The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 143

A little reminder for those Brits that ***** about Poles


EM_Wave 9 | 311
23 Feb 2012 #31
HAHAHAHAHA! So a few Polish men fought and died in the RAF, Brits are not allowed to criticize Poles?

Listen, I'm a person who always criticizes those particular tiny dicked Brits who complain about non-white immigrants in the UK. However, this topic is just ludicrous.
thebadmonkey 2 | 71
23 Feb 2012 #32
Topic has evolved somewhat from the original post
irishguy11 6 | 157
23 Feb 2012 #33
Number #1,, The Poles alone did not save England.. It was a joint effort.

bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/ireland_wwone_01.shtml

Even though Ireland was trying for a free state, 210,000 signed up for WW1 and we did provide help to the pilots who helped secure shipping during WW2

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

There was another 250,000 irish who joined the British army to fight against the Germans.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
23 Feb 2012 #34
Where were the other immigrants? All that I ever see on here is condemnation of Poles.

This forum is about Poland.

There was another 250,000 irish who joined the British army to fight against the Germans.

Their contribution is remembered and recognised.

Aha. There's a big danger in overstating the contribution of Poles and other nationalities, but it seems to me that there's a bigger danger in understating it.
irishguy11 6 | 157
23 Feb 2012 #35
Perhaps the film Skolimowski-pens-Battle-of-Britain-movie.
boletus 30 | 1,366
23 Feb 2012 #36
I'd rather watch some other story about Polish pilots, other than yet another Squadron 303 story; about Skalski's Circus in Africa perhaps, or stories of not-so-glamorous Polish bombers, such as No. 304 Polish Bomber (later Coastal) Squadron, flying bombing and anti-submarine patrols missions or attacking U-boats in French ports at nights.

The numbers say it all:

Bomber Command: 488 operational sorties for a total of 2481 hrs.
Total bomb load: 800 tons. 12 a/c lost. 102 airmen KIA or MIA, and 35 POW.

Coastal command: 2,451 operational sorties for a total of 21,331 hrs.
21 ton of bombs and 43 tons of mine dropped. 19 a/c lost. 106 airmen KIA or MIA. Total of 31 U-boat attacked: 2 sunk, 5 damaged. 16 attacks with results unknown or unconfirmed. Crews credited with 3 enemy a/c shot down , 3 probable and 4 damaged.
isthatu2 4 | 2,702
23 Feb 2012 #37
Where were the other immigrants?

Far more of them fought for Britain than any Poles....epic fail.

So yeah, would say that Allied High Command had a bigger part to play. It was a complete and utter disaster which helped contribute to the war dragging on into 1945.

Mate,you clearly know arse about market garden.

They sent in lightly armed paratroopers with inadequate if any anti-Armour weaponry

17 pounder anti tank guns were better than the german 88s.......dont get your History from 1970s movies no matter how *good* they are.

Polish units had suffered 30-50 per cent losses

and? Of first airbornes 10,000 plus troops less than 2,000 returned.....more than 80 % losses for the British,stop ******** about 30%. If The Poles had gone where they wanted,Warsaw,those losses would have been at least 95%.

But, the moral of the story is, trying to earn respect from the back of long dead heroes who happen to have been born in the same country as you is fekkin pathetic. Ive two direct ancestors who were fighter pilots in The Battle of britain....WTF, should I be trying to bask in their glory? Or next time Im in Arnhem maybe expect free beer because an uncle fought there?
thebadmonkey 2 | 71
23 Feb 2012 #38
Know more you apparently if you think it was well planned. Started relatively well but rapidly descended into farce.

As for 17pdrs. , how many had they on the ground? Nowhere nearly enough.

Losses were heavy on all sides, have not disputed that fact, if anything tallies with my point it was a disaster, mainly due to Monty's inability to fight anything other than a set piece battle, poor communication with the Brits and the US command in advance of the entire operation and the underestimating of the forces opposing them. The Allies fought bravely, a factbi've never disputed so save your rant about your ancestors. Some of mine fought on the Allied side as well in both wars but as that's not relevant to the discussion, like yours, why bring them up (I'm Irish not sure if you copped)

If you'd bothered do to read my posts in your entirety you might understand the points made, if not happy to pm them using smaller words and bullet points.

And imagine that.....Poles who wanted to fight in Warsaw...hmm who would have thunk it
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
29 Feb 2012 #39
The question is, what could the British have done to prevent the actions of the Soviets (for want of a better word to describe the people of the USSR) in Poland?

Plurium interrogationum.

The better question is to ask why HMG failed to comply with its obligations under the Treaty of Mutual Assistance. I've been waiting for you to answer this for some time Harry...

Edit below

The Poles had gone where they wanted,Warsaw,those losses would have been at least 95%.

That may be my friend, but it would have been their decision and the consequences their own to consider. The effect on morale in Warsaw when it was realised the Polish paratroopers weren't coming was severe - my dad was there, and there was so much hope pinned on this occurring, but it didn't.

But, the moral of the story is, trying to earn respect from the back of long dead heroes who happen to have been born in the same country as you is fekkin pathetic.

I'm surprised you'd say somethin like this - it's below you.
thebadmonkey 2 | 71
29 Feb 2012 #40
I think to be fair (and contradicting myself somewhat) the cold hard truth was that the Soviets had millions of men in situ. Even if Britain had pressed hard its unlikely even with military action they would have achieved anything. The US wanted the war in Europe over asap so could focus on Japan, while the British forces were not equipped take on the SU.

Stalin was paranoid beyond belief but cunning as a fox. It certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth though
Harry
29 Feb 2012 #41
The better question is to ask why HMG failed to comply with its obligations under the Treaty of Mutual Assistance. I've been waiting for you to answer this for some time Harry...

I've been waiting for you to explain how HMG failed to comply with the obligations. Your stance was first that Article one was breached but then when it was pointed out that you'd need to go into detail about the support and assistance which it was within Britain’s power to give which was not given, instead of admitting that you can’t do that, you shifted your attack to Article Five. Of course you have entirely failed to give us any information at all about how a plan that Poland’s borders would move was a development which might threaten Polish independence. I wonder why you have done that. Perhaps you can remind us which world leader it was who stated that the war was “not about borders”?

But even if we do accept your laughable assertion that moving borders which had been fixed some 18 years previously was a threat to Poland’s independence (especially given that Poland herself as late as 1938 had been willing to see those borders change), you still have not a leg to stand on: Sikorski was told by Stafford Cripps on 26 January 1942 of Stalin’s desire to move Poland’s borders. See Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the Polish Government in Exile (1939-1945) by George V. Kacewicz for details, see also Journal of central European affairs, Volume 21.

Better luck next time.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,768
29 Feb 2012 #42
My complaint is that the Poles earned their way by contributing their service in a time of need

so in other words, all following generations get to ride the coat tails of their ancestors or, conversly, apologize for the sins of their parents, and grand-parents, and great-grandparents and so on?

That just doesn't sound like a very good recipe for moving forward.
OP nunczka 8 | 458
29 Feb 2012 #43
so in other words, all following generations get to ride the coat tails of their ancestors or, conversly, apologize for the sins of their parents, and grand-parents, and great-grandparents and so on?

There is no way that I could argue with that.. You made a good point.. There is a lot of truth in your statement
Foreigner4 12 | 1,768
29 Feb 2012 #44
^Sorry but that sounds like a recipe for stagnation as individuals and a society. Given your response, it's rather obvious now why you think the way you do.

Good luck champ!
OP nunczka 8 | 458
29 Feb 2012 #45
Maybe its because I come from another generation that the rest of you. I still recall the respect the British gave to all of its Allies.. In 1944 when I was there they gave up their homes to us. Nothing was too good to share. We stood shoulder to shoulder for a common cause. This is the way that I would like to remember it.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,768
29 Feb 2012 #46
So given your contribution to the war then, do you think a Pole of the same age today which you were at that time be treated the same as an allied soldier from ww2?
OP nunczka 8 | 458
29 Feb 2012 #47
WOW! You're tough. But to answer your question. I am really not sure. The same goes for kids in America today. The kids (And some others) think that the world owes them a free pass.

So given your contribution to the war then, do you think a Pole of the same age today which you were at that time be treated the same as an allied soldier from ww2?

WOW! You are tough. I see where you are heading.. And I cant find the answer to your question. We have the same thing in the states.. Our kids feel like they deserve the good life,even if it comes from the sacrifices of their parents.I also see where i too am first to criticize Immigrants that take advantage of things that were never offered to me. Since I cant find the answer..I will leave it up to some one smarter than myself.
Ironside 51 | 11,339
29 Feb 2012 #48
WOW! You're tough. But to answer your question.

Element of a "miserable cunt" was ever present in the British society, when the times are getting less easy they are thriving among simple minded and unreflective as a whole British public.

There for you:

On June 8, 1946, the Allies celebrated their World War II success with the London Victory Parade without Polish colors flying and without Polish soldiers present. Among those attending was Abyssinia, Brazil, Persia, Mexico, Nepal and... Luxembourg (?) After heaving rendered the Allies momentous service, Poles were excluded from this celebration. Although they had fought on the right side, they had lost. A few weeks after the Parade, painted "Poles go home" signs appeared on walls in England. In addition, the British press took an anti-Polish tone.

Harry
29 Feb 2012 #49
Poles were excluded from this celebration.

Not that old lie again. Such a pity that some 'Poles' feel the need to lie about this parade. The historical fact will, however, always remain that Poles from both eastern and western command were invited to attend but that neither bothered to do so.

Just a little reminder for Poles that lie about Brits.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,768
29 Feb 2012 #50
Since I cant find the answer..I will leave it up to some one smarter than myself.

I don't know if there is an "answer" I just wondered what your opinion is.
It's odd that you're so quick to acquiesce on the position you set out in the original post....wait a minute...(sigh) shame on me...*leaves thread*
teflcat 5 | 1,032
29 Feb 2012 #51
Ironside. What's you're source? keepingoldwoundsopen.com?

The parade caused political controversy in the UK and has continued to be criticised because of the lack of representation of Polish forces.[1][17][18][19][20][21] During the war, more than 200,000 members of the Polish Armed Forces in the West had fought under British High Command. These were loyal to the Polish government-in-exile, were opposed to the Soviet Union since the time of the Nazi-Soviet pact and hoped to return to a democratic, non-communist Poland after the war. However, by 1946, the British government changed its diplomatic recognition from the pro-democracy Poles in exile to the new communist-dominated Provisional Government of National Unity in Poland, where, according to Winston Churchill and others, totalitarian control was being established.[22]

The British government initially invited the Soviet-backed government in Poland to send a flag party to represent Poland among the allied forces in the parade, but did not specifically invite representatives of the Polish forces that had fought under British High Command. Britons including Winston Churchill, figures in the RAF and a number of MPs protested against the decision, which was described as an affront to the Polish war effort as well as an immoral concession to communist power.[1][23] Also, the pro-democracy Polish forces did not feel properly represented by the Soviet-backed Polish government, and saw the development as a negation of what they had fought the War for.

After these complaints, 25 pilots of the Polish fighter squadrons in the Royal Air Force, who had taken part in the Battle of Britain, were invited to march together with other foreign detachments as part of the parade of the Royal Air Force.[24] The government said this was a necessary compromise due to the political circumstances of the day.[24] Also, after the public criticism in Britain,[25] last-minute invitations were sent by Foreign Minister Bevin directly to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, General Kopanski, who was still in post in London, and to the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals.

The above is from Wiki, and, if true, shows that the truth is, as usual, somewhere in the middle.
Harry
29 Feb 2012 #52
Ironside. What's you're source? keepingoldwoundsopen.com?

His source is polishsquadronsremembered.com

On their front page they claim "After heaving rendered the Allies momentous service, Poles were excluded from this celebration - and in a deceitful way. ( Read more)." But when one clicks through to read more (this page) polishsquadronsremembered.com/Victory_parade.html - one reads the following words written by a Polish pilot who flew with 635, 639 and 303 squadrons: "the pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain were to be invited." "Those invited refused the invitation and stated without hesitation: contingents representing each service or none at all." "Later on, we heard some rumors, that apparently, the Polish authorities were ready to sent a contingent of men, but at last moment, received a "message" from Moscow: " What's going to happen, if your soldiers get captivate by fascists in England and never return?" " So even the source this pathetic website gives doesn't support its lies!
Ironside 51 | 11,339
1 Mar 2012 #53
The parade caused political controversy in the UK

Really ? Wasn't that a few politicians trying to gain new scores in the old game?Your establishment and Intelligence were penetrated by Soviets, I wouldn't be surprised if Soviet gained information about Home Army from the British Intelligence.

Not that old lie again

What lie ? Their mucking about in given circumstances resulted in practical exclusion of Poles, their brothers in arms, from the parade and the rest non relevant.

Anyway you are missing the point in my answer to nunczka

A few weeks after the Parade, painted "Poles go home" signs appeared on walls in England. In addition, the British press took an anti-Polish tone.

Amathyst 19 | 2,702
1 Mar 2012 #54
Where were the other immigrants?

It was a "world" war, there were plenty from the commonwealth that died.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
1 Mar 2012 #55
Your stance was first that Article one was breached but then when it was pointed out that you'd need to go into detail about the support and assistance which it was within Britain's power to give which was not given, instead of admitting that you can't do that,

Your memory does your submission a disservice. You'll have to revert to our discussions on other threads regarding Art. 1 for my position, which was, and is, contrary to what you say above. Why don't you trot along and do that, then report back to me with your findings.

you shifted your attack to Article Five. Of course you have entirely failed to give us any information at all about how a plan that Poland's borders would move was a development which might threaten Polish independence.

Again, your memory does your submission a disservice. I actually went into some great detail about my position viz Art. 5. When challenged, you, if memory serves, said you couldn't give long posts from your "IPhone" and would respond when you arrived at your "office". I think I even gave you some example contra-indicators that you could use to try to rebut my position. We're still waiting...

Perhaps you can remind us which world leader it was who stated that the war was "not about borders"?

I wouldn't have a clue. Perhaps you can summon to mind who it was. So as to avoid further embarrassment for yourself for another memory slip, you should probably double check before posting.

But even if we do accept your laughable assertion that moving borders which had been fixed some 18 years previously was a threat to Poland's independence

I'm confused. You said I didn't give any detail regarding "how a plan that Poland's borders would move...", but here you invite us to laugh at my assertion regarding same. How, pray tell, is one to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory submissions? Here's a little lesson for you - when you don't tell the truth, you have to rememember what it was you said that was untrue, and you, quite simply, forgot.

you still have not a leg to stand on

First you wish me a death from cancer and now you mock my handicap! In any event, my one legged postion (metaphorically speaking) is well propped up by the crutch that is your inteptitude and ham fisted attempt at argument...

Sikorski was told by Stafford Cripps on 26 January 1942 of Stalin's desire to move Poland's borders.

Can you see the chronological fallacy inherent in your post? When was the Teheran Conference? In any event, are you suggesting that Sikorski ought to have risen from the grave, tapped Churchill's shoulder at Teheran and reminded him of his contractual obligation to advise the Polish Govt in Exile of developments at the Conference? I was unaware (though unsurprised) that prior to plying your current trade of distributing tourist flyers you were an author of children's fantasy.

Better luck next time

When it comes to owning you on this forum, you are indeed my lucky charm. As luck would actually have it, Busia is calling me over right now for some pierogis and golumpkies.

The parade caused political controversy in the UK and has continued to be criticised because of the lack of representation of Polish forces.[

Hi Tcat. Can I have your opinion? Do you think it was objectively just and equitable for HMG to adopt the position they did viz the Free Poles at the Parade (and just before), notwithstanding the perception that it may strain relations between Britain and the Soviets? Do you think that at the very least it was HMG (and I stress the British Government, not the British people) playing sycophant to the Soviets?
Harry
1 Mar 2012 #56
Your memory does your submission a disservice. You'll have to revert to our discussions on other threads regarding Art. 1 for my position, which was, and is, contrary to what you say above.

Nice of you to start your post as you clearly mean to go on: with a lie. As the search engine shows the most you have said about Article one is "the jury's still out on other Articles of same, particularly Article 1." and "In any event, it's up to HMG to show evidence as to their preparedness and if on balance their preparedness was objectively such that they discharged their obligation of doing all in their power to assist, then they're fine. If however they didn't show that they did all in their power (an objective test, not subjective) then they breached Art 1." Of course you pointedly ignore that fact that it is you who claims that HMG did not do all in its power and so it is for you to point out what they could have done but did not do, something which you have never bothered to do.

Again, your memory does your submission a disservice. I actually went into some great detail about my position viz Art. 5.

And another lie from you. You actually said "The fact that HMG acquiesced to the border shift, the change of Poland's post War geo-political make up and descent into Stalinist hegemony without Poland's knowledge or consent and without telling Poland that this would happen speaks for itself as to that information being crucial and a relevant matter re what information ought to have been shared per Art. 5. If you cannot or will not accept that self-determination as to borders is of itself a prima facie exercise of political and national independence and that foreign and unilateral changes as to same threatens and indeed extinguishes that independence then you fail to understand what national sovereignty and independence mean."

I love the way that your statement itself contains lies:
"without Poland's knowledge" but Poland was told of Stalin's plans, repeatedly told.
"without telling Poland that this would happen" keep repeating the lie, still won't change the fact that Poland was made aware as early as January 1942.

"descent into Stalinist hegemony" where exactly did Britain agree to that? Was it where Britain secured the promise of free and fair elections in Poland? The ones which Poles didn't bother holding.

"self-determination as to borders is of itself a prima facie exercise of political and national independence" Very very few countries are able to determine their own borders by themselves. Poland attempting to do so in the 1920s and 1930s didn't work out so well for the country, did it? And Poland is still in the borders finalised in 1951, which means that Poland has not determined her own borders, so by your logic Poland is not an independent country. Even you, with your minuscule knowledge of Poland, must realise how laughable that assertion would be.

I'm confused. You said I didn't give any detail regarding "how a plan that Poland's borders would move...", but here you invite us to laugh at my assertion regarding same. How, pray tell, is one to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory submissions?

So to you it is only possible to assert something if one goes into detail about it? That's the most pathetic debating stance you have taken since you claimed that your racist abuse is not racist because the people you racially abuse are not a race. But top marks for avoiding a yet another outright lie by describing two statements which in no way contradict each other as "seemingly contradictory".

an you see the chronological fallacy inherent in your post? When was the Teheran Conference?

It was after January 1942. So it was after the Polish government had been informed that Stalin would be taking territory in the west. And it shows your statement "Stalin's postulation on the Polish border and its political makeup post WW2 was a development which might have (and did) threaten Poland's independence. Failure to pass this info to Poland was a prima facie breach." to be just another one of your lies.

In any event, are you suggesting that Sikorski ought to have risen from the grave, tapped Churchill's shoulder at Teheran and reminded him of his contractual obligation to advise the Polish Govt in Exile of developments at the Conference?

You are claiming that the Polish government was not informed, it is for you to demonstrate that they were not. Good luck with that.

your current trade of distributing tourist flyers you were an author of children's fantasy.

Nice of you to so clearly signal by dropping into the realms of pure ad hom abuse that you know that you have well and truly lost this one and so instead hope to drag me into an off-topic insult contest. Good luck with that too.

When it comes to owning you on this forum, you are indeed my lucky charm.

Always time to work one more lie into your posts, eh?

Do you think it was objectively just and equitable for HMG to adopt the position they did viz the Free Poles at the Parade (and just before), notwithstanding the perception that it may strain relations between Britain and the Soviets?

Perhaps you can remind us how many more Polish-crewed RAF squadrons than Czechoslovak-crewed RAF squadrons took part in the Battle of Britain? And remind us how many Free Czechoslovaks were invited to the parade?
barloo tilly - | 5
4 Mar 2012 #57
some historian thinks the poles are related to ukrainians and croats ?
delphiandomine 88 | 18,454
11 Mar 2012 #58
Likewise, when the slagging turns to a pretty much spent Britain not being able to come roaring across Europe to defeat the nasty Sovs I don't hear as much about all those Poles who chose (often willingly) to fight in the Soviet led forces and then help turn their country into a Soviet satellite.

Indeed, not much is written about how the Communist takeover was assisted by many, many Poles. The lure of a better life for nothing other than total obedience to the prevailing doctrine was too much to resist for many of them.
Vieslava - | 23
12 Mar 2012 #59
None at all due to their failure to carry out the order to abort the mission and not jump?

You must be kidding, right?
Are you trying to convince everyone here the Poles were told in no uncertain terms they were jumping into their own graves because they were outnumbered by the Germans and they jumped anyway??? The Poles jumped because they were not warned properly. You don't know a thing about the Polish people.

Do you know what the color GREEN symbolizes?
In the USA it stands for the color of money. It also means JEALOUSY.

"without Poland's knowledge" but Poland was told of Stalin's plans, repeatedly told.

I have to admit I did not read anything that EVIL for a long time, and I like to read a lot.

The point is you BRITS are the most THANKLESS ilk ever!
WHO do you think you are to decide the fate of the entire NATION - yet this is what you did in Yalta in 1945!

Yet, you have the nerve to act surprised the Poles refused to join you in your little victory parade ..... do you have any SHAME???
The truth is you are TRAITORS that should NEVER be TRUSTED by anyone - you sold Poland out because you did NOT want to share the political scene in Europe. With Germany and Italy defeated, and everyone else recovering from the war, little Britain could celebrate the post war victory solo!!!

Only in the western culture such WAR CRIMINALS like FD Roosevelt and W Churchill could be celebrated as *national* heroes.

Do you even care to know, you TRAITORS, how much innocent BLOOD was poured and how many lives lost because of YOUR SATANIC WAYS???
The ANGLO SAXON DARWINIAN ways are simply hellish.

P.S. A very disproportionate proportion of Brits are LESBIAN and GAY. In wonder what might be causing it.
Another thread on this topic???
MediaWatch 10 | 945
12 Mar 2012 #60
Indeed, not much is written about how the Communist takeover was assisted by many, many Poles. <!--

What percentage of the Poles did this? And if they did, did they have a choice not to?

What would Moscow have done if all the Poles in Poland said NO to Moscow's Communist rule over Poland?

Would Stalin say, "Oh well I guess we should leave the Poles alone since they don't want to go along with my plans for Poland".

The lure of a better life for nothing other than total obedience to the prevailing doctrine was too much to resist for many of them.
<!--

What does this mean?

Home / History / A little reminder for those Brits that ***** about Poles
Discussion is closed.