The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 97

Memos show US hushed up Soviet crime against Poland


berni23 7 | 379
26 Nov 2012  #61
Are you well? Would you said that about Stalin best allies?

Im good, thx.
What i fail to understand:
1) What does Stalin have to do with your dumb comment?
2) Who was Stalins best ally?
What i do understand:
1) You are a fascist.
2) And to top it all off one that sees Hitler as his hero.

Again disgraceful, just disgraceful.
Ironside 48 | 9,792
26 Nov 2012  #62
1) What does Stalin have to do with your dumb comment?

well Stalin murdered even more people then Hitler. He shares responsibility with Hitler for starting WWII.

2) Who was Stalins best ally?

Yet Churchill and Roosevelt not only supported him and left their second best ally (Poland) on his mercy but they raveled about friendship with Uncle Joe!

so if you are dumb enough to misunderstood what I'm talking about then at least I should be in a "good"company with mass murders and commies Churchill and Roosevelt! If talking about alliance with Hitler makes me Fascist than entering alliance with Stalin makes them Soviets!

1) You are a fascist.

You are Dumb ......! Remind me your nationality?

And to top it all off one that sees Hitler as his hero.

Would you like to provide quote of mine stating that Hitler is a hero or mine hero or admit you lie or you are a clueless dumbo!
jon357 63 | 14,134
26 Nov 2012  #63
1) You are a fascist.
2) And to top it all off one that sees Hitler as his hero.

Again disgraceful, just disgraceful.

It's amazing how many of them crawl out of the woodwork - and always seek to somehow justify the behaviour of the Nazis by referring to the USSR.
Ironside 48 | 9,792
26 Nov 2012  #64
Oi? you are pulling my leg - right?
berni23 7 | 379
26 Nov 2012  #65
Yet Churchill and Roosevelt not only supported him and left their second best ally (Poland) on his mercy but they raveled about friendship with Uncle Joe!
so if you are dumb enough to misunderstood what I'm talking about then at least I should be in a "good" with mass murders and commies Churchill and Roosevelt! If talking about alliance with Hitler makes me Fascist than entering alliance with Stalin makes them Soviets!

Again, what does this have to do with your comment about siding with the Nazis?

Would you like to provide quote of mine stating that Hitler is a hero or mine hero or admit you lie or you are a clueless dumbo!

That comment stands for itself:

The only error Poland's diplomacy made was refusing Hitler's offer to become an ally.

And from what you are constantly writing here on PF, im pretty sure everybody gets the picture of who you really are.
Ironside 48 | 9,792
26 Nov 2012  #66
Again, what does this have to do with your comment about siding with the Nazis?

I'm sorry I cannot help you with your disability!

That comment stands for itself:

As does this answer to my request to provide some poof for your claims!

And from what you are constantly writing here on PF, im pretty sure everybody gets the picture of who you really are.

A very Nice Person? All the Best to You too!
Tim Bucknall 7 | 98
26 Nov 2012  #67
sadly I'm afraid bankrupt and knackered Britain couldn't do much to help Poland in 1945 imo- we were no longer a first rate world power

the only way we'd have been able to change things is if we'd cleared North Africa quicker launched D-Day earlier and reached Central Europe before the Red Army

Roosevelt could have applied some pressure but he was so unwell as to be unfit for office by 1945. the guy didn't have enough blood flow to his brain to think properly and he was obsessed with getting the UN off the ground- for which he needed Stalin

he did at least raise the matter of Lvov with Stalin (which surprised me) but didn't pursue it

it goes without saying that the useless talking shop of the UN wasn't worth abandoning Poland

Churchill has stated that he did "love bomb" Stalin because he didn't want Stalin to be able to blame the US & UK for not keeping his promises on Polish elections etc

regarding Polands pre-war behaviour, (this thread is going to converge with the highlanders thread!) you could make make a moral case for most of the territory they wanted due to the large Polish population. IMO so much trouble was caused because the Versailles treaty stated there should be a Polish state without defining its borders. so there was bound to be conflict with its neighbours

i think it goes without saying that any promises from Hitler or Stalin would have been worthless

if anyone wants a readable but fairly accurate account of the Yalta conference. you might consider Michael Dobbs novel "Churchills Triumph"- yes unfortunate title and crass ending but he did his homework and judging by the user names on this board a few people here have read it
jon357 63 | 14,134
26 Nov 2012  #68
sadly I'm afraid bankrupt and knackered Britain couldn't do much to help Poland in 1945

I've heard people in PL argue several times quite seriously that the war should have been continued - though without being able to make any sensible suggestions about how the entire Red Army could have been driven back.
Harry
26 Nov 2012  #69
The British plan was to rearm captured German soldiers. Churchill said in 1954 that, before WWII ended, he had “telegraphed to Lord Montgomery directing him to be careful in collecting the German arms, to stack them so they could easily be issued again to the German soldiers whom we should have to work with if the Soviet advance continued.”
Tim Bucknall 7 | 98
27 Nov 2012  #70
once again i'm amazed and blown away by the new information i've learned since joining up here

the 1945 election was terrible for a lot of our allies overseas like the Karen in Burma, because Attlee didn't care about foreign affairs

My dad said something interesting to me, he was moaning about always being hungry in 1939-1945, obviously thats not much suffering compared to Poland but i played Devils advocate and said so was it worth being hungry to try to save Poland? and he said, "yes, because it wasn't such an abstract concept, the Poles were stationed in town so you could understand what the war was for"

Dad was too young to vote in 1945 but it would be nice to think that lots of people could have been persuaded to fight on
TheOther 5 | 3,790
27 Nov 2012  #71
the Poles were stationed in town so you could understand what the war was for

Well, why didn't the UK and France declare war on the USSR, too, if their motives were so noble? I for one believe that the UK and France only declared war on Germany because they wanted to avoid a reversal of the Treaty of Versailles under all circumstances; thus keeping a potential global competitor at bay. Fighting for freedom and democracy, fighting for Poland? Don't think so...
4 eigner 2 | 831
27 Nov 2012  #72
It's amazing how many of them crawl out of the woodwork - and always seek to somehow justify the behaviour of the Nazis by referring to the USSR.

well, I don't think that Ironside is justifying Hitler by referring to Stalin. I hope, we all agree that both were scumbags and the only difference between them is the number of deaths they're responsible for.
p3undone 8 | 1,135
28 Nov 2012  #73
4eigner,the thing that is often overlooked is that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more Jews than Hitler.He just didn't do it the same way and wasn't trying to eliminate them from the planet.
4 eigner 2 | 831
28 Nov 2012  #74
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more Jews than Hitler

more people in general, not just Jews.
p3undone 8 | 1,135
28 Nov 2012  #75
4eigner,Oh;I know he did.I'm just saying that some people don't realize how bad he was to the Russian Jews,since all they hear about is Hitler.You are right though He killed tons of people not just Jews.
pgtx 29 | 3,159
28 Nov 2012  #76
we all agree that both were scumbags and the only difference between them is the number of deaths they're responsible for.

agree

more people in general

actually Hitler killed more... he's on the list right after Mao Ze Dong

scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

Modern Genocides
TheOther 5 | 3,790
28 Nov 2012  #77
actually Hitler killed more... he's on the list right after Mao Ze Dong

I wonder where the British are on this list. Mass killings in Australia come to mind, or the Indian Mutiny of 1857 which cost about 10 million lifes according to some sources.
4 eigner 2 | 831
28 Nov 2012  #78
actually Hitler killed more... he's on the list right after Mao Ze Dong Modern Genocides

this list incomplete. Alone in Ukraine at least 7 million people hungered to death

gnosticliberationfront.com/political_famine_1932_1933.htm
historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm
p3undone 8 | 1,135
28 Nov 2012  #79
pgtx,the difference I guess is that Stalin wasn't trying to eliminate a whole race of people.So in that he might not be considered in the same class as Hitler,but I'm pretty sure that Stalin is responsible for more deaths overall.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
28 Nov 2012  #80
was it worth being hungry to try to save Poland? and he said, "yes, because it wasn't such an abstract concept, the Poles were stationed in town so you could understand what the war was for"

Hi Tim,

Welcome to the forum. I think what your dad said was probably true of the sentiment of many ordinary British people at the time, as well as the rank and file of the Army - given the nod by HMG, they probably would have fought with their Polish comrades to the bitter end. I made a thread some time ago which you might like to look at in praise of some of the Pommy politicians who risked so much to voice their outrage at the treatment of Poland after the war.

Dad was too young to vote in 1945 but it would be nice to think that lots of people could have been persuaded to fight on

I don't think this would have been fair or just on the British people, because by then it was too late. You'll note that the common conception of some of the fantasists of this forum when put to task about HMG's betrayal of Poland is to say words to the effect of "what could we have done at the end of the war, Britain was broke, tired etc etc". This is clearly designed to obfuscate the real issue, namely that the betrayal lies in the fact, inter alia, that HMG knew of Stalin's designs on Poland from at least as early as the Teheran conference and refused/failed/neglected to tell the Poles, an obligation not only contractually based upon the Treaty of Mutual Assistance of 1939, but, I would argue, a moral one as well. Consequently, from that point, the Poles under the nominal command of HMG were fighting for absolutely nothing to do with their own future and interests as their fate was sealed. I have at various times in this forum elaborated on my position if you feel like looking into that.

Are you aware that Gen. Anders requested the release of Polish units from the command of HMG during the early to mid months of 1945? He was intending to have his Poles travel (or fight) their way back to Poland. He was rebuked and refused, I think by Lord Allenbrooke. If the suggestion that Churchill telegraphed someone at the closing stages of the war to prepare for the possibility of rearming the Germans to potentially fight the Russians is true, it staggers the mind as to why Anders was refused.

Are you also aware that the Independent Polish paratroop brigade that was decimated at Arnhem under the auspices of HMG had a raison d'etre to be dropped in Poland in support of its liberation, specifically in support of the Warsaw Uprising? My dad was in Warsaw at this time and witnessed the Allied supply drops by parachute. The euphoria in Warsaw at seeing these parachutes, and the abject disappointment when it was realised the Polish paras weren't coming, was incalculable..

I think it was General Gubbins who articulated quite well the dynamic between HMG and Poland in WW2 when he said words to the effect that Poland would be squeezed until no more use could be had of it then was to be cast overboard by HMG. Perhaps it was the case that Anders and the Polish paras had not been sufficiently squeezed at the time of the question of their release. Is it any wonder that descendants of these Poles are bitter at the treatment of their forebears.

I for one believe that the UK and France only declared war on Germany because they wanted to avoid a reversal of the Treaty of Versailles under all circumstances; thus keeping a potential global competitor at bay. Fighting for freedom and democracy, fighting for Poland? Don't think so...

Poland

Germany

How do these events sit with you, being half Polish and half German (an honest question)?
mainframe - | 12
28 Nov 2012  #81
Nothing at all, but it might make people realise that America is not the ally that certain quarters believe she is.

depends on what the deal is at the time - people change
TheOther 5 | 3,790
29 Nov 2012  #82
How do these events sit with you, being half Polish and half German (an honest question)?

Sorry, I don't have much time to answer because I'm leaving for a business trip tomorrow. So just quickly: I don't believe that my heritage has anything to do with how I (should) see the events of WW2. I'm an Australian who has lived in many different countries over the years, and the only affiliation I have with Poland or Germany is that my ancestors came from there. Heck, I've even lost connection to Oz and I'm not sure anymore what I really am. Aussie, American, German, Dutch, Pole ... does it matter? My parents had a long and happy marriage; they are the best example for me that the past is not really that important and that people can get along even though others expect them to be enemies.
legend 3 | 664
29 Nov 2012  #83
I agree with Tim on that part about Britain, USA and others helping Poland at the end of the war (that they really couldnt help Poland).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable#Offensive_operations

The link shows some of the reasons why including the fact that allies had a much smaller amount of vehicles and manpower.

actually Hitler killed more... he's on the list right after Mao Ze Dong
Modern Genocides

That links list is atrocious and the numbers are too conservative in several cases. I dont feel like arguing more about this but I have spent days researching who killed more

and Stalin did kill more (as leader not just WWII where both did massive amounts of killings).
Ironside 48 | 9,792
29 Nov 2012  #84
The link shows some of the reasons why including the fact that allies had a much smaller amount of vehicles and manpower.

What that links say about A-bomb>?
citizen67 6 | 191
10 Feb 2013  #85
Josef Stalin, an ally whom the Americans were counting on to defeat Germany and Japan during World War II

The Soviet Union was never at War with Japan during WWII.

Churchill definitely murdered all those Poles at Katyn.
p3undone 8 | 1,135
10 Feb 2013  #86
citizen67,what th hell do you base that on?
citizen67 6 | 191
10 Feb 2013  #87
Well, he is usual the cause of all of Poland's sorrow and problems.
Tim Bucknall 7 | 98
10 Feb 2013  #88
Russia would have attacked Japan if the war had gone on longer and the bomb hadn't been dropped.
all the deals were signed and Russia were ready to declare war but the bomb was dropped
Stalin offered the use of air bases in the far east in return for access to port arthur and the kuriles
Japan got off so lightly, they never apologised like Germany did yet still they complain about the loss of the Kuriles!
they should be grateful not to have lost half their territory!
i have no problem with the USSR taking Konigsberg, Kuriles, North Romania & Moldova. since romania was an Axis state
. however i have serious problem with Allied Countries like Poland & Czechoslovakia having land stolen, and Finland losing Karelia not to mention the Baltic states being annexed

@Dan, thanks for the welcome, i was heartened to hear about the Parlimentary rebellion over the loss of Kresy etc. with one MP even resigning his seat in protest, it restores ones faith in politicians, also its the first time i've ever read good things about Alec Douglas Home! usually portayed as a borderline senile old toff

i recently found out that Churchill sought permission from Roosevelt to fight on again the USSR but Roosevelt had deluded himself into thinkin Stalin could be trusted

the wierd thing is that virtually every German POW taken by the British was certain that he'd be re armed and sent against the USSR. go figure!

they only way i can see things turning out better is if we'd cleared North Africa in 42, Knocked out Italy earlier etc, and put ourself in a much stronger position at Tehran

i wonder what would have happened if British Troops had refused to leave Czechoslovakia in 45?

why was the there no organised Polish-American lobby putting pressure on Roosevelt and preventing him from agreeing stuff with Stalin behind Churchill back?
MarcinD 4 | 135
10 Feb 2013  #89
This is a very anti-semitic statement.

This comment was completely true and perfectly timed. Well done

"But not here. We needed our Nuremberg, like in Germany. But we never had it. And until we start discussing the problem of communism on the level Solzhenitsyn started 50 years ago, we'll still live in this half-Soviet country which wants to be part of mankind, but is afraid of information about its own history."

This is completely spot on.

In Western culture, in terms of WW2: Germany gets too much blame, USA too much credit
citizen67 6 | 191
10 Feb 2013  #90
In Western culture, in terms of WW2: Germany gets too much blame, USA too much credit

? Did the USA start WWII or help start WWII?


Home / History / Memos show US hushed up Soviet crime against Poland
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.