Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 156

The Poms who stood by the Poles in WW2


Ozi Dan 26 | 569  
20 Nov 2009 /  #1
Hi all,

Those of you familiar with my ramblings on this forum will no doubt be aware that I am highly critical of what I've described as the English 'stab in the back' towards Poland during WW2.

That said, I give credit where it is due, and I've recently read that there were many Pommie politicos who were wholeheartedly on Poland's side and who risked much to voice their opinions in the latter stages of WW2 when meeker souls and less stalwart individuals kept silent - it is to these gentleman (and no doubt women, and most of the common soldiery) that we Poles (or in my case Plastic Poles) ought to give thanks and recognition for their sacrifice and intestinal fortitude.

It's nice to know that even though realpolitik prevailed over morality, Poland was not all alone and some stood up for her, recognising and holding true to the concept that an alliance and friendship prevails no matter what. What makes the actions of those few brave individuals even more special is the fact that they maintained their morality, principles and dignity, even though by that stage the writing was on the wall and there was little they could have done but voice their opinion as to the wrongness of it all.

True it is that I wasn't even an apple in my father's eye when these persons of virtue adopted their position and spoke out for Poland when Poland was being destroyed - but I give them my posthumous thanks anyway and hope other forum members will give generous thanks and recognition too. It makes the bitter pill of Poland's defeat, collapse and yoking to the Soviet regime slightly easier to swallow.

I'm not particularly net savvy so excuse me if the following link comes out wrong: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
1jola 14 | 1,879  
23 Nov 2009 /  #2
I’ve recently read that there were many Pommie politicos who were wholeheartedly on Poland’s side and who risked much to voice their opinions in the latter stages of WW2 when meeker souls and less stalwart individuals kept silent – it is to these gentleman (and no doubt women, and most of the common soldiery) that we Poles (or in my case Plastic Poles) ought to give thanks and recognition for their sacrifice and intestinal fortitude.

I don't know the particular politicians you have in mind, but perhaps they had self interest in mind. Hitler had plans for Britain just like he had plans for the East. At the least it wolud have meant slavery for Brits. Einsatzgruppen would have shot or turned over the politicians like they to the Gestapo.

Still an honorable decision though.
Wroclaw Boy  
23 Nov 2009 /  #3
It’s nice to know that even though realpolitik prevailed over morality, Poland was not all alone and some stood up for her, recognising and holding true to the concept that an alliance and friendship prevails no matter what.

Crap, its everyman for himself in the real world. Would you give your life for a friends Ozi Dan? and a not very close friend at that, one which you know would not give his for yours.
Harry  
23 Nov 2009 /  #4
Hitler had plans for Britain just like he had plans for the East. At the least it wolud have meant slavery for Brits.

Looks like you've never read either of Hitler's books or studied any of his 'ideas'. Britain was very much Germany's most natural and closest ally in Hitler's mind. The idiot was so delusional that he thought the final battle for world domination would be the combined forces of Greater Germany and the British Empire against the USA!
rozumiemnic 8 | 3,848  
23 Nov 2009 /  #5
Britain was very much Germany's most natural and closest ally in Hitler's mind. The idiot was so delusional

Actually not THAT delusional when you look at the recent ancestry of our Royal Family the Saxe COburg GOthas, why do you think Prince Philip's sisters werent invited to his wedding to Elizabeth, well thats because they were all married to SS officers.

Certain members of the Royal family had such strong Nazi sympathies they had to be shipped off to the Bahamas for the duration.
Aristocratic ruling class families thought Hitler was wonderful. Some of them (Well, one of them) even rushed off to Germany to seduce him....(Unity Mitford)

ETC ETC
The delusional ones are the ones who think Hitler had no support in the British Isles.
Babinich 1 | 455  
23 Nov 2009 /  #6
There were a number of British politicians that voiced their opinion of aggressive support early in the war.

As was mentioned in a previous post, Hitler had an affinity for the Empire.
Harry  
23 Nov 2009 /  #7
Certain members of the Royal family had such strong Nazi sympathies they had to be shipped off to the Bahamas for the duration.

Read about Prince Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha!

As was mentioned in a previous post, Hitler had an affinity for the Empire.

His favourite film was all about the heroic British Empire!
Babinich 1 | 455  
23 Nov 2009 /  #8
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hitler-obersalzberg.html
Mr Grunwald 20 | 1,554  
23 Nov 2009 /  #9
I take off my cap for thoose brave people who used their voice in an righteous way when few knew better then most.
cheehaw 2 | 263  
23 Nov 2009 /  #10
There is so much different stuff that has been written by now.. I think going just by documented events.. and following the money trail.. it becomes sort of evident that governments that would have often done the 'right' thing were often also pressed and even undermined, by corporate relations, big money, with lots of government influence.

I found this paper very interesting recently, for instance: jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/WallStreetCommieRevolution.pdf
sjam 2 | 541  
23 Nov 2009 /  #11
will give generous thanks and recognition too.

Bravo!
1jola 14 | 1,879  
25 Nov 2009 /  #12
I have read Hitler's first book. As to his ideas, tell me what you think of this document:

The notes of this meeting were written by Lieutenant-Colonel of General Staff Schmundt, Hitler's adjutant.

This document is not questioned, and sometimes there is discussion whether Goering was present at the begining of the meeting and other details like that.

From Schmundt's notes:

Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.

In Europe there is no other possibility.

So far so good. This is what we expect of Hitler after reading his views. On to the relevant passages:

The problem 'Poland' is not to be separated from the conflict with the west.

The Führer doubts the possibility of a peaceful confrontation with England. It is necessary to be prepared for the confrontation. England sees in our development the foundation of a hegemony that would weaken England.England is thus our enemy, and the confrontation will be one of life and death.

England knows that an unfortunate outcome of the war will mean the end of its world power.

England is the motor that drives against Germany. It's strength lies in the following:

1.) The Briton is proud, brave, tough, resistant and has an organizational talent. He knows how to take advantage of any new event. He has the adventure spirit and the courage of the Nordic Race. Quality sinks with broadening. The German average is better.

UK would have been renamed the Reichskommissariat Gross-Britannien. I can tell you who the leader would have been, a mild university professor - Dr. Six. No joke.

Babinich:
As was mentioned in a previous post, Hitler had an affinity for the Empire.
His favourite film was all about the heroic British Empire!

I guess he had an affinity for the Soviet Empire too since his favourite actress was Olga Chekhova - a Soviet spy.
Amathyst 19 | 2,702  
25 Nov 2009 /  #13
1.) The Briton is proud, brave, tough, resistant and has an organizational talent. He knows how to take advantage of any new event. He has the adventure spirit and the courage of the Nordic Race. Quality sinks with broadening. The German average is better.

True. Apart from the last sentence :D

That said, I give credit where it is due

Gee, thanks, now I feel much better that England gets some Poles graditude for the 1,000s of Brits that died in WWII...You are funny!

(Well, one of them)

Can you name the hundreds of others in the ruling classes at the time, I doubt it. The Mitfords were just a phucked up bunch, half loved the idea of communism (what a larf for aristocrats) the other half were facists..But Im sure there were a couple of sane ones...

Bravo!

Are you being sarcastic?

I take off my cap for thoose brave people who used their voice in an righteous way when few knew better then most.

How about taking off your cap for those that thought of the women and children in England who would have starved to death had a war continued?

His favourite film was all about the heroic British Empire!

So he wasnt such a bad chap after all.

rozumiemnic

Whilst Im not a big fan of the Royal family, I could never question their allegiance to England, they turned their backs on the Russian royal family in WW1 because of public opinion and look what happened to them..so you see, they would rather have the blood of their family on their hands than go against the wishes of their Subjects and at the time of WWII, public opinion was not in favour of the facists in Germany.
1jola 14 | 1,879  
25 Nov 2009 /  #14
public opinion was not in favour of the facists in Germany.

Not all the public.
sjam 2 | 541  
25 Nov 2009 /  #15
Are you being sarcastic?

All those that stood shoulder to shoulder with and for Poland should be applauded.
szkotja2007 27 | 1,499  
25 Nov 2009 /  #16
Oh whatsissname - thats right King Eddie the 2nd (8th of England).

and then there was the Duke of Hamilton who had the deputy fuhrer pop in for tea in 1941.

Spellcheck - Sympathisers


  • Sympathasisers
sjam 2 | 541  
25 Nov 2009 /  #17
Hitler a monarchist sympathiser... who'd have thought. :-)))
jonni 16 | 2,485  
25 Nov 2009 /  #18
King Eddie the 2nd (8th of England).

I used to say Elizabeth the second and first, etc, until I discovered it was wrong. The higher of two conflicting regnal numbers is always used; the Scottish courts ruled on the matter a couple of years ago after someone mounted a legal challenge, though through tact, The Queen doesn't use EIIR in Scotland.

Anyway,

about Hitler's plans for Britain, there has been a story going around for donkey's years (completely unprovable, but interesting all the same) that the Germans planned to divide Britain (or at least England), as they had France. A 'Vichy' type government in the south, based in Norwich, and a government of occupation in the north, based in York.

Apparently (so the story goes) the Germans expected resistance to be stronger in the north. Also the political map of England has of course long been red in the north and blue in the south.

The story of a Leeds-based government is pure fantasy based on Hitler's admiration for a housing scheme in Vienna that was replicated in Leeds.

It would be interesting if any documents exist to shed light on these theories.
Amathyst 19 | 2,702  
25 Nov 2009 /  #19
Apparently (so the story goes) the Germans expected resistance to be stronger in the north

He'd obviously heard the expression "southern softies" :D

Not all the public.

A handful of nutters with flags, hardly public opinion, had there been that much support for him in the higher and lower ranks of society, we wouldnt have gone to war.
Harry  
25 Nov 2009 /  #20
England sees in our development the foundation of a hegemony that would weaken England. England is thus our enemy, and the confrontation will be one of life and death.

So England is Germany's enemy because England sees German development as the foundation of a hegemony that would weaken England. But if England did not chose to be Germany's enemy, Germany would not consider England to be an enemy.
Marek11111 9 | 816  
25 Nov 2009 /  #21
royal family ware sympathizers with Hitler as they ware part German and they influence british gov., it's evident in actions that British gov. took prior to WWII ( caving on Czech issue ) and after start of war by not helping Poland.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649  
25 Nov 2009 /  #22
I've often wondered if the Hapsburg dynasty had something to do with the slowness of British response.
jonni 16 | 2,485  
25 Nov 2009 /  #23
Hapsburg dynasty had something to do with the slowness of British response.

The British Royal family are not Hapsburg, and response time to the invasion of Poland was hardly slow.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649  
25 Nov 2009 /  #24
I thought Victoria married all her offspring to members of the Hapsburg dynasty?
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,590  
25 Nov 2009 /  #25
royal family ware sympathizers with Hitler as they ware part German...

Erm....

Millions of american soldiers were part or full German too! Also all Hitler sympathizers as they came over to fight?
jonni 16 | 2,485  
25 Nov 2009 /  #26
PlasticPole

All but one married European Royalty, but none of them to Hapsburgs. The Hapsburg dynasty is/was catholic, which would have been a problem at that time, more because of politics than religion.
Amathyst 19 | 2,702  
25 Nov 2009 /  #27
and after start of war by not helping Poland.

How long does it take to mobilize an army? Or would you suggest that went over with pitch forks and horse and carts? Aparently the horse approach has been tried and failed (sorry couldnt resist that)

Hitler a monarchist sympathiser... who'd have thought. :-)))

Neither.
Harry  
25 Nov 2009 /  #28
after start of war by not helping Poland.

As is traditional at this point I will ask you to go into precise detail about the things which Britain could have done in September 1939 to help Poland and as is traditional for Poles who are asked to do so you will not be able to give even one thing which Britain could have done but did not do.
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
25 Nov 2009 /  #29
I don't know how many times it needs explaining;

1. Britain after WWI downsized (in a big way) its armed forces

2. Britain did not therefore have the army at the time to help Poland

3. It would have taken a very very long time for our troops to arrive in Poland to assist
I: The army had to be reconstructed
II: Troop transport was a reall issue considering Poland was the otherside of Germany
III: There were not enough quality aircraft to transport the vast number of troops needed

how much more do you want???
jonni 16 | 2,485  
25 Nov 2009 /  #30
Poland however had a huge army and huge military budget at that time! Though their weapons were old and their military infrastructure ancient.

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / The Poms who stood by the Poles in WW2Archived