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

" Not later than on ten day of war."
Which article of the treaty gives that deadline? Quote from it. Oh, sorry, I forgot you can't do that, because it says no such thing.

This is quite clearly a lie or said with hindsight. offical restrictions on which targets the RAF could attack on the out break of war precluded ANY attacks on private business and civilian targets. So, try again,maybe actually credit your sources too.


Again, do you have no shame? Poland invaded there ,not Britain.

What are talking about> I said that Czechoslovakia is off topic here,


Depends on what we period we are talking about. If we are talking about 1939 it is looks like diplomatic bluff aimed to stop Germany.
I mean if those promises of military help wasn't aimed at preventing Poland from reaching an accommodation with Germany then I ask - what they were there for?

Consider French and British governments were well aware that in war against Germany Poland alone has no chance of winning.
On the other hand there is Polish government who knows sort of the same, at the same time Polish government signed treaty with France and Britain.

A very realistic treaty. I mean very logical and with certainty of victory for Polish-French-British coalition over Germany.
That those countries were interested in stopping Germany there is no doubt about it. That why all that stuff is mind boggling, why they have done what they have done - from a logical point of view it makes no sense.

As you says there is human factor and I blame Polish government for not realizing that the human factor at play will prevail. They had all tools needed to do just that, they failed and some part of the blame must lie with them.

The beginning of the WWII as presented in popular historiography and in myths is far from the truth. Germany invaded Poland - that the stuff from newspapers of the days, Britain in defence of Poland declared war on Germany - that another headline.

Most people think about 1939 as a prelude to war. Germany wanted to take over the world and they were devouring countries one by one and Poland's conflict with Germany was somehow inevitable.

In that light most pass over that period and goes to the interesting stuff. When you consider that Poland in fact had a choice and promises of Britain and France was a push which made Poland to go to war with Germany - that adds different dimension to the equation!

There is no doubt in my mind that Britain didn't fulfil their obligations. I entered this debate being sick of Harry's take on the issue not to score.

As for British public protesting - I would think that in 1939 said public has even less inclination to protest over some abstract issues than in 2012 and that says all!. Nor would I expect any public to voice their opinion about foreign policy of their state on the street.


So there is issue whether my sources are wrong or those promises were made, that would mean they were promising anything in the knowledge that all is a sham anyway.

Polish government would expect solid military aid. By military aid I mean invasion on Germany by French army and Britain navy and air forces attack on Germany.

Do you think that in facing a war with Germany Polish government would say to Britain - hey you come to my aid in whatever manner and way you deem right!

That is nonsense, they would need to get assurances, promises and timetable to buy it.
They were naive but not stupid.

Yeah absolutely - Churchill knew the beast well and things may had been different had he been at the helm at the time.

Churchill had no way of pressuring Roosevelt into anything. US was pretty much running the show by 1944 and FDR was blind to Stalin's ambitions to his death. Americans made so many concessions to the Soviets that it boggles the mind, especially in light of Cold War and other later events.

The US generals and other political elite, especially Patton was very vocal about this, were damn sure about Russians being even bigger bastards than Germans and Japs. The thing is, Roosevelt bought into Stalin's lies and basically handed him all his ill-begotten gains on a silver platter.

Roosevelt's willful ignorance of Stalin's actions and intentions is pretty much the greatest stain in American honor.
Still, the bigger shame is that America didn't do the thing after the war that should have been done: Use the nuclear advantage to burn Russia off the face of the earth.

Kandzior,I agree that Churchill couldn't pressure the U.S.,but I think he would have got Roosevelt to listen to him.As for a stain on U.S, Honor I think it was a colossal mistake.Do you think Europe would have fared better under the Nazi's than under the Soviets?

" There is no doubt in my mind that Britain didn't fulfil their obligations. I entered this debate being sick of Harry's take on the issue not to score."

But of course you refuse to go into detail about how Britain failed to fulfil her obligations. Or to quote from the treaty (because doing that would show you very simply are not telling the truth about what it says).

I dont think it would be possible, the guy was just like stupid, he would not listen to anyone. Roosevelt was the key to Stalin's ability to seize what he wanted in Europe and act with total abandon. Roosevelt disregarded all reports of things like Katyn and instead lapped up Soviet propaganda about them wanting "peace, freedom and prosperity for the whole world."

Kandzior,Do you really think that Roosevelt was that naive?

Didn't Churchill advocate an assault from the south, both as an easier route and to earlier cut off Soviet advances into the west, but Roosevelt and the Americans turned down the offer? Most books and articles I've read points to the Americans under Roosevelt falling under Uncle Joe's charms and not realizing the future threat, while Churchill had a lot more antagonistic view of the Russkies.

^ Just read Roosevelt's letter to Churchill in which he refuses to send aid to the Warsaw Uprising.

Churchill was alwas fixated on Balkans for some reason - he was the "mastermind" behind Gallipoli in the Great War and as soon as Torch and El Alamein were clear victories, he started pushing for invasion of Greece. Even after Sicily he kept pushing for push into the "soft underbelly of Europe" instead of going at "Fortress Europe" as France/Low Lands were known.

The Balkans were strategically a much better idea, though. Even if the USSR did somehow push all the way through France, the French would never have tolerated being a puppet state, and they were going to become a socialist state anyway, just not Soviet. French nationalism would have made an occupation impossible.

The Slavic, mixed up Balkan states were more easily taken over by Russia. Taking them first would have made the most sense for the West.

Balkans has atrocious terrain for ground warface but it can be done - just see how Wehrmacht rolled up Yugos and Greeks in the spring of '41. The area also had the most widespread and aggressive partisan movements outside Russia (note, Russia, not Soviet Union), which would have helped Allies. The resistance movement in Italy was mere shadow when compared to that.

Also, even somewhat succesfull invasion of Greece would threaten Bulgaria and Romania, meaning that the Axis minors could switch sides a year early. And Allies had the troops and equipment to commit to both Sicily and Greece in late 1943.

Regarding Soviets, yes, they would have steamrolled into Berlin sooner or later because the outproduced and outbred Germany. But would Stalin have stood for that if he sensed that US&UK were just biding their time? Probably not, make a truce, regain border of '39 and let the Allies handle rest. Would have been very interesting WW2, though sad for jews since Holocaust could have continued longer with less interruptions.

Would you like to tell us when Winston Churchill became british Prime Minister please?

(sorry,not singleing you out Kondizor, just no one has picked up on a little fact about Churchill yet )

1940. Your point?

What details? You do not expect details but text of treaty which says expressis verbis what were obligation of Britain. I don't have those.

Churchill was a war criminal who should have been executed during WW1 already for his role in Gallipoli.

" What details? You do not expect details but text of treaty which says expressis verbis what were obligation of Britain. I don't have those."

I already have the text of the treaty (and have linked to it here). No surprise to see you don't have it, and this haven't read what you claim Britain broke.

You are claiming Britain did not honour her obligations because Britain could have done more to aid Poland. So go into detail about what more Britain could have done to aid Poland.

Of course you will not go into detail, because you cannot go into detail. Instead you'll either again lie about what the treaty says our just start hurling insults. Yawn.

Ironside, you are forgetting Harry's and English double standards here. The treaty is in effect a contract, the contract states obligations of all parties. However before the contract is drawn up and signed there are negotiations as to what the contract contains, these negotiations are usually verbal and much is not always recorded. For example when you negotiaite with a builder to have work done on your house you discuss what you want, he'll tell you what's possible for your budget, he may make promises as to what he will do and provide etc etc and when you get the work done and you find out he hasn't delivered what he promised and you complain he then reverts to the contract and asks, where in the contract did I say I would do x.y & z?

In effect this is what the British government did to Poland, they made promises that were then not included in the final written treaty and it is this written treaty you get pedants like Harry referring to all the time. However in British law a verbal contract can be upheld in a court of law if there are witnesses to your claims. Just because it wasn't in the final written contract doesn't mean that promises were not made so while Harry will keep referring to the treaty ad infinitum whereas most reasonable people will accept that promises were made to the Polish government that neither the British nor French upheld and maybe the British government made those promises knowing that they were totally unable to deliver and were relying on the French to bail them out.

Ironside, could you tell me if Harry has replied to Ozi Dan's post dated 4th October 2011? I have him ignored and I don't read his posts and I only see what he writes when someone like you quotes him. I wouldn't bother arguing with him until he responds to the post in this link. https://polishforums.com/history/poland-british-public-protest-sell-54351/3/#msg1184448

^ Any proof of any promises you claim? No, none at all?

Explain please?
If every one who proposed a daring mission that failed was executed as a 8war criminal* then there would be no generals left anywhere......

Kondizor, my *point* was that most of these half educated fools think Churchill was to blame for Britain not invading Germany within 20 minutes of war being declared, it goes to show prior muppetness when they also spout trash about he said/she said hearsay rather than actual links or references to documents.

I have already posted from the text of the treaty:



Do you? Good for you, why don't you knock yourself out with it?
Not only you are ignoring my questions and my posts which you refuse to answer but also you are doggedly post the same and then some more of the same in hope of wearing down your opponent.

In face of that tactic I must refuse to enter into any debate with you on the subject until you answer my question(post136).
I will also hold you in contempt.


Not I'm not article of the treaty says -


There must be somewhere written records, testimony of witness and all that. However I didn't study those and I'm not in possession of those.

There is at least common sense argument that Polish government wouldn't have given free hand to France and Britain as to the manner and the way of delivering promised help. Details of those would be needed to construct consistency plans for military forces. In fact that would need timetable, and detail of the promised support.Also it is highly unlikely that Polish government would sign a treaty that didn't promised full military support in case of German invasion.

In fact what Harry is doing is using the letter of the treaty to discredit any claims that military help were promised. Those promises very well could be verbal as the spirit of the signed treaty judged by common sense and circumstances couldn't be anything less than the Polish-British Common Defence Pact and that means military action in defence of Poland.

Harry's way of reasoning (if you may call it) seems to be coming form studying Talmud. Where each latter and each word need to be examined fuller whereas European attitude is to pay closer attention to the spirit of document than to the exact wording.


No, I far as I'm aware he didn't.


edit unnecessary comment removed

" There must be somewhere written records, testimony of witness and all that. However I didn't study those and I'm not in possession of those."

So go on, quote from them. Oh, sorry, you don't have them.

All your rubbish about verbal promises is just rubbish until you can show us what promises were supposedly made!

Let's put it this way: where I come from (Oz) many people believe that Churchill sent the ANZAC soldiers to a certain death just to save the butts of his own troops. Churchill isn't really the topic of this thread, but if you google for it there are quite a few (debatable) things for what he could be called a war criminal. Amongst them the sinking of the French fleet, the bombing of Dresden and the so-called Indian holocaust.

" the sinking of the French fleet, the bombing of Dresden and the so-called Indian holocaust."
So basically you want to blame the man for certain things but historical record shows it wasn't his fault, so instead you try to smear his good name. How utterly contemptible.

I don't blame him for that, that's why I said 'debatable'. He's responsible for Gallipoli, though, and for that I call him a war criminal. Whether you like it or not... :)


Tsk tsk

o yes, just like they rebelled against Hitler and Germans?... And France was never an occupied country?

Interesting that said reports suggested Patton a few others wanted to defeat Germany, recruit what was left of the German army into the allied forces and then take on Russia. If the Allies could have incorporated the the new German tech ie jet engine planes, rockets, nuclear etc.. we would have steam rolled them.

Patton also thought he had been a general at the Battle of Carthege in the Punic wars. The man was a complete and utter idiot who recklessly nearly destroyed an entire Army group in his own search for glory.

If he hadnt died,and somehow those bonkers plans to re arm the nazis to take on the Soviets had gone ahead Poland would probably to this day be a smoking uninhabitable ruin....


You do realise tens of thousands more British troops died than ANZAC dont you? People everywhere are capable of believing utter bilge if it tallies with an agenda.

The agenda that made up all the lies regarding the ANZACs in 1915 was Republicanism, modern Australia has far better claims than those old lies to get rid of her majness :)

Aussie site,so...
anzac.homestead.com/casualties.html

Well hindsight is a wonderful thing and in hindsight we would have just nuked Moscow, job done see ya later mate. Welcome to US global domination.

There were only 2 bombs not even completed and ready yet when Germany Surrendered.
Nuke Moscow,so what, Napoleon burnt it to the ground and the Russians still chased his arse all the way back to Paris.
Americas main enemy was Japan.
This whole idea that the west would go straight into a war against the Soviets is pure hokum,even the US was running out of recruits and had slashed training by early 1945. The soviets still had millions more people they could arm.