The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 901

WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?


Nathan 18 | 1,349
8 Aug 2009 #121
I have no grudge to people who lives in thoose countries today, I forgive their past wich their naturally proud of. Even thoose Ukrainians with whole that Bandera race... people! Did they have their Pilsudski? Did they have their Kazimierz Wielki? Did they have their Sobieski? They allmost have nothing! I feel pity for them.

I love Poles with all my heart ;) My socks are wet (sorry, I peed on them laughing while reading this) - what is better now than give them a good wash and hang them on a string pulled between my beloved poles. Their fluttering tongues are of great use as well - socks dry faster :)
Harry
8 Aug 2009 #122
Sorry? For what? There is nothing in the article you posted Babinach which supports your claims or contradicts my statements. The seven-day war was over by the time that article was published. And the Polish-Soviet war (during which Poland stabbed her Ukrainian allies in the back) had not started by that date. Nice try but you need to find other excuses for Polish arrogance yet again coming before a fall.
PolishBlood - | 3
8 Aug 2009 #123
Ya know, Hitler's generals didn't want to fight a two front war. And when Germany invaded Poland, that is exactly what would have happened had the French who supposedly had the latest and greatest weaponry at the time and lets not forget the Maginot Line. Good or bad. I have read that the French had 92 divisions idle incase the Germans invaded. And Germany had 34 divisions waiting for the French if they invaded. If they did and made a play for Berlin, guess what? The Germans would have pulled back out of Poland and given them a chance to regroup. And possibly the Russians would not have gone through with their invasion. Fearing that the French and the British would make good on their treaties. But no, the French always fail. And you pick on Poland????? They tried and tried hard. They did make a giant mistake and that was expecting help from other countries. They should have taken worst case scenario that if no one come to our aid, we need to be prepared, period. And maybe that is what they did but it seems they truly expected help from their treaties that were in place. In the early 30's Poland should have requested aid from the U.S. in the form of planes and tanks. Like buying everything the U.S could produce for them. Planes like the P-51 Mustang. I know the British actually contracted to buy that plane from us. I think they actually brought their desires to one of our plane companies to get it built and we liked the design also. Poland could have and should have built up their air force so that they could have controlled the skies. I know it has been said that if you control the sky, you control the war. The Polish pilots that flew under the Royal air force were the most highly decorated in the British air force so I have to belive that the Poles enjoy shooting Germans out of the sky and it probably would have been a really good fit for the Poles to have say 4000 planes to pummel the German invasion. That would have been absolutely fantastic to hear the Germans got obliterated on their entry into Poland and then stabbed in the back by the French. WWII over in 4 weeks. How about those headlines??????????/ I have read that Poland was in the process of upgrading every aspect of their military prior to WWII. And had war broken out in say '42 they would have been much more propared to go it alone. And if Germany was successful with their invasion of Poland what would stop them from then turning west????? Why not invade Germany when she is invading another country to catch them unprepared to totally defend herself???? The French, completely useless!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,167
8 Aug 2009 #124
PolishBlood,
Excaclty, but the cavalkry was still the most popular choice in public and among Generals, so it's hard to think that Poland would buy like 4 k airplanes. 1,5 k would even be enough I say.
Wroclaw 44 | 5,379
8 Aug 2009 #125
PolishBlood,

Paragraphs, please.
Wroclaw Boy
8 Aug 2009 #126
Slightly off topic but relevant and interesting.

He argues that the decisive event in the run-up to World War II was not the infamous 1938 appeasement at Munich—because the Germans had good reason to reabsorb the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia—but the 1939 guarantee, which was foolish of the British to make and foolish of the Poles to rely on. It was foolish because Britain had no means of defending Poland. When Hitler attacked in 1939, after Polish leaders refused to return Danzig to Germany, the British could only watch helplessly.

ShelleyS 14 | 2,893
8 Aug 2009 #127
Churchill for a lot of things he did not do, yes he was a drunk,

What the hell are you on about, he was one of the best mediators we have had in history. Once again you talk complete twaddle. You'd do well to read a little bit about the man before you call him a drunk.

As for who did what, England was the first to publicly and officially declare war on Germany after entering into long talks with them about their actions in Eastern Europe.
PolishBlood - | 3
8 Aug 2009 #128
Sorry, it's 4am. And there is a cost to all this. And then their would have been the negative feedback from all the European countries that "Poland" is leading an arms race. And who does Poland think she is by doing that. And then Germany would have jumped on the bandwagon and said it was going into Poland to take out a repressive regime, etc. Poland is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't!!!!!!!!!

And the truth is that Germany had their hands in Poland for a long time and so did Russia and both didn't want to give that up. And that is still true to this day in regards to Russia. It makes me so happy that Russia's panties are in a bunch because the U.S. wants to put missles in Poland. And with U.S. missles, come U.S. money!!!!!!!!!!!! And a better economy, etc. Finally Poland may be on the right track to properity!!!!!!!
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195
8 Aug 2009 #129
What the hell are you on about, he was one of the best mediators we have had in history. Once again you talk complete twaddle. You'd do well to read a little bit about the man before you call him a drunk.

Indeed, we honor him now with his initials upon our toilets.
Though I can't see how this is related to him being a drunk - i.e. someone who frequently drinks (alcoholic beverages) to excess.
Wroclaw Boy
8 Aug 2009 #130
the U.S. wants to put missles in Poland. And with U.S. missles, come U.S. money!!!!!!!!!!!! And a better economy, etc. Finally Poland may be on the right track to properity!!!!!!!

Damn it thats the case im going to have to get my hands on some missiles. Poland already is on the track to propriety and its got nothing to do with missiles, its called the EU.
szkotja2007 27 | 1,498
8 Aug 2009 #131
England was the first to publicly and officially declare war on Germany

England ?
ShelleyS 14 | 2,893
8 Aug 2009 #132
Britain, slip of the tongue ;0)
Babinich 1 | 455
8 Aug 2009 #133
Nice try but you need to find other excuses for Polish arrogance yet again coming before a fall.

November 1917 - A number of prisoners of war are released from captivity in the Ukraine

A large number of POWs are Czechs and Poles; two of the largest contingents of the Austrian-Hungarian empire.

The Czechs and the Poles as a whole are determined not to be repatriated to the Austrian-Hungarian empire. Their hope was to liberate their homelands from imperial rule.

The Czechs want to go it alone; they demanded passage to France via the Trans-Siberian railway. This is where the Czech adventure begins.

The Poles throw in their lot with the Ukrainian Nationalists.

The Poles are surprised by the Central Rada when the Ukrainians sign a peace accord with the Germans at Brest-Litovsk on 02/09/1918.
Wroclaw Boy
8 Aug 2009 #134
England was the first to publicly and officially declare war on Germany after entering into long talks with them about their actions in Eastern Europe.

Britian was the big brother with hands tied behind his back. What could we have done that would have saved Poland.

WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?

The Polish governament was set up in London as Exiles. We also provided the tools and opportunities for the Poles to fight and hit the gerries where it hurt in the RAF.
Babinich 1 | 455
8 Aug 2009 #135
Britian was the big brother with hands tied behind his back. What could we have done that would have saved Poland.

Absolutely nothing; the Brits were in a pickle.
Bratwurst Boy 11 | 11,775
8 Aug 2009 #136
The Poles are surprised by the Central Rada when the Ukrainians sign a peace accord with the Germans at Brest-Litovsk on 02/09/1918.

Maybe they should accept responsibility for their nations deeds? The question is...HOW????
ShelleyS 14 | 2,893
8 Aug 2009 #137
Absolutely nothing; the Brits were in a pickle.

They were never really in a position to get involved in the first place.

Britian was the big brother with hands tied behind his back. What could we have done that would have saved Poland.

Nothing, people seem to forget that England suffered financially for the help that they did give, wasnt it only recently that we repaid our debt to America, how long did we have food and fule shortages and how many mens lives were lost? Hey hoe, we still hear the same ole tune "Britain sold Poland" ;0) Not sure how big they think that this Island is? Also how long has it been since we were last at war.
Babinich 1 | 455
8 Aug 2009 #138
They were never really in a position to get involved in the first place.

I totally agree with you.

BB,

First off there was no Polish nation at that time.

Funny thing is that the Germans ended up screwing the Ukrainians.

Now go figure; Germans not abiding by a treaty. So much for blaming the Nazis control over the Germans and not the Germans themselves.

Sources: John Keegan - 'The First World War'

Basil Dmytryshyn - 'USSR: A Concise History'
Bratwurst Boy 11 | 11,775
8 Aug 2009 #139
First off there was no Polish nation at that time.

I rather meant the poor Ukrainians (could never be Poles, of course not)...nonetheless I still would like to know what "taking responsibility" would entail in your eyes...somehow you forgot the mention that everytime you ask people to do it!
Babinich 1 | 455
8 Aug 2009 #140
Taking responsibility has only one meaning.

Figure it out.
Bratwurst Boy 11 | 11,775
8 Aug 2009 #141
I tried, really...help me out here...what can I do for you!
Wroclaw Boy
8 Aug 2009 #142
So much for blaming the Nazis control over the Germans and not the Germans themselves.

That is damn good point, never heard it before. How true is that????

Winks to Brat Boy and thinks me use that in the future.
Bratwurst Boy 11 | 11,775
8 Aug 2009 #143
*winks back*

Babinich is the only one...you didn't need to be a German to be a Nazi! (Hitler the Austrian, Waffen-SS from around Europe etc.)

axishistory.com/index.php?id=307

Nearly 350,000 non-German volunteers from no less than 16 occupied countries served willingly in Adolf Hitler's Waffen SS combat units from 1940-1945.

But that is not the point...Babi likes to talk about "taking over responsibility of the nations deed" amidst a discussion (for Germans only of course), but doesn't tell me HOW?????
Wroclaw Boy
8 Aug 2009 #144
and how many mens lives were lost?

Not many on the big scale of things it was 382,700, i believe Britian was ready for World peace at the out break of war. 50 years ahead of the times, all of a sudden this nut job Hitler comes along having brain washed the German weak minded people and its like ohh for fcuk sake we have to goto war again.
Bratwurst Boy 11 | 11,775
8 Aug 2009 #145
Well...not "all of a sudden"...I would say!

He was a desaster waiting to happen...said a negotiator at Versailles in 1919 already.."...just an armistice..."
Wroclaw Boy
8 Aug 2009 #146
*winks back*

Actually i have used that in the past in some sort of context.

Well...not "all of a sudden"...I would say!

He was a desaster waiting to happen...said a negotiator at Versailles in 1919 already.."...just an armistice..."

Yeh but Germany wanted a piece of World domination, you know it be true. If not Hitler then who?
Babinich 1 | 455
8 Aug 2009 #147
That is damn good point, never heard it before. How true is that????

Here...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk_%28February_9,_1918%29
under the heading of: Effects of the treaty

Again I cite the Keegan reference...
Bratwurst Boy 11 | 11,775
8 Aug 2009 #148
Actually i have used that in the past in some sort of context.

Then maybe YOU could help me out???

Yeh but Germany wanted a piece of World domination, you know it be true. If not Hitler then who?

As compared to the british empire or the french empire?
But that was the reason for WWI...WWII was the continuation...
Wroclaw Boy
8 Aug 2009 #149
But that was the reason for WWI...WWII was the continuation...

dude you were just`100 years or so too god damn late. But thanks for the cars, youre making it up in your own way.

Im despised at the way English car manufacturers have sold out, Germans dont do that, national pride over personal gain. Respect where its due.
Bratwurst Boy 11 | 11,775
8 Aug 2009 #150
dude you were just`100 years or so too god damn late.

Agreed

But thanks for the cars, youre making it up in your own way.

Agreed! :)


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