The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 901

WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?

Dougpol1 31 | 2,640
24 Jan 2018 #841
Tri-City is solidly anti-PIS Ironside. Nothing at all communist in thinking here. We leave that to Polska B. That is partly why Tri-City is the most popular place to live. Next gripe?
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
24 Jan 2018 #842
There were no british ships landing in poland or fighting against the schelswig holstein at westerplatte

Riiiight so katyn never happened stalin never killed a single polish officer. Stalin did everything to prevent the polish government in exile, which was in London and sometimes parts of france up to the early 90s, from returning and ruling back home. Killing all the officials, officers of ak, and destroying any resistance is what allowed him to instill his own soviet puppet government

Even pilsudzski saw the soviets as far worse than nazis

Trial of the 16 also never occured... no the commies would never harm a pole fighting agaonst rhe nazis...

Except in the first victory parade in moscow nazis and soviets marched together, pravda newspaper declared it a crime for soviets to fight the nazis, and the molotov ribbentrop act def isnt a forgery... stalin sent grain to hitler while.his own people starved. Stalin was smart he wanted nazis to destroy europe so later he could come in with the red army as a pseudo liberator.. and some idiots who prolly flunked grade school history see him as such to this day

You should watch 'the soviet story' if you want to see how deep the collusion between stalin and hitler was.

Just like in the ussr in the 30s and 40s, todays anti fascists are really nazis
Ironside 53 | 12,493
24 Jan 2018 #843
Tri-City is solidly anti-PIS Ironside.

Yeah, known for it mafia, no wonder they are anti-PiS, they are anti-going to jail for white collar crimes.
Asking where your taxes are going - on their many properties and foreign accounts. You poor foreign sucker.

Actually I was talking what they 'ALL' know about Polish fleet during the war. That is commie propaganda repeated back to you. Three brand new destroyers and possibly some support ships (brand new) that have been of no use in the Baltic against Germans, left - all the rest stayed put.
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
24 Jan 2018 #844
Pfft Tricity isnt making any noise...

How would you depict polish ww2 history doug? What british divisions (not even a lil british battalion showed up let alone a regiment brigade or more) would you include as fighting on polish soil against the nazis or soviets? At most a squad or two (few dozen planes) dropped supplies at the warsaw uprising years after invasion and breaking of the polish british defense treaty. Thats what the facts and history show. Simply no british french or americam battalion sized formation or greater fought on polish turf
Dougpol1 31 | 2,640
24 Jan 2018 #845
How would you depict polish ww2 history doug?

Glorious and proud.

That doesn't excuse PIS lies that Poles didn't give up any Jews of any substantial number to the Nazis? What would you and I have done? To safeguard my family I am bloody sure I would have. But no, the Pole (according to PIS) is always valiant and God fearing, and would risk all. So, with that in mind, PIS set about changing the history of the tragedy of war to suit their own nationalist agenda.

Disgusting, and likely libellious.

Three brand new destroyers

No use against the Germans? Why? Balsawood gun turrets? Dirk was saying that Britain should have spirited its' forces through Westerplatte, politely asking the Germans to stand aside to let them through with a "I say, old chap..."

And all the while, the best of your ships had cut and run?
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
24 Jan 2018 #846
That has nothing to do with the fact that the brits broke their mutual defense treaty and never sent more than a squad of planes to help, not even a single british battalion came to help poland. Two entirely different topics. The topic thread is who first helped poland in ww2 - well def not the british as facts and history shows. Poles on the other hand did help the british with troops on the ground in london. Why did your troops never come to warsaw?

Protecting jews was punishable by death. As far as libel or even the merits of whether poland helped jews or not lets ask israel and yad vashem, who has awarded poland more righteous amongst the nations awards than any other country for saving jews. How many yad vashem awards does uk have? Who cares its less than poland
Dougpol1 31 | 2,640
24 Jan 2018 #847
Why did your troops never come to warsaw?

Got a globe handy Dirk? I guess you could also use that Google Map thingy.........
Warsaw was as far away as the moon in 1939 - but you seem to know better? I repeat, please do outline for us, General Dirk, how it could have been done?
Atch 23 | 4,057
24 Jan 2018 #848
politely asking the Germans to stand aside to let them through with a "I say, old chap..."

Or the atlernative 'out of the way Johnny Foreigner, we're British' :D
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
24 Jan 2018 #849
That was up to your generals to fogure out having signed the polish british mutual defense treaty. They couldve easily used the scandinavian countries airspace and used convoys much like they did in the atlantic as the uboat thrrst in the baltic was as minimal as british help for poland in sept 1939.The point is they attemped NOTHING aka nada zilch as in zero battalions landing on shores far away from tricity, zero british destroyers to engage the schelswig holstein, zero squads of raf bombers decimating nazi supply convoys, zero paratrooper battalions, zero squadrons of spitfires shooting down stukas as they dive bombed warsaw... nada nothing zilch - thats the closest estimate to the british help, as well as the lack of even a meaningful attempt
Ironside 53 | 12,493
24 Jan 2018 #850
the best of your ships had cut and run?

Some of the best. Top notch submarines never left.
Thing is without aerial support, without save ports such ships are just sitting targets.
Anyway I would never sign anything with France and Britain at the time. Give circumstances it was obvious to buddy with Hitler for a time even for the price of Gdansk.
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
24 Jan 2018 #851

Point is dont sign a mutual defense treaty if you dont plan to honor it
G (undercover)
24 Jan 2018 #852
Then Monte Cassino wouldn't have happened would it, seeing as Germany would have won.

Sir, 65-70% of the effort to defeat "Nazis" was made by the Soviets, another 15-20% by the US, in case of the forces under British command, that's no more than 10% and a significant part of that were Canadians, Poles, Australians, Indians etc. "Nazis" were crazy enough to declare war on Soviets and US at the same time, they would have lost no matter what England had done. Besides, the whole concept that Britain could somehow stay out of it is ridiculous. Adolf's major goal was to finish off the Soviets and he couldn't start war in the east without conquering the west first. "Nazis" invaded damn load of countries despite a fact that most of them hadn't declared the phoney war on them.

We, the British, stood up the Germans, whilst you, the Poles, capitulated in three weeks.

LOL ! You dudes would have capitulated within 5 days if not the Channel.

If you hadn't had such a nationalistic leader as Pilsudski, maybe we would have been allowed to help you earlier

Except that Pilsudski died in 1935 ! Here comes your "knowledge" :))) The "all-powerful Germany" in 39 was a small part of the huge fighting force they created over the next years. In 39 they needed to use nearly all of their combat units to defeat Poland, like I said before, even mid scale offensive from the west in Sep 39 could have ended the WW2 before it really started.
G (undercover)
24 Jan 2018 #853
We bankrupted ourselves and lost our place in the world

You lost colonies and couldn't live on exploitation of ******* anymore. Britain was hardly touched by WW2 even in comparison to Belgium or Holland.

Phony war was sadly necessary, to re-arm

So remind us what was the code name/date of the planned English-French offensive on the "Nazis" :))) ?

As before, I refer you to a map of the world. Please do show the forum how such forces would have been logistically possible.

Huh ? The "Nazis" hardly left any forces on the western border. The French army could have reached the Ruhr area within days while the English navy could block any traffic to "Nazi" ports. Then the whole stuff about "1000 years Reich" would have collapsed over night and Adolf likely would have ended up removed by his own people.
Dougpol1 31 | 2,640
24 Jan 2018 #854
Except that Pilsudski died in 1935 !

Yep - knew that. Unlike Dirk and Ironside and Polonia, I have actually lived in the country for 27 years, plus visiting time. So know a little about Pilsudki, Dmowski, and the rest. As I said before, Poland wanted to stand aloof then, just like now. It's aka pride,, disguised as nationalism, and it doesn't pay dividends in the long term. Together, as a united Europe, we can stand against Russia, otherwise there's going to be trouble of some sort in the future. And your nationalism will stand for Jack Squat then.

The "all-powerful Germany" in 39 was a small part of the huge fighting force they created over the next years

Mmm - maybe.... but the Lutwaffe was depleted after 41, so that's debatable?
dolnoslask 6 | 2,946
25 Jan 2018 #855
This is a god read If you are Polish or polish American, sums things up regarding help for Poland.
Ktos 16 | 440
25 Jan 2018 #856

Hey! Nobody helped Poland, there were only some collaborations like in Division 303 Polish, Czechs and Slovakians together flew fighter plains destroying Germany's air forces. It is Poland who was doing the helping. Russia did help drive out Germans and eventually won the war by pushing Geran Army back into Germany and taking over East Germany and leaving the rest. However, Russia also invaded Poland, so Its help was itself a war on Poland, the difference was that we were not occupied later by Russia, although we became a satelite state of It and had to pay a type of protection money but it was more of a robbery, but at least Russia did not occupy us like Germany did. However, the government that followed was stern anti-Polish government serving Russia and those who opposed it would be sent to hard labour in Syberia or jail. So that is it, we were really by ourselves during that war.
spiritus 69 | 651
25 Jan 2018 #857
As can be seen by the varied responses, the question, "who really was the first to help Poland" is perhaps responsible for the difference of opinion.

Britain and France declared war on Germany as a direct result of Germany's attack on Poland and some people consider that declaration as "help". Others will claim that Poland wasn't actually put in any better position in the weeks and months after war was declared on Germany and these people argue that Poland wasn't helped at this time.

Poland had fallen faster than expected and I don't think it's inaccurate to suggest that Britain and France considered Poland a "lost cause" by that time. Defending or helping Poland was no longer the primary concern-confronting the aggressive German war machine became the primary objective
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
25 Jan 2018 #858

Doesnt make you an expert on ww2 history, neither.can you show exactly how brits helped poland as their mutual defense treaty stipulated. Fact is british did not honor their mutual defense treaty and never sent any significant sized units to poland whether it was in the days and weeks after invasion or the years after even though the document called for brits to defend poland in every way possible. They were too far up 'uncle joes' ass as he was affectionately referred to in england to aid poland when poland was attacked on two fronts. Also, youre not a citizen so regardless of how many years youve been in pl, by law the local schitzo drunkard screaming in the street amd tellin people to repent has more legal rights enshrined by our constitution than you.

Poland did ask uk for help specifically a military loan so they could buy hardware which britain refused to give them. So no poland did ask for help but brits didnt homor their mutual defense treaty and they were more scared of uncle joe than hitler and chose to befriend him, a guy who made a secret pact with hitler to divide poland... thats what history shows.

If you have any documents or sources proving that brits send atleast 1 battalion to polish grounds, were all ears. However that did not happen. What did happen is more poles died trying to save britain specifically london and colonies than brits died on polish turf.

Polands uprising lasted longer than all of france despite having roughly the same force as the nazis. Quite pathetic. Plus unlike poland, france wasnt attacked on another front by a so called ally.
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
25 Jan 2018 #859

Exactly. But well always have brits claiming they helped poland even though they didnt send a single battalion or larger to poland, refused a military loan to poland, and simply did not honor their mutual defense treaty. Even worse they were fawning over uncle joe and simply didnt want to get involved when ussr, part of the allied powers, invaded amd occupied poland killing scores of poles esp ak members along the way amd later driving people like my own family to siberia smolensk etc.

We Poles however did fight on british soil to help save britain. Too bad the brits cant claim the same amd say they honored their mutual defense treaty
Crnogorac3 4 | 820
25 Jan 2018 #860
But well always have brits claiming they helped poland even though they didnt send a single battalion or larger to poland, refused a military loan to poland, and simply did not honor their mutual defense treaty.

Ironside is right, it was foolish on the part of the Polish government to believe that the English would actually honour anything that they've signed.


Especially considering the Queen's brother was a Nazi sympathizer.
Atch 23 | 4,057
25 Jan 2018 #861
He was the present Queen's uncle, not her brother.

Oh and by the way Prince Philip's mother was named as one of the Righteous for having sheltered Jews in her home in Greece during the war, so there's two sides to every story.
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
25 Jan 2018 #862

Yup. Thats why its up to poles to protect poland. We cant afford another betrayal. The country most likely to attack poland would be russia if it came down to it. Its unfortunate as slavs shouldn't fight slavs. But you cam bet once again the brits wouldnt do anything. At best theyd declare war as nato stipulates but theyd sit on their hands in fear and send zero units just like in ww2. Maybe this time theyll fawn over uncle vlad? In any case, trump would likely be the only one to come to polands aid. Uk and france are simply too weak, indecisive, and theyve already been invaded anyway in their own lands without even putting up a fight. How can you defend another countrys borders if you cant even protect your own?
Ktos 16 | 440
25 Jan 2018 #863

On the contrary, Poland had fallen later than British and French expected. British and French just watched and watched and waited deciding to sacrifice Poland. Church Hill Billy was surprised how long Poland was able to stand up to Germany. Unfortunately, when Russians attacked from the East Polish lost most of the hope. Today would be the same .
Dougpol1 31 | 2,640
25 Jan 2018 #864
to believe that the English would actually honour anything

Says a poster from a pariah state. That's rich, a Serbian talking of honour. Individuals, undoubtedly have honour - not the state and it's murderers, and there is no way back for Serbia until it formally apologises for its' war crimes IMO.

Thats why its up to poles to protect poland

Like the nationalists prepared for defending you in 1939 Dirk? You are in America, not Poland, and you really don't know what you are talking about. Only the plutonium bomb would safeguard you, and nobody is going to be stupid enough to give it to Poland. It's bad enough that Israel have it, without another nationalistic mob threatening the rest of us:))

So it#s up to us Brits and Nato to defend you - but don't thank us!!:)))
dolnoslask 6 | 2,946
25 Jan 2018 #865
up to us Brits

Britain has not got the resources to defend itself the current government has run the military into the ground, the opposition party is made up of new wave commies who cant wait to build a new commie state, as for the odd nuke, no one in Britain would have the balls to press the button they would rather (and are best at) arranging a victory parade for putins army.

As for getting together a large enough force of people to fight a war many people in Britain have no national sense of identity or pride, the libtatrds have brainwashed them into some kind of LBQT snowflake, millennial pussies.

Only my opinion from what I see of Britain today,any sense nationalism and pride in the once great nation has been mostly wiped out.
SigSauer 4 | 378
25 Jan 2018 #866

You got a little carried away. The United States defends Poland, the 87 tanks, 144 IFVs, and the 4,000 men and women there are American service members. The 400 Marines in Norway right now, are Americans, not Brits. You lot can barely defend yourselves, pipe down.
dolnoslask 6 | 2,946
25 Jan 2018 #867
You will have to cut him some rope, he comes from my generation that did still have the balls and wherewithal to defend Britain sadly we are all over fifty and only any good at being armchair generals, as for the younger generations they would be best off surrendering at the first sign of trouble.
jon357 74 | 21,935
25 Jan 2018 #868
Especially considering the Queen's brother was a Nazi sympathizer.

The Queen does not have a brother.

You probably mean the Duke of Windsor. He was not a Nazi either, however like most European heads of state, he had to meet such people. His wife (despised by most in Britain) knew Von Ribbentrop. No surprises given that he was ambassador to London.

HM The Queen Mother however, caused a storm at the time (when Duchess of York) by refusing to shake hands with the German Ambassador.
kaprys 3 | 2,249
25 Jan 2018 #869
Sure ... giving a Nazi salute was part of the protocol, too.
His opinions about Jews were interesting ...
It's cool to see how someone who jumps at every occassion to accuse Poles of antisemitism ignores an ex-king's Nazi views.

The UK had to keep an eye on Edward during the war.
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
25 Jan 2018 #870

Britain isnt going to defend poland just as they didnt it in ww2. When youre burned you blow on cold. If britain couldnt honor a mutual defense treaty in ww2 what makes you think they'll abide by nato rules? They affectionately called stalin uncle joe. Maybe now theyll refer to putin as uncle vlad. Theres certainly precedence of breaking treaties and buddying up to the russians. Unless of course the powerful zionists in uk convince british leaders to enter the war deslite the peoples objections just as rothschild did in ww1.

I see a lot of american hardware in poland, but not british. Whens the last time a polish president or high ranking politician thanked britain for sending tanks to poland? America on the hand is given such gratitude. And even more american units will arrive in poland. Well take our chance with trump and the us. Russias military is far more powerful than uks anyway.

As far as 'residing' in poland i know its a difficult concept for you to grasp but an individual can have more than one citizenship, more than one home, and pay taxes to more than one country. You can on and ok about the 2 decades youve been in poland. Yet it matters little as legally according to polish constitution i along with the 38 million other poles in poland as well as the millions of polish citizens who work or live abroad still have more say in polish matters and are able to vote in all polish elections, not just local ones.

Home / History / WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?