The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 60

Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII.


Ironside 48 | 9,792
11 Jun 2010  #1
How Poland was seen by British government and British public before WWII.



youtube.com/watch?v=5WbcLeelkkQ
Amathyst 19 | 2,702
11 Jun 2010  #2
And this what that speech cost us:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm
Nevermind, we'll still always hear about how England and we did nothing.
1jola 14 | 1,879
11 Jun 2010  #3
From your link:

"In a 1945 state department survey on the US public's attitudes to its wartime allies, Britain was one of the least trusted countries," says Dr Clavin.

Are you refering to this?
Amathyst 19 | 2,702
11 Jun 2010  #4
No, I was referring to the debt as the title of the article suggested. Are you suggesting with your comment that we were untrustworthy and did little for the war effort?
OP Ironside 48 | 9,792
12 Jun 2010  #5
we'll still always hear about how shyt England and we did nothing.

Britain entered war with Germany because wanted for her own reasons, not to help anyone, so shouldn't except gratitude.

I added British declaration of war and above British comment about Poland before the war to discus whereas that was the true view and spirits of an ally, or was it only political game and the real picture of Poland in the eyes of British government had been something else!
isthatu2 4 | 2,708
19 Jun 2010  #6
Britain entered war with Germany because wanted for her own reasons

What reasons are they then oh master historian? Considering Hitler had no intentions against Britain,or indead the British empire and veiwed "us" as possible trading partners for his hoped for new Europa,sort of in Europe but not quite(sounds familiar). The "best" course of action for a woefully unprepered Britain to take in 1939 would have been to wait,sit back,let germany regain german land,as seen at the time have a long protracted war against Poland,who reasured Britain it could hold out almost indefinatly against the germans, and then see what happened by staying neutral and building up "our " armed forces. So,basicaly declaring war against a country we knew to be vastly better equipped than us that we could have safely left to carve up countries we frankly had no cultural,economic or any other forms of ties with thus leading to an invasion of the west would hardly seem to be politic would it?

so shouldn't except gratitude.

No one expects gratitude,but its nice for a little recognition,maybe you buggers should take a leaf out of Frances book. For years they have been fed propaganda that somehow the BEF betrayed them by evacuating from Dunkirk when in fact many thousands of the troops rescued were french etc who on the main,when offered the chance to stay on in Britain with the Free French forces chose to go back to collaborationist or occupied france to sit on their thumbs for the next 4 years.Even the French now are realising its to many years since it all happpened to still live in a bullsh*t land of propaganda and blame every damm country apart from their own,and I say Vive le France !

Oh,one last thing,in 1938 Britain sent troops to Czechoslovakia to aid the czechs against the germans,where as,what did Poland do,oh yes,took the oppertunity to invade slovakia as the nazis marched on the sudetenland,not criket old boy.
David_18 68 | 982
19 Jun 2010  #7
Oh,one last thing,in 1938 Britain sent troops to Czechoslovakia to aid the czechs against the germans,where as,what did Poland do,oh yes,took the oppertunity to invade slovakia as the nazis marched on the sudetenland,not criket old boy.

You really made my night haha. What army did the british send to the Czechs?
isthatu2 4 | 2,708
19 Jun 2010  #8
I didnt say Army,it was a company of bycle mounted Guardsmen( I sheeet you not :) ) but lets face it,a pish poor effort to help is better than erm,fekking invading the place and stealing land isnt it?
wildrover 98 | 4,452
19 Jun 2010  #9
I didnt say Army,it was a company of bycle mounted Guardsmen(

Wow...that would have had the waffen ss panzer crews shaking in their jackboots...!
Chicago Pollock 7 | 504
19 Jun 2010  #10
Ironside

Britain entered war with Germany because wanted for her own reasons, not to help anyone, so shouldn't except gratitude.

Of course, countries act in their own interest (or they should act in their own interest) what do you expect?

Maybe the problem with Poland is it doesn't act in it's own interest?
plk123 8 | 4,150
19 Jun 2010  #11
The "best" course of action for a woefully unprepered Britain to take in 1939 would have been to wait,sit back,let germany regain german land,as seen at the time have a long protracted war against Poland,

glad GB signed a treaty to help poland in case of an attack.. oh well.. eff that say they brits.. we don't wanna help now.. maybe later.. great stuff man..
OP Ironside 48 | 9,792
21 Jun 2010  #12
Of course, countries act in their own interest (or they should act in their own interest) what do you expect?

I know, but our neighbours across the pond are nursing some delusions.

1938 Britain sent troops to Czechoslovakia to aid the czechs against the germans,where as,what did Poland do,oh yes,took the oppertunity to invade slovakia as the nazis marched on the sudetenland,not criket old boy.

Why, its was Czechoslovakia that refused to ally itself with Poland.
Yet I have learned one interesting detail in 1938 while Poland and Germany have reasonably friendly relations, Britain was bent on stopping Germans and was serious by the sound of it.

It speak loudly to those who listen - Britain as early as in 1938 were determined to stop Germany in Europe, so much that didn't hesitate to sent soldiers to fight against German Army.

What reasons are they then oh master historian?

Well, guess :)
Mr Grunwald 19 | 1,542
21 Jun 2010  #13
Britain as early as in 1938 were determined to stop Germany in Europe that didn't hesitate to sent soldiers to fight against German Army.

Then that blows up really the argument about not being able to help Poland, Czechoslovakia don't even have connection to the sea!!! :o
Amathyst 19 | 2,702
21 Jun 2010  #14
I know, but our neighbours across the pond are nursing some delusions.

No delusions here...We've been taught history and not force fed shyt!

I wish we'd have allied ourselves with Germany! We are Germanic after all!
polishcanuck 7 | 462
21 Jun 2010  #15
Britain entered war with Germany because wanted for her own reasons, not to help anyone, so shouldn't except gratitude.

What reasons are they then oh master historian?

Well according to limey author r.a.c. parker, britain went to war because they were concerned with the growth of german power disrupting the balance of power in europe.
Matowy - | 295
21 Jun 2010  #16
britain went to war because they were concerned with the growth of german power disrupting the balance of power in europe.

Correct. I'm amazed that people can even consider anything other than this. It was a power struggle, nothing more. Trying to ascribe good intentions to it is disrespectful to the whole war.
OP Ironside 48 | 9,792
22 Jun 2010  #17
We've been taught history and not force fed shyt!

nah nah ...someone is angry:)

I wish we'd have allied ourselves with Germany! We are Germanic after all!

sure, according to above logic Poles should allied themselves with Russians, who would be eating **** then :D

britain went to war because they were concerned with the growth of german power disrupting the balance of power in europe.

bingo !
It wouldn't been first time :)

How about the thread topic then?
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
22 Jun 2010  #18
Hitler had no intentions against Britain,or indead the British empire and veiwed "us" as possible trading partners for his hoped for new Europa,sort of in Europe but not quite(sounds familiar).

That's actually true. Early 1940, up until April 1940 Hitler was still hoping to make peace again with Britain or get a truce or sth. Because he saw the British as a fellow Germanic country. Yet Britain kept her foot right down and went to war because of Poland. That same Poland which is now being very ungrateful as Britain did not come and help her in 1939. But have any of you bright historians have any idea how she pssbly could've done that? In order to get to Poland over sea, they needed to cross waters which were dangerously close to Germany and you honestly didn't believe that Germany would say that it was cool because it was the British trying to help the Poles? Don't think so. Declaring war on Germany was to help Poland but, and that is what many of you bright lights always and ever fail to see, it was a symbolic gesture. Really help Poland was impssbl, whether they wanted it or not. So, a bit more gratuity would be in place instead of cursing and swearing at Britain.

britain went to war because they were concerned with the growth of german power disrupting the balance of power in europe.

You're mistaking WW1 for WW2 here. But it's ok, I don't mind :)

Correct. I'm amazed that people can even consider anything other than this. It was a power struggle, nothing more. Trying to ascribe good intentions to it is disrespectful to the whole war.

Not correct. It's WW1 in which this aspect played a part. Not in WW2. In WW2 there were other aspects, not the balance of power. The balance of power wasn't as much an issue in 1939 as it was in the teens of the 20th Century. In fact, WW2 was a continuation of WW1, therefore the whole period between 1914 and 1945 is among historians referred to as the 30 year's war of the 20th Century.
OP Ironside 48 | 9,792
22 Jun 2010  #19
hat's actually true. Early 1940, up until April 1940 Hitler

Doesn't matter what Hitler wanted! It was Britain that wanted to keep Germans in check, Britain and France.

Not correct. It's WW1 in which this aspect played a part. Not in WW2. In WW2 there were other aspects, not the balance of power. The balance of power wasn't as much an issue in 1939 as it was in the teens of the 20th Century.

balalaika ballaha ...
to make it simple .....they were willing to give to Hitler Czechoslovakia, Austria and maybe Poland but were afraid that he will go for France .... after digestion that is ...
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
22 Jun 2010  #20
I don't play balalaika. But to respond, Britain was only willing to give Hitler the Sudetenland in Czechia and when about half a year later he annexed the rest of Czechia and Slovakia, Chamberlain knew that peace was not an option anymore and that Hitler would never be satisfied. Poland was the piece de resistance, he declared war on Germany because he didn't want to give in to Germany anymore. He was never planning to give Poland to Hitler. Not after the annexation of Czechoslovakia.
OP Ironside 48 | 9,792
22 Jun 2010  #21
well, its what i said but I made it simple and you are showing off !

I-S (balalaika. time to learn, I think it would suit you)
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
22 Jun 2010  #22
well, its what i said but I made it simple and you are showing off !

What you said was incomplete. I just completed it. Sudetenland is sth different than the rest of Czechoslovakia. And the annexation of the rest of CZ is just a consequence of the crisis of September 1938, not the crisis itself.

>^..^<

M-G (sorry dude, I really am a historian and I've tried to play balalaika, but it's boring)
OP Ironside 48 | 9,792
22 Jun 2010  #23
What you said was incomplete. I just completed it.

you made it unnecessary complex

because for those who know something about it there is no need to elaborate ...for those with no knowledge your complexity is confusing ....in fact you are showing off

How about the topic of the thread?
I-S (no bother, I feel in my guts that you would be good at it unlike history)
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
22 Jun 2010  #24
That's actually true. Early 1940, up until April 1940 Hitler was still hoping to make peace again with Britain or get a truce or sth. Because he saw the British as a fellow Germanic country.

That's an interesting anecdote on a self serving statement(s) from Der Fuhrer but largely irrelevant to the context of the discussion. It's irrelevant because upon the Nazi invasion of CZ in early 1939, HMG's resolve stiffened to the point where it was realised that the Nazis had to be stopped per se, quite apart from any notions of contractual obligations or altruistic purposes viz Poland. If memory serves it was Beaverbrook or like politician of anti-war ilk who uttered words to the effect that it was going to be a war of attrition with either GB or Germany prevailing. Don't fall into the trap of allowing assumption and hypothesis back up a statement which you purport to be incontrovertible.

But have any of you bright historians have any idea how she pssbly could've done that?

No need to profess indignation here. As far as I'm aware, you're the only person on this forum who purports to be a 'historian' but whose statements tend to suggest otherwise. Perhaps you'd indulge us armchair historians by referring us to some of your works on history - I however must profess to being unfamiliar with any genuine historian who signs himself off with a childish and vaguely feline monogram or who refers to themselves in the third person.

As to the real issue, there's no doubt in my mind that HMG were solid on the course of action that nothing more could have been done in '39 except for leaflet drops, a raid on Wilhelmshaven and other irrelevances that some may deem deserve mention. Historians such as yourself tend to wring their hands and say 'what more could we have done' and 'we did all we could because (insert your favourite contra-indicator to assistance)'. What I've never been able to reconcile however is how, in due course, several tens of thousands of Poles, if not more, managed to travel their way across wartime Europe and arrive in England after the fall of Poland and place themselves in the service of HMG. Given the difficulties you've elaborated on in excusing HMG from further assistance, it's nothing short of a miracle.

In any event, here's an easier one though - what could HMG not have done to help Poland? Here's a few:

1. Enter into the treaty of Mutual Assistance with Poland knowing that no meaningful assistance could be rendered, or, not caveating the term of obligations of assistance by setting out when, how and in what manner that assistance would be delivered or if there would be any matters absolving them of doing all in their power to deliver assistance. Once mutual obligations are formalised, each party expects the other to adhere to same. 'Doing all in your power' means just that, and cannot be read down, because it frustrates the intent of the treaty and makes it redundant. No amount of sighing, deflection, revisionist dogma, hand wringing or blame shifting will change the fact that at best HMG read down their obligations and at worst, failed to do all in their power to assist. In any event, Poland rightly assumed the treaty meant what it said and relied on HMG to fulfil same. A contracting party can be estopped from denying the existence or meaning of a clause if the other party relied on that clause to their detriment.

2. Breaching clause 5 of the treaty by not telling Poland about the relevant outcomes of Teheran. Poland could have then decided if it wished to continue fighting alongside the allies with the knowledge that HMG and the USA had acquiesced to Stalin's fait accompli regarding Poland's make up post WW2. Again, no amount of sighing, deflection, revisionist dogma, hand wringing or blame shifting will change the fact that a few simple words would have discharged that obligation.

3. Not consenting to releasing Anders and his troops in early-mid 1945 so they could fight their way back to Poland. Why not? Because HMG feared that the post war geo-political makeup, purchased partly at Poland's expense, could be displaced if, heaven forbid, Poland fought back against an invader and occupier.

No doubt some will say Poland breached treaties with other countries and so on, and that by virtue of those purported breaches Poland does not have standing to complain about the treaty with Britain. That is however irrelevant. If I breach a contract with party A am I precluded from complaining that my different contract with party B has been breached by party B? No.

If I cause a car accident and injure party A, then am injured by party B who caused another accident, am I precluded from bringing an action against party B simply because I caused another different accident and injured A? No.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
22 Jun 2010  #25
It's irrelevant because upon the Nazi invasion of CZ in early 1939, HMG's resolve stiffened to the point where it was realised that the Nazis had to be stopped per se, quite apart from any notions of contractual obligations or altruistic purposes viz Poland.

I've already addressed this point. But thanks. I am aware that the annexation of the rest of CZ made Britain aware of the true intentions of Hitler cs, and that they vowed not to give in as there would never be peace with Hitler, no matter how they would give in to him. Pls check my previous posts in this thread. Thank you.

No need to profess indignation here. As far as I'm aware, you're the only person on this forum who purports to be a 'historian' but whose statements tend to suggest otherwise.

Pls refrain from making suggestive remarks. Thank you.

I however must profess to being unfamiliar with any genuine historian who signs himself off with a childish and vaguely feline monogram or who refers to themselves in the third person.

Pls refrain from showing your antipathy against me. Thank you. Yet I have an honours in the field. Maybe it's not all that stiff as you would like it to be?

They did however, declare war on Nazi Germany in response to the German invasion of Poland, or didn't they? Germany knew at that point that Britain cared enough about Poland to wage a war it originally didn't want. The things you postulate about the Teheran conference are irrelevant in this respect.

>^..^<

M-G (haec hactenus)
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
22 Jun 2010  #26
I am aware that the annexation of the rest of CZ made Britain aware of the true intentions of Hitler cs, and that they vowed not to give in as there would never be peace with Hitler, no matter how they would give in to him.

Then why not say that, because on my reading of your post you say HMG went to war because of Poland then suggest that Poland should be thankful because of that?

What other thread? Can't you give me a nutshell?

Pls refrain from making suggestive remarks. Thank you.

I'm entitled to make suggestive remarks. The suggestion was that if you are indeed a historian then point us to your published works. Again, no need to profess indignation.

Pls refrain from showing your antipathy against me. Thank you.

There is no antipathy. I made a statement that no historian I am aware of carries on in your name and style.

Have you got any responses to any of the real issues contained in my post?
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
22 Jun 2010  #27
What other thread? Can't you give me a nutshell?

It was this thread, mea culpa.

I made a statement that no historian I am aware of carries on in your name and style.

My feline signature is just a means to stand out from the crowd. Nothing more. I got my cum laude for my style of writing. I don't know if you're familiar with the Clingendael Institute in the Netherlands, but there are some essays and dissertations of my hand there. Since I unfortunately didn't get to expand my Master's into a PhD after graduating, I haven't written as much as I would like to. But I plan to make that up after my retirement. If you want to, I can provide you some links to articles that I've written in the 90's and teens of this century, but it will have to be via PM and tomorrow morning as they reveal my name and you understand I don't want my name out in the open AND it's a quarter to two in the morning right now and I am turning in. Just send me a PM if you want me to provide you links.

>^..^<

M-G (good night)
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
22 Jun 2010  #28
An edited response to your edit:

They did however, declare war on Nazi Germany in response to the German invasion of Poland, or didn't they?

Agreed. That is trite.

The things you postulate about the Teheran conference are irrelevant in this respect.

Irrelevant or unable to be responded to? I say it's relevant because:

1. the discussion is about Poland in the eyes of London before WW2

2. the eyes of London cast their gaze upon Poland and signed a treaty with Poland before WW2

3. I suggest that article 5 was subsequently breached.

4. London's eyes therefore closed to what happened at Teheran, winked at the SU, looked to Poland innocently and most likely squinted when the SU occupied Poland, executed its finest and brightest, and remarked 'this was agreed on at Teheran'.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
22 Jun 2010  #29
the discussion is about Poland in the eyes of London before WW2

Exactly. Teheran was in 1943, 4 years into WW2. There is no way that this conference could've influenced the British in 1939.

>^..^<

M-G (good night, off to bed)
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
22 Jun 2010  #30
If you want to, I can provide you some links to articles that I've written in the 90's and teens of this century, but it will have to be via PM and tomorrow morning as they reveal my name and you understand I don't want my name out in the open AND it's a quarter to two in the morning right now and I am turning in. Just send me a PM if you want me to provide you links.

No need. I accept your explanation and will take you at your word. I can't however speak for other forum members who may wish to test your credentials.


Home / History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII.
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.