Get Polish (EU) Citizenship! 🔗

The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [7]  |  Archives [1] 
 
Witamy, Guest  |  Members
Home / History   752

WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?



Sasha 2 | 1,083    
6 Aug 2009  #31

No one unfortunately, the soviets said they helped Poland but considering they killed the majority of the intellgensia and intellectuals

Many soviets have died defending Poland from fascists. You might wanna say they died for their future land, keeping in mind that the territory will soon be their. Could be... but Poland is still Poland and you're all have the opportunity to solemnly declare "I'm Polish".

My point is that of course communists brought a disaster to your country but it shouldn't be a reason to thoroughly reject their contribution to the final victory. Nobody knows what would Poland be like, if there were no soviets.


PlasticPole 7 | 2,669    
6 Aug 2009  #32

On the backing that America wanted an end to the European war to continue their offensive in Asia.

More like because people were dying and so many had lost their lives. Why not put the human spin on it? It wasn't just so America could continue an offensive in Asia whatever that means.
gumishu 11 | 4,743    
6 Aug 2009  #33

Saar offensive.

yeah heheh - they committed a whole of one division didn't they and well went into the German territory the whole 5 miles :) oh and the next they withdrew - must be the Gerries outflanked them ;)

if France and England would attack Germany the WWII
would be over in two weeks,

well this is of course too optimistic - but still there was a chance Germans would stop the invasion had the French committed significant forces to attack Germany (don't know the realities of the British but guess British airforces (znaczy RAF) could be involved pretty soon too (were there the will)

it is good to point out that the Soviets waited until 17th of September - the planned date of massive French offensive - before they invaded Poland - had the allies really started an offensive God knows (or he doesn't as well) wether the Soviets would get involved

defending Poland from fascists

it wasn't the goal of the leadership even if the Soviet (Russian or whatever) soldiers themselves believed so

America - LOL. Religion infects U.S politics like a cancer. The rest of the world, Europe especially, can only point and laugh at America's inability to separate Church and State... even though it's in their constitution.

I think you don't understand something - why should one separate himself from what he believes in public life - there is no problem of separation from the church - don't think any church has much influence on American politics - it is just people who have some strong beliefs and act based upon them in the politics
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 7,938    
6 Aug 2009  #34

Christianity basically taught compromise

That is a fairly new development...and mostly because they had to since they lost alot of their power due secularization.
Millions died in the last millennia because Christians fanatics were quite unwilling to compromise at all.

Need a history primer for the religious wars ravaging Europe and killing and devastating the lands?

it wasn't the goal of the leadership even if the Soviet (Russian or whatever) soldiers themselves believed so

What do you think they believed as they invaded Poland along side the german army in '39?

it is just people who have some strong beliefs and act based upon them in the politics

They should be kept out of politics at any cost.
I really wouldn't want some one in the government who believes God spoke to him and he acts on Gods behalf.
That is a recipe for doom!

why should one separate himself from what he believes in public life

Because it could very well be it isn't the belief of his neighbour?
When you force your belief on your neighbour what is that then?

Religion should be a matter for your private life...there you can do what you want!
But don't pester your compatriots with it who might think differently to avoid useless arguments and fights and splits in the society.
That's what secularization is about!
(And it's a damn good thing IMHO)
Harry 81 | 13,431    
6 Aug 2009  #35

who really was the first to help poland?

Here’s the basic timeline:

1 September 4:43am first shots fired, in Gdansk, first death.

1 September (early evening?) British and French representatives met with German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop warning of war if German forces did not withdraw from Polish territory.

2 September Polish Prime Minister Feliclen Slawoj-Skladkowski addresses parliament: “... the unconquerable Polish Army will defeat the historic enemy of our country and crush Teutonic arrogance.”

3 September 9:00 (Berlin time), Sir Neville Henderson, Britain’s ambassador to Germany, delivered an ultimatum stating that if hostilities did not stop by 11 AM (London time), a state of war would exist between Great Britain and Germany.

3 September 11:15 (London time) Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on the radio to announce to the British people that they were at war with Germany.

3 September 11:17 The British Admiralty issues orders to all ships to open hostilities against Germany.

3 September 12:15 (Berlin time) French Ambassador Robert Coulondre informs Joachim von Ribbentrop that at 17:00 (Berlin time) hours France would be in a state of war with Germany.

3 September 12:00 A Bristol Blenheim IV (N6215) of No.139 Squadron is the first Royal Air Force aircraft to cross the German frontier after war is declared. Flown by Flying Officer A. McPherson, it carries out a photographic and visual reconnaissance of German naval ports.

3 September afternoon RAF Bomber Command conducts the Royal Air Force's first operational sorties of the Second World War, when eighteen Handley Page Hampdens and nine Vickers Wellingtons of RAF Bomber Command undertake a search for German naval shipping. However, they do not locate any targets and all return safely.

3 September 15:00 (Berlin time) Polish president Isnaz Moscieki declares Poland is under a state of war with Germany.

3 September 20:30 (Berlin time) Premier Edouard Daladier announces officially by radio that a state of war exists with Germany.

4 September 15:30 Following a second reconnaissance sortie by Flying Officer McPherson, fourteen Vickers Wellingtons of No.9 and No.149 Squadrons and fifteen Bristol Blenheims of Nos. 107, 110 and 139 Squadrons are despatched to attack German warships at Brunsbüttel, Wilhelmshaven and the Schillig Roads. Five planes of each type are lost. A Blenheim piloted by Flying Officer H.L. Emden crashes on the deck of the German cruiser of the same name. Two of the Wellingtons fail to find Brunsbüttel and instead bomb Esjberg in neutral Denmark, 110 miles north of their intended target.

5 September The Polish government moves from Warsaw to Lublin, 100 miles south-east, as German forces advance to with 31 miles of the city.

7 September Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km line near Saarbrücken against weak German opposition. The French army had advanced to a depth of eight kilometres and captured about 20 villages evacuated by the German army, without any resistance

10 September The British Expeditionary Force (BEF), consisting of some 158,000 men, leaves for France. Canada joins the list of Commonwealth countries to declare war against Germany.

17 September USSR invades Poland.
caprice49 4 | 223    
6 Aug 2009  #36

American Ambassador to Poland Arthur Bliss wrote 'I saw Poland betrayed! Read that and all you've been taught at school will be negated. A more recent publication Rising 44 Battle for Warsaw gives a full background history which will answer your queries fully. It is a sad fact that the Brits and Americans were naive and trusting Stalin, whereas the Poles were adamant (rightfully) that they all signing a Treaty with him would be breached. Americans provided the Russian Army with arms which were then used against the Poles. Two thirds of Poland had been taken by 1941 and Stalin agreed with the Brits & Americans that Russia could keep that land after the war. Now if you call that fighting for Poland................
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 7,938    
6 Aug 2009  #37

Why does nobody talk about polish diplomacy failures during the build up to this war?

Germany and Russia are the most important neighbours of Poland, not France or GB! They should have aligned their diplomatic efforts and tactics accordingly...

Does Poland really expect always to get their nuts out of the fires by other countries???
Harry 81 | 13,431    
6 Aug 2009  #38

It could be argued that the French were the first with the Saar offensive.

Only if one ignores basic facts of history.

If Germany had simply conquered Poland and left it at that, nobody would have cared to liberate Poland.

Have a read about the German peace offers to Britain made in 1940 and 1941. What do you think Hitler's deputy was doing in Scotland?!

what did Poles do?

All but two of their large naval vessels set sail for the UK two days before the war started. The Polish navy sailed right past the British navy! The Brits were on their way to attack German targets and the Poles were running away.

good book to read is " Question of Honor "

If you prefer lies over history, it's a great book.

IMO, the issue is not really who was the first to help, because that's academic, but who was involved in the betrayal and backstab of Poland in the ensuing years of WW2.

Always good to hear a Pole (or in this case a Plastic Pole) whining about getting backstabbed by allies! There are two possible replies to your whines and you never have any answer to either but I'll make them anyway:

1) Exactly what could Britain have done to help Poland in September 1939 or in 1945 that it did not do? Would you like the British to have made an amphibious attack on Hamburg in 1939 perhaps? Or maybe they should have attacked the Red Army in 1945 and driven them out of Poland?

2) The proper way to backstab allies is follow the example of what the Polish did to their Ukrainian allies. After p!ssing all over their treaty obligations, they then stole half of Ukraine, started trying to destroy Ukrainian culture there, locked the soldiers who'd fought alongside them up in internment camps and sent anybody who objected to a concentration camp. That's a proper backstab. Although the backstab of your southern neighbours was also a good one (joining in the 1938 invasion of Czechoslovakia). What goes around comes around.

The focus seems to be on a purported lack of 'positive' action, but I think more scrutiny should be given to the passivity, or lack of action, vis the West and in particular GB.

Remind me, which nation actually planned an attack on the Red Army in 1945? It due to the lack of support from which nation was the plan abandoned? You're letting your hatred of the British cloud your knowledge of history dear boy.

That more relevant issue can be distilled down to the fact that Poland, or more correctly, its emigre military forces under the de facto leadership of GB, were used by GB whilst GB was in full knowledge that Poland per se would cease to exist after hostilities ceased because Soviet Russia was permitted to swallow Poland.

Permitted? As noted above, how would you like Britain to have stopped the Red Army? Perhaps via the use of nuclear weapons? Oops, who did have nukes in 1945? Who could have stopped the Red Army? Perhaps you might like to look at them.
caprice49 4 | 223    
6 Aug 2009  #39

Stirring again!! It was the mind set of the Germans that made diplomacy impossible. A quick reference to newspapers from 1933 to the outbreak of war will give you the answers. Which propaganda were you brought up on?
Harry 81 | 13,431    
6 Aug 2009  #40

Could you perhaps point out the 'propaganda' in the list of events and times which I provided?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 7,938    
6 Aug 2009  #41

It was the mind set of the Germans that made diplomacy impossible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#cite_ref-21

...
At midnight on 29 August German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop handed British Ambassador Sir Neville Henderson the list of terms which would allegedly ensure peace in regards to Poland.
Danzig was to be returned to Germany (Gdynia would remain with Poland), and there was to be a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor, based on residency in 1919, within the year.[22] An exchange of minority populations between the two countries was proposed.[23]
A Polish plenipotentiary was to arrive in Berlin and accept these terms by noon the next day.

Did you ever hear about that? I would be really surprised if you did...tell me about propaganda!

...
On 30 August the Polish Navy sent its destroyer flotilla to Britain, executing Operation Peking. On the same day, Marshal of Poland Edward Rydz-Śmigły announced the mobilization of Polish troops....

Poland made a grave error and they paid dearly for it.
Spitting at their big, angry neighbours, fully trusting far away countries to pull their nuts out of the fire if pushes came to shove...that's all to it, really!

In principal not different to that:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_border_conflicts

One bully invading another country about disputed lands.
The bigger bully get's away with it usually..
caprice49 4 | 223    
6 Aug 2009  #42

Do you really believe Hitler was making a peace offering to the Brits in 1940? You're not referring to dear old Rudolph Hess who crashed in Scotland? The name speaks for itself.

Britain made all sorts of promises which Poles feel had they been committed to action three months before the outbreak of WW2 - so that's the gripe. Not to mention the fact Poles were not allowed to be armed. It was cavalry against tanks.

As for the Ukrainians (Ruthenians) Yes it was disgraceful how the underground army killed all those Ukrainians in Pawlokoma. Murderers and collaborators do not deserve to die that way and matters should have been left to the courts. How far back do you want to go?
niejestemcapita 2 | 561    
6 Aug 2009  #43

Not to mention the fact Poles were not allowed to be armed. It was cavalry against tanks.

that is not true.
And that old "cavalry against tanks" thing was cut and paste newsreel
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 7,938    
6 Aug 2009  #44

Do you really believe Hitler was making a peace offering to the Brits in 1940?

You should know by now that the ethnical tensions after the Treaty of Versailles were a big reason of unrest and hostiliy between Germany and Poland already before Hitler came to power.

Poland invaded Czechoslovakia alongside Hitler after the Munich agreement to bite a chunk out of the helpless country, reasoning it with border disputes.
So don't sell me the polish holy innocence act here...Germany was just the much bigger bully to Poland...but this tactic is well known to all bullies.

Would diplomacy had worked? Why not.
Hitler offered Poland also the possibility to become part of the anti-comintern pact already in 1935, what would had made Poland actually part of an anti-soviet alliance.

The Wehrmacht would proably still have marched through Poland, but not as an enemy but to fight the Soviets.
But they declined...so the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact came later..

Polish diplomacy was always more concerned with London and Paris these days...

Not to mention the fact Poles were not allowed to be armed. It was cavalry against tanks.

Where did you get that?

Ever heard of the polish-soviet war before? Of the invasion of Czechoslovakia??? How do you think the Poles did it???
Harry 81 | 13,431    
6 Aug 2009  #45

Do you really believe Hitler was making a peace offering to the Brits in 1940? You're not referring to dear old Rudolph Hess who crashed in Scotland? The name speaks for itself.

Read Hitler's address to the Reichstag on 19 July 1940. "In this hour I feel it my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to

reason and common sense to Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favours but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I see no reason why this war need go on."

Britain made all sorts of promises which Poles feel had they been committed to action three months before the outbreak of WW2 - so that's the gripe. Not to mention the fact Poles were not allowed to be armed. It was cavalry against tanks.

You really do need to read a history book or two.
caprice49 4 | 223    
6 Aug 2009  #46

Alas in the Eastern parts of Germany those tensions still exist.

You've forgotten the classification under which all Jews & Poles came under. Hardly a recipe for negotiation or diplomacy. Wakey wakey!

As for the Munich agreement - yes the Poles did take a chunk- but what happened in 1919?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 7,938    
6 Aug 2009  #47

You've forgotten the classification under which all Jews & Poles came under. Hardly a recipe for negotiation or diplomacy. Wakey wakey!

Hitler made the laws...had Poland become an ally he had declared you as Germany's best friends.

You know that pic? Hitler at Pilsudski's funeral:

*wakey, wakey*

As for the Munich agreement - yes the Poles did take a chunk- but what happened in 1919?

Another border conflict?
You don't need to lecture me about it...the Treaties of Versailles and Trianon was a catastrophe for central Europe.
Why do you think Hungary (Polands best friend I've heard) decided to ally themselves to Nazi-Germany?
Central Europe was rife with hostilities between the ethnical groups after the destruction of the empires and the often catastrophical drawing of new borders (by London and Paris mainly).
caprice49 4 | 223    
6 Aug 2009  #48

Unfortunately it is true. I know a few that had the privilege.

As for Hungary & Poland history reads Germany forced them over Czechoslovakia.
Babinich 1 | 457    
6 Aug 2009  #50

One bully invading another country about disputed lands.
The bigger bully get's away with it usually..

Not really, how did your country look on May 8th 1945?
Harry 81 | 13,431    
6 Aug 2009  #51

What??? Explain..

Oh come on! Rule number one of Polish history: Nothing is ever the fault of the Poles.

And then there are rules number two and three:
Rule number two of Polish history: any 'Pole' who ever did anything bad was either a Jew or a commie or both and therefore not a real Pole.

Rule number three of Polish history: If it appears that rule number one or two may have been broken, that is just an appearance not a reality: the reality is that the British are to blame.
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195    
6 Aug 2009  #52

Although the backstab of your southern neighbours was also a good one (joining in the 1938 invasion of Czechoslovakia).

That may not be justified because of the small portion of lands took that were not part of Cieszyn, but I still wouldn't call it a backstab. More like a back-bite.

Poland made a grave error and they paid dearly for it.
Spitting at their big, angry neighbours, fully trusting far away countries to pull their nuts out of the fire if pushes came to shove...that's all to it, really!

Oh, so now you're going to be self-righteous about WWII, because Poland didn't treat you right! This gave me a good laugh, indeed.

You are correct: Poland did not follow the policy of appeasement which had already been known to fail with (the nutcase) Hitler.
And this fully justifies the actions of your country gone mad in killing over five million Polish residents in a most brutal fashion. Wholesale slaughter of civilians and destruction of civilian property is quite okay for members of a country that wasn't given by its neighbor all the land they demanded from it first.

Poland made a choice between an ally they knew would rob them and an ally they could be confident would not. They chose the latter.

To any naiive enough to believe that Poland would have been better off giving Hitler what he wanted and joining his cause, my father included, I laugh. See how that worked for the USSR.

Poland had every reason to believe France and Britain would help them in event of an invasion. Treaties were signed to quite that effect, with no unambiguous terms.

One bully invading another country about disputed lands.
The bigger bully get's away with it usually..

In principle, it's very different to that. 'Disputed lands' did not include the whole of pre-1939 Poland. And -none of- those lands that were 'disputed', were not taken by Poland militarily while Germany was busy at war with the Red Army.

Would diplomacy had worked? Why not.

Because it had been well shown that diplomacy would not work with Hitler, who had already been given much land by the Powers in exchange for the promise that his attempts at expansion would cease completely. They didn't, so diplomacy was abandoned.

Ever heard of the polish-soviet war before? Of the invasion of Czechoslovakia??? How do you think the Poles did it???

Vodka. XD
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 7,938    
6 Aug 2009  #53

Not really, how did your country look on May 8th 1945?

Hence my "usually".
But Germany would had gotten away with it if they had been content with Poland.
But then..it wouldn't had been the Nazis...

I laugh.

Well...then please tell your compatriots to laugh some more too and to stop the whining and complaining and blaming.
Poland made their choices and paid for it, as did Germany and every other country in this time in Europe...

It's 60+ years now, most of Europe has moved on and reconciliated and nobody owes Poland a thing!

Reading the polish comments on youtube under the new ad for VW by Jeremy Clarkson one could think the war is still running on...
Harry 81 | 13,431    
6 Aug 2009  #54

Poland had every reason to believe France and Britain would help them in event of an invasion. Treaties were signed to quite that effect, with no unambiguous terms.

Please list the help which was promised in the relevant treaty and was not provided by Britain.
Babinich 1 | 457    
6 Aug 2009  #55

But Germany would had gotten away with it if they had been content with Poland.

No, don't blame the Nazis. It's you Germans... All one has to do is to look at WWI for examples of lebensraum.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 7,938    
6 Aug 2009  #56

No, don't blame the Nazi

You like 'em?

No, don't blame the Nazis. It's you Germans

If you like it better...it's me Germans!

All one has to do is to look at WWI for examples of lebensraum.

WWI and Lebensraum???
Babinich 1 | 457    
6 Aug 2009  #57

The Ukraine; German resettlement of the Baltic.
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195    
6 Aug 2009  #59

Please list the help which was promised in the relevant treaty and was not provided by Britain.

I cannot and will not do that. Nor was I implying (this time) that Britain did not provide all required help to the best of her ability. This was a response to BB's "fully trusting far away countries to pull their nuts out of the fire if pushes came to shove" quote outlining how what happened to Poland in WWII was her fault, and implying that Poland was foolish in believing that Britain would provide Poland with all the help within their power.

But Germany would had gotten away with it if they had been content with Poland.

Oh, you think so?
You really think that Germany, with the help of mini-island-nation-Japan-that-couldn't-take-on-half-of-the-US-navy-aft er-almost-all-of-it-was-destroyed-by-a-single-air-strike would have won the war if not for having attacked the USSR?

It's 60+ years now, most of Europe has moved on and reconciliated and nobody owes Poland a thing!

I agree, and also that Poland owes nobody a thing. Except for rightful heirs to lost property which may indeed obtain it after going through the courts to prove right of inheritance, no matter how difficult and paper-choked that trail may be.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 7,938    
6 Aug 2009  #60

Oh, you think so?

Definitely!
The phony war of the Frenchies and the Brits would had gone on for veeeeery long.
Maybe some years later after Germany had reincorporated the disputed territories back into Germany (plus some more very probably) Berlin would had come to an agreement with London and Paris (maybe that Hitler had promised not to attack them or such) but I'm fairly sure that nobody else would had risked anything just for Poland...history proves me right....

PS: Japan would had nothing to do with the european theater...as very probably wouldn't had the US (as GB wouldn't bring them in) or Russia (as Germany would had left them alone).

But as we all know Hitler was so not content with Poland alone!

Except for rightful heirs to lost property which may indeed obtain it after going through the courts to prove right of inheritance, no matter how difficult and paper-choked that trail may be.

But that better stays an individual case and not a state crusade...




Home / History / WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?
Click this icon to move up back to the quoted message. Bold Italic [quote]

 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary and unique username or login and post as a member.