PolishForums LIVE  /  Archives [3]    
 
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width1108

What did Poland get out of the wars and struggles for others?


Kilkline  1 | 682  
8 Dec 2008 /  #631
Germany wanted to completely obliterate Poland and Europe did nothing.

When was it known that Germany wanted to 'obliterate' Poland?

Why would 'Europe'(a continent, not a single country I should add) do anything? Did 'Europe' do anything when previous nations had invaded their neighbours?

I saw a different group doing the name calling.

No, you noticed a different group doing the name calling. On the previous page alone we can see the following:

your slimy island

scummy fuzzy pompon ass

your gay ass

Imagine the shouts of polonophobia if these insults were directed at someone who wasnt British.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
8 Dec 2008 /  #632
When was it known that Germany wanted to 'obliterate' Poland?

Wasn't it Heinrich Himmler who said he wanted to destroy all Poles, or something to that effect? Correct me if I am wrong. But if you do correct me, make sure you do so with accurate information and not a watered down British excuse.
IronsE11  2 | 441  
8 Dec 2008 /  #634
Am I the one who starts these threads???? I just respond when posters start bashing Polish.

Ozi Dan created the thread and is conspicuous by his absence since. The thread title and opening post is a classic bit of Brit bashing (the use of the term pom is a good indication). This whole thread was cleverly designed to provoke the responses it has, and I'm sure our convict friend is lauging at the sheer number of indignant replies from Brits and Poles alike. You have contributed to this Brit bashing with your pathetic notion of betrayal so don't be surprised if I label you a moron.

Keep in mind, there would have been far less casualities if Britain and France would have confronted Germany as soon as they invaded Poland. Why do you think the war took such a tremendous toll on human life???? Because of that initial stall!!!
Britain actually suffered MORE casualities because they waited. It was bad for them, they were going to have to get involved sooner or later anyway.

And what about the US? Why didn't they enter the war earlier? it would have been over in 5 minutes! I love the way you hold Britain solely responsible for Poland's situation. It does highlight a rather sad blame culture. I'm sure most Poles are better than that.
celinski  31 | 1258  
8 Dec 2008 /  #635
Am I the one who starts these threads????

Over 600 posts on this, I would have to say the subject was long overdue.

Imagine the shouts of polonophobia

You neglect to show why the post was written. Response are sometimes made to some really nasty anti Polish posts. Look back at some of the posts.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
8 Dec 2008 /  #636
You have contributed to this Brit bashing with your pathetic notion of betrayal so don't be surprised if I label you a moron.

I didn't read the intitial post because this thread is so long and incase you didn't notice, I didn't jump in at the beginning. I didn't visit the forum for a whiles, but when I did I saw this thread.

As for betrayal, that is not brit bashing, that is history. You cannot deny it. Bashing is calling someone a degrading name, true, but I haven't called anyone anything degrading. I just confronted the anti polish sentiment in this thread with reality.
celinski  31 | 1258  
8 Dec 2008 /  #637
And what about the US? Why didn't they enter the war earlier? it would have been over in 5 minutes! I love the way you hold Britain solely responsible

Not true, I have also brought into play the Soviets, that I might add are reacting rather odd the closer groups get to the full truth.

British scholar rails at police seizure of anti-Stalin archive

Yesterday Figes claimed the raid 'was clearly intended to intimidate Memorial'. The confiscated archive included unique documents detailing the 'Soviet terror from 1917 to the 1960s,' he said, adding that the office was 'an important centre for historical research' and a 'voice for tens of thousands of victims of repression in Leningrad'. He said he believed the raid was 'a serious challenge to freedom of expression' in Russia: 'It is part of a campaign to rewrite Soviet history and rehabilitate the Stalinist regime.'

guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/russian-police-seize-archive-repression
Kilkline  1 | 682  
8 Dec 2008 /  #638
You neglect to show why the post was written. Response are sometimes made to some really nasty anti Polish posts. Look back at some of the posts.

Can Brits respond back then, or is it only plastic Poles who can be offended?
celinski  31 | 1258  
8 Dec 2008 /  #639
Yes they may. This new "plastic Pole" is rather odd.
IronsE11  2 | 441  
8 Dec 2008 /  #640
I didn't read the intitial post

Well done.

As for betrayal, that is not brit bashing, that is history. You cannot deny it. Bashing is calling someone a degrading name, true, but I haven't called anyone anything degrading. I just confronted the anti polish sentiment in this thread with reality.

No it is not history. It's a bitter twisted take on events. Events are history, taking these events out of context to create a totally false notion of betrayal is not. David Irving is a historian but his 'history' forms part of an anti-smitic agenda. Your 'history' is twisted to blame Britain for Poland's troubles. THAT IS YOUR AGENDA. You place no blame with the French or the US, only Britain. When I was studying the philosophy of history at university I came across coountless examples of this type of 'history'. More often than not it's bullsh1t, twiested to suit an agenda.

As for Pole bashing... i'm just pointing out that a number of the 'Poles' who have contributed to this thread are bitter and twisted. That is not Pole bashing, it is HISTORICAL FACT. Just read through the thread.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
8 Dec 2008 /  #641
Can Brits respond back then, or is it only plastic Poles who can be offended?

Can you tell me what, exactly, you mean? I am not familiar with your terminology. I have no plastic additions, last I checked.

No it is not history. It's a bitter twisted take on events.

It DOES reek of CONSPIRACY!!!! Facts are facts and Europe seems anti polish. Germany has been ANTI POLISH since before WWII.
I just read the intial post and, yes, Ozi Dan did use one slight, the derogatory term "Pom". I thought it was in response to those accusing the Polish of "whinging".

Don't you realize how difficult it would be for the US to intervene at the time? Now, no, back then, yes. Britain was much CLOSER!!!

Best scenario would have been Britain and France attacking Germany right after the Polish invasion, with US backing them up ASAP.
celinski  31 | 1258  
8 Dec 2008 /  #642
And what about the US? Why didn't they enter the war earlier?

US felt that joinning would make things worse and put the country into ww2, as we know today, this is what happened anyway. Pearl Harbor was when US had no option, they now had to join.

[/quote]Facts are facts and Europe seems anti polish. [/quote]

Poland was sitting between two twisted dictators that could not stand to see Poland's independence. People having a say was a threat to both of them and the way they felt a country should be run and the people ruled. Poland having a constitution was seen as a threat and had to be changed.
szarlotka  8 | 2205  
8 Dec 2008 /  #643
with US backing them up ASAP.

Assuming that the German lobby on Capitol Hill was overruled I suppose
IronsE11  2 | 441  
8 Dec 2008 /  #644
Which is why Pearl Harbor was a blessing in disguise for FDR.
Kilkline  1 | 682  
8 Dec 2008 /  #645
Can you tell me what, exactly, you mean? I am not familiar with your terminology. I have no plastic additions, last I checked.

The term 'plastic' is used to describe someone who claims an ethnicity/cultural identity other than the one they were born and raised in. They often do this to make up for growing up in a country without a culture or longstanding history that they can feel proud of so they link themselves to another country to make themselves feel more interesting and 'ethnic'. They are often found to have outdated cartoonish ideas about the land of their ancestors.

Such people are more often than not found in the colonies of Australia and the Americas.

Don't you realize how difficult it would be for the US to intervene at the time? Now, no, back then, yes. Britain was much CLOSER!!!
Best scenario would have been Britain and France attacking Germany right after the Polish invasion, with US backing them up ASAP.

1)England had only a small regular army
2)the only way to get forces into Poland was via the North Sea which the German navy and Luftwaffe were strong enough to prevent.
3)most French and British generals thought the Poles would be able to defend themselves better than they did, and that the Germans would wear themselves out attacking the Maginot line.

4)if it all went awrong Germany would be masters of Europe entire, not just the continent.
celinski  31 | 1258  
8 Dec 2008 /  #646
most French and British generals thought the Poles would be able to defend themselves better than they did, and that the Germans would wear themselves out attacking the Maginot line.

Seeing what they were being attacked by, what more could the Polish have done?

They are often found to have outdated cartoonish ideas about the land of their ancestors.

Or the truth of why they are no longer in Poland.
IronsE11  2 | 441  
8 Dec 2008 /  #647
1)England had only a small regular army
2)the only way to get forces into Poland was via the North Sea which the German navy and Luftwaffe were strong enough to prevent.
3)most French and British generals thought the Poles would be able to defend themselves better than they did, and that the Germans would wear themselves out attacking the Maginot line.
4)if it all went awrong Germany would be masters of Europe entire, not just the continent.

Come on Kilkline, let's not be rational about this. Britain betrayed Poland and that's the end of it.

The term 'plastic' is used to describe someone who claims an ethnicity/cultural identity other than the one they were born and raised in. They often do this to make up for growing up in a country without a culture or longstanding history that they can feel proud of so they link themselves to another country to make themselves feel more interesting and 'ethnic'. They are often found to have outdated cartoonish ideas about the land of their ancestors.
Such people are more often than not found in the colonies of Australia and the Americas.

It is often these plastic types who adhere to the idea of betrayal as it gives them some historical grievance to relate to.

Or the truth of why they are no longer in Poland.

I will spell it out... The concept of betrayal is a subjective notion, NOT a historical fact. The reason they are no longer in Poland is NOT because of Britain. But by all means, keep believing if it makes you feel better.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
8 Dec 2008 /  #648
Are you jewish?

My surname is Bienkowski, a polish name of jewish descent.

1)England had only a small regular army
2)the only way to get forces into Poland was via the North Sea which the German navy and Luftwaffe were strong enough to prevent.
3)most French and British generals thought the Poles would be able to defend themselves better than they did, and that the Germans would wear themselves out attacking the Maginot line.
4)if it all went awrong Germany would be masters of Europe entire, not just the continent.

Those are just excuses. The North Sea was NOT the only way in. There was no effort to coordinate with Poland on the part of Britain and France. They didn't collaborate.

You are ignoring the build up of the Luftwaffe as part of the wehrmacht. THE REAL ISSUE is Germany being allowed to do this AFTER they lost WWI and signed the Treaty Of Versailles that was designed to severely LIMIT them.

Did Britain allow the Wehrmacht to build because of paranoia about Bolshevikism? One has to wonder?
Britain and France could have stopped the wehrmacht before it ever started.

As for the plastic polishness it's just an excuse, according to some, to not have an opinion.
celinski  31 | 1258  
8 Dec 2008 /  #649
The concept of betrayal is a subjective notion, NOT a historical fact. The reason they are no longer in Poland is NOT because of Britain.

I don't recall my saying "The reason they are no longer in Poland is NOT because of Britain". I blame this part on "betrayal" by Poland's ally's. Yes, Britain was one as was US.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
8 Dec 2008 /  #650
Such people are more often than not found in the colonies of Australia and the Americas.

Wouldn't you rather call us "Poles in the Diaspora"????
IronsE11  2 | 441  
8 Dec 2008 /  #651
I blame this part on "betrayal" by Poland's ally's. Yes, Britain was one as was US.

Then you are very sad bitter person. As stated previously, you should be thankful that Poland exists to this day... it could have been very different had you really been betrayed by your allies.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
8 Dec 2008 /  #652
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!! Are you connected to reality????? Who was under Soviet rule until what, 1991, I think I read in this thread?????? How can you say this?????? This is incredible!
IronsE11  2 | 441  
8 Dec 2008 /  #653
You are ignoring the build up of the Luftwaffe as part of the wehrmacht. THE REAL ISSUE is Germany being allowed to do this AFTER they lost WWI and signed the Treaty Of Versailles that was designed to severely LIMIT them.
Did Britain allow the Wehrmacht to build because of paranoia about Bolshevikism? One has to wonder?

In a nutshell. It was BRITAIN AND BRITAIN alone which allowed this? France and the US weren't party at Versailles? No? Stop with your hatred of Britain. It is quite frankly pathetic, and it makes you look like a complete fool.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!! Are you connected to reality????? Who was under Soviet rule until what, 1991, I think I read in this thread?????? How can you say this?????? This is incredible!

Sorry, I forgot that was Britain's fault as well. Clearly we should have declared war on Stalin's USSR. Betrayal at its worst.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
8 Dec 2008 /  #654
In a nutshell. It was BRITAIN AND BRITAIN alone which allowed this? France and the US weren't party at Versailles? No? Stop with your hatred of Britain. It is quite frankly pathetic, and it makes you look like a complete fool.

You keep reading into everything this hatred of Britain. I don't hate Britain. I question the reactions of any authority.
celinski  31 | 1258  
8 Dec 2008 /  #655
Poland exists to this day... it could have been very different had you really been betrayed by your allies.

Are you referring to 1989. Be real
IronsE11  2 | 441  
8 Dec 2008 /  #656
And if Britain had entered the war on the side of Nazi Germany?
Bratwurst Boy  8 | 11918  
8 Dec 2008 /  #657
Better as with what we were stuck in reality (Italy) I think...
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
8 Dec 2008 /  #658
And if Britain had entered the war on the side of Nazi Germany?

Do you entirely miss the point??? WAS there a WORLD WAR called ONE????? Did the allies win it?????
Was it fought against Germany when it was the second reich???
WHY?????? WOULD??????? BRITAIN?????? PUBLICALLY?????SIDE?????WITH????GERMANY?????
after the treaty of Versaille?
The real question is why did Europe let Germany build another huge military after the signing of the treaty. It's craziness!!!! Germany violated everything and no one did anything about it!
celinski  31 | 1258  
8 Dec 2008 /  #659
And if Britain had entered the war on the side of Nazi Germany?

They just would have to reword the leaflets?
Bratwurst Boy  8 | 11918  
8 Dec 2008 /  #660
Do you entirely miss the point??? WAS there a WAR called ONE????? Did the allies win it?????
Was it fought against Germany when it was the second reich???

What do you know about WWI???
Hint: it wasn't the "second Reich" and the Kaiser wasn't a "little Hitler"...

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / What did Poland get out of the wars and struggles for others?Archived