Did British public protest against the sell out of Poland to the Soviets?

Nobody is denying that the French are to blame but Britain also promised help. As to use their navy and air forces against Germany.
The point is you cannot say


And then go and babble about -hey it not us it French!
That silly children games, be an adult and say - hey we screwed you because we calculated at the time that it would be advantageous for us to leave you high and dry.

(I would argue that France and Britain miscalculated that one, but never mind)
Yet, nobody says so - expect for Wroclaw Boy - because that would make you makes you looks bad?
So, maybe concept of honour is not so silly after all?

Exactly. Much easier to moan about betrayal than analyse what was achievable at the time. No other country did more for Poalnd than Britain - there should be a bit more gratitude floating round this thread.

Name few!


Achievable? Like full scale attack in force on German installation and ports made by British Navy and Air force.I think that was achievable, not to mention French here.

What changed between June 1939 and September 1939?Nothing! If France and Britain have not been able to help Poland, why would they promise that they will?Was it lie? And if it wasn't a lie - what stopped them?

In my opinion that treaty was a gamble. They hoped that the threat of war with France and Britain will stop Hitler and at the same time prevent Poland from joying the axis alliance.

A brilliant plan - killing two birds with one stone, right?
What if Hitler would not be deterred ? Poland will pay the price!
Am I wrong?I Don't think so!
So, what to be grateful for?

Amongst others, the same ones which I have already posted about in this very thread here:
polishforums.com/history-poland-34/british-public-protest-against-sell-out-poland-soviets-54351/3/#msg1289667


If Britain did nothing to fulfil her treaty obligations in 1939, why is it impossible for you to go into detail about what aid it was within Britain's power to give but was not given?


Which they did. And no amount of lying from you will change the facts of history.

Most people would say there were quite a few 'full scale' attacks on Germany by the UK during the war.

In September 1939?


How you can prove nothing? There is lack of anything and that is the proof in itself!

With what? Do you really think that was feasible? Or even desirable.

The UK declared a war on the Axis and fought it with tremendous loss of life. What more do you want?

Edit. I'll answer the question for you. You want someone else to blame for Poland's shortcomings...

a) You are claiming that Britain did not fulfil her treaty obligations because she did not give all the aid which it was within her power to give Poland. So you claim that Britain could have done more. As you wish to claim that, you have to tell us what aid it was within Britain's aid to give but was not given.

b) No matter how many times you lie about nothing being done by the British in September 1939 and no matter how many times you simply ignore some of the actions being pointed out to you, that lie will still be nothing more than a lie.

Read my posts ~121 and 123!
What do you want?


You are kidding, right?
You cannot eat a cake and have a cake at the same time.


I'm not claiming anything, that is a fact, Britain and France didn't fulfilled their obligations. What I want? For you to stop deny it.

You cannot contest facts.
Once that fact is established we can debate reason or reasons that Britain and France didn't fulfil their treaty obligations.

You keep claiming that but you also keep refusing support your claim. You keep on refusing to go into detail about the alleged aid it was within Britain's aid to give but was not given.

Why do you keep refusing to go into detail? Because you very simply cannot and you know you cannot.


Keep on telling that lie, it'll still just be a lie.

I don't have to support anything. Facts do the talking. Once we agree that there was Treaty signed, what to debate?
Maybe you are going to claim that they signed treaty aimed at Germany that didn't demanded military action from all those countries which signed it to help the one attacked by Germany?

Who, which country's government would agree to sign something like that?
Can you prove that Poland signed such treaty?
Do you need definition of "help" or what constitute "military action" ?
If there were no fully-fledged offensive by either French force or Britain navy and air force or both, then we cannot agree as to definitions of help and military action.

Those are clear per se - as to make a considerable impact on the enemy, not phony war but war.

And the fact is that Britain did come to Poland's aid. You wish to claim that Britain could have done more, so you must tell us what further aid it was within Britain's power to give but was not given.


How interesting to see you trying to argue with what I do not say: it is a clear sign that you cannot argue with what I do say.


No, seeing as neither of those terms appear in the relevant treaty.


The treaty makes no mention of "fully-fledged offensive". The treaty says "all the support and assistance in its [the other party's] power." So tell us what support and assistance it was within Britain's power to give but was not given.

The two standpoints are not mutualy exclusive. Its fair to say on the one hand britian did what was right for britiain and at the same time point out the french were the ones who were supposed to actually fight the germans. britains Navy was there to stop the German fleet escaping into the Atlantic,not to go on a suicide mission into the baltic.


Neither did Poland, they assured every ally that they could hold out against germany for at least 2 months...
Polands powerfull modern army would hold the germans on the border and slowly fall back on prepared defensive lines.......hardly Britain or even Polands fault that the Polish Army effectivly crumbled within hours of the invasion is it?

I suppose its Britains fault that the soviets joined in within two weeks too?
lets face it, you guys were lost from 4 30 am on the 1st of september and there was naff all any contempory Ally could have done about it, we managed to hold out by the skin of our teeth, its history, sh!t happened.

There was such an offensive, and Germany was beaten on 2 fronts. France was hors de combat however the USSR joined the allies. They liberated Poland too. The US was also involved, in exchange for help against Japan. We know how the story turns out and you know that the treaty was fulfilled.

No, I do not wish to claim that Britain could do more, I wish to claim that Britain should make a considerable impact on the enemy,to fulfil her obligation. You wish to claim that formal declaration of war against Germany and few skirmishes were all she has been able to do?Prove it!


What you say is immaterial unless you prove that Britain in September 1939 was unable to carry out a full fledged military action either by navy or air-force or preferably by the combination of those.


That the letter of the treaty but not the spirit. You are saying that Polish government signed treaty which left to discretion of France and Britain a manner and a way in which they would come to the aid of Poland. What country would sign such a treaty, are you claiming that members of Polish government were retards? Well, such outrageous claims need to be proved. Please prove that Poland signed such a treaty and that members of Polish government had intelligence of a bright gibbon or for ever keep your silence!


That is all very nice but France and Britain were the world powers and were allied for over thirty years, so even if we assume that France was to fight on land but Britain was to use her navy and air-force against Germany.Also could pressure France into action, all in all at least 50% of blame for September 1939 lies with Britain.


Well, they could! You seems to be forgetting that Poland have been attacked also by Soviet Russian which considerably changed equation.
Allies were supposed to lunch full fledged offensive no later than on ten day of war, but they decided against that even before Soviets invaded (17).


that all is debatable, /I could say that if allies lunched offensive against Germany while all German forces were engaged in Poland, the war could be won, then and there! All that mucking about was just excuses for French belief in Magiont line and British consenting! What about treaty?What about Poland - screw them!

That is the bottom line!
By 9 September Polish forces were holding on all fronts and lunching major counter-offensive! (Army Poznan)


Not in September 1939, that later victory by Britain, USA and Soviet has no meaning for Poland. She hasn't been liberated by Soviets but enslaved by them.

Only after 1989 Poland regained independence of sorts, consequences of 1939 are still very much alive.

Ergo, are you then claiming that Britain did lend Poland all support in its power?


Precisely. The burden of proof has shifted, because one cannot prove a negative. It's akin to a a situation where we agree I am to give you all my money consequent on certain events, then upon the obligation being triggered I give you 5 cents, you question that, but I tell you to prove that I had more money to give you - you cannot, because only I am privy to that information.

The failure to show that information can only lead to an inference that had the information been shown, it would not have favoured HMG.

The issue would so easily be settled if the forum's HMG apologists provided that information, but they won't, because they don't have it...


Please refrain from mischievous comments (the reference to 'liberated').


Really? So you're saying that it was within the Navy's power to assist but they chose not to because it was a 'suicide mission'?

Which sadly begs the question as to why the British had unilaterally agreed to permit the Germans to rebuild its navy (Anglo-German Naval Agreement 1935) to exceed the limits permitted by the Versailles Treaty, which prohibited the German navy from having battleships, submarines, and naval aviation. There were no consultations with WWI allies France, Italy, and there was certainly no consultation with Poland, which was dependent on the free city of Gdansk/Danzig for its only access to the Baltic. Again, the obvious implication of this unilateral British decision was the desire to have a German navy in the Baltic to serve as a check on the USSR, and the French were furious about it.


Jonny, me old son, thank you for giving us the basic British sanitized view of how well you met your obligation which you wish to believe and were likely taught in school. However, since you spent time in Poland, you should know that books and scholarly articles have been written on the topic with a contrary view:

Prazmowska, Anita J. (1995). Britain and Poland 1939-1943: The Betrayed Ally. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Count Edward Raczyński (1948). The British-Polish Alliance; Its Origin and Meaning. London: The Mellville Press.
Polityka - nr 37 (2469) z dnia 2004-09-11; s. 66-67 Historia / Wrzesień '39 Krzysztof -wikliński Tajemnica zamku Vincennes
(The latter includes promises of air support from an aircraft carrier in the Baltic.)

But, since you assert that Britain had met its obligations, please detail exactly what military aid the British Empire, with its air force and the largest navy in the world at the time, including 7 aircraft carriers, gave to Poland in September 1939. Give sources for your answers.

Please detail how the result in September 1939 differed from The Locarno Treaties in 1925, of which Józef Beck remarked, "Germany was officially asked to attack the east, in return for peace in the west."

Considering that Chamberlain's speech pledging to defend Poland's independence was made over five months prior to Hitler's attack on Poland, please explain why Britain was unprepared to offer more assistance to Poland than what it did.

Indeed. I, in particular, call for a detailed synopsis of how HMG complied with Article 5 of the Treaty after the Teheran Conference. Given that Jon has so vociferously said that the Treaty has been fulfilled, we can only assume he has full knowledge of every time an obligation was triggered then complied with.


The thing that strikes me the most about this speech (and the almost mirror terms of Art 1) is that it is an open offer - he does not caveat the type or quality of support in any way. He does not say, for example, we will offer such support to the extent of dropping leaflets, or such support will not include any form of actual combat, and so on.

Now, if at the time of making this speech (or more relevantly, at the time of the Agreement being executed), Chamberlain was aware that the assistance was to be, relatively speaking, limited, then he misrepresented the situation to Poland. If he was unaware, then he was inept.

Given the relatively short space of time between the Agreement and hostilities commencing, why would HMG not have particularised the form of assistance to be given, because surely they would have known that "all support within their power" meant not much at all, and that the quoted terms would cause Poland to rely on something that simply wasn't going to happen. Again, if they knew, then it was a deception, and if they didn't, they were inept.

Is anybody else a bit bored of the ungrateful Polish nation thinking that we did nothing for 6 years! Matbe we should stop giving them money now to thank them!

^ What is getting very boring is their refusal to go into detail about what support and assistance it was within Britain's power to give but was not given. But on the plus side, every time they refuse to do that, out becomes more and more obvious why they refuse to do that, because they cannot.

Seven aircraft carriers?

Aint you a Yank? Youve got nothing to say on this considering you lot didnt declare war on Germany untill you found you couldnt sell them sh!t anymore...when was it, December the 11th 1941? No, wait...Germany declared war on the US.......hypocrite.


And,your point?
Id say 50 odd years of the Soviets occupying eastern Europe would show Britain had the right idea all along,the Soviets were a real threat.

But hey,bottom line here, Britain of course should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1945, we should have sabre rattled Polish style until the reds decided to over run all of Europe...essentialy thats what some of you would have prefered isnt it......


Nope, Im saying the Allies decided Britains Navy would stop the world wide German surface and U boat fleets.
With the Polish Navy slinking out of the Baltic before the war even started why should even one british sailor have risked their life for Poland if the Polish Navy was busy running away?


You dont need to assume anything, just read the historical documents.....

Although i have to agree with you regarding all of your post I would like to defend the Polish fleet for it's defence of the Isle of Wight. Unlike the Brit bashing Poles on here us British are gentlemen enough to thank the Poles for their assistance. It seems that in Poland the kids are still being taught history that tell them that Polands true enemy in the world is Britain. TBH in Britain we don't give a stuff about Poland's history.

Got a source for the claimed seven aircraft carriers in September 1939? I'm only seeing Glorious, Courageous, Eagle, Hermes, Ark Royal and Furious. As Argus was a training and delivery ship, that leaves you one carrier short.

But let's not worry about that. I'd be more interested in hearing you back your claim that the carriers were not used in the war effort in September 1939. History books tell us that HMS Courageous sank in September 1939 with the loss of 519 crew as the result of being torpedoed by a U-boat, and that Ark Royal only escaped a similar fate three days earlier by the skin of her teeth, but you seem to want to claim that those boats were not taking part in the war effort. And perhaps you can explain to us how Eagle was supposed to assist Poland, given that when war broke out she refitting in Singapore?


I am stating that none of you have ever gone into detail about the support and assistance it was within Britain's power to give in September of 1939 but was not given. You could perhaps say that Britain should have nuked Berlin (to which we would point out that Britain didn't actually have any nuclear weapons at that time), or you could say that Britain should have sent her fleet of Martian Flying Saucers armed with death-rays to lay waste to Germany (to which we'd point out that your tin-foil hat is not working properly). But instead we get nothing.


You are not being asked to prove a negative: you are being asked to go into detail about the support and assistance it was within Britain's power to give in September of 1939 but was not given. Perhaps the British should have unfurled their hawkman wings, seized control of the war rocket Ajax and launched a suicide strike on Berlin? No? So what support could they have given which they did not give?

Well, I think you should read few historical books and documents yourself and I don't mean German propaganda or its repetition in British books written to justify themselves from making Poland fighting alone Germany in 1939.


You should give yourself an enema, you badly need it.


Ah really? So your are saying that the WWII is British fault? Wow and I was here thinking that you are British defender.:D
You should think sometime before you switch into your nationalistic mode.


So British Navy was idle while their allies were fighting?


So, maybe for once you indulge me and provide some links or quotes of documents you have in mind along with a clear line of reasoning which would provide us with reasons for which Britain (and France) didn't fulfil their obligation to Poland in September 1939.

Instead of refreshing old anti-Polish propaganda in an attempt to dodge the issue or somehow justify the way Britain acted in 1939.
Poland didn't have to fight Germany, treaty with France and Britain ensured that she did.

Harry maybe the Poles are taught that the British and French should leave their countries unguarded against what they assumed was a far superior German airforce to fight the Germans in Poland. I'm sure that this would have been popular in Poland but suicidal for the Allied forces. The British air force as at 9th september was:-

Fighter command (without 6 group):
Blenheims :72
Spitfire:104
Gladiators:42
Hurricane :133
Bomber Command:
Battles:145
Blenheim:100
Wellington:67
Whitley:60
Hampden:75

The Royal Navy although being one of the worlds biggest wasn't in anyway capable of taking on the German navy at that time.

What did the Poles want the British to do commit suicide for the Polish nation?

No, as you have been told many times in the past. But do feel free to lie about the British sailors who were killed in September 1939.

As for the idle navy: which navy sailed out of the Baltic before the war even started?


Fine:


en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_Poland-London_(1939)

Kindly go into detail about the support and assistance it was within Britain's power to give Poland in 1939 which was not given.

Yet again you refuse to answer my questions addressed to you.
Yet again you answer questions not addressed to you.
So yet again I ask you to answer questions addressed to you or restrain yourself from posting on the subject.

And yet again you refuse to go into detail about the support and assistance it was within Britain's power to give Poland in 1939 which was not given.

Why don't you simply admit that you cannot go into detail about it? And tell us why you cannot (not that you need to, it is blatantly obvious why you cannot).

Was it the Polish Navy at The River platte?

Royal Navy Objectives and Taskings 1939;
OBJECTIVE 1 - Defence of trade routes, and convoy organisation and escort, especially to and from Britain.
OBJECTIVE 2 - Detection and destruction of surface raiders and U-boats.
OBJECTIVE 3 - Maritime blockade of Germany and contraband control.
OBJECTIVE 4 - Defence of own coasts.
OBJECTIVE 5 - Escort troops to France and between Britain, the Dominions and other areas under Allied control.

Take note of Ob'4. Maybe if the Polish Navy had done the same,and not sneaked away from Polands coast and the baltic.........

In 1939 the Royal navy lost 1 Capital Ship (thats a Battleship for all you lubbers) 1 aircraft carrier,3 Destroyers and 1 Submarine in action against the German Navy.

HMS Royal Oak, 833 hands lost.
HMS Courageous . 519 hands lost, plus two full RNAS sqdrns.

Yes, smug Poles. British sailors were dying and fighting while your own Navy sat in British and french ports. so, in a word, grow up and get some respect for the dead.