WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?

Witam....
I'm really hoping this thread doesn't become an argument, and I wanna avoid that b/c i just wanna learn about this, but...about ww2 and Poland, who really was the first to help poland?

I've lived in the usa for 13 years, ever since i was 10 years old, so unfortunately I did not learn polish history, so only know from the schools here that mainly that USA's involvement in ww2 helped Poland. But then again from reading some posts on here, the Russians helped, but then someone replied that sure, they helped, right after killing a bunch of us...sooo, is this one of those answers that depends on who is telling it or is there really a straight answer as to who helped us? Is there a timeline of this?

It's really f*ing frustrating getting a straight answer. And it kinda pisses me off I dont know this. But, my family moved here when I was young so I only know so much. Its hard not to get a biased answer about issues of war and history.

So please I dont want this to turn into russian, american, whoever else bash-fest. I just want some sort of timeline, accurate facts as they happened, not what benefits a nation.

Dzieki...

Natalia

Hard? It's not hard. It's ******* impossible.

EDIT: I'm no history expert, but from what I recall nobody joined the war with the sole intention of "helping" Poland. They were all in it for themselves. Such is the nature of people.

Nobody really helped Poland. The UK were the first heavyweights to declare war on Germany, but it wasn't so easy to prepare a whole empire to war. The Americans sold Poland to Russia and Stalin despite Churchill wanting to push on. Even in Poland they are taught some cock and bull story about most of the war. So its really hard to straighten out the facts.

It could be argued that the French were the first with the Saar offensive.

This is true.

Realistically, Only Poland helps Poland.

> from the schools here that mainly that USA's involvement in ww2 helped Poland.

I was told in school that Roosvelt sold us in Yalta...

Churchill also sold out Poland as was evidenced during the various Big 3 negotiations.

On the backing that America wanted an end to the European war to continue their offensive in Asia. Something they kept up for many a year and never won.

Please do not take this the wrong way, it was rather hard for the UK and anybody else to be honest to 'help' Poland in the war, the fact is Poland didn't barely last two weeks from the day Hitlers War Machine (Which bar the Romans was the best in history) went in to the occupation. What chance does that give anybody???

The Brits didn't even have planes that could do bombng runs becaue they didn't have the fuel tanks, it takes a long time to mobilise troops that far, especially in the 1930-40's. Let alone the fact we had about a week to react.

So please, lets not get all funny about who did and didn't fail to help Poland in the war. Poland was unlucky in its geography, being between the Ruski's and Jerry, Nobody could possibly liberate Poland after that until the end of the war.

The thing is, nobody wanted to help Poland. Without all the modern-day alliances we have, countries would simply look out for themselves only and not care what happens anywhere else. If Germany had simply conquered Poland and left it at that, nobody would have cared to liberate Poland. Germany's campaign was a threat to the other European nations, and especially to the UK's dominance. That's why there was a war, not because anybody felt any sort of compassion for the oppressed people under Germany's heel.

Not exactly true. The First world war took part because 3 cousins, King of England, Germany and Russia didnt get on too well. Second World war was rather a glitch in the plans. The banks provided a large amount of money to both sides. Poland was unfortunate to be where it was, but it never seemed to learn anything from the intolerance Germany brought with it.

....... and if more support was given to the Spanish Republic, Hitler would never have invaded Poland.

you can talk about people not wanting to help Poland but this really is not a 'fact' where as the logistical problems i just spoke about were a 'fact'.

Who was the first to help Poland? The Poles themselves. Then came the British and the French as they declared war on Germany following the invasion of Poland, then came Stalin's Red Army helping push back the Wehrmacht into their homeland.

Point is this maybe, what did Poles do?

i know that some Poles joined the RAF but apart from that i'm not sure, anyway after all this talk of Britain 'doing it for themselves' the Polish didn't exactly join the RAF for something to do, they were a little pissed at Jerry, if thats not doing something for yourself i don't know what is :):):):):)

Holy crap 15 replies, didn't expect that...will take a while to read!

Joined the British forces..... (and cracked enigma)

the answer is no one helped Poland if France and England would attack Germany the WWII
would be over in two weeks, and Stalin would never attack Poland on September 17
good book to read is " Question of Honor "

dTaylor: What do you mean the US sold Poland to Russia? Could you explain that a little more?

michal_857: Maybe I didn't pay good enough attention? :o/ When they talk of WW2 I mostly heard about bombing Germany, and Pearl Harbor, etc.

ZIMMY: You say Churchill sold us?

Agh, I know no one is a history expert. But I don't even wanna bother reading up on this because you never get straight to the point. I wish there was a time line, like: "A happened, then B happened, which caused C to happen" etc.

Someone mentioned that the Red Army helped push Germans back. But I also heard that Russians killed a lot of Poles by doing so? I thought I read it somewhere in a post on here.

Sorry for all the questions, I'm sure its irritating to explain.

Marek, thanks for the advice. I'll check that book out.

Source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)

well balanced and objective comment, no matter that arrived from the enemy. So, forget about real help from Polish allies on so called west.


eventualy, Serbs.

yes, emotional respond inside of Slavic world (and in Europe) on occupation of Poland and Czechoslovakia, arrived on the first place from Serbians.

If there was no Serbian resistance to German occupation of Yugoslavia, practicaly, history would remember that Slavic south failed to offer any serious resistance to Hitler`s Germany. Actualy, history would remember that Slavic south, corrupted, germanized and islamized acted on the behalf of German interests.

But Serbs saved honour of Slavic south and atracted attention of German high command. A lot of troops was redirected from eastern front (Poland, Russia, Baltic) to the Balkan. Thanks to firce Serbian resistnce, Germany lost a lot of time and enegry in attempts to consolidate its vulnerable positions on Balkan.

Same as in WWI, in WWII again, real emotional respond on Polish sufferings arrived from Serbians. Only Serbian actions led to profitable situations for Poland. In WWI, Poles won their independance after Serbs innitiated chain reaction of events resisting to Austro-Hungarian occupation. In WWII, Serbs helped Poland turning Balkan in constantly hostile region for German army.

how did i know that if crow spoke on this subject it would centre around the f'ing Serbs, thats all i hear Serbs Serbs Serbs Serbs Serbs Serbs and more f'ing Serbs!!!!!! They are not the be all and end all to the world and especially Poland!!!! In fact the world does not rotate around Serbia, the world is not run by Serbia, Serbia is just another average country in the Balkans that is on the planet earth.

when are you going to talk about more than one subject crow??? this is a good debate/discussion and your just going to spoil it with your Serbian crap. Please just leave one or two decent threads alone.


Churchill had no choice, in fact as i said before the British were not ready for and could not logistically help Poland. How could he have sold Poland out if he did not have any choice in the matter???

People blame Churchill for a lot of things he did not do, yes he was a drunk, yes he was a fuddy duddy at times but he was a great leader and the perfect character to lead Britain through the war.

IMO, the issue is not really who was the first to help, because that's academic, but who was involved in the betrayal and backstab of Poland in the ensuing years of WW2. The focus seems to be on a purported lack of 'positive' action, but I think more scrutiny should be given to the passivity, or lack of action, vis the West and in particular GB.

That more relevant issue can be distilled down to the fact that Poland, or more correctly, its emigre military forces under the de facto leadership of GB, were used by GB whilst GB was in full knowledge that Poland per se would cease to exist after hostilities ceased because Soviet Russia was permitted to swallow Poland.

I have expanded on this contention in my various posts under the thread "What did Poland get out of the wars and struggles for others". That contention has remained unchallenged and in my opinion, goes to the heart of "Poland's" grievance towards the West, but more particularly GB.

Cheers

You don't "get" anything out of a war. You only try to lose out as little as possible.

its ok we are big enough to take it, although is funny looking back at it, when we (Churchill, GB) gave advise about not letting the Soviet Union have parts of Poland, Germany etc etc at the end of the war. He was ignored!!! I'm not surprised that old Winston probably kept his mouth shut after that as he thought nobody was going to listen to him. If you want to blame GB fully then go ahead but you should also think about those who ignored Chuchill's warnings before the drawing up of the post-war agreements.

Thanks

T

Serbs are often mentioned, togather with Poles. Often, Serbs were betrayed from their `western` allies, same as Poles. You know, when it come to alliances with Slavs, its not a big deal and such a great obligation for Britain, France or USA.


not average but country loyal to Slavija.

London's Poles remember independence and Allied betrayal

By Harry de Quetteville, November 10th, 2008



i`m strictly on the topic. Your fabricated tales would bring you nowhere.

POLES AND SERBS AT ALTAR.; Demand Voiced for Freedom of Oppressed Nations.


if it depended on Polish false friends from so called west, Austro-Hungaria would still exist and Poland would still be humiliated dominion of that anti-Slavic conglomerate

Luckily, Archduke Ferdinand was stupid enough to underestimate Serbs. Serbs then innitiated chain reaction of events that led to independance of Poland after WWI. Britain, USA or France wouldn`t give a flying sh** to annul Austro-Hungaria and open way to independance to Slavic Poland.


i don`t know what`s your point and i even don`t care

My point is that Serbs are Serbs. On Serbs, Poland can count. That for sure

Elaborate.

Europe, Russia and America (South and North) are the dominant influences on the world. Have they turned their back on Christ? Is He a joke to them?

No one unfortunately, the soviets said they helped Poland but considering they killed the majority of the intellgensia and intellectuals. Poland was betrayed by the rest, given to Stalin in order to help defeat the axis. Its a shame I talked to holocaust survivor when she spoke at my school. She left Poland for London because of the communist rule by Stalin. However if Wilson was still president at the time he would probably of pushed for more self-determination in communist controlled areas.

Europe - mostly, yes. The most successful and influential countries in Europe are largely secular (UK, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, etc).

Russia - Also quite secular.

America - LOL. Religion infects U.S politics like a cancer. The rest of the world, Europe especially, can only point and laugh at America's inability to separate Church and State... even though it's in their constitution.