Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 290

WW2: Britain Declares War on Germany to Save Poland


celinski 31 | 1,258  
9 Dec 2007 /  #211
Aug 23, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets sign Pact.

Aug 25, 1939 - Britain and Poland sign a Mutual Assistance Treaty.

Aug 31, 1939 - British fleet mobilizes; Civilian evacuations begin from London.

Carol
southern 75 | 7,096  
9 Dec 2007 /  #212
The dates are not important at all.What is importants is what hides behind each part's decisions.
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
9 Dec 2007 /  #213
Simply at that era Poles had lost the right to decide for themselves.

Quoting: isthatu
The starting premis is,GB only went to war at that time because of its alliance with Poland and France,we all lost,britain 360.000+ lives,each one ,cold hard fact,only lost because we went to war because Poland was invaded.

I do not think these 360000 Brits were lost for the liberation of Poland.

and I did not say they did,
Im sorry,let me make myself crystal on this,regardless of whether Poland was liberated or not 360.000 British citizens and countless thousands of comenwealth citizens lost their lives because Britain declared war against germany as part of her alliance with Poland. No alliance,no war ( at that time,maybe a year or so later,who knows) so if you like,with your logic,they gave their lives for nothing,as the origional aim of the treaty,that is,the liberation of Poland from nazi germany never happened. Oh wait, yes it did,just with the wrong sort of liberators.....

The dates are not important at all.What is importants is what hides behind each part's decisions.

I disagree, the dates in fact

Aug 23, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets sign Pact.

Aug 25, 1939 - Britain and Poland sign a Mutual Assistance Treaty.

Aug 31, 1939 - British fleet mobilizes; Civilian evacuations begin from London.

serve to highlight the case for the defence regarding GB not being in a position to invade germany while Poland still fought on(openly). How could a british army have been shipped from around the world or even just across the channel in that time?

oh,and southern, when you are talking about the deaths of thousands of British civilians,men women and children,please have the courtesy not to call them "brits",I do not talk about dead "Pollacks" .
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161  
9 Dec 2007 /  #214
Im sorry,let me make myself crystal on this,regardless of whether Poland was liberated or not 360.000 British citizens and countless thousands of comenwealth citizens lost their lives because Britain declared war against germany as part of her alliance with Poland.

World war was coming and Britain would have had to join sooner or later anyway... And in the end for Poland It didn't really matter If Britain joined or not, so If you say that we should thank you or something then you are simply talking crap.
southern 75 | 7,096  
9 Dec 2007 /  #215
please have the courtesy not to call them "brits",I do not talk about dead "Pollacks" .

I am sorry,I did not know the term is derrogatory.Of course these people are brave and we are grateful for them since they fought and died for our freedom,in a war that in the beginning seemed to be lost.
Crow 150 | 9,555  
9 Dec 2007 /  #216
so If you say that we should be grateful or something then you are simply talking crap

maybe Britain now expect that Poles repay them historic debt down there on Kosovo, on Balkan, where their mujaheedine friends already helping them
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
9 Dec 2007 /  #217
I am sorry,I did not know the term is derrogatory.

none needed mate, I know "brits" is a commen name for us but it carries conetations of loony Provo IRA types setting bombs off in shopping centers and theatres. probably close to calling an american "a Yank" ,depends when you use it and who you adress it to. :)

G', what-everrrrrrr

maybe Britain now expect that Poles repay them historic debt down there on Kosovo, on Balkan, where their mujaheedine friends already helping them

What are you twitering on about crow,Our soldiers are too busy fighting real wars to worry whether you set of bandits slaughter each other again.Just do the world a favour this time and cut back a bit on the crucifying and the mass rapes.....and dont dare call me a liar or puppet of false west propaganda, my best mate hung himself because he couldnt get over what he'd seen your glorious serb soldiers do in a village. Do you want to hear about the little bosnian baby stuck to its mothers chest with an iron pole rammed through them both?
Crow 150 | 9,555  
9 Dec 2007 /  #218
Quoting: Crow
maybe Britain now expect that Poles repay them historic debt down there on Kosovo, on Balkan, where their mujaheedine friends already helping them

What are you twitering on about crow,Our soldiers are too busy fighting real wars to worry whether you set of bandits slaughter each other again.......

spare me from your slanderings and propaganda

Even British media speak openly about great love between official NATO and Islamic mujaheedines. We just have to see what monstrous `child` would be born from that `love`
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161  
9 Dec 2007 /  #219
G', what-everrrrrrr

No. Not whatever. British citizens died because Germans and Soviet were trying to dominate Europe, not "because Britain declared war against germany as part of her alliance with Poland".
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
9 Dec 2007 /  #220
G' your turning part troll,.........
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161  
9 Dec 2007 /  #221
Not at all. You know many historical facts but looks like you don't really understand connections between them.
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
9 Dec 2007 /  #222
spare me from your slanderings and propaganda

we could all say the same about you and your eternally spotless faith in your butchers of srebrinica ............crow,one last thing,Serbs slaughtered Slavs,get that into your poor lied to skull,the Bosnian Muslims were and are Slavs.

Not at all. You know may historical facts but looks like you don't really understand connections between them.

what are you on about? Of course,eventually Britain may have been dragged into a wider european war even if it hadnt declared war BECAUSE HITLER INVADED POLAND, but as it did declare war BECAUSE HITLER INVADED POLAND,those lives war lost because of a war started soley for the reason that HITLER INVADED POLAND. Not for some hypothetical war that didnt take place,but the one that did which started ,you guessed it BECAUSE HITLER INVADED POLAND. So,ergo,those lives were lost BECAUSE HITLER INVADED POLAND .
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161  
9 Dec 2007 /  #223
Britain may have been dragged into a wider european war

Not "may" but for sure. Germans would have taken on France and low countries to eliminate a risk of attack from the back during war with Soviet Union and then Britain wouldn't have had excuse to stay away. And no matter, who would have won (Soviets or Gerries) they wouldn't have left GB alone.

So,ergo,those lives were lost BECAUSE HITLER INVADED POLAND .

They were lost because Gerries attacked France and UK. You did shi*t for Poland. Poles did much more for you, so your thinking that we should be somehow "grateful" is ridiculous.
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
9 Dec 2007 /  #224
Not "may" but for sure. Germans would have taken on France and low countries to eliminate a risk of attack from the back during war with Soviet Union and then Britain wouldn't have had excuse to stay away. And no matter, who would have won (Soviets or Gerries) they wouldn't have left GB alone.

yes yes yes,all very plausable...but purely hypothetical,ie it didnt happen this way,so my above answer stands.

You did shi*t for Poland

could be because I wasnt born till 75..........

Poles did much more for you,

yawwwwn, Yes,of course,won the battle of britain singlehandedly,then swept rommel out of north africa,then,yep,landed in france on d day(oops,no you didnt,you had two boats somewhere off the coast) and fought all the way to the elbe ,all on your own,with those guns and tanks you all made in sheds in the garden ,oh and obviously cracked all the codes going ,didnt a Pole actually shoot hitler,this thing about him killing him self is all just polonophobic propaganda to make all those british people who didnt actually die but all sat around drinking tea while only Poles fought,feel better....

G' youve lost it..........................................................................................

so your thinking that we should be somehow "grateful" is ridiculous.

quote me saying this,in full,not your usual part post or bit of a sentance taken out off context.
Polson 5 | 1,770  
9 Dec 2007 /  #225
the battle of britain

Poles fought there.

landed in france on d day

Poles fought there.:)
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
9 Dec 2007 /  #226
Quoting: isthatu
the battle of britain

Poles fought there.

er,yes they did,well done,have a cookie(so did some french pilots :) )

Quoting: isthatu
landed in france on d day

Poles fought there.

,er,no they didnt,they served on some ships of the invasion fleet but the Poles didnt land in France for some time to come(then fought like tigers)

I think you missed the irony I was aiming at G' :)
Polson 5 | 1,770  
9 Dec 2007 /  #227
er,yes they did,well done,have a cookie(so did some french pilots :) )

LoL ;)

I think you missed the irony I was aiming at G' :)

I'm sorry, i just read your answers, not what was before ;)
El Gato 4 | 351  
9 Dec 2007 /  #228
The UK stood alone for two years while most of the other European nations rolled over

So the Polish pilots had nothing to do at all with the allied victory? England, without the help of Polish, Czech, French, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Canadians, Indians, etc. would have fallen just as qucik - fact. Accept it.

we had a few refugees helping us fly planes etc but the bulk was British and thats it. We held of the German onslaught for two years and I repeat we stood alone.

Yeah, with 5% being Poles that held 12% of kills in Battle of Britain. They killed twice their numbers. Not to mention that there we Czechs and many other groups helping out too.
Polson 5 | 1,770  
9 Dec 2007 /  #229
So the Polish pilots had nothing to do at all with the allied victory? England, without the help of Polish, Czech, French, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Canadians, Indians, etc. would have fallen just as qucik - fact. Accept it.

Yeah, with 5% being Poles that held 12% of kills in Battle of Britain. They killed twice their numbers. Not to mention that there we Czechs and many other groups helping out too.

Yeah, thanks EG ;)
southern 75 | 7,096  
9 Dec 2007 /  #230
Not "may" but for sure. Germans would have taken on France and low countries to eliminate a risk of attack from the back during war with Soviet Union and then Britain wouldn't have had excuse to stay away. And no matter, who would have won (Soviets or Gerries) they wouldn't have left GB alone.

GB simply intervened when Hitler tried to change the european balance of power dramatically to his favour.Hitler never intented to invade GB because in his view destruction of England would lead to strengthening of bolshekivism.
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
9 Dec 2007 /  #231
Senior Cat, I think we all agree that wroclaw may have been exagerating a shade....(ps,Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK ....)

Yeah, with 5% being Poles that held 12% of kills in Battle of Britain. They killed twice their numbers

Very impresive,but,individual kills are worthless in those types of air battle,what counts is coordinating between other Sqdrns to acheive combined aims,even the biggest supporter of the Poles in the BofB admit that many of these kills were gained at the expense of keeping formation/acting effectivly as an air barrier.

No right minded Briton thinks "we" won the war alone, we all know that ww2 was a combined effort.

Quoting: Grzegorz_

Not "may" but for sure. Germans would have taken on France and low countries to eliminate a risk of attack from the back during war with Soviet Union and then Britain wouldn't have had excuse to stay away. And no matter, who would have won (Soviets or Gerries) they wouldn't have left GB alone.

GB simply intervened when Hitler tried to change the european balance of power dramatically to his favour.Hitler never intented to invade GB because in his view destruction of England would lead to strengthening of bolshekivism.

Thankyou southern,he may listen to you,for some reason he cant believe that a Briton can be telling the truth in this matter.........
Polson 5 | 1,770  
9 Dec 2007 /  #232
we all know that ww2 was a combined effort

Yeah, exactly :)
El Gato 4 | 351  
9 Dec 2007 /  #233
Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK ....)

He said England...

Very impresive,but,individual kills are worthless in those types of air battle,what counts is coordinating between other Sqdrns to acheive combined aims,even the biggest supporter of the Poles in the BofB admit that many of these kills were gained at the expense of keeping formation/acting effectivly as an air barrier.

I know, but numbers like those certainly help. Eliminated that 12% of thousands of German aircraft and what do you get? More bombing of England. I was just merely pointing out that others were there and they made their presence known...

No right minded Briton thinks "we" won the war alone, we all know that ww2 was a combined effort

Every country has its trolls...

:]
Ozi Dan 26 | 569  
9 Dec 2007 /  #234
Thanks again for your responses. I enjoyed reading them.

How? By invading germany,no offence to the heros of bzura et al but Poland was in about as good a position as GB to attack Germany at this time.

Yes, exactly. I surmise that Poland would have honoured the promise and done just that. I think that's a reasobnable assumption, going off histroical precedents.

ok,so why do you think its any different to your rather distastfull premise that there should be some sort of tally of who did what for who? Is the british life lost over warsaw any less worthy than the Polish life lost over london?

Why is it distasteful? Because it causes discomfiture when the deeds and misdeeds are brought to account. My thoughts on that issue cannot in any way have precipitated your response in that paragraph. I set out to illustrate that the benefits accrued by Poles from the efforts and contributions they made were in no way commensurate.

No reflection needed,I stand by my words

I'm a bit disappointed at this but that's your prerogative.

[quote=isthatu] sorry,what do you mean,pay inkind?

WW3? Where did that come into it? The meaning of the sentence is quite clear. There was an alliance between GB and Poland (and others to to be fair). The Poles fulfilled their part of the contract and GB (and the allies) did not, ergo, there was no payment in kind.

As to the mine detectors, please dont resort to idiosyncratic contributions as suggestive of evidence that they were the only contributions made. It's poor form to receive help then question the helper as to the volume and method of delivery of that help.

well,some could say this,I wouldnt myself,unless you mean unique in not realising that ww2 was a combined effort by many nations

I didnt mean it in that way at all. I explained the background to that hypothesis in the paragraph preceding it, and you know perfectly well what my argument was, so your tangential assessment of allied contributions is needless because it's known to any student of history. Smoke and mirrors may work well in the esteemed discussion circles and educated environs you frequent when not paying the Polish forum a visit, but please dont try it here ;-).

Regards, Dan
El Gato 4 | 351  
9 Dec 2007 /  #235
there was no payment in kind.

I would consider it a late payment, or a payment made in installments than no payment at all. Fact of the matter is, YES, France and England tried to save Poland, but came too late. Germany was too strong at first but eventually the war was won. My only problem with the whole thing is that how quickly Poland was given up to the Soviets.

Good men like Winston Chruchill regretted every doing it, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened. We are still allies today, and hopefully we'll be more honourable to each other in the future.

:]
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
10 Dec 2007 /  #236
Dan, dont matter who you word it, you are missing the point in almost everything you highlighted;

Quoting: isthatu
How? By invading germany,no offence to the heros of bzura et al but Poland was in about as good a position as GB to attack Germany at this time.

Yes, exactly. I surmise that Poland would have honoured the promise and done just that. I think that's a reasobnable assumption, going off histroical precedents.

would they,really,Poland had a long standing strategic plan,of defense. If they had tried to strike hitler first,with an un mobilised army,just how long do you think Poland would have lasted?

WW3? Where did that come into it? The meaning of the sentence is quite clear. There was an alliance between GB and Poland (and others to to be fair). The Poles fulfilled their part of the contract and GB (and the allies) did not, ergo, there was no payment in kind.

Well dan, just how could GB have freed Poland at the end of the war,are you forgetting the little matter of the Red Army being in control of the entire area. Do you think Uncle Joe would have just said,"oh,ok you can have your country back"? Do you really? So ,to "fullfill its promise" ,(which,if you know,was to free Poland from the Nazis,which was done) GB would have had to go to war with the USSR,how long do you think that would have lasted,do you really think GB was obligated to go to war with the Soviets to "free" Poland( a Poland that had two competing govts,one there one here),and at the cost of how many lives? Do you really think the wartime Poles weere fighting for GB,if you do Im afraid you have been sadly mislead and dont seem to fully understand the nature of the wartime alliancess.

As to the mine detectors, please dont resort to idiosyncratic contributions as suggestive of evidence that they were the only contributions made. It's poor form to receive help then question the helper as to the volume and method of delivery of that help.

You were the one wanting a tally,not me. I gave one example out of many possibilities to show how futile any atempt to say "we did more than you" is as an argument,you try to turn this around,well,sorry chum,you got the wrong end of the stick.

Quoting: isthatu
ok,so why do you think its any different to your rather distastfull premise that there should be some sort of tally of who did what for who? Is the british life lost over warsaw any less worthy than the Polish life lost over london?

Why is it distasteful? Because it causes discomfiture when the deeds and misdeeds are brought to account.

Simply that in war,no one thought that way,everyone was fighting a commen enemy,so I say again,trying to "score points" for "your" team,is distastefull and disrespectfull. as Polson agrees;

Quoting: isthatu
we all know that ww2 was a combined effort

Yeah, exactly :)

and Mr Cat,

I know, but numbers like those certainly help. Eliminated that 12% of thousands of German aircraft and what do you get? More bombing of England. I was just merely pointing out that others were there and they made their presence known...

yep,sorry to give wrong impresion, all the guys that fought the Hun were valuable,all contributed something just by being there,even the American volunteers who didnt actualy have any "killls" during the battle were vital. Like I say,every British schoolboy has,at the very least,seen the old movie " Battle of Britain" and you can hardly say that classic bit of British flag waving ignores the Polish contribution.
celinski 31 | 1,258  
10 Dec 2007 /  #237
In all fairness, WW2: Britain Declares War on Germany to Save Poland must be looked at by what took place between 1920 and WW2. To look at it and say it was "to save Poland" is like looking at WW1 didn't have unresolved issues. Carol

history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140

In September 1938 Hitler threatened war to annex the western border area of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland and its 3.5 million ethnic Germans. The British prime minister Neville Chamberlain initiated talks that culminated at the end of the month in the Munich Pact, by which the Czechs, on British and French urging, relinquished the Sudetenland in return for Hitler's promise not to take any more Czech territory. Chamberlain believed he had achieved "peace for our time," but the word Munich soon implied abject and futile appeasement.

Less than six months later, in March 1939, Hitler seized the remainder of Czechoslovakia. Alarmed by this new aggression and by Hitler's threats against Poland, the British government pledged to aid that country if Germany threatened its independence. France already had a mutual defense treaty with Poland.

Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161  
10 Dec 2007 /  #238
oops,no you didnt,you had two boats somewhere off the coast

Still much much more than you did for us.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569  
10 Dec 2007 /  #239
Dan, dont matter who you word it, you are missing the point in almost everything you highlighted;

With respect Isthatu, I now feel that this is just silly games from you. I took issue with you on my last post for your misconceptions of my arguments and you come back with the same except directed to me. This smacks of evasion.

If they had tried to strike hitler first,with an un mobilised army,just how long do you think Poland would have lasted?

The longevity or effectiveness of the strike didnt calculate in my argument. I say that the Poles would have honoured the agreement regardless. Poles have a history of fighting against insuperable odds and a tradition of assisting their allies and friends.

Well dan, just how could GB have freed Poland at the end of the war,are you forgetting the little matter of the Red Army being in control of the entire area.

No, I'm not forgetting this issue. There was the whole period of 39 to 45 wherein GB (and the other allies to be fair) had the chance to assist Poland to attempt to secure her own freedom, or clearly advise her that this wasn't coming. The Poles were simply strung along with grand speeches and promises by Churchill and Roosevelt that Poland would emerge from the war undiminished. Why would they say that? Because they feared losing some of their most able troops if they didn't.

Do you really think the wartime Poles weere fighting for GB,if you do Im afraid you have been sadly mislead and dont seem to fully understand the nature of the wartime alliancess.

They fought for GB with a view that their efforts would be repaid or honoured in kind. They were told this would be the case by the highest authority. Whether their motives were altruistic viz GB or selfish is immaterial. They were part of a team and shouldered their responsibilites admirably and in good faith. In many instances, as you know, Poles fought with a courage and tenacity that went beyond expectation. That is the nature of a wartime alliance. It appears that you have been sadly misled if you believe that a wartime alliance is representing to an ally that they wouldnt be let down, accept their contributions and then, when it's too late, say sorry, we can't really do anything for you but thanks for your efforts.

I gave one example out of many possibilities to show how futile any atempt to say "we did more than you" is as an argument,you try to turn this around,well,sorry chum,you got the wrong end of the stick.

It's no argument, it's a fact. A particularised list per se of contributions is not needed. It is common knowledge. The argument I make is that the contributions made byu Poland were not commensurate to the gain received. The reason the gain or benefit was not commensurate was because the alliance or team let Poland down. Saying "we couldnt have done more" or "we did what we could" or "how could we have fought the Russians" is immaterial in the present day, because those sentiments should have been clearly, concisely and swiftly conveyed to the Poles in the early 40's when it became apparent that aid wasn't coming and it wasn't foreseeable.

To do otherwise, which in fact did occur, is pure, unadulterated fraud and misrepresentation. Had the Poles been advised of the allies position viz aid/assistance/fulfilling their contractual obligations/their attitude of slavish appeasement toward Stalin, the Poles would have had a choice to keep fighting as emigres or direct their efforts toward fighting their way back to Poland and face whatever fate awaited them. My unashamed and patriotic view - the Poles would have fulfilled their immediate obligations to their international comrades, deeply thanked them for the unfirom and gun provided, marched, flown, crawled or driven to Poland, annihilating any enemy in their way, arrive in Poland, put the fear of God into Stalin.... who knows? They werent given the chance. The outcome would than have been squarely on their shoulders and we wouldnt be having these kinds of arguments today.

As an aside, it's strange how the Polish para brigade wasn't released despite Boor's pleading during the Rising. I think that's a good example of the line of thought dispalyed in this paragraph. I won't riposte with a witty pun as you saw fit to deliver and miss, because your words have received the response they so richly deserve.

Regards, Dan
celinski 31 | 1,258  
10 Dec 2007 /  #240
Dan,

Thank you for your response. May the real truth be heard.

They were part of a team and shouldered their responsibilites admirably and in good faith.

Even when they knew they were betrayed, "a man is only as good as his name", the Polish gave their all.

Carol

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / WW2: Britain Declares War on Germany to Save PolandArchived