The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 341

Poland's biggest historical blunder?


Harry
23 May 2011 #61
They asked the communist puppet government in Poland to attend victory celebrations. This government was not repressentative of the people.

Wrong (or perhaps just a lie): representatives from the free Polish forces were invited to attend on precisely the same basis as representatives from US forces. And then the Polish government used that invitation as an excuse for government forces not attending.

You have to admit that the British are history's biggest butchers.

I'd say that title goes to the Russians.
hubabuba - | 113
23 May 2011 #62
I think we can assume that Polands decision to ignore all alliance offers by it's neighbours but to trust far away countries who were not able to be of great help is surely something what could be called a "blunder"....only with hindsight of course.

knowing how it all turned out, yes I would want Poland to act different, but it wasnt that obvious in 1939. If France and England fulfill their obligations(and they were able of doing that) Germany would be defeated and Russia wouldnt get involved in the war. I still think it was the righteous think to do at that time.

Actually it did do things. The question you keep ignoring (in the traditional Polish way) is this: exactly what could Britain have done in September 1939 which Britain did not do?

i dont know what answer do You expect besides the obvious?maybe mobilise and fight?send help?so what "things"did it do?

The actions of the Polish government then were utterly indefensible. But at least I call those camps what they were and don't stick to the official Polish line and insist that they were 'labour camps'.

of course, the Communists that You supported, killed many (mostly Poles), who is explainnig them?definitely not me

It is more than just "unfortunate": it is utterly disgraceful.

how are You gonna name the British way of doing?

I think that Poland's actions were (as with a number of treaties signed by Poland during the interbellum) utterly disgraceful.

please, start a thread to topics You mentioned, and I will answer

Do feel free to go into detail about the questions which I have failed to answer.

my answer about Riga treaty on previous board, then again what Britain did do?
legend 3 | 664
23 May 2011 #63
I'd say that title goes to the Russians.

Id say the Jews :)

They have been in trading, merchants for thousands of years.

In fact it was the Jews in America and Britain who were often in charge of the slave trade of blacks from Africa to the new world.

Bolshevik Russia was ruled majorly by athiest Jews (lenin, trotsky, etc). They killed millions of people. They destroyed Russia. There is also the Holodomar (which little people in America know because all they hear is how innocent the Jews are and how the suffered greatly in the Holocaust).

israelect.com/ChurchOfTrueIsrael/white-holocast.html

You have to admit that the British are history's biggest butchers.

Much more than Poles thats for sure.

The GREAT british empire. Fought against native aboriginals (guns vs sticks) and killed a lot of them.
They fought against Africans (guns vs sticks). What a tough empire. In the mean time Poland, Prussia, France, Russia, Sweden were fighting within Europe with the strongest forces.
Bzibzioh
23 May 2011 #64
I furthermore think that even if the British had failed to keep their treaty obligations to Poland (the reality of course is that Britain did meet her treaty obligations to Poland), Poland would have had no right to complain, given the way that Poland so spectacularly failed to meet her treaty obligations to Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and Lithuania.

Classic Harry. You should trademark that sentence by now.

"Even if" part, of course, is the most amusing. As usual.

But perhaps before you do that you could go into detail about what could Britain have done in September 1939 which Britain did not do?

What about forming the Western front with France and hitting them from the other side? Britain managed to run to France help later on.

Much more than Poles thats for sure.

Much more than Poles?!?! Care to explain?
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
23 May 2011 #65
If France and England fulfill their obligations(and they were able of doing that)

No, they weren't able to do that. It took Britain several more years rearming and the help of the US to gain the upper hand. And France's army was superior in 1940 but was totally paralyzed by lack of political and military leadership. The whole french campaign (inclusive throwing the british forces from the continent at Dunkirk) took only 6 weeks for a reason.

None of your allies could help you in a significant way...

Poles should have waited for Vienna to fall, and for Turks to move on much further West, destroying some decently large patches of German and France.

Always assumed it would had played out that way which is far from sure...
Bzibzioh
23 May 2011 #66
No, they weren't able to do that..

We know that, BB *rolling eyes*

But the bastards didn't even pretend to try; they gave up even on pretending they give a sh1t. Poles were really naive believing they would honor their commitments.
z_darius 14 | 3,968
23 May 2011 #67
Always assumed it would had played out that way which is far from sure...

I have not presented the scenario as a fact. We don't know how any of the imaginary changes of the past discussed here, by me and others, would have influenced the present time. It's been a popular view among some historians that had Vienna fallen, western Europe would have been wide open for the Turks to do as they pleased. Even during the events in question the alarm bells were clear and loud.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
23 May 2011 #68
A big blunder for Poland was refusal to do right by Ukrainians in, when was it, about 1648?...This led to Chmielnicki Rebellion and Poland was left without allies in forthcoming wars with Sweden and Russia; Ukrainians and Cossacks would have lined up with Poland to fight Tartars and later Russki...This bad judgment led directly to downfall of Polish-Lithuanian federation and to later wiping of Poland off map by Prussians and Russians.
Bzibzioh
23 May 2011 #69
Poles should have waited for Vienna to fall, and for Turks to move on much further West, destroying some decently large patches of German and France.

You'd have those Turks much earlier, BB. Maybe you'd be speaking Arabic by now :)
hubabuba - | 113
23 May 2011 #70
relation of power between France and Germany alone was more or less equal in respect of the amount of troops and arming, add to this GB and Poland and Germany wouldnt stand long plus You have countries like Hungary who would abandon Reich if it was loosing. The problem was morale and unwillingnes of the higher command, but it is hard to measure before the war
legend 3 | 664
23 May 2011 #71
Much more than Poles?!?! Care to explain?

I am saying that Britain has killed far more people than Poland.
(North America natives, Africa, etc). Its common sense.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
23 May 2011 #72
No, they weren't able to do that. It took Britain several more years rearming and the help of the US to gain the upper hand.

Oh please, RAF alone was outbuildng and outraining Luftwaffe in 1941 long before lend lease.

And France's army was superior in 1940 but was totally paralyzed by lack of political and military leadership.

In other words by cowardice.

The whole french campaign (inclusive throwing the british forces from the continent at Dunkirk) took only 6 weeks for a reason.

The difference is that in 1939 Germans have a bunch of reservists with nothing but their d*cks in the west, France could literally roll into Germay and it would be half a month before Germans could move enough troops to counter them, then there's Poland with its poorly armed army but suddenly Germany is not able to use its hardware to a great extent and there's still almost a milion Poles to fight.

Quote

A big blunder for Poland was refusal to do right by Ukrainians in

You're kidding right?
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
23 May 2011 #73
Oh please, RAF alone was outbuildng and outraining Luftwaffe in 1941 long before lend lease.

That didn't help their groundtroops in France in 1940...

In other words by cowardice.

You are always so refreshingly direct! :)

The difference is that in 1939 Germans have a bunch of reservists with nothing but their d*cks in the west, France could literally roll into Germay

The military and political chaos in 1939 was not different to 1940...France was deeply split and at each others throats. The communists were strong and the pro-Nazi forces too... it was a mess. They couldn't save themselves not to speak of other countries.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
23 May 2011 #74
You're kidding right?

Not at all...You are a student of history, you are familiar with what happened there...It was a turning point, and full ramifications were not felt for 100-150 years.
legend 3 | 664
23 May 2011 #75
The military and political chaos in 1939 was not different to 1940...France was deeply split and at each others throats. The communists were strong and the pro-Nazi forces too... it was a mess. They couldn't save themselves not to speak of other countries.

In 1939 German army was smaller and less advanced than by the time they invaded France.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
23 May 2011 #76
I said that...and the french army was still superior in most aspects besides airforce in 1940.
legend 3 | 664
23 May 2011 #77
Ah okay did not know thats what you meant.
Bzibzioh
23 May 2011 #78
I am saying that Britain has killed far more people than Poland.

Poland is so much in different weight category, it's like Poland is playing another sport.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
23 May 2011 #79
I am saying that Britain has killed far more people than Poland.

And Austria has killed far more people than Liechtenstein. See the correlation.

Poland is so much in different weight category, it's like Poland is playing another sport.

Exactly - Britain and Pland were never in anything like the same situation.

North America natives

Mostly Americans who did that, actually.

Africa

Far fewer than you think, and certainly fewer than the other European powers.
hubabuba - | 113
23 May 2011 #80
And Austria has killed far more people than Liechtenstein. See the correlation.

I dont, for much of its history Poland was much bigger then Britain, and still didnt kill as many people
z_darius 14 | 3,968
23 May 2011 #81
Ah, the classical approach to Polish history: blame the British and/or the Jews for everything, what a refreshing change.

Kinda like the British breaking the treaties with Czekoslovakia in 1938 so that Germans could take it over and then blaming Poles for taking back a few hectares from the Czechs already betrayed by the British and French.

Mostly Americans who did that, actually.

In the US the destruction can be indeed mostly on the young democratic and freedom loving Americans. While taxation did play a role in the war of Independence, its direct cause was the British deal with those of the Indian Country (Illinois and surrounding States). The deal guaranteed that Indians would be left alone there and that no further expansion of the British into those lands would occur. You won't find that info in American curricula below the university level.

In Canada the situation was much better. The British appreciated the Indian help in fighting Americans so they did actually allow the "savages" to live as long as they were not too Indian. The residential school system setup by the British was of much help in trying to achieve the task.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
23 May 2011 #82
I dont, for much of its history Poland was much bigger then Britain, and still didnt kill as many people

No, clearly you don't see. Or just prefer to ignore the fact that Poland's glory days were well before the Age of Empires, before modern warfare and even before the dawn of large scale literacy and modern record-keeping - never mind, perhaps you like to think that Poland stretched itself from the Baltic to the Black Sea by waving flowers at the residents of the area under their influence.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
23 May 2011 #83
That didn't help their groundtroops in France in 1940...

We're talking 1939 when everything worth mentioning is in Poland busy in a two weeks long massive battle (Battle of Bzura).

The military and political chaos in 1939 was not different to 1940...

The idea is that inept as France was militarily and politically it could still roll over Germany due to Germany having nothing to fight the french with.

Not at all...You are a student of history, you are familiar with what happened there...It was a turning point, and full ramifications were not felt for 100-150 years.

Yes and i believe that the Cossacks should have been hunted down and exterminated, you basically have a bunch of mercenaries who just rebelled against Poland, smacked down some noble militias and even won a single battle against the regular army, if you're going to conceed to their demands they'll just want more.

Poland had the right idea during the campaign that culminated in Beresteczko, stop fighting Cossacks with small police forces and noble militias, raise a huge regular army and kill off everyone who's against Poland, the problem is after they massacred the cossack army they didnt follow up with extermnation of cossacks and their families.

I believe that the only solution in Ukraine, whether against Cossacks, ukrainian fascists from UPA or Banderas army is, was and will be overwhelming terror, thats the only thing these people respect,try and talk to them like a human being and they'll murder your family, kill off half of them and they'll make you king.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
23 May 2011 #84
I believe that the only solution in Ukraine, whether against Cossacks, ukrainian fascists from UPA or Banderas army is, was and will be overwhelming terror, thats the only thing these people respect,try and talk to them like a human being and they'll murder your family, kill off half of them and they'll make you king.

You have a dislike of Ukrainians?...Is this personal or is there more to it?...Speaking of extermination might brand you as an extremist...I have known quite a few Ukrainians and they were quite friendly, but definitely clannish in their behavior, especially when assembled in a group...I speak now of Ukies in USA.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
23 May 2011 #85
You have a dislike of Ukrainians?...

No, i firmly believe in example by fear,the Cossack uprisings needed to be squashed by absolute terror, leniency only encouraged them to keep being a nuisance.

...Speaking of extermination might brand you as an extremist..

Maybe but an example by rear is always worth considering, take a look at Wolhynia, if for every destroyed polish village we would destroy 10 ukrainian villages they'd stop killing our civilians quick enough, or we'd run out of ukrainians.

.I have known quite a few Ukrainians and they were quite friendly, but definitely clannish in their behavior, especially when assembled in a group...I speak now of Ukies in USA.

I dont care whether they're nice or not, every ukrainian who rose against Poland needed to die, its not moral, its not right but it would show them what it means to f*ck with us, instead each time we broke the ukis and stood over them victorious we never exacted vengeance, russian people ukrainians included respect fear and brute force, period.
hubabuba - | 113
23 May 2011 #86
Kinda like the British breaking the treaties with Czekoslovakia in 1938 so that Germans could take it over and then blaming Poles for taking back a few hectares from the Czechs already betrayed by the British and French.

haha, I wonder what his response is going to be!!

No, clearly you don't see. Or just prefer to ignore the fact that Poland's glory days were well before the Age of Empires, before modern warfare and even before the dawn of large scale literacy and modern record-keeping - never mind, perhaps you like to think that Poland stretched itself from the Baltic to the Black Sea by waving flowers at the residents of the area under their influence.

dont compare PL-Lt methods to British empire, what can You throw at us, Pl-Moscow war?not much more, mostly we were just defending ourselfes
Bzibzioh
23 May 2011 #87
haha, I wonder what his response is going to be!!

He will remind everyone - for the 181st time - about Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

dont compare PL-Lt methods to British empire, what can You throw at us, Pl-Moscow war?not much more, mostly we were just defending ourselfes

Don't underestimate Harry and his faithful sidekicks.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
23 May 2011 #88
Its your fault really guys, you respond to him and give him attention.
pawian 177 | 14,633
23 May 2011 #89
No, they built one of the most powerfull states in Europe by being unreliable.

:):):) bullshit.

Of course they did, given that the king destroyed the polish army, did everything he could to destroy Lithuania and generally f*cked with people no one wanted him, John Casimir was a pathetic monarch who antagonised everyone around him.

Destroyed the Polish army? Another bullshit. It was szlachta who didn`t want to pay taxes and thus destroyed Polish defences.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
24 May 2011 #90
:):):) bullshit.

1 milion square kilometers, income twice the size of the Holy Roman Empire in 1530, your opinion is worthless when faced with facts.

Destroyed the Polish army? Another bullshit. It was szlachta who didn`t want to pay taxes and thus destroyed Polish defences.

John Casimir sent the army to face Cossacks at Batoh under a mentally retarded commander so yeah he destroyed the army and you need to learn your history.


Home / History / Poland's biggest historical blunder?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.