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

WW2: Britain Declares War on Germany to Save Poland


Wroclaw Boy  
11 Dec 2007 /  #241
Churchill waited for three years before launching attack on Normandy in order to cope with a german army weakened and exhausted from the slaughter in eastern front.

And what a great decision that was, a master craftsman I would say.
the_falkster 1 | 180  
11 Dec 2007 /  #242
And what a great decision that was

lesson learnt after the (not so well) first attempt at dunkirque, maybe... ?
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
11 Dec 2007 /  #243
It is common knowledge.

Ah,the famous historical argument.......

As an aside, it's strange how the Polish para brigade wasn't released despite Boor's pleading during the Rising.

why is this strange, who wold have flown them there? What transports were available at this time? Only those set aside for operation comet. How do you fly an entire airborne brigade,mostly made up of slow moving gliders all the way to Warsaw? You dont,they would have been destroyed before they got as far as Berlin........

If your happy seeing yourselves as poor wretched victims,let down by big bad GB,well, frankly,boo hoo. sorry Dan,but your answers,though beutifully worded(almost like a kevin smith script) are very nieve to say the least. You talk about unarmed poles not being given the chance to take on the Red Army in 1945.......and do what,cause Stalin to just say,"screw it,lets just get rid of all these poles"..........

Dan,

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

or the truth that fits some victim mentality............
The only country that did F all for your grandparents generation and this is the attitude now....disgracfull, you may as well spit on the war graves from here to cairo.....unlike your vision of wartime poles,wartime british troops were dying for half of europe,acording to your logic polands forces were only fighting to free poland....well,I know which of those two I say carries more honour and selfless sacrife,but thats only from your description,I know the truth was very different.

and a classic G one liner...

Quoting: isthatu
oops,no you didnt,you had two boats somewhere off the coast

Still much much more than you did for us.

muppet,they were ex RN ships given to the PL navy........
celinski 31 | 1,258  
11 Dec 2007 /  #244
The only country that did F all for your grandparents generation and this is the attitude now....disgracfull

Poland was there for you after they had to fight alone. Can you say the same? I don't think so. In the end did you have a country? Poland did not. Since you love my use of historical links.

MILITARY OPERATIONS

In the early morning hours of Sept. 1, 1939, the German armies marched into Poland. On September 3 the British and French surprised Hitler by declaring war on Germany, but they had no plans for rendering active assistance to the Poles.

history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140

You may not want to read the whole artical it it is the truth. I don't know why you continue to disaggree, I am American as well as Polish, I can admit USA screwed us in WW2. I am not saying British didn't fight, I am saying they did not declare war to help Poland. They were covering there own bu*ts before Poland was even attacked. Also see message 278 above. Carol
southern 75 | 7,096  
11 Dec 2007 /  #245
I think that the main mistake of Poles is to view their situation as unique as something extraordinary.Let's clear for example:
1.English gave guarantees of independance to many countries without being able to keep their promise.
2.Germans had plans for every single land in Europe whether or not they managed to apply them.
3.Soviets used massive deportations as a tool for internal stability and security.
It was not that the english,the germans and the soviets were anti-poles.Everybody had his plans for Europe and Poland was a part of the international conflict.
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
11 Dec 2007 /  #246
So in other words while talking about history we should talk only about tragedies of Jews, Gypsies, etc but not polish people and everything will be OK?
southern 75 | 7,096  
11 Dec 2007 /  #247
I do not mean that.But you have to put it in the right context to make it believable.Otherwise everybody will say the same,for example,you Poles had half a million dead,we Germans had 4 millions due to Nazis,or americans had 350000 dead etc.You fail to cause sympathy.

The Jews managed to gain sympathy through exploiting holocaust as something unique that happened to them only,so if anybody tries to do the same the others will view him in disbelief.
El Gato 4 | 351  
11 Dec 2007 /  #248
you Poles had half a million dead

Where did you get those numbers????? A quarter of the population was gone after WW2. Did you mean because of concentration camps?
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
11 Dec 2007 /  #249
isthatu, I remeber your post about historians and that they shuld be objective, etc... I'm afraid that you lost your objectivness somewhere in this topic. Why are you being so defensive? Well than again, "the Polish side" could have used less emotionally charged stance...

If anybody is interested in a real debate about history without this whole "our pilots saved your country" or "this is your victim mentality" give me a call. :)
El Gato 4 | 351  
11 Dec 2007 /  #250
give me a call. :)

What's your number?

:]
Maat - | 21  
11 Dec 2007 /  #251
so mass murdering of Poles and Jews during ww2 was "nothing personal"? ...
southern 75 | 7,096  
11 Dec 2007 /  #252
Where did you get those numbers????? A quarter of the population was gone after WW2. Did you mean because of concentration camps?

Again you fail to understand.Number of dead does not play any role now.The Soviets had 20 million deads.Poles lost half a million only in eastern Poland due to ukrainian nationalist actions and NKVD authorities.There is no point to compare losses.

You should center on what you can demand.For example the Germans destroyed Warsaw by plan.There is the written document to do that signed by german legitimate government.They did not destroy Paris or Rome.So since Germany is now united,you may claim compensations.It is estimated to be 50 billion euros by Kaczynski's comitee.

Really you have the legal rights to get this amount.
If you insist on english role,comparison of number of deads etc,you will gain nothing.Because the Germans will claim that they are not responsible for Nazis' actions and they also suffered from Nazi administration.You play the game anti-nazi,anti-communist,that is proposed to you.They will tell you,ask uncle Putin for compensations or use you simply as a means to press Putin to get some less expensive oil.Do not let them tool you and ask the Germans for compensations.
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
11 Dec 2007 /  #253
I do not mean that.But you have to put it in the right context to make it believable.Otherwise everybody will say the same,for example,you Poles had half a million dead,we Germans had 4 millions due to Nazis,or americans had 350000 dead etc.You fail to cause sympathy.
The Jews managed to gain sympathy through exploiting holocaust as something unique that happened to them only,so if anybody tries to do the same the others will view him in disbelief.

But it's all true! Well except the figures. :)

Every nation that participated in WWII loss something so in a sense Poland’s fate wasn’t a unique one, but still I think that I have every right to talk about it without being accused of trying to be the centre of the world.
El Gato 4 | 351  
11 Dec 2007 /  #254
Again you fail to understand.

I was just wondering what those numbers were from...I'm not trying to downplay any country here. Take out one single country from the alliance and the war would have been much different. Each country played a role, small or big.

All I wanted to know is what those numbers stood for; dead in concentration camps, casualties of war, etc.

:]
southern 75 | 7,096  
11 Dec 2007 /  #255
Poland was a special case.It was special because it suffered severe damages and it did not win despite it was faithful ally to the winners.Take for example Italy.They were heavily engaged in axis,yet at the end of war they were almost considered winners due to italian diplomacy.Take France.They were defeated shamefully,yet at the end they paraded as winners although their resistance and general attitude could not compare to polish.The Czechs never fought,so in part they were responsible for their fate.The Hungarians,the Bulgarians,the Croats,the Romanians,all were axis allies,so their punishment was in part justified.

On the other hand all the nations which became western allies,the Greeks,the Serbs,the Norwegians,the Dutch,the Belgians,all gained their independance and a lot of financial support.

So you really have reasons to complain.But it should be in that context.
El Gato 4 | 351  
11 Dec 2007 /  #256
The Czechs never fought

As a whole. There were a number of Czechs that helped the Allies.

So you really have reasons to complain

I wish most of us wouldn't though. It's like playing a trump card in an arguement. I hate it when people bring up past events for arguements.

But it should be in that context.

Agreed.
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
11 Dec 2007 /  #257
Quoting: Matyjasz
give me a call. :)

What's your number?

:]

lol, Ditto.... :)

isthatu, I remeber your post about historians and that they shuld be objective, etc... I'm afraid that you lost your objectivness somewhere in this topic

Well,as far as Im concerned Im still staying objective, It just happens to be the country I live in Im "defending" so to speak,if the topic had been " France declares war for Poland" instead of Britain I rather imagine my arguments would be pretty similar,and answers to the charges levelled by overly patriotic Poles would be about the same. Ie,the whole world was falling apart,no one in 1939 could have forseen the situation in europe as it was to be in 1945 so most arguments are moot,especially the old hoary chestnut of " britain didnt keep its promisises..." ,plain and simply,it did,it was one of the nations,that part of an alliance, crushed Nazi Germany,thereby freeing (not just Poland,but the rest of) Europe from nazi oppresion. There was absoloutly nothing in GBs decleration of war in 1939 about then going on and freeing anyone from the USSR.

Poland was there for you after they had to fight alone. Can you say the same? I don't think so. In the end did you have a country? Poland did not. Since you love my use of historical links.

Eh? This is wrong in so many ways. They fought alone,for 28 or so days,then capitulated,as has been done to death,what could have been done in that short space of time...........? And sorry to disappoint you but,as far as the world was concerned Poland did exist as a country after the war,it didnt just drop off the face of the earth it had a government and everything...........

I am saying they did not declare war to help Poland.

Well why the buggery else did they do it? For a spot of caravaning,a nice holiday around the med?Or maybe as a form of population control,you know,declare war because Poland was invaded just so we could have the pleasure of the lufftwaffe bombing our towns and cities for the next 5 years???????

Im sorry,you are so wrong.Britain would have been far better siting on the sidelines.Hitler loved the English,had no desire for war with Britain and would have been quite happy leaving us(and probably france) out of his euro tour,as it was peace feelers were being sent out by abwher and probably even Hess right untill late 1941 as Germany didnt want to fight GB, not coz we were big n 'ard,simply our Empire was a more valuable trading partner to him than anything he could have gained with defeating britain,remember,if,and this is highly unlikely as he never planned for it,hitler had conquered GB our Govt would have carried on from Canada so he knew he was onto a loser. So, and ONE LAST TIME

Britain declared war because hitler didnt pull out of Poland, no other reason,so stop whining about "truth " this and " betrayl" that,it simply isnt becoming.........
southern 75 | 7,096  
11 Dec 2007 /  #258
As a whole. There were a number of Czechs that helped the Allies.

Under Heindrich the Czechs were so satisfied by their life under nazism,that GB had to send two people to kill him in order to revive some kind of resistance.Their wages had become better during german occupation.Generally Czechs do not tend to resist a lot.(opposite to Poles,see their attitude towards Austrohungary,Napoleon wars,WW1,now etc).Generally I like Czechs a lot,they simply try to adjust,they do not like to fight wars.
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
11 Dec 2007 /  #259
The Czechs never fought,

oh by golly they did,and so did many other countries,nationalities that lost their way of life/prefered form of government after ww11.
I sometimes get the impresion that many Poles think they were the only other allied country in the war other than GB US and UUSR.........or the only country to lose out in the aftermath.

And one thing you all seem to forget,it was a world war, if,as many claim ,the Poles were so altruistic and fighting for Britain,well,where the heck were you in the fight against Japan? You know,that big war in jungles etc......
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
11 Dec 2007 /  #260
You should center on what you can demand.For example the Germans destroyed Warsaw by plan.There is the written document to do that signed by german legitimate government.They did not destroy Paris or Rome.So since Germany is now united,you may claim compensations.It is estimated to be 50 billion euros by Kaczynski's comitee.
Really you have the legal rights to get this amount.

We have but that way we will be trapped in a vicious circle. I'm for the "zero option". Nobody charges anybody! Still I doubt that the Germans will go for it.

What's your number?

:]

Why do i have a feeling that I said something wrong? :)
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
11 Dec 2007 /  #261
that GB had to send two people to kill him in order to revive some kind of resistance

tosh,it was four(maybe 6?) Czech soe agents......a "brit'" would have lasted two minutes in praha....
and dont forget,your top scoring "Polish" fighter ace in the B of B was a Czech.....
southern 75 | 7,096  
11 Dec 2007 /  #262
Hitler loved the English,had no desire for war with Britain and would have been quite happy leaving us(and probably france) out of his euro tour,as it was peace feelers were being sent out

Hitler made an offer to the English after the war in France that was repeated in Hess' visit.GB would keep its empire if it signed peace with Germany and let him attack Soviet Union without caring about a western front.GB rejected the proposition although both parts knew it meant the end of british empire.

In Oktober 1940 Hitler made another proposition to Molotov.If Soviet Union remains his ally and helps him to attack England,he will allow Soviet Union to conquer India and many of the british colonies in Asia.Molotov refused and asked Hitler to withdraw all his troops from Romania,Bulgaria and Hungary,to allow soviet ships operating in mediteranean sea,and to give Soviet Union military bases in Norway and Denmark!Hitler could not believe what the Soviets asked.He told them I have first to discuss with Mussolini such serious claims and then he gave orders to Wehrmacht to prepare operation Barbarossa.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569  
11 Dec 2007 /  #263
Isthatu,

I wont bother quoting anything from your last post because there's nothing there worth quoting.

Again, I'm disappointed at your response. I though at the very least you would have given a thoughtful response to some of the arguments I made rather than a couple of cheap shots.

My last paragraphs make nonsense of your stance of us being poor wrteched victims, yet you chose not to rise to that challenge by offering a view. One can only surmise why you chose to take the easy route with your brief comments.

Don't call me naive please. I put a caveat on that hypothetical scenario as being my unashamed patriotic view. Dont praise the way I've worded my posts because I can see the sneer on your face as you wrote it. I'm quite happy to say I've never heard of Kevin Smith so it really means nothing to me. I word my posts carefully and write in that fashion becasue that's the way I convey my respect for you and your arguments. I can quite easily write and talk in a less reader friendly and more ocker way but that's for my less academic friends in my day to day world.

I honestly thought you were bigger than that. I recall you saying something about reading more and posting less (forgive me for not trolling thru your posts and giving the full quote). There's another layer to that - once you read something, you read between the lines and analyse what you have taken in.

I'm more than happy to admit your posts on this topic gave me some serious food for thought and caused me to question and reconsider some of my perceptions and beliefs. If nothing else, I hope that I gave you some food for thought too. As to your assertion that you 'know the truth was very different', the truth is subjective. On the topic we have been debating it may never be known. It's clear to me that we will never be able to wholly convince each other to accept our competing views. I'll leave it to the forum to decide.

Best regards to you and yours mate. Dan
Polson 5 | 1,770  
11 Dec 2007 /  #264
Quoting: isthatu
Hitler loved the English,had no desire for war with Britain and would have been quite happy leaving us(and probably france) out of his euro tour,as it was peace feelers were being sent out

What ?...Hitler thought French were a subrace (not as the same degree that some other ethnics, but still...), he wanted to conquer France.
About England, he said that English people were better than French, but didn't love them, where did you get that ?? The only "race" he loved was the so-called Aryan race, which he obviously didn't belong to...

:)
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
11 Dec 2007 /  #265
Well why the buggery else did they do it? For a spot of caravaning,a nice holiday around the med?Or maybe as a form of population control,you know,declare war because Poland was invaded just so we could have the pleasure of the lufftwaffe bombing our towns and cities for the next 5 years???????

The answer is very easy. Britain had a long history of intervening on the continent only when the balance of power was in danger and in 1939 this definitely was the case. A situation when one of the leading powers on the continent, in this case Germany, but earlier for example napoleons France, gains a significant advantage over others and eventually dominates Europe wasn't in interest of GB, because in the future it would threaten its position in the world. Plus, who would want to have a powerful neighbor who openly brakes all of it’s international deals?

What ?...Hitler thought French were a subrace (not as the same degree that some other ethnics, but still...), he wanted to conquer France.
About England, he said that English people were better than French, but didn't love them, where did you get that ?? The only "race" he loved was the so-called Aryan race, which he obviously didn't belong to...

:)

In aftermath of WWI Germany lost a lot of territories to both, Poland and France. That’s why both countries were on the “Germany’s obvious enemies” list. :)

TBC

To be continued... :)
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
11 Dec 2007 /  #266
Plus, who would want to have a powerful neighbor who openly brakes all of it’s international deals?

lol,you tell me,were next to France,youve got Russia ;)

What ?...Hitler thought French were a subrace (not as the same degree that some other ethnics, but still...), he wanted to conquer France.
About England, he said that English people were better than French, but didn't love them, where did you get that ??

Its all there in the books Polson,I mean about hitlers rather unsavoury love of all things english,one of the main things he admired was our empire,how so few englishmen could succsesfully control so many millions of "natives", dont you think that sort of thing touched a chord with him ? And Polson,remember,hitler didnt even bother occupying the bulk of france,you know,the Vichy bit,until late 1942(maybe 43....)
southern 75 | 7,096  
11 Dec 2007 /  #267
What ?...Hitler thought French were a subrace (not as the same degree that some other ethnics, but still...), he wanted to conquer France.
About England, he said that English people were better than French, but didn't love them,

According to Hitler the human race was divided in
1.Aryans(Germans,English,Dutch.Skandinavians).The French were also Aryans but in decadence since they had mixed in some percent with negroes
2.Mediteraneans(Spanish,Italians,Greeks etc).They were the second category,much lower rank than Aryans but also significant for civilization
3.Slavs.They were according to Nazis the lowest category of human existence.Some of them deserved to survive only to work as slaves for the Aryans.They were incapable of reason and constructive thinking.They had offered nothing to mankind.

4.Jews.They were intelligent but evil.They had to be exterminated since their existence caused misery for the Aryans.
5.Blacks.They were not part of human race.According to Hitler blacks belonged to the animal kingdom.
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
11 Dec 2007 /  #268
lol,you tell me,were next to France,youve got Russia ;)

Erm.. I don't quite follow. I was talking about Germany.

Ok, Ok, I didn't notice the wink. ;)
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
11 Dec 2007 /  #269
Best regards to you and yours mate. Dan

Dan, my hats off to you, your the bigger man.
(though,what the flamin 'ell is an ocker? )
southern 75 | 7,096  
11 Dec 2007 /  #270
lol,you tell me,were next to France,youve got Russia ;)

Simply the politicians in England decided that nazism was more threatening than communism for GB's exsitence as a power in a free anglosaxon world.They could not tolerate the antisemitism and freedom limitation Hitler wanted them to accept.

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