The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 286

Did British public protest against the sell out of Poland to the Soviets?


MyMom 6 | 137
29 Sep 2011  #1
Britain was a democratic state, before, during and after the war, wasn't it? British people surely could express their views on political matters in public? In fact, that's what they did in 1920 - when British workers threatened a general strike to ensure that no help would be send to Poland, which was fighting the Red Army.

So I was wondering if there were any manifestations of protest against handing of Poland to Stalin (in which process British government took active part)? After all, Poland was Britain's faithful ally and British public surely would feel bad about such outcome of events? Brits must have been pissed off at their own government in 1939 already, when it manouvered Poland into war with Germany, while failing to provide any promised aid. It must have made them look untrustworthy.

Maybe at least someone can point me to some articles in British democratic press from years 1945-1946, which focus on the fate of Poland and the role British government played in it?
Wroclaw 44 | 5,389
29 Sep 2011  #2
Maybe at least someone can point me to some articles in British democratic press from years 1945-1946, which focus on the fate of Poland and the role British government played in it?

begin your search here: nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/newspapers.htm
milky 13 | 1,657
29 Sep 2011  #3
Did the British public protest against the sell out of Poland through privatization after the break up of the Soviet Union?
Wedle 16 | 496
29 Sep 2011  #4
Maybe at least someone can point me to some articles

The British did more for Poland than the ruling government in 2004, the British almost signal handle reduced Polish national unemployment figures and increased the external remits. Now do your own research as it is all now factual history.
PWEI 3 | 612
29 Sep 2011  #5
Perhaps you could detail the supposed 'sell out' which saw Britain secure the promise of democratic elections which Poles never bothered to exercise and the promise of free accommodation which some Poles still exercise.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
29 Sep 2011  #6
The British public had no say in decisions made by the British elite regarding WWII...George Orwell's '1984' came out after the war in 1948-49, and it was a form of protest against what Britain had become and what he feared for the future.
Barney 14 | 1,470
29 Sep 2011  #7
George Orwell's '1984' came out after the war in 1948-49, and it was a form of protest against what Britain had become and what he feared for the future.

No it wasnt, Orwell's writing plotted a gradual change away from the paradoxically hardline yet romantic stalinism of the left at the time, Orwell became a government agent.

Edit
There was no way the British public were going to protest about anything then especially against the country they saw as having done the donkey work
KingAthelstan 9 | 142
30 Sep 2011  #8
call it payback for siding with Napolean
Ironside 47 | 9,586
30 Sep 2011  #9
call it payback for supporting Prussia !
BBman - | 344
30 Sep 2011  #10
promise of democratic elections which Poles never bothered to exercise

explain
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
30 Sep 2011  #11
So I was wondering if there were any manifestations of protest against handing of Poland to Stalin (in which process British government took active part)?

There was indeed. Whilst I'm unaware of specific instances of popular protest, I understand there was a strong and vociferous minority of politicians who risked much to decry HMG's (and specifically Churchill's) policy of appeasement to the Muscovites and treatment of Poland, consequent upon HMG's acquiescence to Stalin's designs for keeping what he had gained of Polish territory (Yalta).

The more relevant back stab was, in my view, the failure of HMG to tell Poland about the critical issues materialising out of Teheran, not to mention HMG’s craven acquiescence to Stalin. The backstab is even more serious because it was in breach, and in contempt, of HMG’s obligation to tell Poland (per Art. 5 of the Treaty) of any development that would threaten Poland’s independence.

Consequently, Poland was unaware that it was to be subject to significant and prejudicial changes to its borders and socio political makeup after the dust settled on WW2.

Stalin took it to mean that HMG probably couldn’t care less about what happened to Poland post WW2. Ergo, in my view, his actions, probably commencing at around the time of the Warsaw Rising and subsequently, should have come as no surprise to HMG and probably occurred in large part due to the fact that Stalin understood he had carte blanche and jurisdiction to do as he pleased in Poland, because HMG acquiesced to his designs as articulated at Teheran. As to what the USA did (or didn’t do), it’s largely irrelevant in this context because they were not contractually bound with Poland, morality aside.

The basest treachery lies in the fact that HMG continued to use Polish forces to continue fighting even after the treachery at Teheran, when the moral and just thing to do would have been to release the Poles, given that the Poles were now fighting for everything except their own interests. But no, this didn’t occur, because to do so would have been contrary to further British interests of using Poles (arguably the best contingent under HMG’s auspices numbering in the hundreds of thousands) to shed blood and die under the false assumption that they were fighting and dying for an ally and for mutual gain.

I think it was General Gubbins who articulated, in relation to HMG’s attitude to Poland, words to the effect that “we’ll squeeze as much as we can out of them then drop them”. Even that sentiment was incorrect, because in the early months of 1945 when Anders sought release of Polish forces to fight their way back home, he was refused. Bled dry, with pennies dropping all around him, how must Anders have felt to have been refused his request.

The story of HMG’s treachery toward Poland in WW2 is that simple. I believe that had the people of Britain known what was going on at the time they would have put a stop to it.
Seanus 15 | 19,707
30 Sep 2011  #12
Haven't you seen how democracy is by name only, MyMom?? The views of the people count for jack. Even if you have a referendum, it's no guarantee of a voice (just look at Ireland). I bet they rigged the recount too. The British public likely couldn't have cared less.
PWEI 3 | 612
30 Sep 2011  #13
Ozi Dan
The more relevant back stab was, in my view, the failure of HMG to tell Poland about the critical issues materialising out of Teheran, not to mention HMG’s craven acquiescence to Stalin. The backstab is even more serious because it was in breach, and in contempt, of HMG’s obligation to tell Poland (per Art. 5 of the Treaty) of any development that would threaten Poland’s independence.

Why can't you learn that a lie constantly repeated does not become the truth: instead it simply is repeatedly exposed as a lie so that more and more people know that it is a lie.

Could you please be so kind as to quote the parts of the relevant agreements which show that, given that the British and Americans had secured a promise from Stalin that there would be a Polish state and that there would be free and fair elections in Poland open to all parties other than the fascists, Poland’s independence was threatened. Either that or stop telling your latest pathetic lie.

Ozi Dan
Consequently, Poland was unaware that it was to be subject to significant and prejudicial changes to its borders and socio political makeup after the dust settled on WW2.

Which allied leader first proposed moving Poland’s borders to their current western location? Oh yes, it was General Władysław Sikorski. But in your world Poland was unaware that her borders would change.

Ozi Dan
when Anders sought release of Polish forces to fight their way back home

‘Excuse me but we’d like to go start WWIII. Is that alright with you?’

Ozi Dan
The story of HMG’s treachery toward Poland in WW2 is that simple.

Actually it is far simpler, it is as simple as can be; after all, what can be simpler than something which does not exist?
teflcat 5 | 1,032
30 Sep 2011  #14
At the time of the Yalta conference Britain was exhausted, bankrupt, many of her cities were destroyed, and there was - truth to tell - little fight left in her. What more could be done for Poland, apart from diplomatic entreaties to Stalin at the highest level, it is hard to imagine. The British and Americans needed Stalin's help in finishing the war in the Pacific, it is true, but to argue that this is why they 'sold' Poland is simplistic in the extreme.

One element in all this which is often overlooked is the fact that there were thousands of allied prisoners of war in Poland (and perhaps hundreds of thousands in areas of Germany than the Russians were about to overcome) who were being used as bargaining chips, not to say hostages, by Stalin. He had a clause inserted in the Yalta agreement that gave the Russians the right to repatriate POW by means of their choosing, which, as it turned out, meant via Odessa, thereby prolonging their suffering and gaining time to further put the pressure on Roosevelt and Churchill. Fast exit by allied planes was denied. What could have been the reason except that Stalin's hostages could then be used in order to turn the screw? The plight of these men was not a minor concern to either the US nor the UK, and this factor, just one of many others, should be taken into consideration by those who wish to make this affair a simple one.
ShortHairThug - | 1,103
30 Sep 2011  #15
Why can't you learn that a lie constantly repeated does not become the truth: instead it simply is repeatedly exposed as a lie so that more and more people know that it is a lie.

For once I would really like to see you taking your own advice which would be nice and refreshing Harry.

Could you please be so kind as to quote the parts of the relevant agreements which show that, given that the British and Americans had secured a promise from Stalin that there would be a Polish state and that there would be free and fair elections in Poland open to all parties other than the fascists, Poland’s independence was threatened. Either that or stop telling your latest pathetic lie.

What makes your statement pathetic is the suspicious lack of Polish representatives at those negotiations for a self-governing state be it Teheran, Yalta or Potsdam. Ironically your self-appointment to represent Polish interests in those negotiations puts you in the position of sole custodians thus making you solely responsible for what had happened afterwards and that’s no lie.

Which allied leader first proposed moving Poland’s borders to their current western location? Oh yes, it was General Władysław Sikorski.

Yet curelessly enough thanks the so called allies of ours (read his untimely death and the controversy surrounding the circumstances of) as well as no other Polish representative present there that determined the future borders of his state. Contrary to your claims it was your own self- interest at heart that was the guiding principle behind those closed door negotiations. Please don’t do us any favors’ in the future. When you stop meddling in the affairs of others you won’t have to come up with some pathetic excuse like “we negotiated in good faith, it was Stalin that did not keep his end of the bargain!”, “who would have thought?”, “what else could we have done?”, “we were exhausted!” etc.

Actually it is far simpler, it is as simple as can be; after all

Simple as can be, three powers diving up the spoils of war.

what can be simpler than something which does not exist?

Hear, here!! Speak the truth, simply state you were looking forward to salvage what was left of the British Empire, your position in the world and prestige rather than pretending to negotiate in good faith on our behalf, no one will hold it against you. Simple enough Harry, isn’t it?
PWEI 3 | 612
30 Sep 2011  #16
ShortHairThug
For once I would really like to see you taking your own advice which would be nice and refreshing Harry.

Could you be so kind as to quote the lies which you accuse me of telling. Many thanks in advance.

ShortHairThug
Ironically your self-appointment to represent Polish interests in those negotiations puts you in the position of sole custodians thus making you solely responsible for what had happened afterwards and that’s no lie.

So it is the British who are to blame for the Poles failing to hold the free and fair elections which they had been promised? Interesting approach.

ShortHairThug
When you stop meddling in the affairs of others

People like you sometimes make me wish that Britain hadn’t bothered signing the Anglo-Polish treaty: you have so much gratitude for the millions of Britain who fought in a war that was declared over Poland.

ShortHairThug
Simple as can be, three powers diving up the spoils of war.

So what did Britain get as spoils of the war, other, of course, than a huge debt which wasn’t repaid until 2006 and hundreds of thousands of Poles, some of whom until this day live in accommodation paid for by the British taxpayer?
ShortHairThug - | 1,103
30 Sep 2011  #17
Could you be so kind as to quote the lies which you accuse me of telling.

Where should I start I wonder, there’s so many.

Interesting approach

Interesting Isn’t it?

People like you sometimes make me wish that Britain hadn’t bothered signing the Anglo-Polish treaty: you have so much gratitude for the millions of Britain who fought in a war that was declared over Poland.

Same can be said about you. You hold what’s viewed as my ungratefulness in your eyes against me, I on the other hand 44 years of hell you prepared for us. Not even close Harry.

So what did Britain get as spoils of the war, other

What could you get? Face the reality Harry, nothing- you were in no position to impose your will being the smallest player of the three. By that time you were washouts and losers, although you lost a lot you still should be grateful you kept your freedom, something you have denied others at Yalta. Your very words are an insult to the Polish forces that died in defiance of your country. I guess that’s your way of expressing your eternal gratitude that you ask and expect of me.
peterweg 36 | 2,316
30 Sep 2011  #18
So I was wondering if there were any manifestations of protest against handing of Poland to Stalin (in which process British government took active part)? After all, Poland was Britain's faithful ally and British public surely would feel bad about such outcome of events?

The British public were not happy with the treatment of Poland. Indeed some twenty odd MP's resigned over the issue, I've not heard of such mass resignations since.

There was nothing it could do of course, being bankrupt.
PWEI 3 | 612
30 Sep 2011  #19
ShortHairThug
Where should I start I wonder, there’s so many.

Start with any one you like. Provided, of course, that you are not actually lying about their existence (which we both know you are).

ShortHairThug
You hold what’s viewed as my ungratefulness in your eyes against me, I on the other hand 44 years of hell you prepared for us.

Yes, communism was entirely the fault of the British and not at all the fault of the Soviets or any Poles. What planet do you live on?

ShortHairThug
What could you get?

You tell us, you are the one claiming that Britain took part in the dividing of the spoils.

ShortHairThug
By that time you were washouts and losers

But still you blame the British for not fighting to stop the Soviets having their way with Poland. Nice to see you being consistent in your delusions.

ShortHairThug
you kept your freedom, something you have denied others at Yalta.

No matter how many times you lie, the Yalta agreement still says what it says: free and fair elections for Poland. Elections which Poles then prevented from taking place.

ShortHairThug
I guess that’s your way of expressing your eternal gratitude that you ask and expect of me.

Yes I should be grateful that at least a hundred thousand Poles fought in the ranks of the Nazi armed forces.
ShortHairThug - | 1,103
30 Sep 2011  #20
which we both know you are

Oh please, twice I’ve pointed out to your own quote which was undeniable yet you still tried to wiggle out of it so what’s the point, you know your truth I know my. Although in all fairness most of the time it’s a half truth that you twist around which makes it that much worst to a casual reader as he doesn’t know any better.

What planet do you live on?

Of course your humble contribution is to be ignored. You know, the one that put us into this position in the first place. Let me be the better man, all is forgiven Harry. Feel better now?

But still you blame the British for not fighting to stop the Soviets having their way with Poland. Nice to see you being consistent in your delusions.

Oh I have no illusions, think of it this way Harry, by that time British bulldog was reduced in stature to that of the Chiwawa, so what fight you’re talking about, a lot of barking on your part still continues today, at least from you.

free and fair elections for Poland. Elections which Poles then prevented from taking place.

Show me one Polish official representative at that conference be it of the free Polish government in exile or even one that the Soviets would have a decency to put up as a stooge and we’ll talk. Of course the peasants’ with primary education were too stupid to do just that yet they managed to outfox the best and brightest that the British had to offer, a shame really which makes me think even that much less of you. Regardless of your manipulation of the facts of the matter that’s the God honest truth as to the future of Poland.

Yes I should be grateful that at least a hundred thousand Poles fought in the ranks of the Nazi armed forces.

Here we go, so much for the intelligent conversation on your part. Whatever delusions on my part there might have been surely I have none now.
PWEI 3 | 612
30 Sep 2011  #21
ShortHairThug
Oh please, twice I’ve pointed out to your own quote which was undeniable yet you still tried to wiggle out of it so what’s the point, you know your truth I know my. Although in all fairness most of the time it’s a half truth that you twist around which makes it that much worst to a casual reader as he doesn’t know any better.

For the third time of asking: could you be so kind as to quote the lies which you accuse me of telling. Either that or just admit that your accusation is nothing more than a lie.

ShortHairThug
Show me one Polish official representative at that conference be it of the free Polish government in exile or even one that the Soviets would have a decency to put up as a stooge and we’ll talk.

How does Polish presence at the conference in any way affect the promises which were won for Poland (i.e. free and fair elections and the movement of Poland's western borders to those first proposed by the Polish leader of the time) in any way at all? That's right, it does not affect the promises at all.

ShortHairThug
Of course the peasants’ with primary education were too stupid to do just that yet they managed to outfox the best and brightest that the British had to offer

Perhaps the best and the brightest that Britain had to offer believed in the image that many Poles like to give: Poles never collaborate with enemies of Poland. Pity that so many Poles proved the British wrong by collaborating with the Soviets and carrying out Stalin's order that the free elections would not be carried out for 45 years.

ShortHairThug
Here we go, so much for the intelligent conversation on your part. Whatever delusions on my part there might have been surely I have none now.

More than a hundred thousand Poles were captured by the western allies alone whilst in the service of the German armed forces. Sorry about that inconvenient little fact.
Ironside 47 | 9,586
30 Sep 2011  #22
once again Harry is proving himself to be nothing more than a sly swine !
OP MyMom 6 | 137
30 Sep 2011  #23
The British public were not happy with the treatment of Poland. Indeed some twenty odd MP's resigned over the issue, I've not heard of such mass resignations since.

If that's true, I'd like to know the names of those men. They should be remembered here in Poland.
Instead all Poles hear about is scumbags like PWEI, who don't hesitate disgracing the memory of murdered, tortured and persecuted Polish patriots.
PWEI 3 | 612
30 Sep 2011  #24
Ironside
once again Harry is proving himself to be nothing more than a sly swine !

Thank you for your insightful contribution to the debate. I would ask if you have anything better to contribute, but let's face it: you don't.

Or perhaps you can do what all the other posters have failed to do and detail the supposed 'sell out' which saw Britain secure the promise of democratic elections which Poles never bothered to exercise and the promise of free accommodation which some Poles still exercise?
Ironside 47 | 9,586
30 Sep 2011  #25
Britain secure the promise of democratic elections which Poles never bothered to exercise and the promise of free accommodation which some Poles still exercise?

they secured nothing, and your atempt to blame Poles is once again prove of you being swine
OP MyMom 6 | 137
30 Sep 2011  #26
Or perhaps you can do what all the other posters have failed to do and detail the supposed 'sell out' which saw Britain secure the promise of democratic elections which Poles never bothered to exercise and the promise of free accommodation which some Poles still exercise?

Why is it that 99,9% of Brits with any interest in WWII history understand and are ashamed of what British and USA governments did to Poland at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam, but you alone act like a mixture of an idiot and anti-polish scumbag? When you have posted your rubbish for the 100th time, did it ever occur to you from the reaction you get every time, that maybe in fact nobody is buying your lies and repeating it clearly has no point? Or maybe your point is to make Poles hate Brits?
PWEI 3 | 612
30 Sep 2011  #27
MyMom
Why is it that 99,9% of Brits with any interest in WWII history understand and are ashamed of what British and USA governments did to Poland at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam, but you alone act like a mixture of an idiot and anti-polish scumbag?

And thank you for your helpful contribution to the discussion. Perhaps you could be the one to explain why securing for Poland both the promises of free and fair elections and the movement of Poland's western borders to those first proposed by the Polish leader of the time is something which the British should be ashamed of?

MyMom
nobody is buying your lies

Do feel free to do what everybody else is also unable to do, i.e. to point out the lies which you constantly accuse me of telling. I'm quite happy to point yours out.
delphiandomine 84 | 17,703
30 Sep 2011  #28
Why is it that 99,9% of Brits with any interest in WWII history understand and are ashamed of what British and USA governments did to Poland at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam

Ashamed?

Most Brits realise that Poland was a minor, tiny player in a worldwide game - and most Brits also realise that Britain was in no position to argue otherwise at those conferences.

Still, perhaps you can tell us what Britain could have done instead.
PWEI 3 | 612
30 Sep 2011  #29
delphiandomine
Ashamed?

Most Brits realise that Poland was a minor, tiny player in a worldwide game - and most Brits also realise that Britain was in no position to argue otherwise at those conferences.

And the ones who have actually read the agreements that those conferences produced know that what is often claimed about those conferences, i.e. that Poland was betrayed at them, very simply is not true.
TheOther 5 | 3,716
30 Sep 2011  #30
MyMom: Why is it that 99,9% of Brits with any interest in WWII history

Have you ever thought about how many people worldwide are actually interested in this old stuff? I'd bet it's a tiny minority. Don't make the mistake to believe that what you see here on PF is the norm.


Home / History / Did British public protest against the sell out of Poland to the Soviets?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.