Ozi Dan created the thread and is conspicuous by his absence since.
I'm here huckleberry.
What is more conspicuously absent is your lack of ability to generate original ideas and merely hang on to the coat tails of Messrs Kikline and Harry et al.
In fact, what is more conspicuously absent is a sense of respect for women, judging by your and Vanfukoolo's post's against certian female forum members on this topic. You and your ilk disgust me and I'm sure others feel the same whose modesty may stop them from commenting - I however have no such trepidation.
What you've done is akin to a form of harassment. If you weren't a halfwit I'd be concerned but your apparent lack of logic suggests you have no control over your actions.
If you were a man, you'd apologise. Fair enough you have a different view to these ladies but that's no excuse for the way you post.
Back to the topic:
The Pomgolian (Harry, Kline, Irons etc) perspective appears to be that Poles are whingeing or attacking the English for betraying Poland.
I put a similar notion in the introductory statement to my post and invited you to attack that. You failed to come up with anything. The only person that I see who came up with anything intelligible was Osiol. I dont know if he's a Pom or what though.
Consequently, the road of the coward and ill informed was taken - why self reflect when you can blame it all on someone else, or divest responsibility with reference to minor anecdotes as evidence of fulfilment of Britain's 'obligations'.
Naturally, your response is what could we have done? You say Poles were invited to the VE ceremony, the RAF conducted a succesful bombing raid on 5 September 1939 and other gargantuan achievements in supposed discharge of your obligations under the treaty/contract/agreement entered with Poland just before WW2 (no doubt I'll be corrected for incorrect dates. So be it. I'm more interested in analysis rather than rote).
I've raised this before in another thread with another bloke from England who I'm happy to say had a wit keener than all three of you said bumblers put together and didn't resort to disrespecting women either.
Take a balance sheet of Polish contributions in discharge of her obligations under the treaty and then cross reference that against the English contributions. Now, I won't spoon feed, but it kicks off for Poland at about the BoB. It's common knowledge the balance is in Poland's favour. It's trite to say the Poms did a few things too. You've pointed those out so no need to repeat.
Your response will no doubt be (as it's been touched on already) the parameters were unclear, nothing said in the treaty compelled the Brits to do much, not binding etc etc - basically, that it was a sham, set up for political niceties and a bit of chest beating.
This is where it gets interesting...
There is a legal concept called estoppel, or more particularly, equitable estoppel. It's not really my area of law, but in a nutshell it says that a party (GB) should not go back on a promise or undertaking or undermine an assumption of action when another party (Pl) acts on the assumption, or that promise, to their detriment.
You fill in the gaps and relate it to our situation. Clear now?
This is where it gets more interesting:
The Poms failed to tell the Poles that they had effectively been cut loose at Teheran with the deal cut between Stalin and Churchill until Mickolaczyk got crucified when he thought he was entering into territorial negotiations in good faith in late 1944.
One can only assume the relative morality and sense of alliance of GB and Poland in those circumstances:
THE POMS KEPT THE POLES IN THEIR RANKS TO FIGHT FOR THEM WHILST KNOWING THAT THEY HAD STRUCK A DEAL WITH STALIN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD TO THE POLES AS IT EFFECTIVELY DOOMED THEM TO SOVIET CONTROL.
I think it was Slessor who summed that piece of backstabbing nicely (and I take liberty with paraphrasing):
WE'VE BLED THE POLES DRY NOW WE INTEND TO CAST THEM ADRIFT
One of those bled dry under the British was my grand uncle. He wanted to return home but couldn't. Kind of sucks doesn't it? But I'm just a plastic Pole with no connection to the issues, aren't I? This coming from two Poms on a Polish forum, one of whom has no clearly identified link to anything Polish and another who wishes he had a Polish girlfriend.
You'll no doubt come back and say it was done to secure stability in the East, Russian co-operation, realpolitik necessities or a myriad of other excuses. Fair enough - however, a stab in the back is still the same whether it's delivered with an altrusitic riposte or a self serving lunge. Poles, and we plastic Poles, take issue with being stabbed - you take issue with us for doing that.
Should I and like minded posters be criticised, or should you?
Between the 3 or 4 of you, I'm sure you'll organise some half assed response. It's been my experience though that a group of Poms have trouble organising a piss up in a pub.
Oh, and gentlemen - before you spout off about Australia being a prison colony of England in trying to diminish my credit, I suggest you relate to the other members just how that came about and who came here - Ill start you off - Scots and Irish political prisoners, destitutes who stole loaves of bread to survive etc.
I'm proud of the 'convict culture', even though I'm not Anglo Saxon. You again seek to impress a negative connotation when the whole context shows differently. The egg (or in your instance, jellied eel) is on your faces. Learn from it.