The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 445

What British unit liberated Poland in 1945??


enkidu 7 | 623
16 Dec 2009 #241
jonni
And your point is?
TheOther 5 | 3,711
16 Dec 2009 #242
Not to mention everything they'd stolen from individuals

Deduct what the Allies (including the Soviets) stole from Germany, Poland and a whole lot of other countries after the war, and you are probably even.
Harry
16 Dec 2009 #243
Come on Jon, you should know that Poles view facts in history discussions with the same contempt that they use for gays! Don't you just love how some dipsh!t Pole offers the events of 1939 (and a moronic interpretation of them) as proof of Britain selling Poland six years & one world war later?!
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #244
And your point is?

You are the person making a point. Why did you falsely say the British

earn our national gold reserves

?

Your point is?
Harry
16 Dec 2009 #245
^because he's a dipsh!t Pole!
Seanus 15 | 19,706
16 Dec 2009 #246
Harry, how do you get on with Poles when you are out drinking? You seem to knock them quite a lot here. Many Poles take an active interest in WWII issues.
Harry
16 Dec 2009 #247
^ Just fine. All I do is tell them to go read the actual wording of documents and not to rely on what they learned in school.

That and remember to stop the discussions when the odds get to more than three to one. As we all know, Poles tend not to attack unless the odds are better than that...
enkidu 7 | 623
16 Dec 2009 #248
You are the person making a point. Why did you falsely say the British
earn our national gold reserves

You right. I did use wrong word. They stole it.
Harry
16 Dec 2009 #249
^ How nice of you to continue to spit on the nation which has sheltered you since you decided to abandon Poland.
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #250
They stole it.

Provide a source, if you're accusing someone of theft.

The Polish gold reserve left on a French ship (the Emile Bertin, arrived 23 Sept 1939) to Lebanon, under the care of the French government, then via London to Canada, where it served as the finance for the Polish government-in-exile. In 1946 it was returned to Poland.

Unless you know differently! ;-))))
enkidu 7 | 623
16 Dec 2009 #251
How nice of you to continue to spit on the nation which has sheltered you since you decided to abandon Poland.

How nice of you to continue to spit on the nation which has sheltered your people since the dark ages. :-)

BTW - I understand that if you trust somebody with you money and later this man refuse to return it - you don't call it theft? Is there another word for it in your native language? Gecheft maybe?
Ironside 50 | 10,922
16 Dec 2009 #252
Just fine.

such low life and craven .....
enkidu 7 | 623
16 Dec 2009 #253
Provide a source, if you're accusing someone of theft.

untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/1/11/00000504.pdf

You've been served, sir.
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #254
You've been served, sir.

Unfortunately for you, I haven't. That document (read it carefully) is from 1947, a year after the gold reserves were returned in full.

You will notice that one of the signatories was Drozniak, the NBP president. It refers to much smaller sum of money given as disbursements in connection with the war effort (equipment and soldiers' wages) and welfare of Poles in the UK.

You'll have to try harder.
enkidu 7 | 623
16 Dec 2009 #255
jonni
This is a document that legalize this theft. It was signed between UK and Polish communists over the head of rightful owners (namely Polish Government and President). Maybe you should read it once more. This time even more carefully.
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #256
enkidu

That document is not new to me.

It was signed by the president of the National Bank of Poland, appointed by the

Polish Government and President

here in Warsaw. They were the rightful owners, recognised as the de facto Polish Government by all competent bodies including the UN, whose online archives I assume you found it in.

Perhaps you'd have preferred the gov't-in-exile to have kept the moolah in London while the people of Poland starved.

You still haven't provided any source for your lie that the British government stole the Polish pre-war gold reserve.
enkidu 7 | 623
16 Dec 2009 #257
If you taking money from somebody - would you return it to the same person or maybe to same one else?

The only Polish President from 1939 until 1989 was a president in exile. This so-called communists government wasn't legal in 1947 according to Polish laws. Just a bunch of traitors, who would sign everything that Stalin requested.

This case is simple - tons of Polish gold were evacuated to the UK. This is historic fact. Polish govt trusted Churchill. It was never returned to the rightful owner.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you can provide me with documents that state otherwise?
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #258
If you taking money from somebody - would you return it to the same person or maybe to same one else?

It was stored in Canada, by the Polish government, and was returned to the Polish government.

The only Polish President from 1939 until 1989 was a president in exile.

Why not stand in the street in Warsaw and ask passers-by if they agree with you?

This so-called communists government wasn't legal in 1947 according to Polish laws. Just a bunch of traitors

Recognised by the United Nations and all major countries. The government-in-exile was no longer recognised as the Polish government by that time. Of course in 1947 there was still only one president in exile. Later there were two rival 'presidents'. There may even have been more, not that anyone would have cared.

This case is simple

Very simple. The gold was outside Poland for the duration of the war and returned afterwards.

tons of Polish gold were evacuated to the UK. This is historic fact.

Canada actually, but don't let fact stand in the way of fantasy.

It was never returned to the rightful owner.

The rightful owner was the Polish government. The only recognised Polish government, whether you like it or not, was in Warsaw. What would you have done with the gold?

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you can provide me with documents that state otherwise?

You provided a link to the document yourself, proving it was transfered to the president of the National Bank of Poland.

And I repeat:
You still haven't provided any source for your lie that the British government stole the Polish pre-war gold reserve.
cheehaw 2 | 263
16 Dec 2009 #259
This case is simple - tons of Polish gold were evacuated to the UK. This is historic fact. Polish govt trusted Churchill. It was never returned to the rightful owner.

well, there is a reason Stalin allowed the Polish people to flee Russia for a bit, and I am sure it wasn't a simple matter of pretty please.

this would provide a reasonable explanation.. Stalin couldn't find the polish money.. Churchhill says.. we have the money.. and voila.. allies!!
enkidu 7 | 623
16 Dec 2009 #260
jonni
Read, learn - then talk about history.

"Later there were two rival 'presidents'. There may even have been more, not that anyone would have cared."

So I will tell you for the third time (maybe this time with better effect) - the only President of Poland in 1947 was president in exile. This state of matter remain unchanged until 1989.

Go back to basics, boy.
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #261
This state of matter remain unchanged until 1989

Not according to international law, Polish law, the United Nations, the UK, the US, France, the BDR, the DDR, all other neighbours of Poland and friendly nations, According to them, the lawful Polish government was in Warsaw.

Of course I assume you know that between Bierut's departure in 1952 and Jaruzelski's election in 1989 the Polish leader used the title 'Chairman of the Council of State'. But still fulfilling the Presidential role of Head of State. Maybe you didn't know that.

About the president of the unrecognised government in exile. Which of them (the Ealing president or the Colchester president) do you think should have got all those tonnes of gold, and what do you think they should have done with them? And what would the reaction of people here in Poland have been?

And I repeat:
You still haven't provided any source for your lie that the British government stole the Polish pre-war gold reserve.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
16 Dec 2009 #262
Polish law

If I remeber rightly, Polish law is a bit of a mess, neither recognising the PRL as legitimate, nor recognising the Government-in-Exile much either.

About the only thing that is certain is that the current Polish state had Jaruzelski as the first President - and that this state is new and not the same as the previous Polish states.
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #263
Polish law is a bit of a mess, neither recognising the PRL as legitimate, nor recognising the Government-in-Exile much either

That's why they revised it during the PRL years. The relevant thing here is that the PRL was recognised internationally as the government of Poland.

The issue here is whether, as a poster has claimed but can't back up, the British government stole Poland's gold reserve.
lesser 4 | 1,311
16 Dec 2009 #264
Jonni and enkidu differently define "Polish president". According to Jonni "Polish president" is an official leader of the state which consist word "Poland" in its name. According to enkidu "Polish president" is an official leader of of the state supported by majority of people living in what they consider "Polish state". Thus you both cannot agree until you accept the same definition.

The case itself is simple. British government was allied with Polish government on exile as long as they considered them to be a force helpful to realize their goals. After the war Polish government on exile lost this status in the eyes of British establishment and new communist government in Poland gained it. British government betrayed Polish government on exile, cynicism (money) are always dominant attitude (reason) in what we call politics. If there was any political idealism present among establishment in the past, it is long gone. IIIRP appeared on the maps not so long ago but already managed to do something similar to Serbia.
1jola 14 | 1,879
16 Dec 2009 #265
The relevant thing here is that the PRL was recognised internationally as the government of Poland.

A shameful thing in itself though. A Soviet puppet government imposed on the Polish nation with a president (Bierut), who during the war worked in the Soviet NKVD and GRU, gave up his Polish citizenship for a Soviet one, fake elections in 1946, and the world accepts this as a rightful government. It was more like the 17th Soviet Republic - Polish SSR.
Steveramsfan 2 | 306
16 Dec 2009 #266
Absolute Bollocks. You were sold out by your own traitors, not the British. Was Britain a superpower at the end of WW2?

No, it had no influence. The Soviets, Polish communists and the Americans are to blame.

The Polish communists stole your money and Gold.

untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/1/11/00000504.pdf

If you are going to quote documents, it would be nice to include every page. Starting at 61 and then only odd pages. I think there would have been an English version too.

That and remember to stop the discussions when the odds get to more than three to one. As we all know, Poles tend not to attack unless the odds are better than that...

The British are the same.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
16 Dec 2009 #267
Harry, that's fair enough. That's the sign of a good teacher. The victim complex, completely understandable really, nonetheless leads to distortion and bias. Select sources become taken as given fact and that's wrong. We have all made that mistake and come to learn otherwise at a future time.
Harry
16 Dec 2009 #268
How nice of you to continue to spit on the nation which has sheltered your people since the dark ages. :-)

I'm almost certainly the first member of my family to visit Poland since the 18th century. And I certainly do not spit on Poland: there are many things good about Poland, I just want there to be more good things (and I do my bit to make there more good things).

The issue here is whether, as a poster has claimed but can't back up, the British government stole Poland's gold reserve.

He can't back it up and he won't back it up. You have to remember that this same poster has already claimed that no Poles were invited to the London Victory parade (a popular Polish lie) and then when his lie was revealed he tried to claim that only Poles from one squadron were invited!
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #269
same poster has already claimed that no Poles were invited to the London Victory parade (a popular Polish lie) and then when his lie was revealed he tried to claim that only Poles from one squadron were invited!

That's an old chestnut. Don't know how it arose, but all Polish servicemen who served with the British were invited to take part.

I find the hair-splitting amazing. Like it or not, the PRL was recognised by the international community. Maybe not liked or trusted, but formally recognised.

I'm still waiting for the guy to provide a source for his claim that Britain "stolë" Poland's gold reserves!
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
16 Dec 2009 #270
To be specific. Britain did not steal Polish gold but United Kingdom did demand that Poland pay (from the gold reserve) for every slice of bread Polish refugees ate in United Kingdom.

All in all Poland was forced to pay (apart from the immense aid Poles gave to UK during BoB and the lives of Polish soldiers who died instead of British ones) 3 milion pounds to UK for food, shelter and the airplanes the Poles used to defend UK.

ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=345&id=5518&poz=2

That's an old chestnut. Don't know how it arose, but all Polish servicemen who served with the British were invited to take part.

That is a lie, only squadron 303 was invited.
dziennikpolski.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=676:petycja-na-65-rocznic-parady&catid=4:reportae&Itemid=11

Tony Blair apologised for that btw, so did the Prime Minister apologise for something that didnt happen?

Home / History / What British unit liberated Poland in 1945??
Discussion is closed.