The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 215

How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer


Ironside 50 | 10,935
15 May 2013 #121
Polish forces invaded Czech territory in 1918 and then Poland ignored the interim peace treaty. How is that tit for tat?!

What Czechoslovakia territory? Are you telling me that Poland signed territorial agreement with Czechoslovakia prior to 1918?
So stop lying Harry.

Yet another lie from you: Britain had no alliance whatsoever with Czechoslovakia to honour when the Nazis and Poles decided they were going to invade Czechoslovakia and occupy Czechoslovakian territory.

Yet she felt need to broke a deal with Mr Hitler. Why? Because she had a close alliance with France and if France would have been involved in war with Germany they would have to follow their suit.

all is connected Harry and if you fail to see that you have no place to debate history shoo troll.

I see that you are lying again: Poland took territory that Poland had agreed was part of Czechoslovakia. The land that Poland took was not Polish, it was Czechoslovakian, as even the state of Poland had agreed when signing the international treaty confirming that fact.

At the stage Czechoslovakia surrendered their sovereignty to international bodies and give up a large chunk of their territory without the fight. The only fair would be take back area with predominately Polish population and which had been stolen by Czechoslovakia by stabbing Poland in the back during her war with the Soviets in 1920.

Maybe they should wait and obtain such paper as given to Mr Hitler by the western powers to make good and legal his claim. I'm sure they would do just that if only they knew about your bureaucratic streak.

To be sure Poland's government obtained such paper from the Czechoslovakia government if that ease your pain.
Well I don't expect pan-European to understand complexity and quirks of the European history.
By the way what had happened with your country?
Harry
15 May 2013 #122
What Czechoslovakia territory? Are you telling me that Poland signed territorial agreement with Czechoslovakia prior to 1918?

I am telling you that an interim agreement was signed on 5 November and on 6 November Polish forces took land in the Spis region in violation of that agreement and stayed there until they were defeated in battle in December 1918.

So stop lying Harry.

As usual, I will now challenge you to produce a quote in which I tell a lie and to explain what makes it a lie (as I have done with your lie about Poland taking Polish land in 1938). As usual you will either claim 'it is obvious' or 'I don't have time' or just throw out more insults.

The only fair would be take back area with predominately Polish population and which had been stolen by Czechoslovakia by stabbing Poland in the back during her war with the Soviets in 1920.

And yet again you lie. The Polish-Czechoslovakian war was in January 1919 and it had finished before the Polish-Soviet war started. Although I can see why you feel the need to lie about those facts, especially given that the eastern war that Poland was actually fighting in January 1919 was against the same Ukrainians with whom Poland later signed an alliance and then stabbed in the back by selling them and their country to the Soviets.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
15 May 2013 #123
The Polish-Czechoslovakian war was in January 1919 and it had finished before the Polish-Soviet war started.

As usual you see a tree but not the forest. War clouds were already brewing and the Poles were engaged with Ukrainians during this time period.

From this link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_border_conflicts

"The Polish side based its claim to the area on ethnic criteria: a majority of the area's population was Polish according to the last (1910) Austrian census................[1]
Harry
15 May 2013 #124
As usual you see a tree but not the forest.

And as usual the usual suspects approach Polish history with the attitude 'We need to lie about the bits which are inconvenient for us'.

War clouds were already brewing and the Poles were engaged with Ukrainians during this time period.

Yes, funny how certain posters so often claim Poland was fighting the Red Army and not the people who became Polish allies before being stabbed in the back and sold to the Soviets, isn't it?

As for war clouds, if they were blowing, perhaps Poland should have accepted the 1919 request from Czechoslovakia to observe the terms of the interim agreement between Czechoslovakia and Poland rather than arrogantly thinking that war on two fronts would be no problem at all?
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
15 May 2013 #125
Gotta go, but from my link above;

"The Czechoslovak government in Prague requested that the Poles cease their preparations for national parliamentary elections in the area that had been designated Polish in the interim agreement as no sovereign rule was to be executed in the disputed areas. The Polish government declined and the Czechoslovak side decided to stop the preparations by force. Czechoslovak troops entered area managed by Polish interim body on January 23. Czechoslovak troops gained the upper hand over the weaker Polish units."

It would seem that force was first used by the Czechs.

Poland should have accepted the 1919 request from Czechoslovakia rather than arrogantly thinking that war on two fronts would be no problem at all?t

Harry knows what Poles were "thinking" yet again. If the disheveled Harry didn't exist, one would have to be invented. The court jester indeed.
Harry
15 May 2013 #126
It would seem that force was first used by the Czechs.

No debate there. However, the Polish broke the treaty first and then rejected Czechoslovak requests that they stop breaking it. Simple as that.

If the disheveled Harry didn't exist, one would have to be invented. The court jester indeed.

Nice to see that you know how weak your case is and so you try to distract attention from that fact by flinging around the insults.
Ironside 50 | 10,935
15 May 2013 #127
First of all Polish central government constituted on and after 11th of November, so you are talking about action taken by some local organizations.
Polish and Czechoslovakian governments agreed on border based on ethnic boundaries.
Czechoslovakia claims were just a flimsy excuse for an armed aggression.

As usual, I will now challenge you to produce a quote in which I tell a lie and to explain what makes it a lie (as I have done with your lie about Poland taking Polish land in 1938). As usual you will either claim 'it is obvious' or 'I don't have time' or just throw out more insults.

you are a troll, i own you nothing. Given the fact that you are always taking anti-Polish makes it a pleasure.

9 was against the same Ukrainians with whom Poland later signed an alliance and then stabbed in the back by selling them and their country to the Soviets.

you seems not to be grasping a fact that they wasn't the same Ukrainians. (what is wrong with you?)What country? what backstabbing? what it has to do with the issue debated

No debate there. However, the Polish broke the treaty first and then rejected Czechoslovak requests that they stop breaking it. Simple as that.

no that was Polish ethnic territory and Czechoslovakia government under flimsy excuse used their armed forces to get it - simple like that.
Harry
15 May 2013 #128
First of all Polish central government constituted on and after 11th of November, so you are talking about action taken by some local organizations.

Local councils which were absorbed by the relevant national governments with the national governments taking on the rights and responsibilities of the bodies which they had absorbed. If Poland had objected to the requirements of the interim agreement, Poland should have stated that at the time, rather than just ignoring the bits it didn't like.

you are a troll, i own you nothing. Given the fact that you are always taking anti-Polish makes it a pleasure.

And yet another lie and an insult from you. If I'm supposedly so anti-Polish and you are supposedly so pro-Polish, how come I'm the one who chooses to live here, has done quite a bit of work to help Poland and pays taxes here while you do none of those things?

you seems not to be grasping a fact that they wasn't the same Ukrainians. (what is wrong with you?)What country? what backstabbing?

Yes, they were the same Ukrainians, those loyal to the government headed by Symon Petlyura.
The country was the Ukrainian People's Republic and it was recognised by the government of Poland in the 1920 Treaty of Warsaw which also established an alliance between the two nations.

The back stabbing took place in the 1921 Peace of Riga, where Poland sold her former allies and their country to the USSR.

you are a pathological troll.

Isn't it funny how hard you find it to quote examples of me trolling but I find it so easy to quote examples of you lying?
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
16 May 2013 #129
It would seem that force was first used by the Czechs.

Indeed it was, and there are some suggestions that the Czechs pantomined in foreign uniforms to give a subterfuge. If one delves into the issue further, one can't help but notice the antics of Benes, with his double-speak and Ketmanesque dealings during the Spa negotiations and prior, faking a position of desiring a plebiscite to buy time. The Poles executed the agreement on the assumption of a decision being made on an objective basis, but were humbugged as Benes had already known of the decision beforehand, and indeed negotiated it direct with the decision makers!

As you would know, an agreement can be overturned in the event that a party has committed a fraud in obtaining the other party's consent, or has not disclosed to the other party matters that are material for the other party's consideration when deciding whether or not to enter into the agreement. Estoppel springs to mind too.

In any event, fast forward 20 odd years - inter alia, the Poles now long having realised they'd been duped by the Czechs (or I should say the Czech representative, because the Czech people shouldn't be held to account for the folly of their representatives) make an ultimatum in a different climate, which is accepted by the Czechs, and the Poles roll in - rough justice, I'd say. That the Poles didn't do anything sooner, and indeed seem to have exercised a fair amount of forebearance when action was taken, can only be attributed to the fact that Poland really is the Christ of Nations.

Curious, isn't it, how none of the Czech apologists (who I would warrant have probably never been to Czechoslovakia (as it was then know)) make any mention of Chamberlain's involvement in the Nazi carve up, nor in respect of the context to the matter as it played out in the late teens and early 20's - but, then again, we can't have facts getting in the way of an opportunity to jump on Polish shadows - indoctrination by Western propaganda, no doubt. Next we'll be hearing from them that Sikorski (from the grave) created the altered Curzon Line, that the Soviet takeover in 1944/45 was lawful under the Polish Constitution and that the Polish navy made full steam for Britain before the first shot was fired in WW2!
Ziemowit 13 | 4,272
16 May 2013 #130
Curious, isn't it, how none of the Czech apologists (who I would warrant have probably never been to Czechoslovakia (as it was then know)) make any mention of Chamberlain's involvement in the Nazi carve up [...]

For me it is not curious at all (btw, at least one of the "Czech apologists" here has been to Prague, but only for beer). Be sure that the question of "how the Polish joined the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia" will sooner or later jump up on the PF with some newcomer raising it up, but with the same people taking the discussion over again.

but, then again, we can't have facts getting in the way of an opportunity to jump on Polish shadows - indoctrination by Western propaganda, no doubt.

Western propaganda, it is one thing. But in more detail it's western propaganda taken to the very extremes by the general attitudes of the "Czech apologists" and the like here on PF. It's much easier to cope with one's faults and deficiencies when you can blame someone else, too. This is a well-known psychological mechanism and the attitude of the "little British gang of three", as Des calls them, here on the PF is just one of its clinical manifestations. Rasicm in Western Europe? Yes, but look at the Eastern Europeans: what ugly racism there!!! Antisemitism? Yes, we have it, but it is really nothing compared with Eastern Europe. Hitler wouldn't have done a mere tenth of his job if Eastern Europeans did not help him! Invading foreign countries? Of course, the British Empire was doing this, but we were bringing civilisation to the rest of the world, that's what we did it for, whereas the barbaric kind of invasions - look at Eastern Europe, stupid!

It has to be said, however, that some of the "Eastern European" side also display such an attitude and I could name several Polish posters who act in a similar way here as Harry does. That is why it is important to fight manipulation being imposed through the incessantly sung tunes of the "Nazi-Polish invasions" song which is clearly aimed at tiring up and thus silencing those who have the courage to put things into broader perspective.
Ironside 50 | 10,935
16 May 2013 #131
we can't have facts getting in the way of an opportunity to jump on Polish shadows - indoctrination by Western propaganda,

What one can expect form a colonial of German extraction who is ashamed of his former country and some gutter swept from the outer fringes of the globe. Hypothetically speaking - off course.

Yes, they were the same Ukrainians, those loyal to the government headed by Symon Petlyura.

No, Poland have been fighting with one bunch of Ukrainians who had no communication with the other bunch headed by Petlura. so not quite the same Ukrainians. One were subjects of Hapsburg and other has been Tzar subjects.

Local councils which were absorbed by the relevant national governments with the national governments taking on the rights and responsibilities of the bodies which they had absorbed. If Poland had objected to the requirements of the interim agreement, Poland should have stated that at the time, rather than just ignoring the bits it didn't like.

Skip the nonsense. the fact is that said territory enjoyed Polish majority, the fact is that Czechoslovakia government agreed to divide that territory according to the ethnic borders, the fact is that they lied and chested and in effect used force to gain their objective.

Now, you are anti-Polish taken stance that somehow Poles were to blame.

has done quite a bit of work to help Poland and pays taxes here while you do none of those things?

delusion of grander kaffir?
Your financial arrangements and the place you sleep and shyte has nothing to do with the fact that you are taking anti-Polish stance on PF.
Harry
16 May 2013 #132
The Poles executed the agreement on the assumption of a decision being made on an objective basis,

And which agreement might that have been?

In any event, fast forward 20 odd years - inter alia, the Poles now long having realised they'd been duped by the Czechs

Duped? Poland signed the treaty settling the border in the knowledge that that was the border. How is that being duped?

Poland really is the Christ of Nations.

I must have missed the bits in the bible where Jesus went round beating up his weaker neighbours, breaking his promises and selling people who'd been his friends to the Romans (or was it the Soviets), could you perhaps point out the relevant chapters.

Curious, isn't it, how none of the Czech apologists (who I would warrant have probably never been to Czechoslovakia (as it was then know))

There's another bet you'd lose. Who fancies a bet that you have never been to Poland?

Sikorski (from the grave) created the altered Curzon Line,

Nope, his proposal was for the western border of Poland, not the eastern one.

here on the PF is just one of its clinical manifestations. Rasicm in Western Europe? Yes, but look at the Eastern Europeans: what ugly racism there!!!

I've often said that Poles are no more racist than other Europeans. The vast majority of the racism displayed on PF comes from N America and Australia, for example Dan's charming line in racist abuse.

"Nazi-Polish invasions"

Anybody who claims that there were Nazi-Polish invasions is clearly a liar: there was only one occasions that the Poles and the Nazis invaded the same country at the same time.

What one can expect form a colonial of German extraction who is ashamed of his former country and some gutter swept from the outer fringes of the globe.

Good to see that you still have no idea who Delph and I are. However, it's a pity that people who read this forum will come away with the impression that Polonia and Poles who have abandoned Poland are unpleasant racist bigots; the reality is that most Polonia and Poles who have abandoned Poland are not unpleasant racist bigots and that it's pure chance that here most of the unpleasant racist bigots are Polonia or Poles who have abandoned Poland.
Ironside 50 | 10,935
16 May 2013 #133
Good to see that you still have no idea who Delph and I are

Never said a word about you or delph. That was just exercise in hyperbole.
I know what you are Harry.

Anybody who claims that there were Nazi-Polish invasions is clearly a liar: there was only one occasions that the Poles and the Nazis invaded the same country at the same time.

So what you are fretting about?

are unpleasant racist bigots;

like delph harping about peasants? very pleasant, not bigoted and not racist at all, especially if some Aberdeen gangsta keep saying that. In Poland there are no peasant anymore, there are farmers.
Harry
16 May 2013 #134
Never said a word about you or delph. That was just exercise in hyperbole.

And one clearly aimed at Delph and I.

like delph harping about peasants?

I see you're lying yet again: he was talking about the descendants of peasants?

In Poland there are no peasant anymore, there are farmers.

I'm not sure if you are lying here or just displaying your utter ignorance of present day Poland. Either way, just go to eastern Poland and you'll see more peasants than farmers. Peasants in Poland even have their own political party; the pre-war leader of that party had fairly firm views about Poland accepting Hitler's offer, which is one of the reasons the Nazis locked him up.
Ironside 50 | 10,935
16 May 2013 #135
And one clearly aimed at Delph and I.

If you say so. I don't see the connection but you know better I'm sure.

I see you're lying yet again: he was talking about the descendants of peasants?

nah he is harping about peasants this or that as if there was something wrong with being a one or having such ancestry, what wrong with peasants? Nothing, only bigot could even imply that.

Either way, just go to eastern Poland and you'll see more peasants than farmers. Peasants in Poland even have their own political party; the pre-war leader of that party had fairly firm views about Poland accepting Hitler's offer, which is one of the reasons the Nazis locked him up.

How are you distinguishing between peasants and farmers?Do you measure their sculls? Ask them? What?
PSL? It suppose to be party for farmers.Where from did you get this peasant thingy, that historical expression.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,858
16 May 2013 #136
who I would warrant have probably never been to Czechoslovakia

Been there more times than I care to count. And you?
Ziemowit 13 | 4,272
16 May 2013 #137
Anybody who claims that there were Nazi-Polish invasions is clearly a liar: there was only one occasions that the Poles and the Nazis invaded the same country at the same time.

You've invented one Nazi-Polish invasion, you may well invent more of them.
Harry
16 May 2013 #138
You've invented one Nazi-Polish invasion,

Why do you feel that compulsion to lie about me? There is no need for me to invent an event when Polish and Nazi forces both invaded the same country at the same time and both occupied the parts of that country which they wanted: it happened in 1938. Of course, Poland didn't have long to enjoy the land that she'd stolen: Poland rejecting Hitler's offer meant that the stolen property was taken from Poland and after the war it was returned to its rightful owners.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
16 May 2013 #139
there was only one occasions that the Poles and the Nazis invaded the same country at the same time.

Fortunately mighty pinks came to their rescue.

Hitler pink

Oh wait :)))
Marek11111 9 | 816
16 May 2013 #140
How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer
well we would never hear about Harry and his anti-Polish propaganda.
TheOther 5 | 3,758
16 May 2013 #141
How different would WW2 turned out

This forum would be called German Forums and you would be complaining about anti-German propaganda?
Marek11111 9 | 816
16 May 2013 #142
unlikely Poland would be a allied and be a part of victors
call1n 2 | 138
18 May 2013 #143
Then Hitler would have to re-write Mein-Kamf and say that the Poles are not sub-human...
Maybe then America would catch on, and change its immigration policy towards Poland that it had since the 20's....
legend 3 | 664
18 May 2013 #144
Hitler attacked the wrong side of Europe. He should have gone all out and the wipe the British out.
jon357 66 | 16,977
18 May 2013 #145
Shame you don't seem to understand that he attacked both sides of Europe.

Interesting though that you advocate genocide.
OP pierogi2000 4 | 229
18 May 2013 #146
Hitler attacked the wrong side of Europe. He should have gone all out and the wipe the British out.

Hitler spared British forces numerous times in battle. In the end he wanted Britain (white brother) to join him.

Ultimately Poland was the domino. If Poles accept Hitler's offer, England/France/USA don't come to the rescue of Soviet and/or Jews. Hitler creates an empire in Central & Eastern/Soviet Europe.
jon357 66 | 16,977
18 May 2013 #147
Hitler spared British forces numerous times in battle. In the end he wanted Britain (white brother) to join him.

The Fallen might disagree with you. Nevertheless, Britain did have some decisive victories in battle, despite the fascists' best efforts.
Ironside 50 | 10,935
18 May 2013 #148
Then Hitler would have to re-write Mein-Kamf and say that the Poles are not sub-human...

quote from M Kampf please with the sentence saying what your claim its saying. Otherwise admit that you are talking out your ass.
call1n 2 | 138
18 May 2013 #149
Don't give me this quote crap... read between the lines, Hitler insinuates that the Germanic people are Aryan and not the "lower peoples" ...

Just because there is no exact sentence to reference that, does not mean that the entirety of the book could not insinuate that.

Why would Poland accept Hitler's agreement, when there is so much hostility towards East Prussia?
Lenka 3 | 2,558
18 May 2013 #150
quote from M Kampf please with the sentence saying what your claim its saying.

I read it and although he didn't say sub human he detested Slavs and had big problems with them. One of his problems with Austria was that they allowed to many Slavs to live there. I can't remember the exact words but I remember the essence.


Home / History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.