The most spectacular errors in Polish politics.

Well, first of all is not a threat.
It was an example for you to comprehend situation Poles were facing under Soviet rule.
That for your insolent claim that if not for Poles support for Soviets this system would not endure.
It not only lack of respect for all the communist victims in Poland but also lack of respect for country you live in.
I'll not respond to you insults as you declined duel with me before - you are not man, and you have no honour!


Sure, I believe you not.


You misunderstood my post - but if you insist and are so brave pm me your address or full name.

You said yourself not long ago that you don't speak and read Polish. All of the sudden you do! What a miracle!

As for the Poles send to Canada I told you I'll get to that later. I'm curious about this topic myself but right now I have no time for research. You can throw a temper tantrum about it all you want, I don't care. I remember reading couple years ago the memoir of a Polish soldier from Monte Cassino who was working on a farm in Canada where he slept in the barn, was not given much food, had to work 18 hours a day and was told that if he complain to authorities he will be send strait to Siberia. And he was a handicapped. I have to find that memoir.


I asked you to show me how else than this not-invited-to-parade were Poles acknowledged, you told me about camps. Not what I had in mind.

I'm skipping the rest because we are going in circles and is boring.


God help us

Hello all, I'm new to the political history of Poland, I teach pre entry ESOL in England and part of my role is to assess how well my learners already speak english, how they pronounce and how they discuss things with each other in an attempt to get my learners in group discussion without anamosity! any way you could enlighten me as to how to do this being sensitive to all learners in the class who's background is affected by the politics of their country/region at the same time teaching me a bit more about that their histories that is not writen in most books on political history books, its seems to me that there seems to be alot more wanting to be said in the books that is not stated with ease and comfort, my learners come from area's in and around Poland/Russia etc

The key is not to stray off the beaten track. Go with what you know (or think you know). Let them tell you what they think and, as a teacher, fulfil your steering role. Give them food for thought and pitch your questions in a neutral fashion. You are not going in with axes to grind (I presume) and they will pick up on that.

Be tactful and err on the side of caution :)

How nice of you to tell us yet another lie. I have not said that I speak and read Polish. I was responding to another of your lies, that I do not speak a word of Polish, and said that I "get by". Are you really so dense that you think there are only two states of language knowledge: speaking fluently or knowing not a single word!


There's no need for you to do any research. I've already posted links and quotes which show that your lie about "most of the lower ranks were shipped to Canada and forced to work as slave labour for two years" is just another of your lies.


Please do. Then post about how terribly the Canadians treated Poles. We can contrast that to how well the British treated Poles. You're Canadian, have you no shame for the way that your country treated Polish servicemen? You Canadians forced handicapped Polish veterans to work as slave labour. You should apologise on behalf of your country.


Yes, it is getting quite boring: you lie; I ask you to quote facts or admit you're lying; you lie some more; I ask you to quote facts or admit you're lying; you tell a few more lies. How about you just stop lying.


Oh, now I see the problem: you're twelve years old and therefore neither know how adult conversation is conducted nor are you allowed onto licensed premises without a responsible adult. Go play somewhere else child, the grown-ups are talking here.

>>>

Warsaw pact and then NATO pact, too

constant negative choices, constant negative choices..... without honour, pride, virtue, bravery and without sane logic on the long run

Ah ? nothing to say! Have it your way Harry. Given your attitude I don't care.

What's the point in trying to debate with somebody who thinks that lies and threats are acceptable debating techniques?

Come back when you've learned how adults talk, little boy.

For the fourth time It was no threat - you can take my word for it or not- I don't give dam any-more!
You seem to be without comprehension what totalitarian state means, I mean you understand it on the intellectual level maybe but you don't feel it (or don't want to understand).

Giving you example of "four guys with bats" I wanted to make you understand-feelwhat average person was subjected to in the totalitarian state - hopples in the face of terror.

I agree it was awkward and it could be misunderstood but you haven't given me benefit of the doubt.
You just jumped on me with torrent of abuse and you keep doing it since then.
I'm giving you last chance if you really are interesting in discussion not lies, manipulations or some agenda.
As for lies we had discussion before and I told you not to accuse me of lies.
You seems to be confused as to with whom you are talking and you don't remember who post what.

I could understand your indignation on the first day but now? I think that you using my unfortunate post as a pretexts for refusing discussion with me as I have made some important points.


Your goading doesn't work Harry, if you have nothing to say - just say it!
I'm done here.

So stop lying about the 1921 Treaty of Riga: it was a back-stap par excellence.

I fail to see connection here as I'm expressing my view on the subject and don;t see 1921 treaty as backstabbing. Where is a lie?

How come that Treaty of Riga is a back stab ?

Read the commitments Poland gave in the 1920 Treaty of Warsaw.

If you mean Agreement with Petlura from 1920 I have found it.
Could you point out what you have in mind particularly.

no backstabbing here - the Polish ukranian border agreed with Petlura government was not very different to the Polish-Soviet border of the Riga treaty - and the treaty was due to attrition of both forces - and not because the Poles wanted to divide Ukraine with Soviet help - there was not much Poland could do to help independant Ukraine at the time - had not Ukrainians from the west fought Poland had they seen the much greater threat and joined the Polish in fighting the Soviets early there could perhaps be an independent Ukrainian state and broad minority privileges to Ukrainians in Poland - Pilsudzki envisioned cooperation if not confederation of nations between Russia and Germany

You seem to be missing one tiny but rather important detail: the border was agreed as the Polish-Ukrainian border, not the Polish-Soviet border. But we'll come back to this point in a moment.


There are various things:
- Poland recognized the Ukrainian People's Republic as an independent state (Article I).
- The Ukrainian People's Republic was an independent state (Article I) with borders as defined by Articles II and III.
- Article IV prohibited both sides from concluding any international agreements against each other.
- Ethnic Ukrainians within the Polish border, were guaranteed the same rights in Poland as within the Ukrainian People's Republic (Article V).

Of course none of this came about. Poland signed a peace treaty with the Soviet Union (a direct violation of Article IV), agreed that the territory of the Ukrainian People's Republic was now part of the USSR (violations of Article II and II), and withdrew recognition of the Ukrainian People's Republic (violating Article I). Petliura and his troops were locked up in internment camps and a policy of Polonization was introduced (a violation of Article V).

But there is more. A proper back-stab involves a sell-out. Poles love to accuse Britain of 'selling Poland to the Soviets' but when asked "What was the purchase price?" they are very very quiet. However when I state that Poland sold Ukraine to the Soviets (apart from the bits of Ukraine which Poland kept for itself), I can tell you what the price was: 30 million gold rubles. That is what Poland took from the treaty of Riga. Pity they didn't get 30 pieces of silver too.

What about you stop lying for a change. Polish Gov invited fresh out of school Brit grad to write a book about Polish history. He doesn't speak or read Polish so he won't use any Polish archive sources but hey, it's going to be ground breaking masterpiece! Yeah, and pigs can fly too.

How surprising to see you lying yet again. The Polish government did not invite me to write a book about anything and I have never even implied that they did. Why do you tell such pathetic lies?

Oh yes, it's because you can't handle the facts.

What a surprise again! A new twist of your own story! Impressive.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to quote even a single post where I even implied that the Polish government invited me to write a book about anything? Either that or just admit that yet again you are lying.

Really ? I would like you to post documents stating that Poland got such amount of money (or any amount) for sell-out Ukraine to Soviets.


There is only Article IV could be interpret as broken but as Ukrainian Peoples Republic didn't exists it could hardly be treat as treason.

Anyway Poland recognized new state which in fact needed to be build from the scratch.
Promises material help and military aid and delivered it.
Unfortunately Ukrainians themselves didn't support Petlura and Poland had no resources and strength to build Ukrainian state - they had to build Polish state.

I don't know why you bring it up? You must be kidding if you call it back-stabbing.

For those with intrest in British policy in the event of war with Germany-a policy which was to drop propaganda leaflets over Germany, NOT to bomb it!

This decision was taken and made government policy betwen May-June 1939.

14 million German language leaflets (document one) were printed and held in storage in case war was to break out. The British and French rather naively thought the propaganda leaflets would be enough to deter the German population's support of Hitler's war ambitions, given that the RAF was able to penetrate deep into German territory (see document 4)

I photographed these documents (any many hundreds more) from National Archives in London:

Article IV could be 'interpreted as broken'?! Article IV was completely shat on! Under that Article neither side could conclude a peace treaty with the USSR, but Poland then concluded a peace treaty with the USSR. In that treaty Poland broken her commitments in Articles I, II and III!


I refer you to Article XIII of the Treaty of Riga. Enjoy.

There was no state Article IV referred to ...
There was a few guy and two divisions of their supporters ......there was never such state as Ukraine, clearly those guys had no popular support on the territory they claimed to be Ukraine.

Do you expect Poland to fight a war and then build and mange and defend state or to sacrifice its own existence in order to stick to some paper ?

Agreement with Petlura was clearly understood as a help to create Ukrainian state - because of circumstances I stated here it was impossible to achieve.

Do you expect Poland to be faithful to non existent state ?
You are ridiculous!


I know that Poland was granted recompense from Soviets(which wasn't paid ).
I asked you to provide documents stating that said money was price for sell-out of Ukraine either this or admit you are talking rubbish.

Thank you sjam....very interesting!

Clearly British giving guarantee to Poland did not intent to fight, anyway not in 1939.

Why do you continue with your lies? Article I contains agreement as to what the Ukrainian People's republic is: it is a state! In Article IV both states (i.e. Poland and the Ukrainian People's republic) commit not to sign a seperate peace treaty with Russia!


By your logic, Britain could have said on 2 October 1939 "There's no more Polish state: it's been invaded and occupied. So we'll call the war off now Germany. Sorry to have troubled you!" Would you have accepted that or would you have called it a stab in the back? Seeing as some Poles have a habit of complaining about Britain not following through on her treaty commitments despite fighting an six-year war against Germany, I'd say there is every chance you'd have called it a back-stab.


Are you seriously trying to complain that Poland didn't receive the price it had agreed to sell Ukraine to the Soviets for?! You must have balls made of brass!


Nice documents but how do you explain the bombing raids against Germany in the first week of September (which are fairly well documented) if the British policy was not to bomb Germany?!

That state clearly existed on paper ....Agreement was to build such a state ....
Anyway read my arguments above .......as for breaking Article IV - its your interpretation, even Petlura didn't blame Poles.


We are discussing Poland now, if you wish we can discus Britain!

I asked you:



If Soviet agreed to pay they should pay.

Now do you have a prove of your claim that Poland sell -out Ukraine for such and such sum or you are ready to admit that you talking rubbish ?

It is a documented fact that British policy was to drop leaflets on the 'immediate' outbreak of war. Document 4 shows how convinced the War Office were that this was a good strategy because the German population had seen that RAF had been able to penetrate German air space so effectively to drop the propaganda leaflets the British thought this would sway the population against the Nazi regime. I am sure you would agree that the RAF could quite easily have loaded bombs rather than leaflets and would most probably have preffered to do so if it was policy to do so.

Bombing raids after the the 'immediate' outbreak of war I am sure would also have been a matter of policy but the archive documents I have copies of clearly record that RAF leaflet drops were the British governments 'immediate' response to war.

The leaflet campaign continued for some time following the outbreak of war. There are many further examples in the following file at the National Archives, London:

I'm not going to invest my time to look for them because even if I'd presented them to you in black and white - you'd deny them as you did many times before. Just one of your recent posts:

^ Dear Fluffy Bunny Killer! The fact is that I was invited to come to Poland to share my skills. That is true. Your lie is that I was invited here to write a book. I've never even implied that I was invited to write a book by the Polish government! I have been asked to write books but the first was more than ten years after I'd been here.

I'm looking forward to your next lie about me. In the meantime, where's that apology from your country to the Polish WWII veterans it forced to be slaves?

Sjam: I'm posting on my iPhone right now. Can I reply to you tomorrow from the desktop?


Do these documents state that bombs would not be dropped?

According to this source on 3 September "A Bristol Blenheim of No. 139 Sqn, Wyton, carries out the RAF's first operational sortie of the war - photographic reconnaissance of the German naval base of Wilhelmshaven." Other sources have this plane as being in the air one hour and three minutes after the declaration of war.

According to this source on 4 September "Blenheim light bombers make first successful attack on German fleet - but 2 Blenheims are lost - one crashed and one shot down.

[same date]
Wellington medium bombers also attack German warships - raid unsuccessful - 2 bombers shot down by German fighters - 12 aircrew killed."

It seems that the RAF was allowed to drop bombs on German targets. But the only permitted targets were naval targets.

As to the leaflet dropping "although the value of propaganda leaflets was doubtful, these sorties gave crews experience of operating over enemy territory at night" and "Further leaflet raids are carried out (until 23rd December)".