Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 62

Polish contribution to England during war


Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,019  
26 Sep 2009 /  #31
Hahahah I would love you to visit an Indian university and meet an Historian! :P

"Two of the best Marshals that Napoleon had were Józef Antoni Poniatowski and Jacques MacDonald."
EHM I was talking about Polands contribution to the BRITISH! It's what the threads name is right?
During war not WW2 ^^
szkotja2007 27 | 1,498  
26 Sep 2009 /  #32
I was talking about Polands contribution to the BRITISH!

Sorry, I thought you said -

Polish contribution was very small in the Napolenic era when thinking of contributing England.

It's what the threads name is right?

No, the threads title is
Polish contribution to England during war
Wroclaw Boy  
26 Sep 2009 /  #33
Fair play Poland did what it/she did, nobody is going to take that away but why do people feel the need to bring up the same points again and again??

Shut up Tornado just because youve had enough of reading WWII threads doesnt mean everybody else has, i love posting on such topics so do many other older members and yourself apparently. Plus dont forget there are many new members here that havent read the older threads. If you dont like them stay away.

In your opinion you think England would be defeated if it was not for Polish soldiers, pilots, seaman, AK, helping British to fight Germans?
My opinion is yes England would be defeated.

If the US hadnt entered the war the outcome may have been different, as for the Poles fighting with us or against us and lets not forget thousands signed up for the Wermacht it wouldht have made much difference, sorry dude.
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
26 Sep 2009 /  #34
Shut up Tornado just because youve had enough of reading WWII threads doesnt mean everybody else has, i love posting on such topics so do many other older members and yourself apparently. Plus dont forget there are many new members here that havent read the older threads. If you dont like them stay away.

You make a good point, of course people like to read about history and what happened, i just feel there is a bit of overkill here. People don't actually talk about the 'situation' and this thread is a prime example, more like trying to big up the Poles and tell the rest of the world 'you let us down' or 'you should have done more' etc etc etc.

My other point i think is more than valid, repeat, repeat and more repeating. Its not just now and again WB is it?? every other thread is more or less 'the Poles did this in the war' 'if it was not for Poland that would have happened in the war' and so on and so on.

I also don't see a problem with my final point about looking for thanks or praise etc, i didn't step out of line just made a point.

I do, as you say, like posting in these types of threads because it think its more than important, people look forward rather than getting caught up, stuck in the past. Of course this is something that we have agreed to disagree on before :)

"Two of the best Marshals that Napoleon had were Józef Antoni Poniatowski and Jacques MacDonald."
EHM I was talking about Polands contribution to the BRITISH! It's what the threads name is right?
During war not WW2 ^^

I think you will find that my points were more than valid as i was debating 'reasoning' for the existance of this thread, which to me is clearly shown in the title. To claim that England would have been defeated if it was not for Poland is............. and as for wanting and seeking credit, its why i mentioned the Gurkha's, it does not matter who faught in what war/wars.
Wroclaw Boy  
26 Sep 2009 /  #35
more like trying to big up the Poles and tell the rest of the world 'you let us down' or 'you should have done more' etc etc etc.

every other thread is more or less 'the Poles did this in the war' 'if it was not for Poland that would have happened in the war' and so on and so on.

It all boils down to patriotism, thats all.
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
26 Sep 2009 /  #36
thats the best repsonse/explanation i think i've ever been given on the matter.
frd 7 | 1,401  
26 Sep 2009 /  #37
patriotism.. more like nationalism. But it's a good replay, it just shows how everyone always gonna be in "their own know"...
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,019  
30 Sep 2009 /  #38
BRITISH!

England.

Sorry I am an Norwegian/Pole but I have grown up with the thinking of England controlling Britain so when I say British or English it's the same thing...

While Scotish or irish or Walish is an other matter (more respect to thoose parts except for Wales know little about that part

It all boils down to patriotism, thats all

I thought it was quite obvious it's a reason people tell everywhere all over again and again! Somethink to brag about other compatriots duh!

thats the best repsonse/explanation i think i've ever been given on the matter

You gotta be kidding me!
Nurglitch - | 5  
30 Sep 2009 /  #39
TheOther

What I will probably never fully understand is, why all this seems to be so important to Polish people (or should I say Polish politicians?) almost 65 years after the end of WW2.

Why is War of Independence, Civil War, or Vietnam so important for the Americans?
Now consider this - none of those wars cost you almost 20% of the entire population, including the entire elite, a full decapitation of the entire nation. Would that have some tiny significance to you?

Add a fact that now, 65 years after the war, the Germans are demanding war reparations from us, the Russians are calling us openly allies of Hitler, pretty much the entire Europe writes freely about antisemitism as essentialy a Polish trait, all the world talks about Polish concentration camps, The Times writes about Polish responsibility for Holocaust, Izraeli newspapers print comics showing good nazi Germans and evil Poles forcing them to kill the Jews. Is this enough for that history to have some significance?
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,019  
30 Sep 2009 /  #40
When that having in mind oh yez
niejestemcapita 2 | 561  
30 Sep 2009 /  #41
I have grown up with the thinking of England controlling Britain so when I say British or English it's the same thing...
While Scotish or irish or Walish is an other matter (more respect to thoose parts except for Wales know little about that part

Well you're wrong, and mistaken on more than one count.
Great Britain = England Scotland and Wales.
Most power is concentrated in Scotland.
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,019  
30 Sep 2009 /  #42
You know I mean in political sense and not the isles of Britain etc?
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
30 Sep 2009 /  #43
You gotta be kidding me!

well its an awful lot better than any of the other tripe i get given :)
Wroclaw Boy  
30 Sep 2009 /  #44
I thought it was quite obvious it's a reason people tell everywhere all over again and again! Somethink to brag about other compatriots duh!

i dont hear any bragging here only pleads for scraps from the table.
sjam 2 | 541  
30 Sep 2009 /  #45
Most power is concentrated in Scotland.

Would that be hydro-electro or wind power :-))
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,019  
30 Sep 2009 /  #46
i dont hear any bragging here only pleads for scraps from the table.

(hidden mocking that's me)
szkotja2007 27 | 1,498  
30 Sep 2009 /  #47
when I say British or English it's the same thing.

No. Definate distinction - 147 000 Scottish Troops died in WW1, 34 000 Died in WW2.

Would that be hydro-electro or wind power

Scotland supplies England with electricity from both. They also subsidise the UK with Oil and Gas.
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,019  
30 Sep 2009 /  #48
No. Definate distinction - 147 000 Scottish Troops died in WW1, 34 000 Died in WW2.

Well Poles died in service of Germany, A-H and Tzar Russia in ww1. Does that mean anything?!

If Scots had independence or felt like it none of them would have any regrets...
Harry  
30 Sep 2009 /  #49
The political power is also weighted in favour of Scotland. Without the votes of Scottish MPs on issues that do not affect their constituents, Labour wouldn't have got some of its most unpopular policies through the British parliament.
szkotja2007 27 | 1,498  
30 Sep 2009 /  #50
Without the votes of Scottish MPs on issues that do not affect their constituents,

Yes, its a mess that should be sorted.

The political power is also weighted in favour of Scotland.

Not really, the next Goverment is likely to be a Tory one. Not likely to be in the majority north of the border are they ?
Nurglitch - | 5  
30 Sep 2009 /  #51
That's a bit of a misinformation, isn't it? UK is not a parliamentary democracy anymore (gravitating towards presidential system), the MPs are now just glorified voting machines. Whips have so much power that a "parliamentary revolt" (members of a party voting not in line with the party directive, which in other countries happens all the time) occurs only in times of greatest discontent and can cause great danger to the PM. So saying that Labour depends on Scotland for the votes is not entirely honest.
Harry  
30 Sep 2009 /  #52
Not really, the next Goverment is likely to be a Tory one. Not likely to be in the majority north of the border are they ?

What goes around comes around. England has university student fees thanks to Scotland, so after the next election perhaps England can give Scotland a few little gifts.

Since 1974 the question has been "For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?" According to Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg (who just happens to be a Labour Scot) the best answer to the question is to stop asking it.
szkotja2007 27 | 1,498  
30 Sep 2009 /  #53
the best answer to the question is to stop asking it.

Best answer is Independence for England !

England has university student fees thanks to

thanks to London Labour.

London Olympics.....woohoooo.....what a boost that will be for the economy of the Highlands :-)
Ozi Dan 26 | 569  
8 Oct 2009 /  #54
Harry

Hi Harry - I see you're back for more. The Sword of Ozi Danocles is descending so let's savour your humiliation...

You can, of course, provide a link for this, can't you?

Unfortunately, I can't indulge you there, because I, unlike you, base a vast majority of my posts on the knowledge and information I have gleaned and recalled from reading textual resources (this means books), rather than, as you do, basing my opinions on internet resources.

You do remember the lesson I gave you on the attitude of academia toward internet resources vis a vis textual resources? In a nutshell, and as a general rule of thumb, textual resources prevail over internet based resources by virtue of the fact that that the former take time, effort and money to research, edit and publish, thereby ensuring checks and balances on the content and veracity of the matters promulgated in such resources.

The latter, on the other hand, and in the main, have no such checks and balances and are therefore subservient to, but can be used in support of, the former. I fully understand and appreciate however that you, being a second rate scribe and first rate pamphleteer, rather than the author you purport to be, wouldn't comprehend that rationale but I trust that you understand the subtle nuances now.

In any event, I understand that the paraphrased quote can also be found in Rising '44 by Norman Davies. Given that you have indicated previously on this forum that you hold a copy, I will permit you the experience of actually doing some proper research in finding it (hint: start in the 'index' and look for “Dowding”). Eagle20 (who I thank for taking the time and effort in searching for his provided link) is quite correct in pointing out that I erred in attributing the quote to Slessor rather than ACM Sir Hugh Dowding, who is the correct person to attribute it to. There may even be similar sentiments from other British military personnel contained in the book 'The Forgotten Few' by Adam Zamoyski. Unlike you, a Plastic Pom, most real Poms actually appreciate what the Poles did during the BoB.

It's just that I prefer not to take the word of a racist liar and, if memory serves correctly, you are a racist liar.

you claimed that it's not racist to use the word "Paki"!

I fear that yet again your memory continues to do your credibility a disservice. Try as I might, I cannot reconcile the above ad hom blitzkrieg as coming from the same person who delivered the following scathing critique of another forum member…

Wow, it sounds like you have no facts to post to back up your laughable claims and so have to resort to ad homs!

But then what to expect from a poster as you? You claim that I know nothing about military history and then when I post facts showing that it's you who is sadly lacking in knowledge, you can post only ad homs!

(Hello, Mr Pot, this is Mr Kettle – hello…hello……beep, beep, beep)

Opining that I am, and make claim to, your above-quoted would be akin to someone alleging that you hold the view that the below conduct is acceptable:

1. vilifying forum members when their views do not accord with yours;
2. threatening the female family members of forum members;
3. threatening physical violence against me;
4. misrepresenting the true and correct state of affairs in order to malign Poland and its people.

I'm pretty positive that you do not hold the view that the above are acceptable, but for confirmation and completeness I would appreciate you acknowledging my assumption. If words fail you, can I suggest words to the effect of:

"Yes Ozi Dan, I agree that the abovementioned forms of conduct are abhorrent and unacceptable and forum members who engage in same ought to take a voluntary suspension and make penance by placing flowers on the graves of those Polish (and Polish/Jewish) heroes who perished in WW2 fighting a common foe for your freedom and ours".

If you make no such positive acknowledgement, then it can only be assumed that you agree that the forms of conduct mentioned in items 1-4 are acceptable. The forum awaits your response...

Firstly, saying "I would hesitate to say something" does not mean "I would not say something".

I agree. Please show me where I've said otherwise. Can't, can you, because I didn't. To point out something trite is just that - trite - but it's also self serving. But then again, this is your style, is it not?

But of course to a liar like you, 'hesitate' means 'not'.

Touche, or is it douche? What is ACM Sir Dowding trying to say then (this will require analysis)? Your comprehension and ability to disseminate the meaning of words said by eminent military personnel seems to surpass mine. If you have a deeper level of understanding as to the meaning and intent of the words

had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of battle would have been the same,

then please share. Again, it will be assumed that the plain meaning of the quote (which I have alluded to in my first post on this thread) prevails unless you provide us with a compelling and acceptable alternative, which I'm sure you will be able to pluck out of the 'parallel universe' you inhabit. The forum awaits your version...

Secondly, even if the BoB had been lost, the chances are very much that Operation Sealion would have failed.

Having regard to textual resources (to which I expect references), please align this opinion with facts, failing which, it can only be assumed that your opinion is just that - an opinion (you do remember the lesson I gave on the difference and interplay between opinion and fact?).

detractors of the British contribution

You, being a British protagonist, and a Plastic Pom (despite the fact you're an Aussie and always will be no matter how hard you try to deny it) should be able to outline the British contribution to Poland in a fulsome fashion then? Once you do that, as an expert on the Polish contribution to the British, please report back as to whether or not the contributions were equal or commensurate, having regard of course to notions of relativity vis a vis both nations in question.

My position is that the Polish contribution on balance far outweighed the British (relative to each other) and that HMG in fact indulged in a negative contribution by continuing to ‘use’ Poland after the particulars of the Teheran conference were abundantly plain to Britain but not Poland. Of course, you would be familiar with my position because I've made it before elsewhere and addressed it directly to you in the vain hope of a response.

Again, failure to provide a valid and genuine response will simply allow assumptions that you accept my position, that it again prevails against yours, and your contention that

if you enter a scrap to help a friend who's getting pounded by an enemy (and Britain did enter WWII to help Poland) and your friend prevails (according to your IPN, the Polish flag did fly over the Reichstag), the facts stands for themselves that your friend would have been crushed but for your help.

as it applies in the reverse to mine, simply falls apart like so much cheap paper used to print the dodgy tourist flyers you produce.

detractors of the British contribution have the burden of proving that all Poles WOULD NOT have been exterminated but for the British contribution.

Are you familiar with the term of catching someone ‘hook, line and sinker’? I can only suggest you re-read and perhaps amend your above quote – reductio ad absurdem? You’re a big fan of the style of argument whereby you adopt the opposition’s ‘logic’ to qualify your refutation, aren’t you. The obvious danger there is that sometimes the opposition’s logic is deliberately and purposely flawed and me saying

In that regard, one could even suggest that the detractors of the Polish contribution have the burden of proving that England WOULD NOT have been defeated but for the Polish contribution

is a nonsense of fact, logic and syntax, and moreover, by you adopting it for a ham-fisted riposte, it further makes nonsense of your chest-beating assertion that

I do actually have a degree. One so good that when put on my CV it is more than good enough to get me employment at Polish universities teaching English writing.

Oh really? It must have been a ‘Clayton’s Degree’ – you know, the degree you have when you don’t really have one. Of course you will try to come back and say your adaptation of my nonsense was really a double entrapment designed to catch me, won’t you (but we all know you would have pointed out the flaw at the most immediate opportunity available but you didn’t, did you)?

But wait, there’s more – if I’m a liar as you allege I am then maybe what I’ve just said in the preceding paragraphs are just that – lies? Or maybe there are some truths, half-truths and outright lies mixed together. Or maybe I’m just setting you up again for another drubbing… I’ll leave you to ponder those further thoughts. Hopefully it will draw your attention away from polluting other threads for a little while ;-).
OP Marek11111 9 | 816  
8 Oct 2009 /  #55
Harry always called people liars as they point he is wrong but he need to remember if it was not for Poland good chances are his first language wold be German and he would be second class citizen even lower then French do to French pro German government.
Harry  
8 Oct 2009 /  #56
Unfortunately, I can't indulge you there

Could it be because the quote was never actually said? Could well be. As for the rest of your post, you don't really expect people to waste their time by reading that much rubbish do you? If you do, you are more pathetic than even I thought you were.

Harry always called people liars as they point he is wrong but he need to remember if it was not for Poland good chances are his first language wold be German and he would be second class citizen even lower then French do to French pro German government.

That is highly unlikely. Even if the BoB had been lost, the chances are very much that Operation Sealion would have either not been launched or would have failed. But you keep dreaming that the only thing which prevented Britain from being invaded and occupied by the Nazis was Poles.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569  
8 Oct 2009 /  #57
Could it be because the quote was never actually said? Could well be.

It also could well be that the earth is flat - what a meek and utterly useless response to a fait accompli.

But hang on a second - let's use your logic on this point - Harry, prove that it actually wasn't said.

Hang on another second - why aren't you calling me a liar? Isn't that the typical response to anything that doesn't gel with your 'parallel universe'? I must say I'm surprised and disappointed in your lack of any inclination to fire up with the usual ad homs - oh, sorry, I forgot that you don't have the time to waste... you're not even throwing in for a laugh anything about the Peking Plan? Poland's backstab of the Ukraine/Czechoslovakia? Plastic Poles? Poland's concentration camps?.......

As for the rest of your post, you don't really expect people to waste their time by reading that much rubbish do you? If you do, you are more pathetic than even I thought you were.

Your silence speaks at greater volume than any response you could have made, and no, I don't expect 'people' to waste their time reading my rubbish. One would have thought though that if it was rubbish, YOU would, as you always do, confront that rubbish and rubbish it in turn. Given that you haven't, it can only be assumed that it isn't, and whatever you say (or don't say), from now on, is, in fact, rubbish.

As per usual, the paper tiger once again curls up and capitulates when confronted with uncomfortable truths. It's always been curious to me how one of the most prolific, verbose and critical posters of this forum never hesitates to unleash on other forum members but strangely goes all quite when I put him to the test. I gave you several options and opportunities to challenge my posts but the old chestnut of "I don't have the time" coupled with an ad hom against me pops up conveniently (again). Once again, you've got nothing on, or for, moi, and more importantly, the assumptions requiring your rebuttals or confirmation stand, and my positions on all points, as always with you, are vindicated.

Your relevance and credit on this forum is forthwith ended. Pick up the pieces and move on matey – perhaps you can now go to an Aussie forum and talk about those negative things you alleged against OUR (yes, you are an Aussie by birth like me) indigenous people.

In passing, and on a final note for this thread, I will in all honesty credit you your intellect and quick wit, which is not to be diminished despite our differences of opinion. It’s just a pity you choose to use it to more often than not intemperately criticise and mock Poland, its people and also those of Polish descent rather than jump off the now fashionable bandwagon of revisionism. I can’t help but think if you actually had to live with, and be raised by, someone who went through and survived the epoch you most often utilise to critique negatively, you would perhaps have formed a different and more tolerant perspective – but that’s the difference in the hand we’ve each been dealt, isn’t it Harry.
Harry  
8 Oct 2009 /  #58
It also could well be that the earth is flat - what a meek and utterly useless response to a fait accompli.

But hang on a second - let's use your logic on this point - Harry, prove that it actually wasn't said.

It certainly was not said by the person who you claimed said it.

Hang on another second - why aren't you calling me a liar?

Sorry, do accept my apologies: you were lying when you said “it was Air Marshall Slessor" Happy now? Good.

Your silence speaks at greater volume than any response you could have made, and no, I don't expect 'people' to waste their time reading my rubbish. One would have thought though that if it was rubbish, YOU would, as you always do, confront that rubbish and rubbish it in turn. Given that you haven't, it can only be assumed that it isn't,

Either that or I have better things to do than wading through your pathetic posts which are filled with lies, racist abuse and ‘it must be true because I read it in a book!’

As per usual, the paper tiger once again curls up and capitulates when confronted with uncomfortable truths.

Which of course explains why you have not a word to say about my statement that “The word 'hesitate' means 'to pause temporarily'; it does not mean 'stop' or 'decide not to'.” Well, I suppose you could have had, I just pressed Ctrl + F and then typed 'hesitate' and didn't find any mention you made about it: as already noted, there's no way I'm going to waste my life reading your textual masturbation.

It's always been curious to me how one of the most prolific, verbose and critical posters of this forum never hesitates to unleash on other forum members but strangely goes all quite when I put him to the test.

All quite what, dear boy? By the way, I do so love the way that you produce a 1,600 word post and then call me verbose! Superb stuff mate, nearly as good as your claim to love Poland so much while the fact is that you don’t even like the place enough to bother visiting it! And do note that I didn't read it, I just pressed Alt, T and W.

Once again, you've got nothing on, or for, moi

Apart from, among other things, the fact that I get paid to write and you just bore the unwitting to death with your verbal diarrhea. You really do need to get a blog. Or a life. Although to be honest it’ll be far easier for you to get a blog.

that’s the difference in the hand we’ve each been dealt, isn’t it Harry.

The real difference is how we play our hands: you sit back and profess your love for and knowledge of Poland but have never even bothered to visit the place. I’ve worked for years to make the place a better country and even now that I work in the private sector I still keep my tax status in Poland and pay stupidly large taxes here rather than a fraction of the same amount in another EU nation. When you want to know about something Polish, you open a book. When I want to know about something Polish, I either check on the internet and then go have a look or I just go and have a look. Deep down inside you know damn well that you’re just another keyboard warrior (I love your description of the war you’re fighting!), just another armchair fan: I on the other hand am right here living it all, doing what you know you’ll never do. And that’s what really pisses you off, isn’t it.
OP Marek11111 9 | 816  
9 Oct 2009 /  #59
Harry:
That is highly unlikely. Even if the BoB had been lost, the chances are very much that Operation Sealion would have either not been launched or would have failed. But you keep dreaming that the only thing which prevented Britain from being invaded and occupied by the Nazis was Poles.

you are right if BoB will be lost Germans would bomb you to stone age then you just surrender like France so no need for operation Sealion, anyway your first language would be still German.
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
10 Oct 2009 /  #60
well your rather lucky it did not turn out that way aren't you, otherwise there would be no such thing is Poland or Poles, in fact i don't know what a lot of europe would have been called................

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / Polish contribution to England during warArchived