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

Why should I go into detail about it? It is not me who promised Poland aid!It is you who should go into details and provide us with evidence of Britain using all available resources to the aid of Poland in 1939.

Why don't you answer my question?(post 136) How many times do I need to ask you? Are you unable to answer it? Is it because you know that what you are claiming is rubbish and you know it,


Was it your education or your drinking habit that you are unable to provide simple answer to a simple question. Instead of going about some unimportant and off-topic rubbish just to use expression - "smug Poles", maybe you could write few lines on the subject? i.e. Why you think that only French are to blame?

" Why should I go into detail about it? It is not me who promised Poland aid!It is you who should go into details and provide us with evidence of Britain using all available resources to the aid of Poland in 1939."

You are the one claiming that Britain could have done more, so you need to go into detail about what more they could have done. But we ask know why you refuse to do that: it's because you cannot go into detail about out it.

NO! That what you are saying that I'm claiming.
I'm saying that Britain didn't fulfil obligation to aid Poland in 1939. Nothing more and nothing less. It is you who claims that she did fulfil her obligation.

So, for a fourth time I'm asking you to answer my question (post 136).
Also since you claim that Britain fulfilled her obligation to aid Poland - prove it!

^ Fine. So, in what way did Britain fail to fulfil her obligation to aid Poland in 1939?

By the way, if you want a question answered, ask it, don't just claim you asked it.

Link to the full wording of the treaty avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp]

ARTICLE I.
Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

Fairly clear then. Nothing about Britain having to invent 21st century military kit to enable its ground forces to somehow fly across europe......

ARTICLE 4.
The methods of applying the undertakings of mutual assistance provided for by the present Agreement are established between the competent naval, military and air authorities of the Contracting Parties

So,not some random ill informed polish nationalist 70 plus years later....

ARTICLE 7.
Should the Contracting Parties be engaged in hostilities in consequence of the application of the present Agreement, they will not conclude an armistice or treaty of peace except by mutual agreement.

hhhmmmmm Did you ask us nicely if you could surrender to the beastly germans at the end of september? Hope so or it looks like there really was only Poland and France that broke the treaty mandates..............

Ishatu2,why would people refer to it as a sell out?I don't understand the logic.I just think that Chamberlain got hoodwinked by Hitler and Ribbentrop.

Pass mate. Its head banging dealing with some people.
There is military reality and then there is the military reality of a country with a huge cavalry force just because it was a nice romantic thing to have and all the girls love a lancer.

The case could easily be made,but its not worth the effort TBH as its 70 years ago, that in a large part Poland did trigger the fall of the British Empire with its beligerent ,unrealistic attitude towards the germans in the late 30s. would a road and rail connection between germany and east prussia really have been such a tragedy for poland in the long run or would germany have simply bypassed poland on its invasion of the soviet union and probably had poland as a happy ally on the anti commie crusade. of course,chances are Russia would still have won so,what would have been different. Oh,yes, Britain, France and the US would all still have been world powers and no doubt sometime before 1989 would have decided enough was enough with those pesky reds.....

Who should be more p!ssed off is not a debate worth having though as weighing one crap against another just makes a bigger smell.

Ishatu2,I guess people have their minds made up;Czechoslovakia would have more of a case to insinuate something like that.

Poland never surrendered, not to the Germans, not to the Russians and we'll certainly never surrender on PolishForums.com :)

Which of course brings us on to another question: did the Polish public protest against the sell out of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and their own army taking part in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia?

Harry the Poles probably omit to teach their kids about that disgraceful part of their history. Nice helmets!

Disgraceful?Not at all.We only took back what Czechs stole from us when we were busy fighting Soviets 20 years earlier.Nothing disgracefull about it.


You mean on the 2nd picture?World War I German/Austrian helmets.In 1939 one unit (10th cavalry brigade) of Polish army was still equiped with this model.

a) The Polish-Czechoslovak war finished before the Polish-Soviet war started, despite what Poles now love to claim.
b) You took a lot more than than was occupied by Czechoslovakia after the Polish-Czechoslovak war.
c) Poland had already agreed that the land in question was part of Czechoslovakia and had signed an international treaty to that effect (yet another treaty which interbellum Poland broke as and when it suited them).

Given the classic Polish contemporary reaction to mention of them joining the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, one has to doubt that the Polish public protested at the time against the sell out of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and their own army taking part in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Very strange. What need was there for that post to be binned?

"Sell out"?Dude,you are totally ignorant about Polish-Czech relations in years 1918-1938.What do you mean by "sell out"?Poland did not have any pact with Czechoslovakia so how could Poles sell them out?And besides,it's not like Czechs were going to fight Germans anyway so I don't any reason why Poland wouldn't take land inhabited by Polish population which Czechs were going to GIVE AWAY to the Germans.

Which you had stolen from the Czechs previously! Originally the are was part of Morovia so belonged to neither. After that it became part of Bohemia. When did it start becoming Polish?

'Up to the mid-19th century members of the local Slav population did not identify themselves as members of larger ethnolinguistic entities. In Cieszyn Silesia (as in all West Slavic borderlands) various territorial identities pre-dated ethnic and national identity. Consciousness of membership within a greater Polish or Czech nation spread slowly in Silesia.[11]

From 1848 to the end of the 19th century, local Polish and Czech people co-operated, united against the Germanizing tendencies of the Austrian Empire and later of Austria-Hungary.[12] At the end of the century, ethnic tensions arose as the area's economic significance grew. This growth caused a wave of immigration from Galicia. About 60,000 people arrived between 1880 and 1910.[13][14] The new immigrants were Polish and poor, about half of them being illiterate. They worked in coal mining and metallurgy. For these people the most important factor was material well-being; they cared little about the homeland from which they had fled. Almost all of them assimilated into the Czech population'

So then why would Poles assimilate into a population of foreigners in Poland?

Poland had signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia agreeing where their borders were. Poland broke that treaty.


Would they have been more or less likely to fight if Poland had said they could count on support from Poland? Hell, would they have been more or less likely to fight if Poland had said that while Poland would not be getting directly involved, Polish territory could be used by Czechoslovak allies who wanted to get men and/or equipment into Czechoslovakia?


The majority of the population there were not Poles.

Poland did not break any treaty because Czech government GAVE Zaolzie to Poland.

Polish dressed in German uniforms who'd have thought it!

Oh,so now it's Poland's fault that the Czechs are cowards and cowardly caved in to German demands and gave their land away without a single shot fired?Is this what you are trying to say?And why do think that Poland was in any way obligated to give them any help when they did not allow Hungarian transports with help for Poland when Poland was fighting Soviets to pass thru Czechoslovakia?


Helmet is not a uniform.

Don't be silly. Yes it is! A head dress is an integral part of a uniform. Be it a beret or a helmet!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Uniform .. in Britain it is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodian_helmet

In the UK we've never worn German Helmets unless we got a really bad haircut from our mother. We've definitely never invaded a neighbour wearing German helmets!

But you've invaded a neighbour with a german king on the throne. In fact the current Royal family is all German, isn't it? Weren't the Kaiser, the Tsar and George 5th all cousins? Oh look, WW1 was a German family argument :) And if you compare the Army uniforms of the British and Hanoverians in the 17th & 18th centuries you'll find remarkable similarities. You need to see someone about this Polish obsession you have sanddancer, it's not healthy :)

no, there was a secret treaty with Hacha, that at the teritory of Poland in case of German invasion will be formed a Czech army. My aunt was an archivist working in the Archive of Modern Records - she saw such a treaty with her own eyes. After 1989 it vanished...

Which neighbour did we invade with a german king on the throne? Come on if you're so up on British history. The royal family are inter related to most of Europes royal families and have been for hundreds of years. The Kaiser, Tsar and George the 5th all stemmed from Queen Victoria.

The Poles on here bleat on about how the British left the Poles in 1939 and 1945 but are so quick to dismiss any wrong doings! (Poles in the German army (twice), assisting with the killing of Jews, Invation of Czech Republic) the 'Polish Answer' is to blame somebody else! ...it's easier!


Poles re-writing history to suit themselves...again!

You say we allegedly re-wrote history before? When? Give specific facts proving we allegedly re-wrote history or are rewriting it right now.

Facts show it's not us who re-wrote somebody's history but it's others who re-wrote our history numerous times.

But,like I said with regards to the parts of Czechoslovakia taken by the Germans initially ,by todays international standards "we" in the west would also be supporting Poland in "freeing" its own ethnic population from minority Czech "oppression"...any further incursion into Czech territory would be spun as the liberators having to press their advantage against a dangerous foe who would just casue problems in the freed areas if not crushed ...regime change would follow,maybe not a Hess figure but certainly at first a foreign military governor. Anyhooo......


its OK,all been sorted and explanation recieved. Thats why my quoting it didnt get me suspended :)

Sanddancer...seriously, you are trying to say Poles were nazis because they wore an Austrian style Helmet in some regiments of one division,wow....thats pretty pathetic mate......they also wore French Adrienne helmets in the same Division, does that make them nazi pastry chefs?

SSSsshhhhhh, no one tell him about the Highlanders cap badges then eh ;)

Hhhmmmmm
1936. *funny* but hardly proof of Poland being nazi types.

• 
  5954491248519481.j.jpg
  

That's very doubtful, given that the Polish population of the area seized by Poland were a minority, and given that Czechoslovakia was a democracy while Poland was a military dictatorship.

No, the Polish Navy never went to Nebraska. They were too busy fighting a war.


1. So securing shipping lines to Gdansk Bay wasn't a trade route, and no convoys were to be sent there?
2. There were no German ships or submarines in the Baltic?
3. This didn't include the Baltic?
4. A German invasion was coming in 1939?
5. So Poland was not an ally, and the areas that it controlled were not important?


Please regale us with your version of the Battle of Gdansk Bay on September and how ORP Gryf, Cmdr. Stefan Kwiatkowski was not killed in the German air attack, and how that destroyer did not drive off two German destroyers:

polishnavy.pl/PMW/history/index_03.html


The Royal Oak sank in port in Scotland, which is exactly where it was on September 1, 1939 when the naval war against Germany began. Courageous was sunk off the coast of Ireland, making it another British ship not engaging the Nazis where the actual battle was taking place. Was Courageous the aircraft carrier promised to help defend Gdansk Bay (supra)? If so, why wasn't it there?


The fact is the naval war began at Gdansk Bay without any support from the British Navy, which was at the time the largest, most powerful navy in the world, or the British RAF:

naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

The remaining destroyers in the Polish navy, being the largest ships in its navy since its Allies refused to grant the newly independent Poland larger ships from WWI from the German or Austrian navies from those peace treaties, followed orders to rondezvous with the British and French navies, which refused to enter the Baltic. They had to go to their ports to accomplish this.


Written by someone with total ignorance of anything beyond his own nationalist, jingoistic view of history. Perhaps it is you who needs to grow up and show some respect for those Poles who gallantly fought the German navy where the British and French navies refused to go?

Please share with us your outrage at the British governments which had permitted the German war machine to rebuild itself in contravention of the Versailles Treaty. Then, perhaps, you might understand why other nations, which suffered more from their arrogance, have resentment towards them as well.