News / Poles protest US Stalin memorial plan [28]

The plaque to Stalin's bust will read:

So it goes some way to try and mitigate Stalin's inclusion but the memorial founders also present an odd slant to try and connect Stalin with D-Day:


Here is the link to the document see page 5 onwards:

dday.org/public/useruploads/file/D-Day%20Fall%2009%20News.pdf

News / Poles protest US Stalin memorial plan [28]

The idea of having a bust of Stalin for the D-Day memorial is perverse but the rational of the organisers is according to their mission statement that the D-Day memorial is to commemorate all those affecting or affected by the D-Day landings... so this would include Stalin as leader of the USSR, an Allied nation affected by D-Day. But IMO using their criteria it should logically also include a bust of Hitler as the Germans were also profoundly affected by the D-Day landings I would have thought? But I guess this would be equally perverse.

Life / Military service in Poland [17]


Thanks Barney it was as I thought :-))

Life / Military service in Poland [17]


Is there any actual evidence of the 'west' being the enemy of Poland in communist times?

What percentage of the communist Polish armed forces were conscripts rather than proffesional sodiers, any ideas?

History / The Poms who stood by the Poles in WW2 [156]

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

Life / Military service in Poland [17]


Who were considered Poland's enemies at the time??

History / The Poms who stood by the Poles in WW2 [156]


All those that stood shoulder to shoulder with and for Poland should be applauded.

History / The Poms who stood by the Poles in WW2 [156]


Bravo!

History / Queen's Royal Hussars [4]

All three regiments sent contingents to the recent opening ceremony of the WWII Polish Armed Forces Memorial here in England in September :-))

History / Queen's Royal Hussars [4]


There are in fact three British regiments that wear the Second Polish Corps “Syrenka” badge these are the other two:

36 Regiment Royal Artillery

654 "Maid of Warsaw" Squadron Army Air Corps.

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


Why on earth would I feel trapped by such a simple question? My answer is simple.

I would not have taken a military oath of allegience with fully considering the serious consequences of that descision. However having taken that oath I would honour that oath and carry out my duty. Wouldn't you? I honour all the promises I make or if I know I can't then I don't make them, but that is just me.


That again is simple.

His mother. His father survives to continue the family name.


We did that some time ago and it was beyond your comprehension then and it is probably stiil beyond you now, but just in case there has been some dramatic breakthorugh and you want to have another go, it is your perogative go back to the relevant thread and give it a try-you may truly surprise yourself and me!


In law most definitely. But on a personal level for me, no.

Does that give you all you need???

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


Christ knows. It made no sense at all, Poland had no strategic value to Britain and its empire or to France for that matter.

My only thought is that Britain was trying to use its political muscle as the premier world power (which it was at that time) to try and impress Hitler that if he messed in Europe he would have to mess with the world's most powerfull nation and that would be enough to hold him in check.

The fact that Britain's mobilisation plans for war were no where near in place when war was declared shows how much store HMG had in the belief that Hitler would not dare contemplate taking on Britain. Hitler equally believed Britain and France were bluffing, as they had not acted over any of Hitlers earlier transgressions. He was wrong also.


Hitler had no desire to attack Britain he wanted the East not the west. So the Polish part of the treaty was of no real value or consequence to Britain's postition in May-August 1939, which is why I asked you why you thought Britain signed this treaty? Poland needed Britain's guarantee not the other way around, Britain was the power Poland was not.


Stalin certainly believed Hitler unfairly attacked the USSR. Molotov certainly made this clear:


fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1941molotov.html

As to Hitler's demands on Poland who is to say what might or might not have happened if Poland ceded to these demands. They did not, and that is the history of it.

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]



In what way was Poland helping or could help Britain with mutual defence of Britain in May-August 1939? Germany posed no threat to Britain only to Poland! Hitler's plan for Lebensraum was eastwards not westwards. So I ask again why do you think Britain enetered into a treaty with Poland?


This is absurd. Germany only wanted eastern european lands including western Russia, Hitler fully expected at some point in the future to drive the Russian's deep into Eastern Russia and keep them there, if not entirely liquidated. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact guaranteed that in the event of the German invasion of Poland the Soviets would not open an Eastern front should Britain and France declare war on Germany. As we know this strategy worked as planned. Had Britain and France not declared war on Germany in accordance with their treaties with Poland, Hitler would not have been forced to act in Western Europe at all. Hitler buoyed-up with the staggeringly easy victories over France (a victory that was much faster and easier than over Poland) and as easy victories over much of western Europe gave him the freedom of action to turn his attention to dealing with the USSR, which he did as the western european front was pretty much under his armies complete control.

Stailn had no plans to invade German occupied territories! The USSR was still shipping huge quantities of Russian goods and materials into Germany up until the day Hitler's Axis forces attacked Russia! Stalin refused to accept any notion that Hitler was planning to attack Russia despite plenty of Russian intelleigence evidence to the contrary, he even believed that the massed German forces gathering in staging points on the Russia occupied territorial borders were only there on military excersises!! Stalin made no agressive moves against Germany until the USSR was attacked Germany.

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


No. I would not have liked the continent to have been dominated by either the Nazis and Soviets. I merely point out that by initiating a treaty with Poland maybe his was a bad move by Britain and maybe could have prevented a world war rather than just a European war. But Britain did have a treaty with Poland which it honoured.

Poland had signed non-agression treaties with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union long before signing any treaty with Britain. So at one point even Poland did not think a treaty with Britain was needed?


Governments have many reasons for signing treaties what do you think the reason was that Britain signed one with Poland? Many in Britain at the time couldn't understand why?

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


No.

But maybe it was a bad move to initiate a treaty with Poland in the first place.
Why did Britain get involved in signing a treaty with a country that most Brits at that time would have been hard to place on a map? Nazi Germany posed no threat to Britain at that time. I am sure it was just Britain playing the world power. Britain not enetering into a treaty with Poland might have stoped what the US thought of as a European war becoming a world war. That would not have been any better news for Poland who was going to come to blows with Germany regardless of it being a European war or a world war but we can only conjecture what the world would have looked like today if this treaty between Britain and Poland had not existed? Maybe a world dominated by the British Empire and a German empire in the East?


Thank God also :-))

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]

The British and Germans were not natural enemies. But for a treaty with Poland would Britain and Germany have gone to war with each other again? I very much doubt it, Hitler didn't want it and neither did HMG or the Royal family. And some Poles will say to you Britain did its best not to get dragged further into war with Germany even after war was declared!

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


Jealousy... all those beautiful Ziess lenses and Telefunken radio valves.

Or maybe to counter the supposed threat of SS Werwolf Resistance in Europe which in fact never amounted to anything other than a perceived threat than any real threat to the occupational forces. But the Allies did not know this at the time.

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]

I am not so sure that I would agree with you that all of these were crimes. I believe much of what you have outlined was undoubtedly the victors punishment for all the German crimes, as one would righty expect there to be.

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


Excluding the Soviets what allied crimes during occupation are you refering to in particular?

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]

BB.


You see I even believe the Allies probably committed war crimes during the war!


I do not believe that no crimes were committed against the Germans by the occupying Allied forces. The Soviets certainly raped tens of thousands of German women, as well as Poles, Austrians, Slovaks etc. These were crimes. I am equally sure that the US and British forces committed crimes against Germans.

But you obviously have a specific crime(s) in mind?

Or:

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


I thought there were no crimes committed by the Allies in occupied Germany during peace times? If not allied crimes are there any specific German crimes you have in mind that should not have been treated as war crimes ? I thought you said not?

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


There were several war crimes committed by US troops one of course was the Dachau massacre which was investigated but Patton dismissed all the charges despite overwhelming evidence that a crime had been committed... Patton thought revenge was okay against the SS guards in this case.


Quite right.

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


So we really were the good guys :-))


Any specific German crimes you have in mind that should not have been treated as war crimes ?

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]

Your question is about crimes committed by occupation forces during peace which I took to mean US and British occupation of west Germany during the cold-war (the peace-time aspect in your question). I asked who prosecuted the cases of crimes committed against Germans by US or British forces stationed in Germany during this period? Miltary or civilian police?

Crimes against humanity do not need a state of war to exist?

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]

Crimes. BB who prosecuted US or Bristish troops stationed in Germany during cold-war occupation? Was it the respective military prosectution service or German civiilan police?

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


You will not be able to point to anywhere where I stated such a thing.


By the same token I don't think a British war crimes were a crime either? Or US war crimes? Come to think of it did any of the Allies commit war crimes? Yes. I personally am sure that all countries involved in WWII actually committed war crimes but it is usually the victor that determines what war crimes are prosecuted. To the victor the spoils :-).

Would you also argue about prosecuting the Soviets for war crimes against the Germans? If so then we must ask what war crimes Poles may have committed against Germans during WWII also? Or Britain? Or USA? Or France? Or whomever else was in the Allied camp in WWII?

But no the victorious Allies passed the Nuremberg Charter in which the charter stipulated that crimes of the European Axis Powers could be tried. It did not include Soviet Union as they were at that point in the Allied camp. And good job too as without Soviet blood-sacrfice on the eastern front (coupled with vast US lend-lease matreial supplies) the Nazis would not have been defeated. Period.


Well I guess they must have been in an even more privileged position in Poland to get travel documents to leave-by some accounts on here it was supposed to be well nigh impossible to leave the Polish communist state for the 'free' west. I guess its all about having connections and your family must have had all the right ones.

How did you feel about your Polish relatives as you were taking your oath of allegience to the US commander-in-chief, the President, whilst enlisting in the US airforce and knowing one day your C-in-C might have ordered you to bomb Poland? Would you have been disloyal to your oath of allegience and deserted or would you have hoped your relatives in Poland would survive?

You must have thought about this very real possibility as a US-Polish serviceman during the cold-war?

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


Because Polish collaboration with the communists is a myth it never happened :-)) A bit like the myth that Poles could not escape the communist regime when according to the US department of immigration at least 750,000 did just that having recieved temporary vistors visas to go the USA and then promptly stayed put in the US illegally. 1jola and his folks where among these 750,000 who got permission to leave Poland. Many of those that stayed became US citizens and later returned to Poland once the regime had been overthrown—by those who were not so lucky to obtain passports and visas and were left to carry on the fight for freedom.


Who is going to prosecute the 28,000 catholic priests for collaboration with the Polish communist securtity services—who knows what the reprecussions were to those people these priests were informing on?

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


Crikey, I find myself agreeing with one of your posts, woe is me :-))


Maybe this is a bit harsh, after all most people just wanted to live their lives not fight in a war all the time.

Those that could leave Poland did, infact 750,000 Polish economic migrants left communist Poland during 1960s to 80's for the USA alone (Source: Illegal Immigration in America). Don't know how many Poles overstayed on visitior visas elsewhere in the world?

But post-WWII collaboration with the communists is never mentioned here unless it was Jewish collaboration, only communist crimes against Poles (of which there were many), but these were not Polish communist crimes against Poles but communist crimes by Jews against Poles even after most of the Jews were expelled from Poland in the 1960s purges. However 28,000 Catholic priests collaborated with Polish communist security services, and these would not be the only group just getting along with life.

History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down [113]


IMO the US Strategic Defense Initiative budget.

News / Poland's place in changing world order? [74]


Given a free vote here, that would never happen, not a chance in hell! A free vote would mean the end of Britain in the EU which is why no government will ever dare hold such a vote!