WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?

Yes, but not by the brits against the Nazis on Poland's turf... The Brits simply did not engage Nazis in Polish territory- save for a few minor dogfights in which the spitfires performance was inferior to the Messerschmitts and Junkers (which today makes beautiful watches).


The US agreed to the same things that British establishment and military, Churchill aside, wanted with Yalta being a sort of blueprint.Don't forget that in England Stalin was viewed favorably and even referred to as 'Uncle Joe.'The Brits sold Poland out in the same way that the US did.Only person who wanted to reclaim Poland, due to the heroic effort of Poles defending London and participating in British campaigns in Africa and Italy, was Churchill. However, he was convinced that operation unthinkable would be just that - unthinkable and never leave the drawing board.



Hahaha facts? Here are the facts Doug - and a history book will collaborate... Perhaps you should pick one up so you can see how limited Britain's help to Poland actually was... In fact, more Polish lives were lost defending Britain and colonies than British lives defending Poland....

Barely. Their 'help' was minimal at best - British help made no meaningful impact and that's a fact. Poland and Britain's mutual defense treaty called for Britain to use all available forces if Poland were attacked, and vice versa. Britain clearly didn't do that. Not only did they declare way days after Poland's invasion, they sat on their hands during the entire occupation.The only time they helped, in a very limited way, was mostly through a few airdrops and dog fights during operation tempest when AK launched a country wide insurgency against the Nazis. In that operation, there were no British troops on the ground, no British tanks rolling through the countryside to provide armor support for infantry, etc. The airdrops were limited to dropping a few garbage stens, one of the worst guns in history, so the Poles could make better copies aka the blyskawica, and some food, medicine, etc. There was NO armor provided to Poland, nor were there any British troops serving on Polish lands to fight against the Nazis. Poles used mainly captures supplies, home made submachine guns, a few captured German tanks, and homemade armor plated GMC trucks to fight. There were no British Challengers or MK's or Spitfires that were being used en masse in Poland against the Nazis.

It can be argued that Poland actually helped Britain more than Britain helped Poland. Reasons why are as follows:
1) Polish airmen served in Britain's forces and protected London against Luftwaffe raids. The British did no such thing when stuka's were pounding Poland. Polish airmen defended London, British airmen did not defend Warsaw or any other PL cities.

2) Polish infantry helped UK in battles in Africa and especially in Italy - British soldiers never took part in any skirmishes with the AK against the Nazis nor were there any British troops or tanks that helped repel the Nazi invasion, cut supply lines, bomb transports moving from Germany to Poland, or engage Nazis on Polish turf as a whole.

3) Polish troops served in British units under Allied command - British troops did not serve on Polish soil under Allied or AK command.
4) Polish troops defended British interests in Africa and participated in the battle of Monte Cassino - British units did not participate in repelling the Nazi invasion or any other major battles on Polish turf. Their help was limited to a few squadrons dropping supplies in Warsaw - that's it.

5) Most importantly - there simply were no regiments or even battalions or any significant sized units that the British fielded in Poland whether it was army, navy, air force, etc. It was mostly limited to a few air force squadrons (the smallest unit, unless they're going by sections in which 2 sections is a squad) making drops...

To my understanding, Britain's losses in Poland were limited to 7 planes... that's it.... so yes, they did help by using their air force to make a few drops in Warsaw YEARS AFTER the Nazi invasion, thus breaking their mutual defense treaty with Poland.... And the airforce was limited to merely providing drops - not bombing targets, not strafing Nazi columns, not bombing airfields, etc.

Brits had one of the lowest casualty rates of ww2 with under 500k killed and around 500k wounded... compared to MILLIONS by other nations and the vast majority of these were fighting Nazis in France, Africa, and Italy - NOT POLAND


How is that not a lie? Again, Britain and Poland had a mutual defense treaty which Britain clearly broke as they declared war several days after PL was invaded and also did not provide any meaningful support despite the fact that the mutual defense treaty called for Britain and Poland to use all available means, Britain continued to do NOTHING in Poland until operation tempest in which their helped was limited to airdrops by a squad or two of planes....

While the notion that Britain left Poland to its fate can be debated, it is established fact that Britain broke their mutual defense treaty and did not provide assistance to Poland in any meaningful way. In fact, Poles helped Britain more militarily than Britain helped Poland as there were multiple battles in which Poles fought alongside Brits in Italy, London, Africa, etc. while there were NO British units fighting against the Nazis on Polish turf. The British never fielded more than a few squads of planes - there were no infantry regiments, no tank battalions, nothing like that was EVER sent to Poland by the Brits to help repel the Nazis - or even the Soviets later....

This is why Poles and the Polish military establishment believes that it is up to Poles and only Poles to defend our country - while NATO is helpful, we cannot entirely trust is due to the betrayal Poland faced in WW2 when the western powers allowed the Nazis to gobble up country after country and did NOTHING after Poland was invaded - no bombing of Berlin as retaliation, no marines landing on the Baltic shores, no 100's of Spitfires shooting down stukas, NOTHING... Yet we're suppose to be thankful for a few drops of arguably the worst submachine gun in history???? YEARS AFTER Poland was invaded and Britain broke its mutual defense treaty???

You should be the one thanking us for spilling our blood in the skies over London, at montecassino, and in north Africa fighting alongside Brits against the Nazis. Polish troops fought side by side with the Brits against the Nazis - the Brits however NEVER fought side by side with the Poles against the Nazis on Polish turf... Poland helped Britain more than Britain helped Poland that's for sure. British legacy with their supposed help is a few airdrops - yeah thanks a lot. We on the other hand defended your capital. Where were the Brits on the other hand when Warsaw was invaded?

Yes, it was indeed a myth started by the communists and perpetuated now by Pol-Ams who absolutely loathe the cold hard fact that it was the Americans and the Americans alone who sold them to the Soviet Union.

I never bother reading Adrian's wordy rants, however if I did, I suspect that every word would be predictably banal, hysterical, chemical-induced, ill-informed and of course off the internet.

The question still stands why the UK didn't declare war on the USSR in 1939. Why did the Polish-British Common Defense Pact only deal with the Germans? I still believe there was a lot more British self-interest involved than the urge to defend Poland and fight for democracy - even if Doug doesn't like that idea... :)

If we hadn't declared war Dirk, who would? Your darling American brethren? The French - who were quite happy to cower behind their seemingly impregnable Maginot Line? Except that it wasn't finished. You wouldn't have had any battle to fight at Monte Cassino if it weren't for us. You would now be speaking German, which may or may not be a loss to yourself, because it's a wonderful culture - when they're not winning World Cups or threatening world domination.

We recognised this fact, and declared war on the bastards. But if we had General Dirk, he would have magically led our forces through the German rearguard, past their invading forces, and attacked them from the North or South - or some mythical place.

If we had then with no rhyme or reason, given up our only line of defence against the Lutwaffe, in a pointless attempt to stem the tide 1000 km from our bases, relying on the Dutch, and flying over hostile territory, leaving just how long to possibly straffe the Krauts with what exactly, leading us to certain defeat, and the world to a Dark Age.

But you don't believe that, do you Dirk? After all, your fathers' nation has been successfully brainwashed. You don't actually realise, because you are too far removed, that actually, Hitler came rather close to winning the bloody war?

You're having a laugh except it ain't funny and totally disrespectful to the memory of those brave servicemen. And may I kindly suggest you pay more attention in your geography lessons because you seem to have no clue as to where Britain could have spirited its' non existent divisions and its' non existent "hundreds of Spitfires" to counter the invasion.

Your ranting sound as though they are part of a history lesson. And a tad tedious and patronising. We all know that history, if we have a brain, or maybe you are writing for Polonia - American students don't know those historical facts in your posts, tis true......:))

My rant is all mine:)

Oh, and the Spitfire Mk2 was vastly superior in maneuverability to the Kraut machines, thanks to much greater horsepower, so there! :)

Exactly Britain had the balls to declare war on the evil nazi bastards but sadly did not have the resource to hold back the new blitzkrieg tactics also it never had any allies with the same size balls willing to help, Britain was left on its knees after the war with huge debts, but still continued to ration food to its own people so that some would be left to feed the starving of Europe including its enemy Germany.

So go figure keep bashing the first nation to stand for the freedom of another nation "Poland" who by the way did have nothing to offer no mineral or oil reserves of value , compare that to the reason why the leader of the so called free world decides to go to war.

Sure I do. So how many soldiers the "Nazis" had to turn away from Poland in Sep 39 due to those activities ?

Poland needed help from the "west" twice during WW2.

1. In Sep 39, when "Nazis" sent 80% of their forces to Poland, even mid scale military offensive from the west could turn the tide and end the WW2 before it gained that name. But pretty much nothing happened despite the alliance. Several skirmishes were totally insignificant. They were about as much relevant as beating up an islamist in London is relevant to the war against ISIS.

2. At the end of WW2 when it was left under Soviet control. "What could we do ? Start WW3 ?", well I don't think anyone at least tried to do anything, for instance try to trade it with Soviets for some other territory. The Adolf's homeland, after brief occupation, ended up as a capitalistic and democratic country (and even was named the first victim of "Nazis") although initially it got under Soviet control. All of that without starting the WW3.


You dudes are hilarious. Ever heard about the phoney war ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War

It wasn't called like that without a reason. The whole world knows that, except you dudes, who think it's an invention of "brainwashed Poles" :))) What I find particularly fascinating is that the same dudes use to dig up... things like "on 5th May 1942, Stanisław G. from village X. denounced Moshe P. to "Nazis"" - then you beat that crap to death for 20 pages. It's been going on since years and is supposed to some sort of "mission" to "liberate Poles from their nationalistic myths".

But when it comes to England, your understanding of history seems to be on the level of a semi-retarded 10 years old kid.

LOL ! You sir are a friggin idiot ! "Your" declaration of war was irrelevant and Adolf would have turned west with of without it.


Amazing :)) So Poles should be somehow grateful that English "allowed" them to fight against "Nazis" under their command ?

G, it's not opinion but fact. If Dunkirk hadn't happened, and we hadn't saved our trained soldiers, we might well have had to sue for peace. Then Monte Cassino wouldn't have happened would it, seeing as Germany would have won.

Not my revelation, but that of historians. We, the British, stood up the Germans, whilst you, the Poles, capitulated in three weeks. If you hadn't had such a nationalistic leader as Pilsudski, maybe we would have been allowed to help you earlier. Probably not. Nobody could stand up to an all-powerful Germany, until we re-armed of course, and started bloodying their nose.

Now, in the present day, you go on and on about being the victims, whilst repeating the same old nationalistic mistakes, of alienating your neighbours with your idiotic posturing and defying of the EU, a club that you signed up to .

It will all end up in tears again chap if you don't shape up!

G, my generation was like your fathers'. Ration cards, building site cities, grim faces. We bankrupted ourselves and lost our place in the world so that we could all be free. Phony war was sadly necessary, to re-arm, (as of course, you in fact know) and if Hitler had attacked in that period it would have been the worse for all of us. It is you Poles who really should drop the bias and realise that your system was lying to you, and stop the slander against Britain.

Not that I personally give a ****. I am just sad when otherwise intelligent people come up to me at a party and say "Why didn't you help us in 1939...:"

Then I instantly know everything about that person, that they are dim enough to have permitted themselves to be brainwashed by their past communist system, and have to feel sorry for them. Not a nice feeling, laughing silently in someone's face, is it?

Or perhaps it's you who are brainwashed by your history lessons. Poles fought all by themselves against two totalitarian countries.
How many British soldiers fought in Poland?

In your case, it was the Allied countries - was it only the British who fought and died in the battle of Britain? No, you got actual help. I don't know about other countries, but Poles had to pay with gold to fight for Britain.

You mentioned Monte Casino, sure, you Brits would have got to the top all by themselves with breaks for tea ... I bet thousands of soldiers from other countries just got into your way.

As I said before, Britain was one of few countries who helped Poland but why don't you get of your high imperialistic British horse and admit it wasn't as glorious and helpful as you want us to believe.

Yours sincerely,
loser Pole

Send my love to other loser Poles you know and preach your beliefs-I'm sure you have the balls to say it out loud, too. Not only remaining amonymous on an Internet forum.

Kaprys that's not quite fair. The British army are outstanding soldiers, really professional and the breaks for tea are a legitimate part of their system. Right from basic training you're taught that if you're going to be in one location for more than 15 minutes - and you have the kit you should light a fire and make a brew.

According to one ex-British army soldier:

"You may be covered in mud, stinking from not being able to shower for days or weeks, cold and tired, but a brew just seems to take all that away. The jokes will start and morale gets better. The simple act of being able to share a mug of tea with your mates, who look and feel just as bad as you do, is awesome."

So you could say the Germans had Adolf and the "Fatherland" to keep their morale up and the Brits had tea :))

For of goodness sake, I was being sarcastic.

The Battle of Monte Cassino was extremely difficult and cost lives of thousands. Every little helped. And it wasn't only the Brits. It was an allied forces who fought the battle and many other battles. And whether somebody likes it or not, no matter how well trained or disciplined British soldiers were, they didn't fight the Axis by themselves. Have some decency.

No matter what nationality a soldier fighting the Nazis was, they were on the same side. Their blood was equally red.

@Atch
I'm sorry, I got carried away. I guess we need some of your attitude here, too.

Not to worry, sweetheart :)) Onward and upward!

@Dougpol1

Hahhaha declatong war??? Anyone can declare war, its what happens that counts

@kaprys

Except the commies, who like the nazis killed to create a new man, a new society. They only went against the nazis bc hitler attacked them first. The term holocaust was used by karl marx in his writings well before historians attributed it to hitler.

Some allies... occupying and categorically cleansings millions of people, prolly half of whom were really innocent... while our other european 'allies', pussy french and the brits, never provided more than a few squad of airplanes and a 9 mln pound loan out of the 500 mil asked. I guess we should be grateful they hosted the government in exile??? Oh wait they didnt stay rent free. They just deposited gold bullion in british banks instead of pounds

Maybe poland shouldve sided with germany... hell wed be ruling europe like they are now despite losing the war and just recenrly renuinifying

Kaprys, don't be so silly. The old and cynical criticise their own country too. That's what age gives you - a rose tinted and often erroneous power of reflection, which isn't always a bad thing.

And I will continue to deride nationalist Poles who refuse to be grateful; for anything at all, because that would diminish the glory that is Poland - which was the side issue to this thread (who helped Poland - when she didn't help herself, by choosing nationalism in the 1930s instead of democracy).

First off, more HP does not make a plane more maneuverable.... thrust to weight together does... wow dude atleast know what youre commenting on if ur gonna make such statements..

Please germans owned allied planes except p51. They even had jet powered me 262 in mass amounts while you were still.tinkering with the bogus meteor. Brit machines just like yesterdays triumph or todays land rover are garbage. They simply failed to master cylinder technology thats why land rovers still blow gaskets and crack cylinder head.

2nd, in what battle(s) exactly did british troops send atleast a battalion to within poland?? Hmm can you name just one or two? Because i can name plenty of times poles sent atleast a battalion to the brits. Seems you owe us, not we you.

S africa and a bunch of other african nations and singapore also declared war on the axis powers (ireland remained neutral). should we also be thanking singapore for savinf poland?

Like the Americans you mean, with their dismissal of a slight European interruption to business as usual, as "This European war...."
Would you declare war on a big bully in the playground, who has already beaten your mates to a pulp and not even broken sweat? Takes guts, I would have said.

Jesus doug...The brits were obliged to after signing a mutual defense treaty which they broke anyway by not delivering materiel hardware troops just as poland wouldve had to if uk were attacked.. even then they declared war days later while poland was attacked on all sides

The majority of those were British colonies Dirk...........
As for Ireland, at least they didn't fight for the Nazis, which was nice of them in the circumstances:)

Yes and certain colonies and especially domions could CHOOSE whether to go to war or not. There were 4 types of brit colonies imperial colonial dominion and i forget the 4th but smaller colonies and doninions chose whether to go.to war or not. Australia and india didnt have a choice for example.but all dominions did.

Regardless, none of these brit colonies or brit mainland sent any significant sized units to poland. And thats fact.

Could Britain send heavy duty military hardware to Poland today within a time frame to make a difference Dirk - somehow avoiding "interest" from a vast militaristic dictatorship that would chew up those shipments and spit them out?

As before, I refer you to a map of the world. Please do show the forum how such forces would have been logistically possible. We vowed to fight on your behalf and we did. We started (the war) and we were there at the finish.

In the meantime, Poland went back 30 years. Ask Roosevelt about that if you must. Now the country is free - thanks to brave people who half of the population dismiss - yet you (who should not have the vote) elect another dictatorial government.

Every country gets the leaders it deserves etc... Why not try learning by your mistakes?

Thats what was the 4th one was - united kingdom

United kingdom, dominions, imperial colonies, and colonial colonies totaled 15 mil commonwealth troops... yet they couldnt even muster a battalion or two to send to poland... sad really... were dealing with people who break treaties, claim they helped us, when in reality they had one of largest ww2 force out of the entire war amd couldnt even sent 1k special forces even to poland much less an armored regiment or brigade .. that rly is quite something.. but of course they helped sooooo much... if only they sent as many tanks as polish lives died under uk command

Amd yes mainland uk couldve easily flew sorties over poland by flying over scandinavia or sent ships to baltic right after the invasion or landed their marines at westerplatte but they chose not to, thus breaking their defense treaty with poland which called for material support and troops sent to polish lands, not fighting on our behalf..

The UK is not, nor ever was a colony! It can't be a colony of itself.

I used the wrong word it was considered part of commonwealth forces - those 4 made up the commonwealth during ww2

You mean, you were speed reading Wikipedia again :D Would this be the bit that confused you:

"Commonwealth forces (United Kingdom, Colonial, Imperial and Dominion), totalling close to 15 million serving men and women"

So please tell me exactly what polish battle(s) did britain honor their mutual defense treaty with poland and sent their troops to help defend polish positions and help repel the invasion, or even fought against the nazis on polish turf between 1939 and 1945?

Seems to most poles the brits had 15 million men amd 6 years to honor their mutual defense treaty and help poland within our borders, but the brits chose not to. Hence theres plenty of facts and historical events about the 'western betrayal' for this and the next generation of poles to learn. Polish history is being looked at as an extremely important subject to get correct esp due to decades of commie whitewashing and western ass kissing. Museums films etc are finally providing a polish perspective of the war. The adults know about it so its up to us to pass it down and teach young poles they cant trust anyone to come to their aid - esp the west if thr country were ever invaded.

We sure as hell wouldnt expect the brits to come if russia invaded polamd tomorrow. Id put my money on trump, or even sooner germany as uk and france would be too busy playing shuttle diplomacy

If you want to know who really was the first to help poland... well there is no 'first' as no allied nation sent any significant sized units to defend poland against thw nazis and later the soviets. Britain made very limited air drops to warsaw during the uprising although no tanks troops etc neuther at the onset of the invasion or years after despite the polish british mutual defense treaty and us wanted to also make air drops but stalin wouldnt let us use his airfields. Hitler and stalin split thr country and hitler attacked stalin which was dumb asf. Well stalin bested him and drove nazis back to berlin while purposely killed polish officers and any remnants of the government in exile along the way which he aimed to replace with loyal officials and the red army kgb nkvd etc to enforce ussr rule

It was similar to the way stalin acted before but worse because marx and lenin had alwats hated poles as it is written in their works

Again, your ignorance of the facts does not stand debate Dirk. Do please tell us how many British Navy ships were in the Baltic at the outbreak of war? In actual fact, as anybody in Gdynia knows.... the Polish fleet, such as it was, had already been evacuated to Britain.

You are postulating to yourself and not making any sense. When something goes wrong in our own lives, we have a good hard look in the mirror. And try not to fall into the age old trap of solely blaming others. Countries as a collective should do the same.


A populists' and idiots' guide to the war, and one that will be discredited and ripped up as cynical and disingenuous pulp fiction in the years to come. Do you dispute Davies's take on this governments' laughable attempts at Revisionist history?


I am married to an "adult." 95 percent of my "adult" students share her view. That PIS and the revisionists are at best nuts, and possibly much worse, in their interference in museums' depiction of war history.


Where did you get that chesnut Dirk:)) Later in the war, the time you are referring to, when Stalin "bested Hitler" as you memorably state, the Soviets saw the value of actually not murdering officers, or at least keeping that side of their activities for the future. You are in fact referring to another period of the war. Here to help!

That is not true. Only brand new destroyers. Submarines and other ships plus few planes there was never left.c.


Talking like Commie propaganda when it suit you.