Any apologies about Sikorski's 'murder'?

Amen.


Absolute rubbish.

It's funny how Britain's 'betrayal' seems to rank higher on the list of Polish grievances than Nazi and Soviet occupation.

Yes.. first and last time I agree with limey but this is amazingly stupid to blame the british.

And walked with him on Syberia...


Well if we look on map you present us here we can notice that actualy Most of major cities were Polish. When you look on line where Belarusians and Ukrainians met each other on this map ... it is swamp. So Poles were in majority there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polesia




Not to many people there.

If you talk about Polish resistance on baltic coast if you look on map it was hard to defend but ....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Westerplatte

Strength:

Poland:
182-209 men

Germany:
3,400-3,500 men
Air support
Battleship Schleswig-Holstein and 2 torpedo boats.

Casualties and losses

Poland:
At least 15 Killed in Action and 53 wounded in Action, survivors taken prisoner

Germany:
Disputed, probably about 200-400 killed and wounded

Of course. naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-04CV-Courageous.htm regarding the 518 dead British sailors on 17 September 1939.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Triton_(N15) regarding Admiralty orders of August 24 (a couple of days before the Polish navy decided that it'd be best served by moving in the opposite direction to the one the British navy was moving in),

I do wish you'd make your mind up, first I'm a Jew and then I'm a neo-nazi.


So you mean that in most of the areas which Poland annexed in 1921, Poles were not in the majority. Only in some of the major cities. Glad we've got that agreed.

In Genral Poles were in majority there. :) How can you separate the city form surounding grounds. Or take Swamp ...


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lwów_Eaglets

Have a good look at this map. Then ask an adult to explain it to you.




Yes we have discussed this already. Funny how you don't mention that Polish historians call the Polish-Ukrainian war "the last civilised conflict". But then you've got very little to say about how the Poles stabbed their ally in the back and nicked half the country.

Other or not stated I don't know what does it mean ... but if we look on the map ... and avoid swamp areas.

Only in one rural region Poles weren't the biggest ethnic group (south east).

I love your racist bullshit, polish territory won back from Ukraine, good argument there you anti-polish trash :)

Do you really think that you will fool anybody here with these primitive tricks ? You are making things up and then claim that they are justification of your hateful and intellectually poor input... Who said that "all Poles are wonderfully nice people" ? Nobody. And we are all aware that the 39 war was a disaster. So what ? We still have plenty of reasons to be proud of our history and a psychologically challnged person like you can't change that even If you start smearing shit on your walls, which in your state of mind will probably happen soon. The funniest thing is that you claim to spread that extreme Polonophobia to somehow prove wrong "Polish myths" and in the same time you are serious with things like for example making the "uprising" of yours look at least like the 2nd Stalingrad, when in fact there were a few kids hiding in the basements for most of time and in the end they were sold out by their own... not really surprising... And don't think that you are anonymous on the internet, you aren't.

gosh youre english really is improving G

Yes, so Polish that most of the people who lived there didn't actually speak Polish and described themselves as Ukrainian. Obviously those regions couldn't be part of Ukraine, clearly they must have Polish territory, especially after Poland had carried out its brutal program of Polonization and opened a concentration camp in which to throw all the people who disagreed with it.


Just one thing that I've made up please Greg. Just one.


You also have plenty of things in your history which you need to face up to and deal with. The backstab of Ukraine is just one of those things but Poles will do nothing to face up to it.


Good to see you're back on the 'you must be Jewish because you say things like that' kick. Really shows you for the bigot that you are. As do your comments about the '43 Warsaw Uprising, obviously all the help from non-Jewish Poles was the deciding factor in that uprising.


Not at all. My name is Harry and I live in Warsaw. There are very few Harrys in Warsaw so I'm not at all hard to find. So if you'd like to carry out your pathetic threats, feel free.

:))))))))))))))))

After your stories abour Polish soldiers you bring another crap. Just to provoke debate with you.

No more than average nation in the world and If you read some Polish historical publications more serious than school books you would know that these things are acknowledged, on the level of popular history they aren't exposed very much but that's what every country does and compared to Russians, Americans, Jews and many others, Polish interpretation of own history is the Mount Everest of objectiveness, so your attempt to present yourself as a guy on some desperately needed mission leading to demitologization of vastly hypocritical Polish history just can't pass the smell test.


Like I said... intellectually poor input. Let me educate you a bit as obviously you desperately need that. Creating independent Ukraine and Belarus was Poland's most important strategical goal in that time, not because of any love for these nations but to have a buffer zone keeping Muscovites away. Unfortunately Bolsheviks seized too much land to make that possible. Small parts of western Ukraine and Belarus (with Polish dominated elites anyway) couldn't survive on their own, would have been easily conquered by the reds and the main result would have been a few million more of starved people.

The backstab... you didn't even bother to check the basic facts before you opened your ugly mouth... There were many fractions of Ukrainians, they fought Soviets, Poles and one another. Poland made an agreement in 1920 with remaining pieaces (15k soldiers all together) of one of them saying that in case of victory over the Soviets, Poland won't take the lands beyond Zbruch River - all of them were under Soviet control after 1921. So much for your "truth".


You said that you are a Jew. And you were making a small incident look like one of the most important battles of WW2, so much for "myth crusher" image you are trying to create to somehow justify your racist, hateful ooze.


That's like Adolf accusing somebody of anti-semitism.


I know who you are and am not threathening you, I want to help you as you obviously have very serious psychological problems.

Are you gentlemen that niave, or is it hard for you to realize that a superpower (USSR) would negotiate during a wartime conference? Is it that hard for you to believe Eastern Europe would be carved-up, and the US and UK would make consessions in order to keep USSR in the war and an ally?

Add Churchill to the 'could not face up to Stalin' crew.

Furthermore Churchill, like Roosevelt, knew the Soviets committed the crime at Katyń - well documented in the Sir O'Malley (UK) Dispatches.

Henry.

It's not hard to conceive, no, but you hardly wrote a refutation. My point still stands.

Fair enough, but what you see is what you get on the internet; I think you should have said that both Churchill and Roosevelt could not face up to Stalin... that would have been more accurate.

Academics make careers predicated on any one of the Big Three Conferences; I believe there were over twenty in all. It was all about winning over the axis, and shaping the post-war world; obviously consessions were made by USSR, UK and USA in these conferences. It is easy to take a revisionist viewpoint and second guess other's decisions, demands and disillusionment.

Very true that. About Sikorski, he's still alive!! I saw him on the news ;) ;) ;)

Where is the evidence to suggest that the USSR would NOT have stayed in the war WITHOUYT concessions

Maybe this provides an answer:


Roosevelt and especially Churchill could not allow any such separate accord between USSR and Germany to take place for obvious reasons. Stalin would have know this and as the arch manipulator he was able to play Roosevelt and Churchill (who at best were polite but reluctant allies) off against each other for his own ends—Stalin did not get to be head of state of the USSR by being anything other than ruthlessly adept at political maneuvering.

Thanks sjam... I did not have the time to pull the appropriate reference.

Henry

Cheers for that, but not really.

Isn't Kennedy really just reciting speculation on Soviet intent vis a vis an accord with Germany?

How real was the prospect of Soviets getting out of the war?

I think this rubbish about conciliating Stalin by giving him free rein in Eastern Europe because the West feared he would pull out is pure smoke screen. Perhaps we'll never know.

You have it exactly.
Roosevelt and Churchill 'speculated' that there was a possibility that Stalin would sign a separate deal with Hitler and decided this could not be allowed to happen if the Nazis were to be defeated. And not forgetting that the western Allies needed Russia's support to defeat the Japanese in Manchuria. As it turned out the successful dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan obviated the need for Soviet support but at the time of Yalta the atomic bomb had not even been tested ( first 'A' bomb tested on July 16, 1945) so Stalin's Red Army was to be needed. If the atomic bomb hadn't worked who can say the Red Army wouldn't have be needed to end WWII?

It may seem like a smoke screen to you but maybe Churchill and Roosevelt had a better idea of where they saw the threats at the time than you do now.

I can't understand all this talk of Soviets being needed to end WW2 as though they were tottering on the verge of pulling out and didn't have a vested interest in continuing the fight.

This type of thinking is, to me, strange, and it just seems to be accepted because that's what the history books say. Analysis and inference through past evidence of what the Soviets actually do (rather than pure speculation) would suggest Stalin would have kept going both east and west.

Could it be that the concessions were made to appease Stalin to not do same (keep going east and west)? I think we'll have to look past what the history books say is the truth and think a bit laterally.

Do you think that the practical effect of those concessions, based on speculation, was worth safeguarding the speculated possibilities? Do you think that those speculations were likely to be borne out?

If you have reached the limits of your understanding such is life ;-)


Maybe the authors of these history books simply have greater understanding than you.

HWPiel,

I think both Churchill and Roosevelt would not face up to Stalin... Stalin bluffed them, outsmarted them, tricked them, you pick the verb.

Exactly that !!!

True, the fact that Churchill and Roosevelt didn't present a united front didn't help matters. Roosevelt (quite incorrectly) assumed that he could use his people skills to 'handle' Stalin. Part of this tactic involved the incessant belittling Churchill, which achieved little.


There fear of a negotiated peace was real. Granted it was unlikely, but few people saw the Nazi-Soviet pact coming. Roosevelt desperately wanted Soviet support in the war with Japan which was the main reason that Stalin was appeased. Stalin was furious about the Allied delay in opening a second front. When it was finally agreed, it didn't represent the kind of leverage required. Stalin played the better hand, but he definitely held the cards.


Maybe, but it's I don't see what Churchill and Roosevelt could have practically done. In reality, the Allies could do nothing to impose their will on Stalin, short of declaring war on the USSR. Operation unthinkable was just that...

I was surprised and disappointed at these comments, particularly from someone such as yourself. It seems I was mistaken and misunderstood your intent and capacity to engage in discussion and critical analysis.

In other words, sjam you have proved Ozi Dan to be wrong when making the claims that he posted here. Therefore he will now attack you on the personal level instead of attempting to debate any of the issues which you raise in your posts.

And please do not make statements such as "Maybe the authors of these history books simply have greater understanding than you." Nobody ever knows more about anything than Dan does. Despite never even visiting Poland, he knows more about the place than people who have lived here for 14 years.

I just hope that you aren't British, otherwise you'll be subjected to Dan's racism and attempts at race-baiting....

It was you that said you couldn't understand (what appeared to me to be a simple propostion) so I naturally assumed you had reached the limit of your understanding based on what you said, and therefore any further debate on this point on my part would be futile. BTW. I recognise that there are many things outside the limits my understanding and comprehension but my life is still rewarding despite my limitations. So chin up, be proud of what you have accomplished to date in your life and look forward to greater successes in the future on what ever level these successes may present themselves.