WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?

@Dirk diggler


Not that this was in any way realistic, how should those soldiers entered Poland in the first place after the war broke out?


You might be confusing the USA with Germany here. Germany is politically stable, as well as socially. And terrorism is not a problem here either, in the great scale of things. There have been mass shootings in the USA that killed several times the number of people who died due to terrorism in Germany.

Oh, so you mean that after enticing that foolish Polish gov to refuse German terms and go to war with them Brits could have had do one better and actually make a peace with Germany in 1941? I guess you got a point here but after all Churchill didn't do it for Poland. He was afraid that after conquering the whole Europe and Soviets Hitler will turn on Britain or British power will wane in the face of such a might.

I hope you don't ask for a gratitude just because a country was acting in its own interest. After all outcome of the WWII for Poland was devastating in every sense of the word. Hence an ample compensation to Poland from Germany is due.

What he actually has done for Poland and Polish people. The fact is was preciously little.
What more the war wasn't abo9ut Poland, in defense of Poland and so forth.
Poland at this point was used as a pretext and as bluff to stop Hitler from expanding any further. Bluff didn't work and Poland paid the price.

Nah the Brits went to war with Germany for the same reason that went to war on the continent for couple of centuries. I think it goes back to the Protestant Revolution and Henry the Unready. The reason is simple - to prevent ANY European power to gain so much muscles that it would-be possible/ feasible for it to invade Britain.

And the Communists who killed even more people were not? For nations of East Europe the Bolshevik menace was perceived as the bigger threat.


@theOther

In reference to the link you previously posted:

historywiz.com/didyouknow/concentrationcamp.htm

Many people are not aware that even before the Nazis it was the British who created concentration camps, look what they did in South Africa to the poor unfortunate Boers!

youtu.be/mj2e6RXD8l4

The brits declared war on Poland as SOON as Hitler attacked. Under their treaty - they should've been flying planes, dropping off paratroopers, making logistical networks, delivering anti tank weapons, and a military loan - which the UK REJECTED. They broke their mutual defense treaty as they did NOTHING even though there was plenty to be done as the only country they'd have to avoid would be Germany as France, Sweden, Norway, etc. were neutral and they could've flown over the Baltic into Poland.

Very common in modern military history. Airlifts, flying bombers and fighters over Baltic in an arc to avoid Germany and enter Poland from the Baltic, paratroopers, special opps, secret shipments of weapons and money. You can even dump tanks out of a transport plane. It is very easy for a state actor to enter a warzone and drop off a bunch of advisors, money, and guns (especially anti-tank which would've greatly helped slow the blitzkrieg), sending weapons to a 'neutral' country with a bribe for the final destitation to be Poland, etc. But no, they did none of that. They give a 9 mil lb loan out of the nearly 500 they requested - and it wasn't a grant or free money, it was a military loan.

What they did do is give a couple stens - not millions to supply the AK but rather a few examples which they were to reverse engineer as it is a very simple weapon and mass produce it in a machine shop.

They clearly violated their treaty of using available means of defending Poland as the mutual defense treaty states. On the other hand, Poland DID hold up its bargain - it gave Britain soldiers, pilots, and even the government relocated to help assist the Brits in their campaign against the Nazis which largely involved defending UK, some campaigns in Italy, some in North Africa, etc. The Brits NEVER helped us en masse within Polish borders to help us repel the Nazis - that's a fact.


3 lies in a row - you win a prize!

dw.com/en/germany-terrorism-prosecution-cases-soar-report/a-41065442
A nearly four-fold increase in terrorism-related cases is stretching the manpower of federal prosecutors. So far this year nearly 900 terrorism cases have been opened.

HAHHAHAH GERMANY HAS NO TERRORISM PROBLEMS?! That's the joke of the day rofl. The 2016 Würzburg train attack never happened, 2016 Ansbach bombing never happened, 1000 women groped in Cologne never happened, 2016 Berlin attack never happened and also no one drove a truck into a Christmas market.

Politically stable only in the sense that AfD is taking more and more seats from the lefties and cuckservatives. Merkel can't even form a coalition and 50% of Germans want her out. There's rows upon rows upon rows of tents in the middle of the towns with garbage everywhere because these slobs can't even be bothered to put the trash in a bin. That's politically stable?

Riiiiiight because all those thousand women raped in 2015/2016 on NYE and even on 2017 albeit to a smaller amount were all a figment of the imagination. The stabbings of people buying liquor during Ramadan also never occurred. The various van, truck, ak-47 assaults, explosions, etc. never occurred. All the migrants playing tarragush at the public pools surrounding girls and groping them never happen (despite all the video evidence). The constant fights, beatings, stabbings, muggings, by migrants especially to subway travellers never occurs. That's socially stable and safe, especially for women?

For, not on.


This was debunked by the last ambassador. There was nothing to do, since Poland, attacked on two fronts was a lost cause and nothing to do it with. In any case, Poland had previously broken the treaty; it was by 1/9/39 utterly null and absolutely void.


Anther myth of yours...

You really are hilarious at times. The first RAF mission over Germany was in the afternoon of the day that war was declared. The first bombing raid was the very next day, i.e. the first day the weather permitted. Dropping paratroopers over Poland was impossible due to the RAF not having planes which could do the flight and the army not having a parachute unit, but thanks for making the suggestion. Planes, weapons and ammunition were sent in three ships carrying squadrons of fighters and bombers, along with thousand of pounds of bombs, thousands of machine guns and millions of rounds but due to the inability of Polish troops to stand their ground by the time the cargoes were never delivered.


Name a single successful airlift carried out with the planes the RAF had in 1939.
Then look at a map and assess the prospects of transport flights not being chopped to pieces by Luftwaffe fighters based at Germany's 30+ coast airbases.

When you've done that name a single tank that can be 'dumped' out of any plane the RAF had in 1939.
And when you've finished all of that apologise to the families of the RAF men (and ARAF, SARAF and so on) who died dropping secret shipments over Poland.


Stop lying and read about the SS Lassell, the SS Clan Menzies and the SS Robur.
You really should stick to holocaust denial, at least with that there are other morons who might support your telling of history.

Oh, so you admit then that Britain's pledge to help defend Poland from an attack was completely disingenuous.

A betrayal of trust when put to the test.

Rather than indulging in your usual hobby (simply lying about what I wrote), perhaps you'd care to quote from a text in which Britain pledged to drop paratroopers over Poland?

No? OK, let's make it easier for you: name the things which the British could have done to help Poland in September of 1939 but did not do, then go into detail about each one of those things.

Exactly, plus giving a home to their government and refugees and helping with the Uprising, despite the Russians' and Americans' refusal to assist.

To say nothing of giving a home to tens of thousands of Poles who chose to sign up for the Nazi armed forces and then changed their minds after D-Day, including some who were later charged with war crimes for playing an active role in the holocaust which Dirk denies.

Some like that used to go to my local. They weren't welcome in the Polish Club.

There were so many of them that they probably could have formed their own club. Nearly ninety thousand, and fewer than five thousand changed sides before D-Day.

I'm wondering how much not deporting those tens of thousands back to Poland after the war helped Poland.

Tons in Manchester.

Let others judge, did we Serbians helped, by taking weight and wrath of Hitler`s armies on ourselves, reducing that way pressure on Poland

Yugoslavia was always complex state. Serbia insisted on independence policy with strong ties with Poland, Czech Republic, Britain and France. Croatia forced closest as possible ties with Germany. Bosnian Muslims wanted close ties with Turkey.

Anyway, Nazi Germany initiated negotiations with Yugoslavia about Yugoslavia joining to Tripartite pact. All neighboring countries entered Tripartite pact (Germany, Italy, Austria). Hungary (20. November 1940), Romania (23. November 1940), Bulgaria (1. March 1941.). Before that, in 12. April Italy annexed Albania without any organized resistance from Albanian side. On 13 March 1938, Germany annexed Austria without any organized resistance from Austrian side. So, Yugoslavia was encircled. In addition, Croatia issued pressure on royal Yugoslavian government threatening by secession, in favor of entering into Tripartite pact with Nazi Germany. In 25. March 1941. Yugoslavia entered Tripartite pact, while Yugoslavia got guaranties that Yugoslavia won`t be used neither for war operations of Axis powers, neither for troop transport; practically military neutrality (still, Serbian ministers in government resigned). Two days later, over Slavic solidarity with Poland and Czech Republic in 27. March Serbian patriots supported young Yugoslavia King Petar (17 years old) and discarded and rejected Tripartite pact with massive protests in Belgrade: ``Better war then pact``, ``Better grave then slavery``.



Slavic solidarity in Belgrade 1941

Few days after Hitler ordered that Belgrade and Serbs have to be erased form face of Earth. Two complete German armies were from direction Poland-Soviet Union redirected on Yugoslavia (German 2nd and 12 army). Supported by one army per each country: from Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria. On 6. April, Belgrade was flattened by the `Lufwafe`. Nazi forces entered Yugoslavia literally from all sides, by land, air and sea. From Yugoslavians, only Serbian people resisted, with few patriots among other nationals (exemplary was that non of many Slovenia pilots didn`t abandon duty and literally all died in battle lost in advance when sky was dark from German planes above Belgrade- their heroism is described in book- `They defended Belgrade`). In Slovenia and Croatia, Nazi Germans were massively welcomed by flowers. At that time already Belgrade didn`t exist (4.000 people died in bombardment, while national library with 350.000 ancient, old and new books lost in fire).



Blickrieg in Yugoslavia

German marchal Evald fon Klajst during his trial after the war, said: ``Bombardment of Belgrade was not war. It was act of political message and terrorism. It was act of personal Hitler`s revenge.``

When Yugoslavian army collapsed after 13 days of resistance, Serbian Chetniks (royalists) dissolved in few groups in country and initiated resistance. Some Chetnik groups moved to Poland and joined to resistance movement there. Later, communists also formed partisans and started their own resistance to Nazis, while at the same time, in order to establish communist order after end of war, communists started hostilities against royalist Chethniks and so, started Civil War within Yugoslavia, paralel with resistance to Nazi Germany.

@Dirk diggler


No, Germany does not have a terrorism problem, at least not a significant one. Less than 18 Germans have been killed in Islamic terorist attacks since 2001, which means less than one German per year. So terrorism is under control , only fools would exaggerate the threat here. There have been car crashes that killed more people in 2017 alone.

businessinsider.de/ap-german-police-say-31-injured-when-bus-burns-after-crash-2017-7?r=US&IR=T


That was not a terrorist attack. Nor is it relevant any longer, since measures have been taken that will prevent such incidents in the future (mostly by putting restrictions on North African migrants).


We shall see, the AfD lost votes in the last regional election in Lower Saxony in October 2017 and they are still a small minority. Unlike the USA, the far-right is stil far away from the government.


And 50% want her to stay, which is more than the guy in the White House currently has. Forming a government can take time, but there will be a new one eventually, with or without Merkel, but certainly without the AfD. The heavily federalized nature of Germany means that the absence of a new government is hardly felt anyway so far.


There has been no ak-47 incident in Germany, and as pointed out above, all of those incidents claimed the life of only a few Germans. Terrorism was a bigger problem in the 70s and 80s than it is now, and the biggest favour you can do to the terrorists is exaggerating the threat, just like the USA did after 9/11.

So in short, Germany is politically stable, and the refugee crisis is far from the dominating subject it was one year ago, since the number of arrivals have decreased and measures have been taken to prevent further incidents. I know that Breitbart and other media love to paint the picture of Germany in disarray, but this is simply ludicrous.

Germany is currently one of the most prosperous nations in the world, with a growing econmy and historical low unemployment and with overall less votes for right-wing parties than in basically the entire Western world. You view of Germany is based on lies and exaggerations, please stop commenting on things you have obviously no idea of.

Furthermore your ideas about British help for Poland are ludicrous. Not even modern planes could do that even if they had been allowed safe passage from Germany to Poland (so this is no option for a potential conflict with Russia in the future), let alone back then. Even today, most logistics for a conflict of this size would have to be sent by train of cars, there is no way the UK could have made a meaningful contribution to Poland this way.

(Sigh)

Today Poles have the benefit of hindsight regarding the level of trust they should extend to the Backstabbing British (i.e., none).

Today Poles have the benefit of knowing that Britain sticks to the absolute bare minimum of NATO Defense Spending Requirements.

Today Poles have the benefit of knowing that Britain literally builds not only wildly over-budget, obsolete-on-the-drawing-board, and literally leaky aircraft carriers but does so without any aircraft to station on them.

Today Poles have the benefit of knowing that Britain has to lay off scores of its own troops and sell its planes, ships and other equipment it paid way too much for at deeply discounted fire sale prices to developing nations in order to help plug budget holes and keep its so-called military limping along for another year.

This insight regarding Britain's overinflated ability to project military power wasn't as readily available to Poles back in the 1930s/1940s as it is today. At the time Britain would have been regarded has having the necessary military capabilities to help defend Poland not least because of the British having an Empire at the time (albeit steadily in decline and acceleratingly into a breakup after WWII).

When Britain offered to help defend Poland last century it should have been honest up front and said that doing so would require Poles to make it to Britain first and join the RAF to help defend Britain so that the British could buy some time and go off and beg the Americans to join the fight and help turn the tide.

Yes, you never react well to being caught lying, do you. And yet again you've been caught lying, this time by claiming that I admitted "that Britain's pledge to help defend Poland from an attack was completely disingenuous." Never mind. Better luck next time.


Perhaps after you have gone into detail about the things Britain could have done for Poland in September 1939 but did not do, you could go into detail about how having an empire in any way affected Britain's ability to defend Poland. But do first go into detail about the things Britain could have done for Poland in September 1939 but did not do.


Would you care to tell us when your country did actually join the fight? From memory your country didn't declare war on anybody but only fought when attacked. But then I supposed the Nazis did have more than the stone-age weapons carried by the people your country was stolen from.

Not to mention that the USA had no army to speak of in 1939 that could have helped Poland, or that the American public was overwhelmingly opposed to join the war.

We started mobilizing for the invasion before it happened but made the fatal mistake of trusting you British and the French and delayed taking a defensive posture.


history.com/this-day-in-history/germans-invade-poland

Despite this Anglo-Franco betrayal we still managed to call up a million Polish fighting men and fought fiercely and courageously on two fronts for nearly a month while you feckless British sat on the sidelines and watched with indifference as Poland was overwhelmed and ultimately partitioned.

Not because they were genuine pacifists.

You conveniently don't mention that a large portion of the American public was of German and German Jewish stock with familial and financial ties to Germany. That's where the true opposition came from.

No you didn't, not a single American unit mobilised in 1939. America did nothing to fight the Nazis until the Nazis declared war on America. Instead your country sold war material to the Nazis for years after they had invaded Poland.


Yet more lies from you. Poland mobilised four entire divisions as far back as March of 1939.


Instead of just trotting out that tired old lie, American, why don't you at least try to go into detail about the things Britain could have done for Poland in September 1939 but did not do? Every single time you pointedly ignore that question it becomes more obvious that you know full well what the answer is.

They were not pacifist, but most Americans wanted to stay out of what they considered an European affair. No country had declared war on the USA, no American terrority was attacked, so this line of thinking had merit. The influence of the German-Americans was neglible, and had declined since WWI (and even then it was not great enough to keep the USA out of WWI).

No possible pleading Churchill could have done would have swayed the American public.

Nice try Schlomo.

It never fails that Zionists like yourself staunchly believe in the myth of an unbroken line between Jews (wherever they reside) and the Hebrews from millennia ago.

But when it comes to other migrant groups they somehow miraculously and completely shed their identities, affiliations, and affinities to their native homelands and ethnic groups as soon as they leave any given country in Europe and settle somewhere else like America.

Too bad for you but it never works that way.

Just like scores of surplus African and Middle Eastern migrants squatting in Germany today who speak their native languages at home and in the streets and even go back to their homelands to visit the same situation existed with German and German Jewish immigrants back in 20th century America.

Do a search for the German-American Bund holding rallies and marching for isolationism prior to America declaring war. They certainly didn't regard Europe as a place they never heard of before and wanted no part of. They knew full well that American entry into a war would lead to damage, destruction and death. Not of other US citizens or US property but of their familial and financial interests in their native and ancestral Germany which as ethnic and linguistic Germans and German Jews they were unwilling to fight against.

Regarding public sentiment in America prior to entering the war most actually were not in support of isolationism at all. The US Government's initial delay in entry was based on the weak American economy which was still emerging from the Great Depression. But as early as 1940 the conscription in the US was re-instituted. This was then followed in 1941 with the US Government lend-lease program. So there was no long standing opposition. It only came from a vocal portion of the population with interests and identities from back in Germany.

America as a country was responding to events in Europe and was able to quickly entered the war. 1939 - 1941 (with conscription and lend lease beginning in the interim) was a very short time frame.

In the end 16 million Americans fought in WWII. The US population at the time was 133 million.

No country could pull off that kind of committed involvement in a war if according to you "most Americans wanted to stay out of what they considered an (sic) European affair".


Not true. Otherwise America would have never entered the war.

Of course that was not realistic, it wasn't needed either. There was a 3 sided British-French-Polish military alliance in 39. France had the largest land army in Europe, UK the largest navy and Germany had... 17 reserve divisions on the western border in September 1939.

Most likely they wanted Hitler and Stalin destroy each other and just step in when both are exhausted due to long war, hence the whole "alliance".


Oh my :) Too bad Gerries didn't notice :)))))))

The problems there being that the French army was built for a defensive war from fortified positions and a navy which tried to fight in the Baltic would have been sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe (which is why the Polish navy made a run for British ports before the war even started).


It was a photo reconnaissance mission and so was intended not to be noticed. The Germans certainly noticed the bombing raid the next day.


Oh look, racist abuse, nothing on topic and no attempt to go into detail about the things Britain could have done for Poland in September 1939 but did not do; how very surprising.

No surprises at all - some people prefer to whine.

Did you know that pre-war, the Polish army was significantly larger than the British Army. In many ways a military state back then.

That would be why both the Commander-in-Chief and the President fled like rats within 3 weeks of the German invasion, right?

Nothing courageous there, just cowardice.

One can only wonder when Bieganski intends to sign up for the Polish defence forces and do his part in defending Poland.

Hardly. It was a smart, strategic decision, and an effective one as well:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_government-in-exile


I already did my service to defend Poland.

So what has a career civilian like you done for Poland?

Oh, that's right, nothing, because your motto in life is "Those who can't, teach."

Nonsense, as always. The "fortress" units were less than 10% of the French army. They could literally walk over the tiny German forces and within several days seize some of the most industrialized areas of Germany.


Really, even your shameless spinning should have some limits.

A poor one. It showed considerable cowardice and showed exactly what kind of poor leaders they were. Only cowards run like rats from the country that they wrecked.


Of course you did. We're talking real life, not computer games.