"Shafting the Poles"

Torq

22 May 2009 / #1

An old article but still a good read...

frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14866

The decisive turning point in the West's long struggle against Islamic conquerors came on the afternoon of Sept. 12, 1683, during the last Turkish siege of Vienna. Severely outnumbered Polish hussars - the finest cavalry Europe ever produced - charged into the massed Ottoman ranks with lowered lances and a wild battle cry.

Led by the valiant King Jan Sobieski, the Poles had marched to save Vienna while other Europeans looked away. The French - surprise! - had cut a deal with the sultan. (To Louis XIV, humbling the rival Habsburgs trumped the fate of Western civilization.)

The odds were grim. Many of King Jan's nobles feared disaster. But Sobieski risked his kingdom - actually a rough-and-tumble democracy - to save a continent.

z_darius 14 | 3960

22 May 2009 / #2

I read that one soon after it first appeared.
That was at about the same time when Turkey refused to allow US military planes to used Turkish airfields for which they were rewarded $5B.

dtaylor5632 18 | 1998

22 May 2009 / #3

Why would Poland want to be begging for the scraps from others anyway?
Nic Nowego then?

z_darius 14 | 3960

22 May 2009 / #4

Why would Poland want to be begging for the scraps from others anyway?

It is more honorable to be "begging" for scraps during the mission the potential benefactor talked you into then begging for help those you later betrayed.

dtaylor5632 18 | 1998

22 May 2009 / #5

When it comes down to it, Poland shouldn't beg for anything, at the end of the day it hose the way it wanted to go. By asking for compensation it sounds more like Poland went into the war as mercenaries.

z_darius 14 | 3960

22 May 2009 / #6

When it comes down to it, Poland shouldn't beg for anything

Would you like Brits to have exclusive rights to begging?

By asking for compensation it sounds more like Poland went into the war as mercenaries.

"A mercenary (...) motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of August 1949).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

The war cost Poland more than the cost of the repairs of the equipment they used. Poland made no money on this, hence they were not mercenaries.

OP Torq

22 May 2009 / #7

Why would Poland want to be begging for the scraps from others anyway?

I don't think that was the point of the article. It was mostly about Poles not getting
enough recognition for their brave and honourbale deeds. I especially liked that bit:

"It's a mistake to over-idealize any nation. But if there's a land of heroes anywhere between the English Channel and the coast of California, it's Poland."

:-)

dtaylor5632 18 | 1998

22 May 2009 / #8

Would you like Brits to have exclusive rights to begging?

Was i talking about the UK.

The war cost Poland more than the cost of the repairs of the equipment they used. Poland made no money on this, hence they were not mercenaries.

But that article still makes the fact that Poland gained nothing from it the main point. Turkey got this, Egypt that, and what about us???

cinek_ - | 6

22 May 2009 / #9

By asking for compensation it sounds more like Poland went into the war as mercenaries.

Warsaw asked for $47 million to modernize six used, American-built C-130 transport aircraft and to purchase American-built HMMWV all-terrain vehicles

54_copy.jpg
64.jpg

lesser 4 | 1311

22 May 2009 / #10

By asking for compensation it sounds more like Poland went into the war as mercenaries.

Sounds? Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz at that time Polish foreign minister of leftist government openly said that Poland went to Iraq for oil! This is not a secret.

Seanus 15 | 19666

22 May 2009 / #11

Many did likewise. It's hard to point the finger considering virtually all the other countries did the same. Grubby little Sarkozy was in on it too.

hairball 20 | 313

22 May 2009 / #12

"Shafting the Poles"

I shaft one most nights...but maybe I AM a little off topic here.lol

Seanus 15 | 19666

23 May 2009 / #13

Is he satisfied? ;)

Seriously though, shafting the Poles will result in a lifelong grudge and some reprisals.

PolishCowboy 1 | 48

23 May 2009 / #14

Seriously though, shafting the Poles will result in a lifelong grudge and some reprisals.

I doubt it, from the above article the only thing we can expect is that Poland will fail yet again to learn its lesson. They should just develop a good memory and not trust or depend on their so-called allies.

Just today I read an article that the Patriot missile system they were to receive will not be equipped with warheads. It would have made a good joke if it were funny.

Seanus 15 | 19666

23 May 2009 / #15

Well, reprisals against the US just isn't an option. I meant more at the interpersonal level, as opposed to the intergovernmental level.

PolishCowboy 1 | 48

23 May 2009 / #16

Like, beat up some "ally" tourist on vacation in Krakow perhaps?

Seanus 15 | 19666

23 May 2009 / #17

Ally means friend. Did you mean a guy in an alley?

PolishCowboy 1 | 48

23 May 2009 / #18

Nope, I meant an "so-called allies" people who call us friend and then shaft us.

Seanus 15 | 19666

23 May 2009 / #19

Aha, well if that British ally ruins Krakow then some Poles may well carry out reprisals ;)

Drunken Brits do this :(

Sokrates 8 | 3335

23 May 2009 / #20

Strong military, as self dependent as physically possible and Polish should depend on Polish, as for Habsburgs frack them, we should have let Turks have both them and the Germans, we'd then pacify Russia and have a Pax Polonica eastwards and a better neighbour in the west.

lesser 4 | 1311

24 May 2009 / #21

Ally means friend.

A friendship is in a long time perspective, it is based on feelings. Alliance it is temporary cooperation based on common interest. Someone who confuse these words ask for troubles! :)

scrappleton - | 829

24 May 2009 / #22

Alliance it is temporary cooperation based on common interest.

Yeah, just look at Ribbentrop-Molotov ;- (

Seanus 15 | 19666

24 May 2009 / #23

So you are telling me NATO is a "temporary cooperation based on common interest"? What's temporary about it?

Not all friendships are what we call lasting friendships, lesser. You can strike up a friendship but life changes.

gumishu 15 | 6193

24 May 2009 / #24

Seanus - if in a couple of years NATO looses its importance considerably standing on the brink of being not operational - wouldn't calling it temporary be somehow justified?

Seanus 15 | 19666

24 May 2009 / #25

The purpose of NATO was to form an enduring alliance based on the continuing need for security.

Your very use of 'if' totally undermines your point, gumishu. Tell me, is that a realistic prospect that NATO will fall apart in 2 years? Do you want to bet on that? I'll bet my life savings that it won't in the next 2 years.

If this, if that. Hypotheticals don't apply here.

Sokrates 8 | 3335

24 May 2009 / #26

The purpose of NATO was to form an enduring alliance based on the continuing need for security.

The purpose of NATO was to counter the Warsaw Pact.

Tell me, is that a realistic prospect that NATO will fall apart in 2 years?

Make it 10, its not a realistic prospect, its basically certain, either it will fall apart or become so low key that it'd amount to the same thing.

If this, if that. Hypotheticals don't apply here.

No hyphotesis here, NATO is a political entity thats purpose was to be a counter to Soviet Union, right now its simply a club of convenience.

Seanus 15 | 19666

24 May 2009 / #27

Aha, a man who wants to discuss its beginnings. OK then, tell me a key conclusion of the 1952 Lisbon conference, Sokrates?

Given that the war in Afghanistan is still predicted to be going on in 2025, 10 years seems to be a little short. Tell me Sokrates, what happened in Stirling, Scotland, last Monday?

Club of convenience?? You really don't know the structures that well then.

Sokrates 8 | 3335

24 May 2009 / #28

Club of convenience?? You really don't know the structures that well then.

Please dont make me recall college years i'm puking dates to this day (although i have no idea what happened in Stirling last monday? I'm guessing its not about Mel Gibson owning some British?).

Bringing up Afghanistan is completely misguided though, we'd still be there as part of multinational alliance, everyone who is there is there due to US leverage rather than NATO mandate, US is working hard to destabilise Pakistan and it needs credibility which means breaning in Europe.

Seanus 15 | 19666

24 May 2009 / #29

Bringing in Europe through the auspices and pretense of NATO, yes.

George Robertson, former Secretary-General of NATO, gave a speech outlining the role of NATO for the 21st century. I can assure you that he wasn't planning only for the next 10 years.

gumishu 15 | 6193

24 May 2009 / #30

War in Afghanistan will end up abruptly by western forces fleeing from there - this is my view of it Seanus and it can happen sooner than two years - the whole thing is ill-doomed - many signs show it

Americans withdraw much of financial support for NATO already or in coming months say next year (they were funding most of NATO activities from the very beginning)

where do you think NATO stands in this scenario

methinks in the middle of nowhere