The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 399

Polish flag over the Reichstag first?


Ironside 50 | 10,910
5 May 2011 #361
I'm interested to hear your version of what would have happened with Poland if the Brits and French wouldn't have declared war on Germany.

Well, you mean if Britain would have not meddle to ensure that Poland will fight with Germany?
Harry
5 May 2011 #362
Was any meddling necessary? One of the three-headed Polish dictatorship was boasting, weeks before the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland was signed, about how Poland wanted war with Germany and how Germany would not be able to avoid war even if it wanted to.

And could you perhaps go into detail about how it was the British who forced the Polish government to refuse to allow the Germans to have an extraterritorial highway to the part of Germany which was cut off by Poland. And how it was the fault of the British that the Polish government continued its policy of oppressing non-ethnically Polish Poles. Next thing you'll be telling us that it was the British government that sparked kristalnacht by refusing to let Polish citizens enter Poland!
Ironside 50 | 10,910
5 May 2011 #363
One

Muddling again ? Two points -whom did Daily Mail support before the war?
What about "St Louis"? I ask about her passengers?
Harry
5 May 2011 #364
whom did Daily Mail support before the war?

Feel free to quote from the Daily Mail of August 1939 to prove whatever it is you wish to claim. I get the feeling that you are going to mention something about "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" but before you do that you might just wish to note that the Mail's support for the BUF ended in 1934. Although I would be interested to learn about the Mail's stance (as a paper noted for less than pro-Semitic views) on the openly anti-Semitic policies of the Polish government in the 1930s.

What about "St Louis"? I ask about her passengers?

German Jews, who were shot at by the Americans, and the largest number of whom were given refuge by Britain. How do you wish to make a point by using them in connection with the refusal by Poland to admit its own citizens?
wildrover 98 | 4,451
5 May 2011 #365
The USA would also not have had a base to launch the invasion of Europe....D day would never have happened...
Ironside 50 | 10,910
5 May 2011 #366
and the largest number of whom

200 richest from how many ?

he refusal by Poland to admit its own citizens?

What about 20 000 ? Which is more than U.S. or Britain and whoever did! Nice that Poland is being punished for their latency and toleration.

Feel free to quote from the Daily Mail of August 1939 to prove whatever it is you wish to claim.

I claim that is it **** string BNP supporting chauvinistic rag and I think that lied !
Harry
5 May 2011 #367
200 richest from how many ?

a) It was more than 200.
b) Who says they were the richest? Got any proof at all to back that lie?
c) Did Poland let in more of them than Britain did? Or did Poland let in precisely zero of them?

What about 20 000 ? Which is more than U.S. or Britain and whoever did! Nice that Poland is being punished for their latency and toleration.

Toleration?! Poland wouldn't even let all of its own citizens into the country. Britain on the other hand allowed in some 100,000 Jews from Europe. Keep up your lies though.

I think that lied !

Prove it.
TheOther 5 | 3,711
5 May 2011 #368
Well, you mean if Britain would have not meddle to ensure that Poland will fight with Germany?

You see a chance that Poland and Germany would've co-existed without going to war? Otherwise: what would have happened if Germany and Russia attacked Poland in 1939, and Britain and France would've stayed out of the conflict?
isthatu2 4 | 2,703
5 May 2011 #369
and on it rolls......................... I wouldnt bother you newbies to this. To many Poles its feed like milk from mamas tits..............mwah,britain and france mwah betrayed us mwah mwah.........................its like telling a gleaming eyed evangelist that his mama is descended from the Apes,they just dont want to hear fact.
Harry
5 May 2011 #370
You see a chance that Poland and Germany would've co-existed without going to war?

Actually yes, a very good chance. If Poland had been willing to turn a blind eye to all of their Jews disappearing (which certainly would not have been a problem to some Poles back then, they'd certainly have believed that the Jews had gone to Madagascar, the plan for that was after all a Polish plan) and had signed up to stick it to the the commies (a favourite Polish hobby) and enough Poles had found a Germanic great-great-grandmother in the attic, there's no reason why Poland couldn't have joined the winning side in the war against the USSR. Trying to take on both the USSR and Germany at the same time was what did for Poland.
Ironside 50 | 10,910
5 May 2011 #371
You see a chance that Poland and Germany would've co-existed without going to war?

Sure I do! It was only reasonable thing to do! Hitler wanted Poland in his camp.
Polish government at the time refused to consider his offer because it would means Gdansk incorporated by Germany and autobahn and railways across Poland. Providing connection between main Germany and East Prussia!

Polish government refused because it would mean that Poland is second class state - German vassal, and because such move would had turned public opinion against government, which wasn't that wildly supported and opposition only waited for an opening.

So, they garbed French and British proportion without much of consideration: but hey they are the world powers half of the glob belong to them, Germany is doomed and we will be in the camp of victors.

Walery Sławek hero, honourable man which made him useless in political internal games, former prime minister, ex-colonel, guy whom Piłsudski had seen as a President after his own death, was all for an agreement with Germany. Unfortunately politicians did not follow The Marshal wishes and Presidency was hold by a good scientist but a very lousy statesman.

Soon after treaty with France and Britian was signed - Walery Sławek committed suicide.

The main misconception of the western historiography is taking for granted allies propaganda about helping Poland against German invasion when in the first place, they ensured that such invasion will take place.

Otherwise Hitler wanted get even with France in the first place, and Britain was considered a future ally or at least neutral, but Britain ruling class did not wanted German influence all over Europe.

It was Britain that wanted war with Germany not other way around.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
5 May 2011 #372
Polish flag over the Reichstag first?

The Soviets were not sure about the so-called victory and put two flags: the red and the white (in case of defeat - to show their giving-up and not be shot at). From the street it looked like a Polish flag.
Harry
6 May 2011 #373
The main misconception of the western historiography is taking for granted allies propaganda about helping Poland against German invasion

As is traditional, I will now ask you to go into detail about what more British could have done to fulfil her obligations under the Anglo-Polish treaty. And as is equally traditional, you will either completely ignore the question or say "Britain should done x" with x of course being impossible.

they ensured that such invasion will take place.

Yes, it was actually British special forces which attacked the Gliwice radio transmitter and then blamed it on the Germans (who in turn blamed it on the Poles).
antheads 13 | 366
6 May 2011 #374
I will now ask you to go into detail about what more British could have done to fulfil her obligations under the Angl

They should have fuffilled their agreement to go to war with germany. And no going to war does not involve declaring war and doing nothing you idiot. The agreement between france/england and poland called for 90 divisions and 1400 planes to attack germany, as in brittish and french. The lack of any action by britain and france was a major betrayal and is ranked just below germany and russian sins by poles. so you may think poles regard the engish as comrades in arms and what not , but every pole is aware of the brittish duplicity and betrayal in ww2. Maybe thats why you write denigrate polish history all the time, assuaging your feelings of guilt.
Harry
6 May 2011 #375
The agreement between france/england and poland called for 90 divisions and 1400 planes to attack germany, as in brittish and french.

No, it did not, please do not tell such utterly pointless lies.

They should have fuffilled their agreement to go to war with germany.

War was declared by Britain at 11am (BST) on 3 September 1939. Don't you know even that?!

And no going to war does not involve declaring war and doing nothing you idiot.

The first mission against Germany was launched within 90 minutes of war being declared.

The lack of any action by britain and france was a major betrayal and is ranked just below germany and russian sins by poles.

a) You keep banging on about lack of action but you of course fail to say what action the British could have taken. Could this be because you know that the action which could have been taken was taken?

b) How do you know what Poles think? You're an Australian who has never even been to Poland!

but every pole is aware of the brittish duplicity and betrayal in ww2.

I will ask yet again: go into detail about what more British could have done to fulfil her obligations under the Anglo-Polish treaty. And once you have done that, explain the ways in which Britain betrayed Poland by failing to stick precisely to the terms of the Anglo-Polish treaty.

If you want a textbook example of betrayal, compare the treaty of Warsaw to the 1921 treaty of Riga, the one in which Poland sold her Ukrainian allies to the USSR.
antheads 13 | 366
6 May 2011 #376
The first mission against Germany was launched within 90 minutes of war being declared.

Yes brittish planes dropping leaflets over germany. how valaint and honorable. You are a fool if you think this met the terms of the agreement.

LOL or was it throwing a cup of tea at a german flag?
[quote]
Harry
6 May 2011 #377
Yes brittish planes dropping leaflets over germany.

More lies from you! The mission was actually a Bristol Blenheim IV (N6215) of No.139 Squadron flown by Flying Officer A. McPherson, carrying out a photographic and visual reconnaissance of German naval ports.

Although I got the timing wrong: the plane took off 60 minutes after war was declared.

The first bombing raid took place later that same day: eighteen Handley Page Hampdens and nine Vickers Wellingtons of RAF Bomber Command.

You are a fool if you think this met the terms of the agreement.

I note that yet again you have made no attempt at all to go into detail about what more British could have done to fulfil her obligations under the Anglo-Polish treaty. Is that because you don't know what the agreement says and so can't go into detail about such actions or is it because you do know what the agreement says and so can't go into detail about such actions?
z_darius 14 | 3,968
6 May 2011 #378
Realistically, wouldn't you agree that had about as much impact as an average soccer match brawl?
Harry
6 May 2011 #379
No, it had less than that: none of the planes managed to find their targets.

The first raid in which targets were found was the next day: ten of the 29 planes were shot down. And two managed to bomb Denmark instead of Germany.

The RAF wasn't exactly well-trained in September 1939.

As for the British army, it only had nine divisions available for war in September 1939!
Ironside 50 | 10,910
7 May 2011 #380
As is traditional, I will now ask you to go into detail about what more British could have done to fulfil her obligations under the Anglo-Polish treaty.

It is immaterial, I'm talking about pretext they used for benefit of British public opinion.

Yes, it was actually British special forces which attacked the Gliwice radio transmitter and then blamed it on the Germans (who in turn blamed it on the Poles).

Eh? Maybe I should have worded it better, but you are intelligent guy, I'm sure you get a gist of what I meant.
isthatu2 4 | 2,703
7 May 2011 #381
The Soviets were not sure about the so-called victory and put two flags: the red and the white (in case of defeat - to show their giving-up and not be shot at). From the street it looked like a Polish flag.

lols,typical lefties,always hedging their bets :)
guesswho 4 | 1,289
7 May 2011 #382
Jolly Roger flag over Reichstag first?

and it will be waving forever unless we'll finally let it all rest



TheOther 5 | 3,711
7 May 2011 #383
It was only reasonable thing to do!

Makes me sad to think of all the millions of lost lives that (probably) could've been saved. Thanks for your answer, Iron.
Ironside 50 | 10,910
7 May 2011 #384
Makes me sad to think of all the millions of lost lives that (probably) could've been saved.

Oh no! The fist victim in the war would be France then......
once again Hitler did not wanted to destroy Poland, she got such a treatment later because refused his proposition of alliance.
wildrover 98 | 4,451
7 May 2011 #385
These pictures are from the Russian point of view , so not suprisingly there is no mention of the Poles...

But some very interesting pics of the final moments of the battle for Berlin....

englishrussia.com/index.php/2011/05/06/the-berlin-capture-by-soviet-soldiers/
TheOther 5 | 3,711
8 May 2011 #386
The fist victim in the war would be France then

I'm pretty sure that Hitler would've stayed away from France; at least in 1939.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
8 May 2011 #387
If Britain hadn't stayed in the war, Plus the German war industry wouldn't have been bombed to buggery by the RAF and USAAF.

OK, this scenario sounds pretty realistic to me except for maybe a little correction in your first sentence, I'd say "If Britain wouldn't declare war on Germany and kept out of it", if that would be the case, most likely everything (more or less) would have happened the way you described it.
Ironside 50 | 10,910
8 May 2011 #388
I'm pretty sure that Hitler would've stayed away from France; at least in 1939.

maybe but then he would have more time to prepare and strike in 1940. France wasn't able to stop him even though Poland's fate had given her a year for that.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
8 May 2011 #389
I'm pretty sure that Hitler would've stayed away from France; at least in 1939.

An alliance with Poland nets him an additional 1.4 milion soldiers who while poorly equipped present a formidable fighting force.

If Hitler had polish resources in 1939 he'd attack France without a moments notice even in early 1939.
TheOther 5 | 3,711
8 May 2011 #390
If Hitler had polish resources in 1939 he'd attack France without a moments notice even in early 1939.

At the cost of dragging GB into the war? Not so sure about that. I always thought Hitler wasn't really interested in a war with the Brits. Although, 1939 seems to tell a different story. Thinking about it: maybe you're right.


Home / History / Polish flag over the Reichstag first?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.