The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 75

Which countries are Polands friends, which are Polands enemies?


Barney 14 | 1,472
10 Apr 2012 #31
The numbers speak for themselves, the rapid urbanisation providing housing and employment for the majority of the population means that the Communist regime did lift an awful lot of people out of absolute poverty. The fact that they didn’t provide a mass consumer society doesn’t diminish their achievements.

It's not repeating Communist propaganda to state facts.
pawian 168 | 11,014
10 Apr 2012 #32
Guys, please be careful with overestimating communists` achievements. Poland developed because we have always been a European country and even under communists we had contacts with other countries. That is why we also took advantage of the technological progress that happened in the world. Polish revenues from exporting coal and other crude resources were partly used to buy modern machinery and even whole plants in the East and West.

Besides, communists didn`t do anything special - they industrialised the country because Cold War required modern tanks and jet planes instead of cavalry and bayonettes. Simple.
Hipis - | 227
10 Apr 2012 #33
The fact that their friends in the Red Army had destroyed what the the Nazis hadn't meant that the country was still going under massive reconstruction well into the 60s and early 70s so it's no wonder there was plenty of work around.
Barney 14 | 1,472
10 Apr 2012 #34
they industrialised the country because Cold War required modern tanks and jet planes instead of cavalry and bayonettes.

Communists were doing the same in pre war USSR without a permanent war economy. The paradox is that Communism was based upon an industrial mode of wealth production which didn’t exist in the countries that Stalinism was inflicted upon so they had to create a wider industrial base

We will never know what would have happened to Poland without the imposition of Stalinism, whether it would have benefited from the post war capitalist boom to a greater extent than the boom it did experience or not is an unknown. Certainly right wing European dictatorships like Spain. Portugal and Greece experienced a boom but to a lesser extent than the democratic capitalist countries and again we wont know which way Poland would have gone if it had had the choice.
Ironside 49 | 10,174
11 Apr 2012 #35
Communism industrialized Poland but it is not only about that, It also about quality of work done, purposefulness and effect. Not to mention other social and cultural costs.

I assure you that independent Poland would do much better job.
In 1939 after only 18 years of independence, Poland had been made progress every which way. Before the war and only after 18 years Poland's economy was on par with economy of Italy, and better than Spain's not to mention Greece's.
MarcinD 4 | 135
11 Apr 2012 #36
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal

- According to the Franco-Polish military convention, the French Army was to start preparations for the major offensive three days after the mobilisation started.[18] On 4 September, during a Franco-British meeting in France, it was decided that no major land or air operations against Germany would take place. After this meeting Gamelin issued orders banning Polish military envoys lieutenant Wojciech Fyda and general Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki from contacting him

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War

The Phoney War was a phase early in World War II-in the months following Britain and France's declaration of war on Germany (shortly after the German invasion of Poland) in September 1939 and preceding the Battle of France in May 1940-that was marked by a lack of major military operations by the Western Allies against the German Reich. War was declared by each side, but no Western power had committed to launching a significant land offensive, notwithstanding the terms of the Anglo-Polish military alliance and the Franco-Polish military alliance, which obliged the United Kingdom and France to assist Poland.
Trevek 26 | 1,702
11 Apr 2012 #37
The fact that their friends in the Red Army had destroyed what the the Nazis hadn't meant that the country was still going under massive reconstruction well into the 60s and early 70s so it's no wonder there was plenty of work around.

... and some of the bits the Nazis didn't destroy (former German industrial cities) were granted to Poland, so the industry was already there before the Sovs.
peterweg 36 | 2,320
11 Apr 2012 #38
many Poles would face daily abuse in the workplace and there was prejudice displayed towards Poles when seeking housing with signs in windows saying "No Irish, blacks or Poles" not uncommon.

Bollocks, you are lying.
Trevek 26 | 1,702
11 Apr 2012 #39
Not totally... in Scotland, for example, there was a "Poles go Home" campaign and there was also a move to encourage large numbers to repatriate to the colonies (Africa, Australia etc)

marysia.co.uk/PERSONAL/PolishArmy3.pdf
angelfire.com/ok2/polisharmy/chapter7.html

addresses the question of "forced repatriations":

The historical record shows that even General Anders felt let down and betrayed by the Allies. Anders' views on the post-war settlement are discussed in chapter two but in relation to the British he wrote the following, in the English language version of his memoirs:

"They were, however, obviously sincere, and there was every reason for gratitude to them for the assurances they gave that no soldiers would be repatriated against their will, and that demobilisation would not be hurried. For me, there was, indeed, no alternative but to agree with their proposals. If I disagreed, I should have been asked, "what then ?" and have had no answer, while Britain, to her great credit, was the only country which realised that there was a moral obligation to these soldiers who had fought so long by the side of the Allies and which was therefore prepared to make provision for the future of all who would not risk returning home." [38]

peterweg 36 | 2,320
11 Apr 2012 #40
Not totally...

Ok, I accept he was 99% lying.
Ziutek 9 | 160
11 Apr 2012 #41
MarcinD -thanks for the detailed reply. I completely agree that the UK was complicit in the betrayal of Poland but I am still not convinced that the US under Roosevelt was not more responsible. Also, as far as I know, the UK was exhausted in terms of both blood and treasure in 1945 and it would have been hard to enforce anything without the cooperation of the US.

From

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference:

Churchill alone pushed for free elections in Poland.[8] The British leader pointed out that the UK "could never be content with any solution that did not leave Poland a free and independent state". Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland, but forestalled ever honoring his promise.

--------

Roosevelt, however, maintained his confidence in Stalin, reasoning that Stalin's early priesthood training had "entered into his nature of the way in which a Christian gentleman should behave."

--------

I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. ... and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

-Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1943

I'm by no means an historian - I get most of my history from Wikipedia as you can tell - but, speaking as Brit, it does seem that Churchill sometimes gets more than his far share of opprobrium.
Hipis - | 227
11 Apr 2012 #42
. and some of the bits the Nazis didn't destroy (former German industrial cities) were granted to Poland, so the industry was already there before the Sovs.

What bits were those? Anything left in good working ordered was often stripped out and packed off to Russia.

Bollocks, you are lying.

Just because you choose not to believe the truth doesn't mean I'm lying. If you care to do some research you'll find easily enough what I have written in my post is true.
Trevek 26 | 1,702
11 Apr 2012 #43
What bits were those? Anything left in good working ordered was often stripped out and packed off to Russia.

Hmm, like mines, steelworks, cotton mills.
MarcinD 4 | 135
12 Apr 2012 #44
I was researching some stories from the past concerning Churchill and his legacy. And I felt these 3 comments covered each spectrum of this specific issue we are discussing

news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8234000/8234106.stm

Under the heading Cons is
· At the Yalta conference in 1945, Churchill acquiesced to Stalin's demand for control over eastern Europe in return for a guarantee that Greece would not fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. This, critics say, effectively sealed the fate of countries including Poland, Hungary and Romania, which only regained their independence in the late 80s and early 90s

But here are some comments that concerned Poland specifically that caught my eye

- Of course Churchill had to concede to Stalin over Eastern Europe - Roosevelt refused to back him up, so he had no alternative. By the time the Americans realised that Stalin wasn't everybody's favourite "Uncle Joe", it was too late. The fate of Poland was Churchill's bitterest regret.

- What I feel is Churchill's lowest hour is giving Poland to the Russians at Yalta when he was promising them throughout the war we were fighting for their liberation. How can we as a nation declare war on a common enemy because they invade a Country only to then give that Country to another invader - Russia?

Let's be honest, ultimately what could Churchill have done considering England was in post war shambles & the Soviets had just destroyed the Nazi Eastern Front. The Roosevelt angle, something I will look more into, is an interesting one & I agree with that individual......had Teddy backed up Churchill then maybe things turn out different...better/worse we do not know. Churchill does end up looking extremely poor because he met with Stalin separately so he must have known he would take the bulk of responsibility.

Here is something else I came across:

"At the Tehran Conference in late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin. This conference made the divisions between the US and Britain about the postwar world clearer. Churchill was intent on carving the postwar world into spheres of influence while the US upheld the principles of self-determination laid out in the Atlantic Charter. Harriman delivered the news that the spheres approach was unsatisfactory to the US for this reason. Furthermore, if this was the driving concept behind the peace, it would give Stalin a free hand in eastern Europe"

In these times ''more stable'' in terms of less World Wide warfare (haha), this sort of thinking by Churchill seems so out of touch. Then again, technically one could argue the United States has it's own sphere by default given it's enormous size & neighbors: Peaceful Canada & financially ruined Mexico.

As someone living in the United States for the past 25 years (Born in Poland) it is easy for me to forget why Poland is so in broadest terms Pro-USA. My family & I remain puzzled very often at why Poland sides with a nation half way across the globe versus her Western Allies. There were obviously many factors but we can all agree Poland & US had the same interest during this era.
Trevek 26 | 1,702
18 Apr 2012 #45
There's a chapter in "For Your Freedom and Ours" (history of 303 sqn) For-Your-Freedom-Ours-Kosciuszko.

which examines this. It points out that Teddy kept making jokes at Churchill's expense and seemed to think it made him matey with Uncle Joe. Stalin apparently just sat smiling at his two rivals weakening their position infront of him.
peterweg 36 | 2,320
18 Apr 2012 #46
There were obviously many factors but we can all agree Poland & US had the same interest during this era.

How can you come to that conclusion?

From the content of your own post its obvious that the US placed blind trust in Stalin and did nothing to defend Poland against him. American has never shown anything but self interest when it comes to the world.

US was fully intending to fight a nuclear war on Polish soil and see Poland and its people eradicated.

Tell me how thats in Poland's 'interest'?

The US interest in Vietnam was as a 'Bulwark against Communism' and to stop the domino effect of countries falling to communism in SE Asia. same principle was used in South America - kill anyone you like just make sure WE are safe from communism
MarcinD 4 | 135
20 Apr 2012 #48
Tell me how thats in Poland's 'interest'?

EVERYONE was looking into their own self interest at the time. Ultimately there is a wikipedia page on ''Western Betrayal'' NOT ''American Betrayal''. What was America supposed to do half-way across the globe? We got screwed by England/France during the war & by England during the post war negotiations.

I meant the same interest in terms of ''vs USSR''. What were England & France doing at the time......nothing.

Churchill (along with Stalin) wanted to set up spheres of power before America stepped in & said....WTF, you are crazy. Meaning they would each control a piece of each country & Russia would have been HANDED the entire East. You can argue, Hey the Soviets took it anyway BUT it came at the expense of broken promises & a negative label in everyones history books.

Ultimately Churchill cared far less for Poland than United States did. He basically handed Poland to Russia before even speaking to America & Poland about it. His knowledge flawed arguments in favor of why Poland shouldn't be given German land was ludicrous. You almost have to question what the hell was this guys motives.....I'm going to guess increasing the British Empire & influence on his way out of office.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say America loved Poland or did things specifically to help Poland.....BUT sometimes your enemies enemy is your best friend & that basically illustrates the relationship America & Poland had.
Falixus - | 8
25 Apr 2012 #49
I don't see why brits hate us. Our pilots (some of the best around) helped them fight ON THEIR LAND and LOST THEIR LIVES for THEIR land.
peterweg 36 | 2,320
25 Apr 2012 #50
I don't see why brits hate us

They don't, not at all. Don't take any notice of the occasional idiot who comes to a Polish Forum to spread lies and hate.
TheOther 6 | 3,821
25 Apr 2012 #51
How can we as a nation declare war on a common enemy because they invade a Country only to then give that Country to another invader - Russia?

Why is it that the Brits (and French) only declared war on Germany while Poland was invaded by another country as well? The official answer is the treaty with Poland, but the truth is something else:

...increasing the British Empire & influence

The reason for Britain to participate in both WW1 and WW2 had nothing to do with "defending democracy" or "liberating Poland". It was all about influence, power and getting rid of a global competitor (a.k.a. Germany).

Just saw it: the first quote is not by Trevek, but by MarcinD. Sorry.
Kuba TK 4 | 17
26 May 2012 #52
By annexing Eastern Europe, Russia worked in the national interest of the British. It's all about the Balance of Power. All seven of Poland's current neighbors aren't what you'd call allies. At some point in history, they all put their interests before that of Poland. Russia, Germany-Austria, Czech Republic, not really Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Sweden, etc. The list goes on. Currently, we're being used as a puppet of the U.S. to help them obtain their interests as well. I guess you could say: Hungary and Romania are our only allies in Europe and the Catholic Church serves as a unifying force in the country, so add the Vatican. Other than that, Poland's pretty much a loner.

My father told me that Warsaw was know as "the Second Paris".
rybnik 18 | 1,462
26 May 2012 #53
and the Catholic Church serves as a unifying force in the country

Its influence has diminished considerably since '89.
jasondmzk
26 May 2012 #54
My father told me that Warsaw was know as "the Second Paris".

That old trope is like being "the fifth Beatle". Every place has held that title, or the Second Venice, etc. at one time or another. It's an ancient marketing ploy.
pawian 168 | 11,014
27 May 2012 #55
Despite PiS leader, Kaczyński, incantations, Gabon ain`t hostile to Poland: news-poland.com/result/news/id/1854
jon357 63 | 15,061
27 May 2012 #56
Gabon ain`t hostile to Poland

The wonderfully named president of Gabon, Ali Bongo and his late father President Omar Bongo have been cooperating with Polish businessmen and technologists for decades.
pawian 168 | 11,014
27 May 2012 #57
The wonderfully named president of Gabon, Ali Bongo

Yes, he is a great guy. I love it whenever he comes to Poland.

youtube.com/watch?v=RbOwMc5paAw
Peter_H 3 | 47
19 Nov 2012 #58
Friends:
Israel
France
Germany
Burkino Faso
Slovakia

Enemies:
Lithuania
Russia
Thailand
Spain
Peru
berni23 7 | 379
19 Nov 2012 #59
I agree on Thailand being Polands worst enemy, but Burkino Faso Polands friend???

Are you forgetting the 3 partitions and WW2???
TheLox - | 50
2 Dec 2012 #60
I know Americans Like the Poles. But I have a friend.......she came here from Russia when she was 10. According to her, the Russians don't like Poles and vice versa. I'm mostly Polish but I'm a mix, which makes me an American, and I don't discriminate, I love everybody. I got sick of hating a long time ago.


Home / History / Which countries are Polands friends, which are Polands enemies?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.