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

This particular mission was strictly on the voluntary basis, look it up and then preach.


Which part of my statement


you don’t get?


None – because the agreement on the final division of Europe has been reached at Teheran already and that was the Soviet cut. Therefore Soviets were exercising their right given to them by guess who? But since there was internal pressure put on you by Polish Government in Exile ……….


It’s kind of self evident isn’t it? Besides I’m having this discussion with a Brit not a Yank.


Yalta was just crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s on the previous agreements. If I would have said Teheran conference would it make it more plausible for you? Although most people do not have a clue to what Teheran conference is therefore I used the term Yalta because it was just finalizing the agreements reached at Teheran and the division of Europe have already taken place.


Why do you try so hard to skew the debate to go some other route? First you bring U.S into this and now Ukraine, running out of arguments and concrete evidence to back up your statements already? Like I said before, I’m having this discussion with a Brit therefore I’m discussing the events from this perspective. I don’t see any Ukrainians or Yanks here discussing these events in history from their point of view. There would be no one disputing my claims and defending the honor of their country, so please don’t even go there.


Oh yeah I forgot to mention that calling this a lie strictly on technicality because the dates don’t jive, just shows your ignorance on the subject. I can’t dispute the facts on the merit therefore I’ll dismiss it on technicality is that it Harry? I thought you are more of a man than that but then again you will do anything to discredit Poland now won’t you?

I am specifically targeting Tehran in late November of 1943. It was at this conference where Stalin pushed for the the borders of post-war Poland to be set along the Oder and Neisse rivers and the Curzon line.

What if Churchill and Roosevelt made their promise of a second front in Western Europe conditional? Conditional on Polish sovereignty?


Roosevelt was intent on reshaping the post-war world around the creation of new nation-states from the remains of the old colonial empires. Roosevelt felt that Stalin might serve as a key ally in his attempt finish off the old colonial system.

The latter point can be viewed as a slight at Churchill who in all likelihood wished to restore some form of a British Empire.

Is it not now widely accepted that the Oder and Neisse line proposal mentioned was not originally a Soviet concept but one that was postulated much earlier by General Sikorski as a pragmatic solution to Poland's place in post-war Europe.

Sikorski's wartime policy was aimed at the recreation of an independent and viable Poland after the war. Sikorski's aim was that a revised Polish state boundary along the Oder and Neisse rivers (and an approximation of the Curzon line in the East) would secure Poland lasting peace with the USSR.

As part of Sikorski's post-war plan for Poland he also envisioned a federation of central European states which would be a counter-balance to USSR power and any future resurgent German state.

First class study on this issue is:
Poland's place in Europe : General Sikorski and the origin of the Oder-Neisse line, 1939-1943 by Sarah Meiklejohn Terry

As an aside it does make one wonder which faction would want to see Sikorski dead—if his death were no simple accident?

Great post man!

Maybe we will always be over shadowed by our strong neighbors Germany and Russia, no other Eastern European Block country can ever say anything to us because we were the ones that grabbed ourselves by the balls and did something to change.

There will always be Poles vs Germans, Poles vs Russians, something any other Eastern European Block can't say. They speak about OUR wars and what WE did, because they sat on the sidelines like they always will.

You are making the claim: you back it up.


I don't get the bit where you mention why there was no fighter escort.

Why do you keep telling lies?


warsawuprising.com/doc/Roosevelt_Churchill_Stalin.htm


Are you? I'm pretty sure you aren't.

You talk of your country's honour?! But you can't even manage a single word about how what Poland did to Ukraine was a disgrace? How very Polish of you to complain about the splinter in your neighbour's eye while ignoring the log in your own.

Hope this helps?

"Under relentless political pressure from the Polish Government and its military staffs in London, Air Marshall Slessor relented and on August 8 allowed volunteer Polish crews to fly to Poland."

Sources for further reading:

Michael A. Peszke "Polish special duties Flight no. 1586 and the Warsaw Uprising". Air Power History.

Airlift to Warsaw: The Rising of 1944 by Neil D. Orpen

Destiny Can Wait: The Polish Air Force in the Second World War
Edited by M. Lisiewicz, J. Baykowski, J. Glebocki, R. Gluski, and Dr. W. Czerwinski

In April 1943, General Sikorski turned down the Soviet demand that Poland withdraw their plea to have the Red Cross investigate Katyn. Anthony Eden (Foreign Secretary) refused to help and the Soviet Union broke diplomatic relations with Poland on the following day, on the basis that the Polish government was in league with Nazi Germany. Despite the Polish requests for help, the United States and the United Kingdom decided not to put pressure on the USSR.

Emphasis mine... Quite a tell in my book.

I have no problem with the fact that General Sikorski proposed the Oder and Neisse line in the west. The problem is that both Roosevelt and Churchill officially agreed that the eastern borders of Poland would roughly follow the Curzon Line. The Polish government was not notified of this decision (leading to an approximate loss of 48% of Poland's pre-war territory). Very little information was given about the Tehran conference. One of the gems was this was the press release: We await the day, when all nations of the world will live peacefully, free of tyranny, according to their national needs and conscience. This press release pointed to the principals outlined in the Atlantic Charter.

The principals of the Atlantic Charter were adopted by a number of nations including the SU in September of 1941. Both Roosevelt and Churchill had little interest in holding Stalin to the Atlantic Charter.

Thus the Atlantic Charter was not worth the paper it was written on and proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that both Roosevelt and Churchill could not be taken at their word.

Will you stop at nothing to start sparks?

Two tiny little points:
Firstly, we are talking about British pilots, so giving us information about Polish crews and a Polish squadron isn't particularly helpful.
Secondly, according the Museum of the Warsaw Uprising (widely recognised as the best source for the subject), airdrops began on 4 August, not 8 August (see 1944.pl/index.php?a=site_text&id=12440&se_id=12506) which does somewhat call into question the reliability of the source you quote.


Will you make no comment at all about the way that Poland stabbed her ally in the back, stole half the country and repressed the people who lived there and had fought for Poland?

No of course you won't. You are too busy banging on and on and on and on about how Britain 'betrayed' Poland. If you stopped for a moment and had a look at the facts, you'd see that the ultimate example of betraying allies was not what happened to the Poles but what the Poles actually did.

This is all true of course. But I personally do not see how Sikorski or his government's position re a Red Cross investigation of Katyn would mean Sikorski was a target of some USSR, USA or British sponsored assasination conspiracy? But weren't the two previous Sikorski aircraft related 'incidents' which included an onboard explosive device much earlier that the Katyn graves disclosures and subsequent furore?

It has proved a great debating subject for decades and it would make for even more exciting future debates if evidence could be found that implicated one government or another....but somehow I don't think any such evidence will be found on these three suspects.


An approximation of the curzon line eastern boundary was also proposed by General Sikorski. The giving up of eastern Polish territory was to be compensated by the westward shift of Polish borders to the Oder and Neisse line again this was Sikorski's concept. Therefore this can't be fairly or entirely laid at either Roosevelt and Churchill's door. The issue was that Sikorski's plan was obviously an anathema to many in the Polish-government-in-exile and was never likely to be acceptable to them. Ironically Sikorski's plan though was eventually the settlement that became the post-war reality however the big difference was that Stalin (with the de facto occupation of central Europe by the Red Army) was able to exploit the weakness of his western allies (including the sidelined Polish-government-in-exile) to his own ends as there was no willingness by Roosevelt and Churchill to fight the Soviets who had aftreall played a major role in the defeat the Nazi regime.

Stalin would have told them where to go, and they would have opened the second front regardless.

Imo, it had very little to do with self determination. If it was that important to FDR, surely he would have pressed for Polish sovereignty? Regardless of FDR's motives, Stalin was viewed as more important to US interests (both long and short term) than a free Poland. Britain's policy was in line with this (as per). Churchill can not be blamed for not enforcing his will on Stalin. He did not have the means nor support from the US. Can the US be blamed? Possibly, but what did they owe Poland?

I doubt anything short of a military conflict with Stalin would have liberated Poland. Regardless of the role that Poland had played in fighting Nazi Germany, Britain and the US were simply not prepared to push. Stalin was a substantially more important ally.

Poland weren't the only ones. The Vietminh (supported by the US) fought the Japanese in Indochina during WW2, and what did they get for their troubles? Handed straight back to the French!! The rest as they say, is history.

Foreign policy, in the main, is determined by self interest.

It seems as if the quotes are being associated with the wrong folks.


sjam,

All I am saying is that Poland, being one of the allies, was left out of many discussions. I am not implying in any way that any of the Big Three had designs on assassinating Sikorski.

My key points:

* The Atlantic Charter was not worth the paper it was written on.
* The word of Churchill & Roosevelt meant nothing.


The obligation of honoring the Atlantic Charter.

The second point has little to do with the reliability of the source rather than my choice of quotation of the source(s). From the same source:

"The following is based on a number of historic accounts and the reports of the RAF Command in lhe Mediterranean theater of operations on August 4, the whole British RAF 148 Squadron of 15 planes, including the Poles, prepared for a flight to Warsaw. At last moment, Air Marshall Schlessor rescinded the order bUI allowed rhe mission to territOries in Poland but outside of Warsaw itself.

But the commander of the flight, Major Arciuszkiwicz, got four crews to volunleer to fly to Warsaw. The Polish mission was successful but the RAF crews attempting to drop supplies into Poland took heavy losses. Four were shot down and one crashed on landing at base.

Not surprisingly, given the Polish "independence" and RAF losses, Slessor ordered all flights to Poland to be placed on hold. This order was forcefully challenged by the Polish military in London. All efforts were made to get help and to get Slessor to rescind his order. Finally, under intense pressure from the highest political center of the British government, Slessor, with understandable poor grace. allowed Polish volunleers to fly to Warsaw."...........this was August 8. So the Warsaw Rising Museum is correct and so is my original quotation of the source if my point was to illustrate volunteering to fly to Warsaw.


Absolutely agreed 100% ..... if it were otherwise my late father would have felt able to return to his home in Warsaw to live after the war!

Exactly, what made Poland so special?

What about the Indo-chinese who fought against Japan and were then handed straight back to their former colonial masters. If the US and Britain really believed in enforcing the Atlantic Charter, they would have supported the Vietminh and not allowed France to regain control of their colony. Indochina was the jewel of the French empire, and France had hopelessly failed to prtoect it from the Japanese, yet were actvely aided by Britain and the US in regaining a foothold there!! Compared with negotiating with Stalin, ensuring a free Indochina would have been a walk in the park for Britain and the US. But they didn't do it? Why? Maybe De Gaulle's tiny violin pulled the heart strings so much, that the US and Britain chose to ignore their 1941 committment to new world self determination? Or maybe they just didn't give a f*ck?

The Atlantic Charter merely formalised the changing of the guard from Britain to the US as the world's leading superpower. It was nothing more, and most certainly not a committment to take on Stalin for the sake of Polish independence.

Absolutely nothing in this respect.


The USA, the USSR and China were the new post-war superpowers as seen by FDR and the old world empires of France, Belgium and Britain on the wane.


Forgot to address first point:
British RAF and South African SAAF crews were not volunteers for Warsaw Rising operations.
After initial heavy RAF losses only Polish crews undertook ' flying coffin' operations to Warsaw between 18 August and 1 September. Sosnkowki's continued pressure on General Wilson got Slesser to send RAF and SAAF crews back into action over Warsaw.

See: Airlift to Warsaw Rising of 1944. Neil Orpen.

If we are being pedantic a "Tiny point" also :-)
The Warsaw Uprising Museum is actually the Warsaw Rising Museum. The 'Rising' title was deliberatley chosen so as to distinguish the 1944 Rising from the 1943 Ghetto Uprising this was to address the fact that most people have never heard of the 1944 Rising and always assume any reference to aWarsaw Uprising was related entirely to the Ghetto Uprising.

Yet the European powers were allowed to keep their colonies, as were the USSR. The Atlantic Charter therefore did not constitute a US obligation to Poland.

So we've established that the US had no obligation to ensure Polish sovereignty, and that the British most certainly had no means.

So the notion of betrayal centres on verbal promises made to a a close and long standing ally? I don't think Britain viewed Poland this way!!

Sjam provided you with some, now read them carefully and please absorb the details.


I did not specify why. I assume that the reader has enough knowledge on the subject and common sense that every little detail doesn’t have to be spelled out or defined in great detail. If you really don’t know but want to, just ask no need to be sarcastic about it.


As they say proof is in the pudding. Bringing up the correspondence as your proof brings little to this debate, for one it does not show the intent and that’s what you want to prove so desperately here. On contrary it shows otherwise. I would venture even further and say it shows little cowardness on your part, my big brother told me NO so that’s that, but that’s my opinion so let’s not go there either.


I know Harry but I still like to think I’m having this discussion with a Brit. Otherwise I would have to think it’s Jewish Polonophobia now wouldn’t I?

Sadly the Atlanic Charter was as meaningless then as the Charter of The United Nations is today.

Do stop with the lies. Sjam said “British RAF and South African SAAF crews were not volunteers for Warsaw Rising operations.”


Yes of course every reader here will know that only the USAAF had fighter planes with the range to accompany the supply planes.


You have been caught lying: when you are in a hole, stop digging. The telegrams clearly show that Churchill wanted to send planes anyway, despite your claim that he actually wanted to do the exact opposite.

Cowardice is getting allies to fight for you and then when they are not needed, stealing half their country and repressing them. Something that Poles should know all about but somehow don’t.


So in your tiny bigoted mind:
a) a Brit can not be a Jew;
b) if I’m not British, I must be Jewish.

Guess what? You are wrong on both your assumptions.


I’d disagree with you about most people having never heard of the ’44 uprising but have heard of the ’43 uprising.
But it is lucky that the museum to the ’44 uprising is called the “Rising museum”, otherwise people would get it confused with the museum for the ’43 uprising….

What do you expect me to do? Give a detail description of the technical capability of the aircraft at that time? Don’t be ridicules and give credit to the reader, most know.


This we know only too well look up Tehran Conference.


Sure call me a bigot because I mention a forbidden word “Jew”. You yourself have admitted to be a Jew last time we were debating. What’s the matter ashamed? Well you shouldn’t be, just stop being so anti everything that’s not Jewish.

Where exactly did Britain steal half of Poland in the Tehran conference? How did Britain repress Polish people after the Tehran conference? How many Polish schools were closed by the British following the Tehran conference?


Here's the deal: I'm not Jewish; you are a liar.

Do you really have to ask this question or are you so stubborn and refuse to see this issue in any other light? Perhaps you are incapable of understanding or admitting and that’s why you accuse everyone else of it? (Just thinking out loud) before you have a chance to accuse me of bigotry again.


Make up your mind. I accept you either way, so there.

The Atlantic Charter singled out no particular nation as being special. FDR laid out his determination to shape a post-war world free of colonialism, poverty and illiteracy. This means that FDR wanted to eliminate backward colonial policy. Can you guess who was in the cross hairs?

Did Britain steal any Polish territory after their alliance? No.
Did Poland steal any Ukrainian territory after their alliance? Yes, half the country.

Did Britain imprison any Polish leaders after their alliance? No. Britain gave them homes.
Did Poland imprison any Ukrainian leaders after their alliance? Yes. Lots.

Did Britain close or destroy any Polish churches after their alliance? No.
Did Poland close or destroy any Ukrainian churches after their alliance? Yes. Hundreds.

Did Britain close any Polish schools after their alliance? No
Did Poland close any Ukrainian schools after their alliance? Yes, all but 8.

Shall I go on or would you like to stop talking about knowing what it feels like to be betrayed?

You may disagree it is absolutely your prerogative. But this rational was considered and acted on by the principles of the Warsaw Rising Museum and was pointed out to me in personal meetings with the people involved with the decision at the time. Research clearly demonstrated that when asked what the term 'Warsaw Uprising' was and who was involved the answer most often stated was it related to the Jewish Ghetto Uprising, full stop. This was most marked in the USA. I can email you the contact address of the relevant person at the Warsaw Rising Museum if you would like to hear first-hand confirmation of reasons they made this decision?


I doubt you. like me, are old enough to have known what the betrayal of the Ukraine or Poland actually felt like in the first person. It is a non-argument, in my opinion.

But I am not arrogant enough to say that in my life I have not betrayed someone in some small way or another or that I have not experienced being betrayed by some else in a similar small degree. Betrayal is in our human nature and is reflected in our national persona throughout the history of all nation states. So we all have, in my view some experience of what it feels like to be betrayed but not to the events described above.

Sorry, if it's offtop but maybe this will interest you - the British Government has officially expressed regret for NOT INVITING Polish Combatants for the famous V-Day parade in 1946.

polandinexile.com/vp3.htm

"All is fair in love and war."

I believe this was written by a British citizen, well before the war being discussed ever took place. ;-)

The subject is moot.

WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!!!!!