The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 90

Occupation of Eastern Poland in 1939


Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
16 Nov 2018 #61
@Lyzko

Am I sounding preachy?
Why would we want to share their values?
Lyzko 29 | 7,230
17 Nov 2018 #62
For the same reason they wouldn't like to share ours.
Our ideologies are simply different, and though I'd like to believe "a smile means friendship to everyone", and that "it's a small world after all", I've found that this

kumbaya-type thinking doesn't work any longer in today's society.
Rich Mazur 4 | 3,185
17 Nov 2018 #63
kumbaya-type thinking is an oxymoron. It is for the stupid or, worse yet, stupid on drugs.
Lyzko 29 | 7,230
17 Nov 2018 #64
...aka much of the Woodstock-era folks, tripping their little brains out under the guise of exercising "freedom of expression" vs. "convention" = faschism, along with many of the all-time pet peeves, discipline, organization, and standard.

'Scuse please, whilst I go barf!!
pawian 177 | 14,561
11 Sep 2019 #65
What USSR supposed to do in 1939 to prevent modern Poles blame it now it for Eastern Poland occupation?

Funny but most Russians believe the war started in 1941 when the USSR was attacked by Germany. They tend to fully ignore Ribbentrop Molotov Pact which enabled the two totalitarian superpowers to invade, divide and share Eastern Europe.

Many articles tell about it:
Old propaganda written anew:
rp.pl/Polityka/309109889-1939-Stara-propaganda-pisana-na-nowo.html

German and Soviet troops in the occupied Polish city during the parade of victory:

Best allies of 1939









Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
11 Sep 2019 #66
Funny but most Russians believe the war started in 1941 when the USSR was attacked by Germany

Russians have always loved to twist history for their own benefit.
They are still doing it now.
And there are some morons on here that still watch and even believe RT!!! LOL !!!
TheOther 5 | 3,711
11 Sep 2019 #67
Russians have always loved to twist history

Just like everybody else. The version of history that is taught in Britain or the US is completely different to the one taught in Poland, Germany or Russia.
Lyzko 29 | 7,230
11 Sep 2019 #68
Just look at the way in which East German textbooks taught (or didn't teach) the Holocaust!

Unless it has changed, I've read and have spoken with former East Germans, who reported that any mention of the
Jews as victims of Nazi genocide was nearly whitewashed, instead hailing those murdered Jews as "heroes of the
East German State who died as good Communists fighting the Faschist foe."

Not exactly the way it happened there, kids:-)
TheOther 5 | 3,711
11 Sep 2019 #69
There are countless examples. The GDR claimed that they prosecuted each and every Nazi, and that no brownshirt was left on East German soil after that. Only the West Germans were still Nazis. The Americans and Brits claim they liberated Europe, conveniently forgetting the sacrifice of the Soviets.
Lyzko 29 | 7,230
11 Sep 2019 #70
Thanks for that, TheOther! I could always use a good laughLOL
Ziemowit 13 | 4,235
12 Sep 2019 #71
The Americans and Brits claim they liberated Europe, conveniently forgetting the sacrifice of the Soviets.

This was natural for them. They didn't count Eastern Europe as 'Europe'.
Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
12 Sep 2019 #72
Oh really?
Then why did Britain and France declare war on Germany when they invaded Poland?
Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
12 Sep 2019 #73
The Americans and Brits claim they liberated Europe, conveniently forgetting the sacrifice of the Soviets.

The Russian sacrifice was not to "Liberate" but to invade.
Ziemowit 13 | 4,235
12 Sep 2019 #74
why did Britain and France declare war on Germany when they invaded Poland?

Britain and France declared this war, or drĂ´le de guerre as the French nicknamed it later, on Germany in 1939 in order to drop several thousands leaflets on German positions. Do you think it was a war on the Anglo-French side?
Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
12 Sep 2019 #75
The Anglo-French were not ready as you well know.
The French knew they were in a war when German tanks rolled over their border and The British knew they were in a war when the bombs started dropping.

I can still remember, as a kid, being driven through parts of London that were full of bombed out houses.
Lenka 3 | 2,448
12 Sep 2019 #76
Then they shouldn't sign a treaty. Poland wasn't ready either but s**t happens
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,424
12 Sep 2019 #77
....and that no brownshirt was left on East German soil after that. Only the West Germans were still Nazis.

Heh:) I still remember that one....

The Anglo-French were not ready as you well know.

The French paraded proudly their Maginot-Line and in 1939 their army was bigger than the Wehrmacht...not to forget their invasion of Germany during the shortlived "Saar Offensive" in September 1939...what would count as "ready" then?
Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
12 Sep 2019 #78
The French were never ready, which is why The Germans conquered them so easily.
As for The Maginot line, been there, seen it, Verdun especially, what a waste of time!
The British were ready by the summer of 1940 when they started bombing Germany.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,424
12 Sep 2019 #79
The French were never ready,

What would you count as "ready"? They invaded the Saar territory! If that wasn't a sure sign than what is?

You can be ready and still be beaten in a war. Otherwise it would mean for all vanquished that they just hadn't been ready...
Lenka 3 | 2,448
12 Sep 2019 #80
Did the treaty say " we will help you only if we judge that we are ready"? Or maybe UK should say "Hey Adolf could you please, pretty please, not invade our allies until we think we are ready"?
Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
12 Sep 2019 #81
What would you count as "ready"? They invaded the Saar territory!

French arrogance.It was a half hearted invasion which they never backed up with the force they intended.
It cost The French and The Poles dear.

Did the treaty say " we will help you only if we judge that we are ready"?

The agreement was not specific.

It contained promises of mutual military assistance between the nations and for Britain and Poland to "consult together on measures to be taken in common".

Don't forget that Britain declared war on Germany and lost many civilian as well as military lives as a result.
TheOther 5 | 3,711
12 Sep 2019 #82
The Russian sacrifice was not to "Liberate" but to invade.

And the allies in the west didn't invade? You just have to compare the number of war dead of the US, the USSR and the UK in the European theater to see who really defeated the Germans.
Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
12 Sep 2019 #83
And the allies in the west didn't invade?

The British did not stay for nearly fifty years like The Russians did.
TheOther 5 | 3,711
12 Sep 2019 #84
Well, the Brits stayed until the early 1990's and the Americans are still there... :)
Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
12 Sep 2019 #85
But not controlling the country :-)
TheOther 5 | 3,711
12 Sep 2019 #86
West Berlin?

The British troops in the west were officially NATO, but we all know what their real purpose was. NATO's first secretary general, Hastings Ismay: "...the organization's mission is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."
Miloslaw 8 | 2,819
12 Sep 2019 #87
West Berlin?

But not half a country!
Tacitus 2 | 1,175
13 Sep 2019 #88
But not controlling the country :-)

Indeed, the Western allies handed over most of the power to the newly founded FRG, and surrendered the rest de facto in the 1950s. Afterwards the Allies treated the FRG as an allied country and did not try to influence its' domestic or foreign policy anymore than they would do to another country. Meanwhile the Warsaw pact countries remained puppets of the SU until the very end.
Crow 146 | 9,106
13 Sep 2019 #89
German and Soviet troops in the occupied Polish city during the parade of victory:

Best allies of 1939

Before 1939 happened 1938. Matter of fact.

Official Poland greatly mistaken for gave wrong signals in 1938, when together with Nazi Germany (with blessings of western Europe!), took part in partition of Czechoslovakia. Germany annexed Czechoslovakia's border regions - Sudet, while Poland entered and overrun northeastern part of the borderland region known as Zaolzie.

I don`t say that Soviets were right. I just say that Poland played badly, got assurances from Britain and France and even from Nazi Germany, while played role of open enemy to communist Soviet Union. Not to speak that everything that coming from East was and is always demonized in Poland. Then, masks fall down and Poland was obliterated, in the first place, by western Europe.

You would note that official Poland making similar mistakes these days. Seams that official Poland don`t serve Poland but some other interests.
TheOther 5 | 3,711
13 Sep 2019 #90
But not half a country!

I know that, Miloslaw. There are different forms of occupation, though. Anyway, without the Soviet sacrifice the Allies wouldn't have set a toe on Omaha Beach in 1944.

the Western allies handed over most of the power to the newly founded FRG

West and East Germany were de facto occupied until the early 1990s, even if it wasn't visible in daily life. If you believe that the Germans were able to make their own strategic decisions (both militarily and politically), you are naive. May I remind you of the Pershing II stationing and the violent, but ultimately useless demonstrations against it, or who insisted to have the final say in the reunification process? The Deutsche Mark had to be given up, because the French wouldn't have given their okay for the reunification otherwise. It was Reagan and Gorbachev who decided Germany's fate; the Germans had no say in it (although Kohl was quite clever). Just a few quick examples...


Home / History / Occupation of Eastern Poland in 1939
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.