder why that could be.

It was supposed to give all aid possible as soon as possible, it gave no aid at all, there's no lies here, just truth you're uncomfortable with.

Poles like you tend to make me think that Britain’s mistake was not entering WWII but the side on which she entered.

Given that polish navy consisted of 8 light ships they could either suicide themselves against german navy which operated 9 cruisers alone in the area or join the Brits.

So they bravely ran away. They wouldn’t commit suicide but you expect British sailors to defend Poland by doing what Polish sailors would not. How very Polish of you.

Britain risked nothing in a naval engangement, they were infinitely more powerfull and could easily strangle any shipping, raze coastal bases to the ground and even liberate coastal cities like Gdynia or Gdańsk without Germans being able to do anything.

Put down the crack pipe and step away.

I repeat, you hate Poland and spit venom at every possible turn but the facts are irrefutable, despite having massive resources and capacity to help, despite being bound by a treaty that stated any and all aid available will be given England did not fire a shot, that is called betrayal.

Massive resources? The Polish army was far larger!
Do stop with the lies about England not firing a shot.
And if you want to see betrayal, look what you Poles did to Ukraine in the 1920s. What goes around comes around, as Poland learned to her cost.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
4 Feb 2009 /  #60
I love your line about not a single ship moving. Would that be how you explain 518 British sailors being killed on 14 September 1939 alone? And your claim does somewhat fly in the face of the order issued by the Admiralty on 24 August 1939.

Proof please ?

No doubt a keen military brain such as yours knows what happens when surface ships face land-based bomber aircraft. If not, read up on what happened to HMS Prince of Wales. Now explain why it would have been such a good idea for the British navy to have sailed into confines of the Baltic and its long coastline filled with German airbases.

What land based bomber aircraft ? The ones busy in Poland ?

Poles like you tend to make me think that Britain’s mistake was not entering WWII but the side on which she entered.

I know you're a neo nazi Harry its not a shame ... wait it is :)

I still need an answer why are you on our forum, you're an anti-polish troll ;]

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / Any apologies about Sikorski's 'murder'?Archived