Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 264

The most spectacular errors in Polish politics.


sjam 2 | 541  
16 Sep 2009 /  #241
Do these documents state that bombs would not be dropped?

I believe they do concerning the immediate outbreak of hostilities and the bombing Germany.

carries out the RAF's first operational sortie of the war - photographic reconnaissance of the German naval base of Wilhelmshaven.

This was not a bombing raid?

From this same source no bombs reported being dropped over targets on 3 September?

3/4 Sep 1939 - 10 Whitley bombers of Nos. 51 and 58 Sqns carry out the first RAF raid over Germany, dropping some 6 million leaflets over Hamburg, Bremen and the Ruhr - 10 Whitley bombers of Nos. 51 and 58 Sqns carry out the first RAF raid over Germany dropping some 6 million leaflets over Hamburg, Bremen and the Ruhr.

I think this is the important point that IMO confirms the decision to drop leaflets rather than bombs over Germany. Why fly all that way and at some risk to drop leaflets rather than bombs? The answer was that dropping leafltes rather than bombs on Germany would hopefully prevent all-out war which Britain (and France) did not want the situation to escalate into. The site you linked to even alludes to 'Bomber' Harris finding it nonsensical for the RAF not to carry bombs! But that is politiking over soldiering...it never works in the end.

However I am not disputing that raids took place over the North Sea but this is not the same as bombing Germany. Although it is bombing Germans I agree.

Both also from here.

From same source quoted:

Sept 1939 - June 1940

The ‘Phoney War’ - Evacuation from Dunkirk

The period from September 1939 until April 1940 became known as the ‘Phoney War’ because actual hostilities between Britain and Germany were limited. RAF bombers patrolled the North Sea, searching for German ships to attack. These daylight operations proved extremely dangerous - many RAF bombers were shot down by German fighters. In the hope of averting a full-scale war, bombers were also sent at night over Germany to drop propaganda leaflets. These raids were less hazardous - but proved to be in vain.

although the value of propaganda leaflets was doubtful,

Whose quoted opinion is this? Those in the British government at the time making the actual decisons believed otherwise as is evident in document page 4 I posted earlier.
PolishBlood - | 3  
16 Sep 2009 /  #242
I think Poland made one giant error that could have ultimately helped their post war situation especially in the eyes of a future relationship with the U.S. I did some research on Polish weapons of WWII and found that Poland had their own way of what they wanted to do (regarding building up of their own military). One example is they had plans to build and produce their own polish made submachine gun. Why there wasn't a more urgent need to get these items into service quicker is a question I don't have an answer to. Maybe cost and politics. And have this gun in service by 1942, I think. Too late as we now know.

I know there is one example of this gun in the Warsaw Military Museum. They had just approved production of the weapon. And every weapon they did currently have in service had been modified to their own needs. 5 more years of peace for Poland might have made all the difference in her ability to truly defend herself!

At the time, Poland produced the most advanced medium range bomber but did so for export. Not for home use. And what for? Germany will never invade, we have treaties in place! LOL!!! And prior to WWII they tested and purchased the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) from the U.S. for the Polish Army. And again, modified it to their needs. But only imported maybe 10,000 or so. Not enough to equip the entire polish army. My point to all this is, Poland should have purchased as much weaponry from the U.S. as they could have afforded or asked for aid. And begged for more. It seems at the time that Polish Pride may have gotten in the way and Poland thought that she could handle Germany and Russia on her own. Which we know that is what she did.

If the U.S. was the number one supplier of military items to Poland, the U.S would have felt more connected and willing to not let Poland flap in the wind and initial talks with Stalin would have reflected this. Not just to appease Stalin and ultimately give him eastern Europe for a secure back door/buffer zone for helping defeat Hitler. Wilson's 14 points did call for a free and independant Poland after WWI. Poland could have benefitted tremendously from importing tanks and every plane we could build and send them. And absolutely would have given Hitler a fight he possibly might not have wanted to fight. I doubt the U.S. would have let Poland, an economic partner so to speak, slip into the hands of Stalin without a fight. And looking back, I see no reason why this couldn't have happend. And lets not forget Stalin did promise "free" elections for Poland but broke his word. And of course, after the war was over.

From what I have researched, Poland had a very capable fighting army at the time and only came up short in terms of military hardware. They always say Poland had inept leadership too. If we went back to 1939 Poland and gave her equal fire power of what Germany had, it probably would be a different story today. They showed no lack of ability to fight or give a good fight. And did win some of the battles in anticipation of help from Britain and France!!!! And Poland should have assumed, worst case, what if the British and the French fail to help us. Probably a larger mistake!!!!!!!

PolishBlood
Harry  
16 Sep 2009 /  #243
This was not a bombing raid?

No, it was a photo reconnaissance of the German naval base of Wilhelmshaven which supplied the data used in the bombing raid on the next day.

However I am not disputing that raids took place over the North Sea but this is not the same as bombing Germany. Although it is bombing Germans I agree.

You can't really say that the German naval base of Wilhelmshaven was in the North Sea, can you? It was on the North Sea I'll grant you. But if you want to claim bombing raids were only over the North sea, "their AA guns got into action, and this together with shore-based AA kept us pretty busy carrying out evasive measures" (from Flt Lt Ken Doran, who lead five Blenheims against a German battleship on 4 September) seems to suggest that you're wrong.

Whose quoted opinion is this?

No idea.
Ironside 51 | 11,510  
16 Sep 2009 /  #244
at the time that Polish Pride may have gotten in the way

More likely policy of supporting its own industry - as USA does even today.

Poland thought that she could handle Germany and Russia on her own.

Most likely they thought they can handle Russia with Rumania's help, and Germany with the help of France and Britain.
Must have come to conclusion that joint attack by Germany and Soviets in the light of Hitler ambition to destroy Bolsheviks and Russia is very unlikely. Never say never!

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 ?

Ignoring it Harry?
Harry  
16 Sep 2009 /  #245
Anyway read my arguments above .......as for breaking Article IV - its your interpretation, even Petlura didn't blame Poles.

Got a quote from him about that? I've got one from Piłsudski to a group of Ukrainian army officers "Gentlemen, I deeply apologize to you"!

Can you supply an interpretation of how signing a seperate peace treaty is not a breach of a commitment not to sign a seperate peace treaty? I'd love to see that bit of linguistic gymnastics.

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 ?

So your complaint is that the Soviets should have paid? That is nearly as priceless as your reasoning that Poland didn't sell out Ukraine to the Soviets because Poland signed a treaty in which they agreed a price for Ukraine but the Soviets, according to you at least (and you haven't supplied a shred of evidence to support your claim), didn't ever pay the price which Poland had agreed for Ukraine!
Ironside 51 | 11,510  
16 Sep 2009 /  #246
Got a quote from him about that?

He is dead Harry. You try.

an you supply an interpretation of how signing a seperate peace treaty is not a breach of a commitment not to sign a seperate peace treaty? I'd love to see that bit of linguistic gymnastics.

I already did, As no such state existed (nobody but Poland recognized that state), and Petlura had no support from his own citizen, Poland give it try, an honest try.

We didn't agree to built state from the scratch and then support and nurse it indefinitely,
When Piłsudski apologized he did it as a matter of honour.
He tried, failed and apologized.
What other country in the world would do the same?
none....

So your complaint is that the Soviets should have paid?

Sure they should paid no matter what - they agreed to pay and they should had paid. Do you see problem ? I don't!
I'm not saying that payment is price for Ukraine - its your own Fairy-Harry invention.

didn't ever pay the price which Poland had agreed for Ukraine!

I would like you to quote document where such sell-out of Ukraine by Poland for said sum took place. If not admit you talk rubbish.
Bzibzioh  
16 Sep 2009 /  #247
In the meantime, where's that apology from your country to the Polish WWII veterans it forced to be slaves?

You mean apology from Pole to Poles for what Canada and GB did to them? Which fancy university taught you logic again? Makes me wonder about the rest of your education.
sjam 2 | 541  
17 Sep 2009 /  #248
But if you want to claim bombing raids were only over the North sea

I claim no expertise.

However the policy to drop leaflets on the 'immediate' outbreak of war over Germany and not bombs in evident in the government papers of the day.

seems to suggest that you're wrong.

I am sure I am often wrong :-)

So given I am wrong, why do you think that RAF did not load bombs onto the planes that dropped over 14 million leaflets over the German heartland ... given as you say bombs were dropped on German North Sea port? The aircraft and the bombs were available. Even the website you quoted suggested that 'Bomber' Harris thought it should have been bombs not leaflets given the risks involved to the pilots flying over Germany?
Harry  
17 Sep 2009 /  #249
He is dead Harry. You try.

No, you try. You are attributing an opinion to him, thus the burden of proving he expressed that opinion is on you. If you can not prove this is opinion, we'll just have to assume that you're returning to your usual form, i.e. lying.

I already did, As no such state existed (nobody but Poland recognized that state), and Petlura had no support from his own citizen, Poland give it try, an honest try.

Three lies in a single sentence! The Ukrainian People's Republic was recognized de jure by Soviet Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Holy See. De facto recognition was granted by Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Persia. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians supported Petliura enough to fight and die for him. Poland only stayed good to its word for eight months (hardly an honest try!).

What other country in the world would do the same? none....

What other country would do the same? By your 'logic', as the Ukrainian People's republic had been occupied for less than a month before Poland began to negotiate a peace treaty with the USSR, Britain and France would have been perfectly entitled in October of 1939 to negotiate peace with Germany and to agree to take 30 million gold rubles as compensation in such treaty. Instead Britain remained at war for six years.

I would like you to quote document where such sell-out of Ukraine by Poland for said sum took place. If not admit you talk rubbish.

Article XIII of the Treaty of Riga "Russia and the Ukraine agree to pay to Poland within the period of one year at the latest after the ratification of the present Treaty the sum of 30 million roubles gold in specie and in bars".

Sure they should paid no matter what - they agreed to pay and they should had paid. Do you see problem ? I don't!
I'm not saying that payment is price for Ukraine - its your own Fairy-Harry invention.

Oh, OK, so your logic is: Poland signed a treaty in which it agreed to support a certain state and to not sign a seperate peace treaty with any other state, Poland then signs a seperate peace treaty with another state in which it agrees its former ally no longer exists and agrees to accept the sum of 30 million gold roubles. And this means that Poland didn't sell out its ally. Nice logic there!

You mean apology from Pole to Poles for what Canada and GB did to them?

How is what happened to Poles in Canada anything to do with Britain?

Although I can understand how you get confused about nations and nationality. After all, you've lived in Canada for at least the past decade and a half and live there as a Canadian citizen no doubt, but you still claim to be Polish. You turn your back on Poland, you've taken a Canadian passport and every day you claim benefits that are available only to citizens of Canada and do not to citizens of Poland but you still say that you aren't Canadian. How nice of you to spit on your hosts like that.

You mean apology from Pole to Poles for what Canada and GB did to them? Which fancy university taught you logic again? Makes me wonder about the rest of your education.

Wonder away about my education: it is good enough that the Polish government invited me over to help the Polish education system. Although you claim that I say the Polish government invited me to write a book. Of course you can't support that statement because it is just another one of your lies!

However the policy to drop leaflets on the 'immediate' outbreak of war over Germany and not bombs in evident in the government papers of the day.

It may well have been. But the fact is that bombs were dropped as well as leaflets.

So given I am wrong, why do you think that RAF did not load bombs onto the planes that dropped over 14 million leaflets over the German heartland ... given as you say bombs were dropped on German North Sea port?

Most probably they still thought that all-out war could still be avoided.
Ironside 51 | 11,510  
17 Sep 2009 /  #250
at other country would do the same? By your 'logic', as the Ukrainian People's republic had been occupied for less than a month before Poland began to negotiate a peace treaty with the USSR, Britain and France would have been perfectly entitled in October of 1939 to negotiate peace with Germany and to agree to take 30 million gold rubles as compensation in such treaty. Instead Britain remained at war for six years.

Britain never intended to fight in 1939, so you comparison is not valid.
The treaty with Poland was signed as a bluff to stop the Germans, and Britain did not agree to build Polish state from the scratch.

You don't see a difference, maybe because you don't want to see it?
Polish government supported financially government UPR in exile (1921-1939), yet British government failed to help financially Polish Government in exile.

To make it clear I don't deny and never did that Riga treaty was a breach of Article IV of Warsaw Agreement but I fail to see it as back-stabbing.

My question is how you (apart from your obvious bias ) can claim that after military drawback in Kiev and strong opposition in Poland for the continuation of war as well as lack of means for prolonged warfare, Poland could continued on the course.

War supplies paid and ready to sent to Poland were blocked by the strike of dockers in the British ports - Hands off Russia - and I'm sure British government couldn't do anything about it as British ruling class is well known for their concern about working class.

Petlura was given such help as Poland was able to give.
They had no chance to win alone, so any help is better then none.

There no analogy between situation of Poland in the WWII and situation of Petlura and his supporters.

Article XIII of the Treaty of Riga "Russia and the Ukraine agree to pay to Poland within the period of one year at the latest after the ratification of the present Treaty the sum of 30 million roubles gold in specie and in bars".

Could you point me to the quote where it says that such sum is for sell-out of Ukraine?
As I never denied that Poland supposed to received recompense from Bolsheviks or admit that you talk rubbish claiming that sum is for sell-out of Ukraine.

Nice logic there!

Hey thank you :P!

Three lies in a single sentence

No lies Harry, I didn't know that so many states recognised UPR are you sure is right as its Internet sources - you know anybody can write it ......

As for support during the Polish stay in Kiev and area 3 thousand volunteers joined Petrula's two divisions, so all I can say is - It no good if he had supporters who were supporting him quietly, hell maybe he had millions of supporters but nobody knows about it.

As for honest try - how many British divisions were fighting on Polish soil even for a day?
( you insist on bringing Britain into it - not me Harry!)
It was an honest try!
sjam 2 | 541  
17 Sep 2009 /  #251
British government failed to help financially Polish Government in exile.

I am sorry but statement this is just not true.

I have the British government papers which quite clearly state how many tens of millions of UK£ aid was granted each year to Polish government-in-exile of which a significant proportion was written off at the end of the war, and some was repaid from Polish state gold before it was repatriated to Poland after recognition of the Polish communist government.

When I get back from the opening ceremony of the Polish Armed Forces Memorial over this weekend I will post these papers in answer to this misconception about Britain (and USA) not providing aid.
Harry  
17 Sep 2009 /  #252
Britain never intended to fight in 1939, so you comparison is not valid.

Please provide at least some shred of proof for that claim. If Britain did not intend to fight in 1939, why did Britain fight in 1939?

Polish government supported financially government UPR in exile (1921-1939), yet British government failed to help financially Polish Government in exile.

First lie of you post right there! The British government gave extensice loans to the Polish Government in exile and then wrote most of those loans off. Ask sjam for photos of the documents proving that.

I note that you don't provide any proof of your claim/lie that Poland was paying the Ukrainian government in exile until 1939. If Poland was paying for that government, why had they locked the leader of it in an internment camp and why did the government move to Paris?

To make it clear I don't deny and never did that Riga treaty was a breach of Article IV of Warsaw Agreement but I fail to see it as back-stabbing.

Your exact words were "as for breaking Article IV - its your interpretation, even Petlura didn't blame Poles." Nice to see you backing off your lies for a change when you are confronted with facts.

There no analogy between situation of Poland in the WWII and situation of Petlura and his supporters.

Quite right: the Ukrainian People's Republic got sold out and backstabbed by its allies after only eight months. Poland got six long years of assistance from Britain and the entire treaty was honoured to the letter.

No lies Harry, I didn't know that so many states recognised UPR are you sure is right as its Internet sources - you know anybody can write it

Pathetic even by your standards. You get caught lying, yet again, and instead of slinking away back under your rock you start whining about the accuracy of sources. That list is taken from Talmon, Stefan (1998). Recognition of Governments in International Law. (Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-826573-5) I'd be more inclined to take the word of an Oxford Professor as to which countries recognised the Ukrainian People's Republic than that of a proven serial liar.

It was an honest try!

You keep repeating that if it makes you feel any better. The rest of us can see that abandoning an ally within a month of it being occupied is a backstab and accepting money in a peace treaty in which you backstab an ally is a sell-out.

When I get back from the opening ceremony of the Polish Armed Forces Memorial over this weekend I will post these papers in answer to this misconception about Britain (and USA) not providing aid.

Save your time. Most of the people who post here about Britain and Poland in WWII are uninterested in the truth if it contradicts their view of Poland as a sold-out victim. They'll just dismiss the documents as fakes and then lie about the truth.
Ironside 51 | 11,510  
18 Sep 2009 /  #253
why did Britain fight in 1939?

Did they fight in 1939 ? That the news for me.

I note that you don't provide any proof of your claim/lie that Poland was paying the Ukrainian government in exile until 1939.

Well, I have only quote from the Internet.

yet British government failed to help financially Polish Government in exile.

after they recognized Soviet government in Warsaw.

Nice to see you backing off your lies for

Oh stop that bulsiht and explain to me how breach of the Agreement due to lack of means to carry it out is back-stab?

Poland got six long years of assistance from Britain and the entire treaty was honoured to the letter.

Really ? Was Poland independent state after 1945?
At last Poland give it try, failed and apologized on the spot - clear situation.
Thought British were pretending that nothing happened.

Pathetic even by your standards.

shut your trap Hairy - I just didn't know that, I'm sure you know everything.

You still didn't provide us with the bill for sell-out of Ukraine.
Bzibzioh  
19 Sep 2009 /  #254
How is what happened to Poles in Canada anything to do with Britain?

Hint: Ed.

Although I can understand how you get confused about nations and nationality.
After all, you've lived in Canada for at least the past decade and a half and live there as a Canadian citizen no doubt, but you still claim to be Polish.

Your view on nationality makes as much sense as a swimsuit competition for dogs. But I can
understand: it's hard concept to grasp for someone without a nationality of his own.
Harry  
21 Sep 2009 /  #255
Did they fight in 1939 ? That the news for me.

You really are beneath contempt, aren't you. Thousands of British servicemen die fighting in 1939 and your response is "Did they fight in 1939 ? That the news for me".

Well, I have only quote from the Internet.

You don't even have that. Your claim that the Polish government financially supported the UPR government in exile from 1921-1939 is nothing more than a lie. Poland wasn't helping Ukrainians between the wars, Poland was oppressing Ukrainians!

after they recognized Soviet government in Warsaw.

So the six years of financial support which the British gave the Polish government in exile isn't enough for you. Britain should have kept paying until Poles finally got round to getting their country free, eh?

Oh stop that bulsiht and explain to me how breach of the Agreement due to lack of means to carry it out is back-stab?

Lack of means to carry it out?! How did Poland lack the means to not sign a seperate peace treaty with the USSR? Poland did not have to sign that treaty. Poland didn't have to betray its ally. Poland didn't have to agree to get 30 million gold rubles. Poland just did all those things. You claiming that Poland didn’t have the means to not sign a separate peace treaty is just yet another of your lies.

Really ? Was Poland independent state after 1945?

Britain did not guarantee Poland’s independence. Britain gave Poland no guarantees at all with regard to the USSR.

At last Poland give it try, failed and apologized on the spot - clear situation. Thought British were pretending that nothing happened.

Poland tried for eight months! Give some details of the supposed Polish apology. I know that there was no apology from Poland to Ukraine and that you are just lying yet again.

shut your trap Hairy - I just didn't know that, I'm sure you know everything.

You told us that you knew. You told us that only Poland recognised the UPR. Oops, you just got caught lying one more time! How many times is that in just this one post?

You still didn't provide us with the bill for sell-out of Ukraine.

And yet another lie. I have quoted Article XIII of the treaty of Riga. That is where Poland agrees to take 30 million gold rubles and in that treaty Poland sells out Ukraine. But I can easily understand how this sell out is so embarrassing for a Pole that you feel the need to lie about it!
szczeciniak 4 | 92  
21 Sep 2009 /  #256
hej harry

could you post a link to article xiii of the treaty of riga
re:Poland sells out Ukraine

Poland also was to receive monetary compensation (30 million rubles) for its economic input into the Russian Empire during the times of partitions of Poland. Russia was also to surrender works of art and other Polish national treasure acquired from Polish territories after 1772 (like the Zaluski Library). Both sides renounced claims to war compensation.

By 1921, Pilsudski was no longer the head of state, and only participated as an observer during the Riga negotiations, which he called an act of cowardice.

and one more ok
Ukrainian People's Republic led by Symon Petliura had been allied with Poland by Treaty of Warsaw, but in Riga, Poland went back on this treaty. Pilsudski felt the agreement was a shameless and short-sighted political calculation. Allegedly, having walked out of the room, he told the Ukrainians waiting there for the results of the Riga Conference: "Gentlemen, I deeply apologize to you". The new treaty violated Poland's military alliance with the UPR, which had explicitly prohibited a separate peace. It also worsened relations between Poland and its Ukrainian minority, who felt Ukraine had been betrayed by its Polish ally, a feeling that would be exploited by Ukrainian nationalists and result in the growing tensions and eventual violence in the 1930s and 1940s. By the end of 1921, the majority of Poland-allied Ukrainian, Belarusian and White Russian forces had either crossed the Polish border and laid down their arms or had been annihilated by Soviet forces.

and that was he most spectacular errors in Polish politics , right?
Harry  
21 Sep 2009 /  #257
Harry:
How is what happened to Poles in Canada anything to do with Britain?


Hint: Ed.

“Hint: Ed.”?! What does Ed know about it? Or is this just a laughable attempt by you to distract attention from the fact that the treatment Polish veterans received in your country was nothing to do with the British? Yes, that would explain it.

Your view on nationality makes as much sense as a swimsuit competition for dogs. But I can understand: it's hard concept to grasp for someone without a nationality of his own.

So let’s get this straight: you abandoned Poland, you sought shelter in Canada; you live in Canada and have lived there for at least a decade and a half; you took Canadian citizenship by choice, you have never taken Polish citizenship by choice; you live in Canada as a Canadian; every day you claim benefits which are available only to Canadians; you do not perform the actions which are required of Poles in Canada. But you still insist that you are Polish. You are not Polish: if you were Polish, you’d have no need of that Canadian nationality which you use every single day. And you should be ashamed of the way that you spit on the nation which gave you shelter when you wanted to abandon your mother country.

could you post a link to article xiii of the treaty of riga re:Poland sells out Ukraine

The only online link I have is to a less than perfect translation: forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19210318-1.pdf

I'm not sure which language(s) the original treaty was signed in.

Poland also was to receive monetary compensation (30 million rubles) for its economic input into the Russian Empire during the times of partitions of Poland.

Sure, that was the reason given in the treaty, but they were hardly going to write "In exchange for selling out its Ukrainian allies Poland shall receive the sum of 30 million gold roubles," were they!

and that was he most spectacular errors in Polish politics , right?

I would say that it was one of the most spectacular errors in Polish politics. The post WWI relationship of Poles and Ukrainians was never going to be easy, but the Polish backstab after Ukrainians had fought for Poland (and the subsequent policy of Polonization) killed off any chance of peaceful coexistance. The failure to live up the treaty (or Warsaw) obligations also showed interbellum European governments that Poland was not to be trusted as an ally.
Bzibzioh  
21 Sep 2009 /  #258
So let’s get this straight: you abandoned Poland, you sought shelter in Canada;

Yep, and I'm still Polish. Imagine that! And your tediously repetitive harping on about it is not going to change that :)

What does Ed know about it?

He should know and care. After all he was a director of this circus.
Harry  
21 Sep 2009 /  #259
Yep, and I'm still Polish. Imagine that! And your tediously repetitive harping on about it is not going to change that :)

If you're Polish, why don't you write to the Canadian government and send back that Canadian passport of yours? You don't need it: you are Polish and so should be proud to live the life of a Pole.

What's that? You need all the rights which that Canadian passport gives you and you have no wish to live as a Pole in Canada (or as a Pole in Poland)? OK, so you aren't Polish: you are Canadian.
szczeciniak 4 | 92  
21 Sep 2009 /  #260
but they were hardly going to write "In exchange for selling out its Ukrainian allies Poland shall receive the sum of 30 million gold roubles," were they!

i dont know what they were going to write, but i do know what they wrote!
so i disagree with you(i do have constitutional right), right:-(

Polish backstab

error in politics!! yes
Treaty of Versailles -- backstab,
Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye- poland backstab of its masters austrians
Treaty of Riga , backstab ukrainians
Treaty of russia- backstab
Treaty of germany, backstab
history is full of backstabing in australia, canada and usa
and on the end germany backstab russia
but do not forget Russia backstab germany, because they have enter the war later then they suppose to.
Stalin tricked Hitler into starting the war. This was easily done because Hitler was impetuous. Stalin, on the other end, had the virtue of patience and was more deceptive

The Soviet leader set the war in motion by signing a secret pact with Hitler. The agreement involved a joint invasion and partitioning of Poland. In the course of this invasion Stalin cheated Hitler by delaying the Soviet invasion of Poland for 17 days. Hitler was shocked at the betrayal.

Poland was not to be trusted as an ally.

poland did well in this field:-)

Strategy is not always about fighting. It is about long-range consequences. If you unloose X, then you unleash Y. Therefore, strategy is psychological and sociological

Consider the strategic outcome of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, ow better dont. To question a myth, one has to have a questioning mind. Facts speak truth only to the few

ps
by the way? are you a little backstabber?
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
21 Sep 2009 /  #261
I mean the last 100 years and there are not too much of them (mistakes).

1. Polish annexation of Zaolzie 1938, the tiny part of the pre-war Czechoslovakia.
Kinda Polish cooperation with Hitler.

2. Warsaw Uprising 1944 - Poles should have never trusted Russian commies.
Or Russians at all.

3. Polish support for Kosovo irredenta (separatism).
Excuse us, Serbian friends - be forgiving.

I would agree...Refusal to enter into some negotiation with the Germans over issues involving Czechoslovakia and the Danzig area were big mistakes, and led to destruction and eventual Bolshevik takeover of Poland....Pilsudski would weep.
Bzibzioh  
21 Sep 2009 /  #262
If you're Polish, why don't you write to the Canadian government and send back that Canadian passport of yours? You don't need it: you are Polish and so should be proud to live the life of a Pole.

So basically one person has the right to decide for another person who he/she is nation wise. How very fascist of you!

Do you realize how many problems of this world started with that arrogant attitude?
Harry  
22 Sep 2009 /  #263
So basically one person has the right to decide for another person who he/she is nation wise. How very fascist of you!

I didn't decide your nationality: you did.
You decided to leave Poland.
You decided to live in Canada.
You decided you didn't want to live as a Pole.
You decided you wanted Canadian citizenship.
You decided not to use your Polish citizenship.
You decided that you want to use your Canadian citizenship every day.
You decided that being Polish wasn't good enough for you.
You decided that being Canadian would be better for.
You decided that you are Canadian.

Do you realize how many problems of this world started with that arrogant attitude?

Most of the problem in the world started with lies. Lies like the ones which you just love to tell.
Babinich 1 | 455  
22 Sep 2009 /  #264
Refusal to enter into some negotiation with the Germans over issues involving Czechoslovakia and the Danzig area were big mistakes

Sorry, but treaties with arch criminals are not worth the paper they're written on.

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / The most spectacular errors in Polish politics.Archived