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?


Barney 15 | 1,590
26 Jul 2012 #181
No, the Polish Navy never went to Nebraska.

I hope that is a joke, do you get all your information from google?

There was no sell out of Poland by the British there was nothing they could do about it.

We've definitely never invaded a neighbour wearing German helmets!

Schomberg, perhaps not in a helmet but definitely German and commanding an invading British Army against a rightfully anointed King, does that count?
Harry
26 Jul 2012 #182
Courageous was sunk off the coast of Ireland, making it another British ship not engaging the Nazis where the actual battle was taking place.

A disgusting comment, even by your low standards.

Was Courageous the aircraft carrier promised to help defend Gdansk Bay (supra)?

Keep on telling that lie, it'll never have any truth in it.

those Poles who gallantly fought the German navy where the British and French navies refused to go?

You mean the Polish sailors who ran away before the war started or the ones who went to sea once, dumped their mines over the side of the boat and then didn't put to sea again?

Please share with us your outrage at the British governments which had permitted the German war machine to rebuild itself in contravention of the Versailles Treaty.

Please share with us your explanation as to why the Polish government (who were metres away from Germany and so could easily have invaded) permitted the German war machine to rebuild itself in contravention of the Versailles Treaty.
Ironside 53 | 12,364
27 Jul 2012 #183
A disgusting comment, even by your low standards.

That is something you need to prove or somebody may take you for a slanderer.

Keep on telling that lie, it'll never have any truth in it.

So, why don't you prove it? eh?

You mean the Polish sailors who ran away before the war started or the ones who went to sea once, dumped their mines over the side of the boat and then didn't put to sea again?

That is a disgusting comment for which alone you deserve to be despised, by the way, please do not lie any more about your love for Poland.

Fine. So, in what way did Britain fail to fulfil her obligation to aid Poland in 1939?

That would be your cue -

The methods of applying the undertakings of mutual assistance provided for by the present Agreement are established between the competent naval, military and air authorities of the Contracting Parties.

Those details you are asking for, just find adequate documents. I know what they promised, you find it out.

Which of course brings us on to another question: did the Polish public protest against the sell out of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and their own army taking part in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia?

Of curse for trolls. In fact that subject has nothing to do with the subject debated.

We've definitely never invaded a neighbour wearing German helmets!

Yes, only tinfoil hats:

The Poles on here bleat

Are you Polish? The only bleating in here is of your making.
isthatu2 4 | 2,694
27 Jul 2012 #184
Written by someone with total ignorance of anything

This said by the man who thinks the only river platte is in nebraska.....rolls eyes.....goof like that and I just giggle at the rest of what you have to say. You just show a complete lack of awarness of the strategic and tactical realities. The baltic is effectivley a big lake. the only way in at the time was through a narrow channel along the German coast line within range of the luftwaffe all the way . Even if a handfull of RN ships had got through to the Polish coast with any of the crew alive all the germans would have to do would be move 10 miles inland and wait for the remaining RN ships to be sunk one by one by the german navy and airforce.

But,anyone with any insight into the war knows this stuff already,anything else,any twisted version or whining is just rather pathetic whining.

I hope that is a joke, do you get all your information from google?

Lols.......talk about stereotypical America centric view of the world :)
p3undone 8 | 1,132
27 Jul 2012 #185
Isthatu2,Don't people understand the war machine that Hitler had behind him?It's strange to me that any one would say that England sold Poland out,look at what happened to England during the war.Europe was in a fight for it's life;then pulled together and defeated Germany.people should realize that England wasn't in the best of shape going in.If you had this conversation back then,all sides would be laughing..
isthatu2 4 | 2,694
27 Jul 2012 #186
Honestly, a lot of the time I think people mistake the armed forces britain had in 1939 with the ones it had a few years into the war.

We had less tanks than Poland,our heavy tanks were even worse than the Vickers (british btw) tanks Poland had.
There was no 1000 bomber fleet of Lancasters but a small handfull of antiquated bombers no better than the ones the Polish air force had at the time....

Then I just think some people are nationalistic muppets, they seem quick to point that finger at people , a bit like the G/F that accusses the innocent B/F of cheating,she is always the one playing away :)

If I were to slag off some of britains mistakes id be here all day,but it would be off topic, I wont however sit back and see lies and propaganda spread by people who seem to snatch their info from wikipedia and war movies who quite clearly dont have a concept of geography never mind strategy :)
p3undone 8 | 1,132
27 Jul 2012 #187
Isthatu2,I don't know how young some of the posters are;when I was a kid it was still in living memory and nobody suggested the type of things that are being said here..
Barney 15 | 1,590
27 Jul 2012 #188
We didnt have to live with stalinism, there is a lot of stuff to be worked out still.
Barney 15 | 1,590
27 Jul 2012 #190
Meaning that us in Western Europe have the narrative that ww1 and the following depression needed to be avoided at all costs, almost all political leaders lost family, a whole generation was lost changing the political landscape forever. We have had many years to work through this its still raw elsewhere.
p3undone 8 | 1,132
27 Jul 2012 #191
Barney,Yeah I see what you mean.in a way it's like Poland just stepped out of it and is now trying to come to terms with it.
Barney 15 | 1,590
27 Jul 2012 #192
My answer above wasnt a good answer...

Trying to make sense of the Stalinist years is a fruitless task, the only ones to blame (if you want to get stuck in that rut) are the stalinists and even then its not as cut and dry as it appears. A lot of people saw the ....................(self edited)

Blaming the western powers for not doing enough in the early days of the war is just silly. In the latter part of the war the Soviets had proved they could defeat the Germans by them selves and there was no way Britain or the US could stop Stalin.

You can ding dong backwards and forwards forever over actions/inactions forever but no country goes to war for altruistic motives irrespective of treaties signed.
Hipis - | 227
27 Jul 2012 #193
In the latter part of the war the Soviets had proved they could defeat the Germans by them selves and there was no way Britain or the US could stop Stalin.

Yet Stalin was still reliant on British and US aid to fund and feed the Russian war effort. The British and US governments could have used the threat of withdrawing aid to draw concessions from Stalin over the Polish borders and so called Soviet sphere of influence but they were too blinkered in their drive to beat Hitler.
p3undone 8 | 1,132
27 Jul 2012 #194
Barney,that is absolutely true.I do feel as though it's like they are trying to come to terms with it,almost like adolescence in a sense.I don't mean to suggest that Poland is a new country by any stretch;I just mean politically.

Hipis,Without Stalin all was lost.It was a Pyrrhic Victory for Poland I understand that;but let's be honest;what was the alternative?
delphiandomine 88 | 18,163
27 Jul 2012 #195
It's strange to me that any one would say that England sold Poland out

Not for me. The Communists for years brainwashed people with this - it was rammed down their throats that the Red Army saved them and not the West. No surprise that some are still repeating it endlessly.
Barney 15 | 1,590
27 Jul 2012 #196
Yet Stalin was still reliant on British and US aid to fund and feed the Russian war effort.

It was miniscule, from memory the German 6th army received more tonnage in the Kessel than was supplied to the Soviets by the west
Hipis - | 227
27 Jul 2012 #197
Easy, I'd have developed a strategy to let the Russians and Germans fight each other into the ground on the Eastern Front whilst attacking German positions from the west.
Barney 15 | 1,590
27 Jul 2012 #198
The Communists for years brainwashed people with this - it was rammed down their throats that the Red Army saved them and not the West. No surprise that some are still repeating it endlessly.

There is a certain amount of truth in that, in that the Red army did defeat the Germans almost unaided however the Stalinist system that was imposed after the war is a different matter.

from memory the German 6th army received more tonnage in the Kessel than was supplied to the Soviets by the west

Thats not true 800 tonnes a day were needed for the cut off army, the German delivered less than half that for the period.

The USSR received about 10 million tonnes in total over 4 years
p3undone 8 | 1,132
27 Jul 2012 #199
Barney,Growing up in the U.S. and having never been to Europe,let alone Poland.It's easy for me not to grasp these aspects that have shaped their views.

Hipis,easy huh, was Germany not fighting a two front war already?And by this you're saying that we should have left Russia to the dogs.The west had to support Russia or Russia would have fell ,which had damn near happened already with the support.If Germany had gotten Russia Europe would have been done.They let Germany and Russia fight in to the ground already.Do you have any Idea how many Russians died in that war.This is a similar resentment that Russians have about the west.If England or Russia had fallen Europe was done.England was in better shape than Russia at the beginning.It was necessary to bail them out first and the Russian front allowed for this don't forget that Stalin had killed off a ridiculous amount of his military staff.All sides payed dearly in that war..
Hipis - | 227
27 Jul 2012 #200
I believe this statement of yours here

Barney,Growing up in the U.S. and having never been to Europe,let alone Poland.It's easy for me not to grasp these aspects that have shaped their views.

undermines what you wrote here:

And this statement

.I do feel as though it's like they are trying to come to terms with it,almost like adolescence in a sense.

couldn't be more patronising if you tried. I see why the polonophobes rule the roost here if this is the typical attitude of someone who is supposed to be a moderator.
p3undone 8 | 1,132
27 Jul 2012 #201
Hipis,My bad,that one wasn't meant to be patronizing;definitely should have said it differently Sorry,but if you read the prior posts I think you could put together what I meant by that.As for what I said about the war that doesn't undermine what I had said at all.Think about it.That response was to what you said about easy;just attack from the west.I never said that I didn't grasp the war at all and I think you know that.So don't try to say I'm a Polonophobe;Now your being rude.Btw Next time;quote the whole thing.

Hipis,you're not going to respond about your war strategy?
isthatu2 4 | 2,694
27 Jul 2012 #202
Yet Stalin was still reliant on British and US aid to fund and feed the Russian war effort.

The vast majority of that Aid went straight into storage or some of it was given to unreliable forces like the Polish and czech communist armies.

The only two bits of aid the Soviets really used fully was SPAM and GMC trucks.
Without those they would have had to eat more kasha and use a few more horses......they would have still kicked the western allies arses. remember.

Japan was the USAs main enemy by 1945,the war in the Pacific still had many months and hundreds of thousands of deaths to go.
Hipis - | 227
27 Jul 2012 #203
The vast majority of that Aid went straight into storage or some of it was given to unreliable forces like the Polish and czech communist armies.
The only two bits of aid the Soviets really used fully was SPAM and GMC trucks.

Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization.

Barney 15 | 1,590
27 Jul 2012 #204
The Red army had about 30-34 million men the allies sent 450,000 vehicles including tractors motorbikes etc (over the same period) there was 196 million people to feed. There is no way the so called aid, some paid for in gold most in blood, made a significant difference.

o5m6.de/index.html - There is a great wee site that details the numbers of vehicles etc and their usefulness to the Red Army.

There is a lot of rewriting of history going on a lot to downplay the USSR's role in defeating their former allies (the Nazis).
p3undone 8 | 1,132
27 Jul 2012 #205
Barney,I agree with you 100%,Russia played a huge role in that victory at the cost of a lot of blood.
4 eigner 2 | 831
27 Jul 2012 #206
100%,Russia played a huge role in that victory at the cost of a lot of blood

yeah, they played a huge role in the "liberation" of Poland with the known outcome of practically enslaving it for over 40 years.
p3undone 8 | 1,132
27 Jul 2012 #207
4 eigner,I,agree that was the result and they had their sights on Poland,but what was the alternative,if the west hadn't of helped Russia;Europe would of been enslaved by Germany and It would have been far worse for Poland.It really sucks the choices that had to be made.The west didn't sell out Poland..
4 eigner 2 | 831
27 Jul 2012 #208
but what was the alternative

yeah, both murdered millions of people, what really was the alternative? General Patton's solution was the alternative.
p3undone 8 | 1,132
27 Jul 2012 #209
4 eigner,So you're suggesting that the U.S. rolled straight through in an imperialistic take over?
4 eigner 2 | 831
27 Jul 2012 #210
You can call it what you want p3 but it would save many countries from being enslaved for many years by the SU.


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