Should HMG compensate Poland and/or Polish veterans?

If you're about to go lawyering over semantics then yeah betreyal is more appropriate.

Count not my broken pledges as a crime. I MEANT them, HOW I meant them, at the time.

David Lloyd George, a.k.a the Welsh Wizard, British Prime Minister in the early 20th Century

Always happy to help :-)

No, the Ukrainian National Republic was betrayed by its ally. Poland in 1939 just didn't get as much help as it thought it should have got (although of course Poland got more than it was willing to do for itself).

"Should HMG compensate Poland and/or Polish veterans?"
No.

According to British correspondence at the time Poland ignored a substantial military build up in Gdansk (despite being asked about it by HMG) as it felt it was simply Adolf trying to intimidate them.

As I understand it, UK had been downscaling its military, air-force etc throughout the 1930's and wasn't actually in a position to do as much as it said it might.

But as we are discussing compensation, what specific things are we considering compensation for?

Not strictly speaking true: the Polish commander in chief boasted about how Poland wanted war with Germany and that Germany wouldn't be able to avoid war with Poland even if it wanted to.

Actually Poland ignored the build up in Gdańsk because according to polish plans Gdańsk was supposed to be abandoned in case of war since it could not be contested militarily.


No idea i think the idea is idiotic.

The fact is UK promised help being unwilling and unable to deliver it, it could do quite a few things to bolster Poland but again there was no real will to do it, Poland, despite being assured of alliance was treated more as a means to buy time then anything else.

It could be understandable if UK and France used that time, but they just sat twiddling their thumbs, especially UK.

Yeh the French atleast had the Maginot line, problem was they didnt realise Germany would just go around it lol.

According to the Blue book issued by HMG in 1939 the British ambassador specifically asked why Poland was not reacting to the obvious build up of Nazi forces in Gdansk. He was told that it was a ploy by Nazisd to intimidate Poland and they would not react. When asked if he didn't think it put Poland at a military disadvantage he agreed it might but it took "less than a few tourists" to win a war.

Yet another time we hear a Pole telling us that Britain could have done more in September of 1939 but if we ask "which specific things?" there will be only silence.

There was a huge debate in France, before during and after the Maginot line was completed for and against it, De Gaulle was one of the largest opponents of the line proposing that France fields further 8 armored divisions and fully motorizes its entire army instead, time would show he was right.

France in 1939-40s could potentially produce up to 230 tanks a month which made her outproduce Germany (140) and UK (60) combined, Maginot line made sure there wouldnt be any money for that.

Provided Western Allies really wanted to help Poland and end the war quickly UK could have shifted as little as 20% its production in benefit of Poland in some sort of lend lease providing polish army with the hardware it lacked and France even the way it was would be enough to overrun Germany.

Not a single Brit would die, French wouldnt have to fight a long bloody war and Poles with the tanks/trucks from UK would be able to pull of an encircling manouver with the 1st inf division that originally failed and led to the collapse of the entire polish battle plan.

The main problem was that Poland was used by UK and France not as an ally but as a pawn to buy time except that neither govt had any working plan as to what to do with the given time.

Out of curiosity, how would it have landed the hardware? Considering Gdansk was the only port this might have been problematic, and Czechoslovakia was already under Nazi control.

We're talking pre-war, stopping Germany required concerted preparations from 1936-7 onwards, Poland had two major harbors and Gdynia was the more used one so UK would have no trouble landing equipment, it could also do so through the romanian harbor of Constanta.

i see. thanks

Nazi, Hungarian, and Polish occupation.


But no one wanted a powerful Poland. The treaty was an attempt to box in Germany and provide justification for declaring war.

And for bonus points, France should have declared war on Germany, Hungary, and Poland for invading the Czechoslovakia. Of course that didn't happen...

What I don't understand is, if Poland sat and watched what happened at Munich in 38, why did it think that France or the UK would do anything significant to actually assist Poland? Surely the government of Poland was aware that the treaties (especially the British treaty) were just political tools.

How did Hungary and Poles occupied it?


Such action wouldnt result in powerfull Poland, it would simply bolster polish offensive capabilities to a degree where war on two fronts would be implausible for Germany.


What justification for what war?

By putting troops on Czechoslovak territory in Zakarpacie and Zaolzie.


Too much of an investment. They'd be better off just keeping the weapons themselves. I think you've pointed it out a couple of times, it could have very easily been a two front war to begin with..


Justification to go to war in order to enforce the treaty of Versailles.

You mean the regions that would otherwise be taken over by Germany? A completely understandable move.

Also it must be first said that Czechs invaded Zaolzie in 1919 using polish involvement elsewhere, 16.000 Czech soldiers and an armored train expelled polish guards (while murdering 30 defencless polish POWs including general Hallers brother) so yeah the only wrong Poles commited was moving in concert with Hitler.


Given the capacity of british industry not an investement at all.


No they would not, UK did not have any reasonable army untill late 1943, any and all land actions in Britain or direct support of France would be doomed to complete failure, at the same time Poland had a grand total of 1.3 milion men under arms, arming an ally who can fight and win the war for you and spare you destruction and direct involvement is not a preferable option for you?


Not with UK, its professional army was laughable in size (something around 60.000) and it needed years to make the force even resemble a coherent military power so from 1939-43 UK is a non factor, Poland on the other hand has a huge army and large reserves.

Either UK deploys its tiny force and loses or it arms someone who can actually do the fighting here and now.

Whether it's understandable or justified is completely irrelevant. France should have declared war on the three invaders.


I was thinking more along the lines of the French, as they had a long standing "alliance" with Poland, whereas the British alliance was a simple political tool. France wasn't exactly rolling in the money.


Regarding the Brits, I'm not quite sure how much arming they could have managed over the period of a month. And regarding arming an ally, most countries (especially at the time), want to keep expensive assets under their control. France and the UK never wanted to go to war, and Poland wasn't exactly playing peaceful neighbor. Thus all the failed diplomacy.

Both France and UK were rolling in money, for both of them the alliance was a political tool as well hence the treason bit.


Where did you pick up that month?


Why? Germany did a lot of arming towards its allies, especially Hungary.


Peacefull or not Poland was the only one besides Russia who's military capacity enabled quick defeat of Germany and unlike Russia Poland would be largely dependent on the support of the Brits and Frogs hence its not only treason, its a stupid treason.

If that were the case, France would have their Maginot line and their additional armored divisions.


Wow, you're right. Had to look it up. Apparently Poland and the UK were only allies for a couple of days before the war.


Germany was also looking for war, the UK and France were not. And of course, Germany was selling arms, they weren't providing Hungary with any charity.


I think that you underestimate the desire not to go to war, or shift the balance of power in the East.

Maginot line in itself was an example of absolutely crazy spending and the french army despite that line was none to shabby having more and better tanks than the Germans.


To be specific 5 days.


They provided Hungary with lots and lots of charity including over 120 self propelled guns and it served them well since hungarian army was crucial in providing canon fodder when Germany had none to spare,check when Budapest fell and how.


Maybe but by that time everyone had to be aware that war is coming, appeasement is understandable to a point, thats why i'm ticked off when people like Seanus bark at interwar polish politics.

Poland was essentially the only sane country who knew war is coming, no one in Poland desired it since Poles were well aware that alone they will lose but everyone knew it'll come and policies reflected that knowledge.

I doubt that very much!
There were many nationalist, overconfident politicians and officers who did everything to spark the fire, not interesting in negotiations or compromises at all. Some of the elite really desired to "show it to the Teutons!"


Really?

"In Berlin in one Week"
"Germany can't avoid war even if she wanted to!"

Totally believing they could hold a candle to the german army and fully trusting their allies in case the pushes came to shove.

Poles are not known for cold pragmatism even today (*remembers Kaczynskies in power and their highly inflammatory anti-german rethoric even as we were now official allies in EU and NATO - how bad that must have been in an even more hostile environment*).

Thats because you dont really know a lot about our history BB.


You're basing that on what? German negotiations and compromises involved taking huge chunks of Poland or exteritorial highways, both unacceptible to any country.


Propaganda does not reflect true policies, Germans had propaganda that said they're saving Jews when in fact they were out to gas them all and Germany couldnt avoid war even if she wanted to, not the way and direction in which she was developing.


Theeeere we go, german prejudices over little Poles, even you can't really shake 'em.

Polish high command estimated 1-2 months of defence so no one really believed anything, Poland infiltrated the Wechrmacht more then three years before 1939, by 1939 Poles knew how many tanks, planes and divisions Germans have, what kind of toilet paper their generals use and all assorted things so Poland knew it would lose


Again the stupid german racism, your backwards nation not only destroyed my country, not only did your country recover only by sucking the tit of USA but today you got the audacity to p*ss on people whom you have put in said situation.

As for Poland, it recognized Germany for what it was, a bunch of raving barbarians led by a lunatic, polish politicians as the only ones in Europe knew Germans will go to war, realised when and to what extent so Poland unlike the West was very pragmatic.


Kaczyński said many smart things albeit in a stupid manner, Germans are not, will not be our friends, despite your "together" spirit Germans undermine polish economy in more ways then one.

Hey...but I'm learning! :)


I wouldn't call the asking for a corridor to East Prussia and the guarantee of the german town Danzig as unacceptable.
Nothing the Poles wouldn't demand for themselves if the shoe had been on the other foot.


How about Rydz-Smigly? He was quoted with these...erm...overconfident sayings.
And he wasn't exactly a lowly nobody in the contemporary polish government...


The german Jew policy wasn't of any concern to the majority of the Poles at that time. Poland having their own brand of anti-jewish laws and prejudices.


Well..even today Poles on this forum think Poland could readily win an military engagement against the "p*ussy" Germans!
Overconfidence seems to be hereditary with some! :)


Astounding that your country could do nothing against this "backward country" of mine.

You are the only one who would call Germany a "backward" country btw...I don't even know why you do that but that is your own mystery!

Feeling abit inferior again? ;)


Nah...they rather saw a possibility to grab even more of the contested land with heavily mixed population whose people so stubbornly were still preferring Germany to Poland.

After all Poland had no qualms to invade helpless Czechoslovakia alongside the lunatic Nazis as it suited them to do so.
And now, as they had the Frenchies and the Brits on their side what could possible go wrong, right? Riiiiiight!


Well, so did Hitler!


Countries have no friends...they can have common goals and now it seems Poland knows what's good for them (at last).

:)

We both know it was a start, so did the polish politicians back then, the people you call not pragmatic knew perfectly well that the corridor is the first in the line of demands that will lead to Polands destruction, whats the point of allowing your enemy to weaken you?


Rydz failed as a high commander for a variety of reasons that we can wrap up in a blanket term of "old fashioned" but he was not stupid, would you in his position tell your nation: guys we've got a severely underequipped military, without help we're going down in 1-2 months, 3 if we're lucky?

Thats why he made those comments, the defence plans were drawn for up to 3 months without help, realistically 1-2 so everyone including Rydz knew that the situation was desperate.


Poles gave sh*t primarily about Poland that much is correct.


20 years ago for example Poland could steamroll Germany, today...not so much, but those comments are not made by Poles, we both know that actuall Poles here are what? 10 people?


I should have corrected myself, WW2 era Germany was backward, it was industrialised yes but as far as human rights, liberties and what passes for civilisation it was barbaric and thats even before Hitler.

Interwar Germany does not stand up to Poland when it comes to personal freedoms and such, even economic developement was much slower, Poland needed several decades more to recover in a manner that would allow her to defend herself, it was denied those decades but that doesnt change the fact that civilisationally Poland stood head and shoulders over Germany (or France or Russia really) with the only country comparable being Britain.


You mean the land Germans invaded in the first place and took over from Poland? Or are you contesting that Greater Poland which Germany insisted being its own belonged to Germany or that Germany had any entitlement to it? Germans were never a majority there and held the lands for 120 years through force of arms alone so whats the claim?

Also Greater Polands population being primarily polish showed whom it prefers by organising two most succesfull uprisings (provoked by german opression and supression by the way) so i'm not sure whether your claims are lies or born out of lack of knowledge of the subject BB.


Poland did not invade Czechoslovakia it retook the lands that Czechs took from Poland in 1919, the act itself i'm OK with the timing though was definitely bad.


Everything and here's another proof for you that Poles were the most pragmatic polticians in Europe.

The very reason why Poles didnt say "f*ck all" and withdraw to the great rivers where Germans would bleed out for weeks or months trying to cross was because it was widely suspected and expected that the western allies are looking for a cop out, no one believed they could just f*ck Poland so blatantly but everyone expected some form of it, thats why Poland didnt give an inch of her soil without a fight, not to provide Hitler with an excuse to pull of Czechoslovakia II.


I was talking countries of course i've got quite a few german friends, ugly f*ckers all of them but i love 'em but i'm still holding on to my thesis of german soft imperialism which means i prefer to be on guard, i'd prefer Poland to be on guard as well.

Just found some pre-war sentiment in Poland:


patriot.dk/poland.html

From what I am used to hear on PF nothing really changed, unfortunately.

Poland was courted by Hitler as an possible ally in the East....other countries (like Hungaria) too took the pragmatic choice.
If not allying themselves they stayed neutral for the most part. All these options had been open.
Hitlers main beef was with Stalin from the beginning, not with Warsaw.
He even offered talks about Danzig, nothing was cast in stone!
But Polands eventual choice to antagonize both it's juggernaut neighbours and hope that far away France or GB will somehow save their nuts was plain stupid.

And I think a corridor only used by the german Reichsbahn and letting a fully german town stay german had been not much to ask for in exchange to the carnage of destruction later.



Ah ja..
So making these comments was smart?


If they call themselves Poles how can I differ between them! :(


Wishful thinking again....Poles delusional..not exactly a first! ;)


Not again that sh'it Sok...we had it cleared up so often already that Germans had been the majority in many territories and towns for more than 500 years already! I'm disappointed in you! :(

Even the latest silesian plebiscite by the international League of Nation showed clearly that a majority wished to belong to Germany.


Yeah....so did German in 1939, saving Germans from the Poles in lands stolen from them by the beastly Poles!
(When you want to play the propaganda game I can do so too...)


If they had been they would had worked for an agreement with Hitler or Stalin or, if extremely smart, with both.
But instead they chose the most stupid, most destructive thing they possible could. No other diplomatic decision could had been probably worse than that what actually happened later!


Hey! No reason to be mean....

*leaves pouting*

I don't defend Germany's invasion, but to demand recompensation from Britain for anything, especially while boasting single-handedly invade Germany whether it wants it or nor, is simply ridiculous.