The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 75

Yalta Conference and Poland


Prince 15 | 590
5 Feb 2009  #1
jalta

partition plan

Partition plan from Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Churchil

Morgenthau Plan:

French

Final decision.

stalin

Poland was the first item on the Soviet agenda; Stalin stated the Soviet case:

“ For the Russian people, the question of Poland is not only a question of honor but also a question of security. Throughout history, Poland has been the corridor through which the enemy has passed into Russia. Twice in the last thirty years our enemies, the Germans, have passed through this corridor. It is in Russia’s interest that Poland should be strong and powerful, in a position to shut the door of this corridor by her own force…It is necessary that Poland should be free, independent in power. Therefore, it is not only a question of honor but of life and death for the Soviet state. ”
sjam 2 | 541
5 Feb 2009  #2
Is it not now widely accepted that the Oder and Neisse line proposal (western boundary in German territory) was not originally a Soviet concept but one that was postulated much earlier by General Sikorski as a pragmatic solution to Poland's place in post-war Europe.

An approximation of the curzon line eastern boundary was also proposed by General Sikorski. The giving up of eastern Polish territory was to be compensated by the westward shift of Polish borders to the Oder and Neisse line again this was Sikorski's concept.

Therefore this thorny issue can't be fairly or entirely laid at either Stalin's, Roosevelt's or Churchill's door. The issue was that Sikorski's plan was obviously an anathema to many less pragmatic elements in the Polish-government-in-exile and was never likely to be acceptable to them.

Though ironically Sikorski's plan was eventually the settlement that became the post-war reality however the big difference was that Stalin (with the de facto occupation of central Europe by the Red Army) was able to exploit the weakness of his western allies (including the sidelined Polish-government-in-exile) to his own ends as there was no willingness by Roosevelt and Churchill to fight the Soviets over Poland's postwar borders as after all the USSR had played a major role (one could argue the major role) in the defeat the Nazi regime.

Solidly researched reference work that discusses Sikorski plan in detail:
Poland's Place in Europe: General Sikorski and the Origin of the Oder-Neisse Line, 1939-1943: Sarah Meiklejohn.
OP Prince 15 | 590
5 Feb 2009  #3
I know one thing. This three guys on the picture made decisions.

As I know Sikorski "died" in july 1943.

Yalta was in 1945.

It was after :

The Tehran Conference (codenamed EUREKA) was the meeting of Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill between November 28 and December 1, 1943 in Tehran, Iran.

Stalin wished for an area in the Eastern part of Poland to be added to the USSR, and for the border to be lengthened elsewhere in the country. Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to this demand

Churchill and Roosevelt also gave Stalin free rein in his own country, and allowed the USSR to set up puppet communist governments in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltic states, Romania, and other Eastern European countries what has become a reason of loss of freedom by these countries for next fifty years and genesis of Cold War.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference
sjam 2 | 541
5 Feb 2009  #4
It was after

My point is a simple one and one that many Poles overlook-the present boundaries of Poland were not an original idea conspired by the 'Big Three'; Sikorski, when he was alive, proposed the very same Polish national boundaries in 1942 for post-war Poland and these eventually became a post-war reality after his death. Sikorski's views were not secret and were known to the allies. So you can't say that Poland's post-war boundaries were the fault of just the 'Big Three' -the outcome was inevitable as had Sikorski lived the borders of Poland would have still resembled those of Poland today. That is the point I am making.
Harry
5 Feb 2009  #5
Look, just stop with the facts, OK? Everybody knows that anything bad which ever happened to Poland is the fault of solely the British. That Poland got back her historic lands in the west but had her eastern territories stolen from her is the fault of nobody but the British. And the Jews, obviously.
sjam 2 | 541
5 Feb 2009  #6
Look, just stop with the facts, OK?

Troll lesson no.1 ....... Why let facts stand in the way of a good arguement ;-))))
Harry
5 Feb 2009  #7
That is General Troll lesson No. 1. This is a Polish forum and so we have to use Polish Troll lesson No. 1: whenever possible blame the Jews or the British (if the topic is vaguely connected to the war, blame the British; otherwise blame the Jews).

And you have to remember Polish Troll Mantra No. 1: Poland is never to blame for anything, Poland is perfect (and so are the Poles).
sjam 2 | 541
5 Feb 2009  #8
Poland is perfect (and so are the Poles).

As a Pole I can but agree 100% with this :-)
Seanus 15 | 19,706
5 Feb 2009  #9
The British just continued appeasement, after having learnt only a few years before just how bad an approach it was. Poland was savaged during WWII for no good reason and completely unfairly. The sensible thing to have done would have been to prevent the imposition of communism. After all, the West had an ideological bone of contention with it.

Churchill was just happy to bask in his glory. He was a pompous ass who only really cared about protecting British shores and couldn't give a hang about what was in the Polish interest. Not that he had to, but it would have been more equitable.

As a non-Pole, the Poles are far from perfect, as is every other nation :)
sjam 2 | 541
5 Feb 2009  #10
Poland was savaged during WWII for no good reason and completely unfairly.

From Poland's view point it was savaged for no good reason but from the German and Soviet view there were plenty of good reasons—Living space in the East for Germany and revenge for Stalin! This was unfortunatley Poland's destiny regardless of any friendship treaties it had signed with Germany and USSR earlier and with Britain and France afterwards.

However a big mistake was that Britain persuaded the Polish government to delay mobilisation (which it did) in a vain attempt to give diplomacy one last chance.

The sensible thing to have done would have been to prevent the imposition of communism.

As Stalin had millions of communist Red Army soldiers sweeping across the soil of Poland by 1944 what sensible plan was possible to stop them and why would they want to do that? Unless you are suggesting that the western allies should have turned against Soviets at this point in 1944? What would have happened if they had: the USSR would then most likely have sat round the peace table with the Germans again so what would be the sense in creating that scenario. By 1944 Poland was a communist contolled country by virtue of Red Army already on its soil.

At the end of the war in Europe the western alies believed it still needed Stalin's mighty Red Army to help defeat the Japanese especially in Manchuria... as it turned out the atom bomb obviated the need for Stalin's support... but by then the die was cast.

Churchill was just happy to bask in his glory.

And rightly so—for all his faults he rallied a nation to the eventual victory over the German's. If pompass ass he was he also got the job done for Britain at that time; he defended Britain's interest above all else; as any nation's leader should!
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,512
5 Feb 2009  #11
Poland was savaged during WWII for no good reason and completely unfairly.

well thats not entirely accurate Seanus, is it

if you p!ss your neighbours off enough, eventually they will turn around and slap you

a lesson some still have to learn
plk123 8 | 4,150
5 Feb 2009  #12
so now ww2 was poland's fault? wtf bw?
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,512
5 Feb 2009  #13
are you suggesting they were entirely blameless and that the germans just woke up one day and said hey, lets get the poles?
Harry
5 Feb 2009  #14
the germans just woke up one day and said hey, lets get the poles?

No. The Jews in the German leadership were behind the decision to attack Poland. And those same Jews contacted the Jews in the British leadership to make sure that Britain would pretend to be on Poland's side but actually support Germany.

Everything is the fault of the British and/or the Jews. Nothing is ever the fault of Poles.

Churchill was Jewish. Not a lot of people know that.
OP Prince 15 | 590
5 Feb 2009  #15
That is the point I am making.

I see your point. Still decisions have been made by "Big Three" , Polish government in exile was against Lwów for SU.

Harry

He is maniac ! :) He is going to trash all debates.
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,512
5 Feb 2009  #16
i heard that churchill was polish and he deliberatly set things up so that years later the polish would be able to blame the british for their problems
OP Prince 15 | 590
5 Feb 2009  #17
fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/People/USHMMPOL.HTM

Hitler:
I have issued the command--and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by firing squad--that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation in readiness--for the present only in the East--with orders to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space that we need.
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,512
5 Feb 2009  #18
with orders to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language

so why did hitler want to fuk the poles up so badly... not just take their land but actually proper fuk them up two time... ?
sjam 2 | 541
5 Feb 2009  #19
Untermenschen
OP Prince 15 | 590
5 Feb 2009  #20
BubbaWoo

You know sometimes natisons have different logic that yours... and it seems that it is your and Chamberlain case.
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,512
5 Feb 2009  #21
i would love to say that i knew what you were saying, but i looked at it twice and it dont make sense

can ya write it in english?
osiol 55 | 3,922
5 Feb 2009  #22
BW, are you really Neville Chamberlain?
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,512
5 Feb 2009  #23
no dawg, my name is snoop fo shizzle dat nizzle
OP Prince 15 | 590
5 Feb 2009  #24
can ya write it in english?

Ja naturlisch. You are very similar to Chamberlain.

Neville Chamberlain holding the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself on his return from Munich. He is showing the Anglo-German Declaration to a crowd at Heston Aerodrome on 30 September 1938. He said:

"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you ...".

Later that day he stood outside Number 10 Downing Street and again read from the document and concluded:

'"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."
osiol 55 | 3,922
5 Feb 2009  #25
That was Neville Chamberlain. How is BW similar, can you tell me Lukasz? Did Neville Chamberlain ever call anyone a silly k***?

But there are lots of people who fit that description. It doesn't mean they're all similar to eachother.

if you knew neville

Father knew Lloyd George, Lloyd George knew my father.

I hope you haven't been giving away other countries' territory again, BW!
OP Prince 15 | 590
5 Feb 2009  #26
But there are lots of people who fit that description. It doesn't mean their all similar to eachother.

Of course. I get your point.

I appreciate Norman Davies.

American Pilots in Polish - Soviet war (1920)

and I like

but we are not debating the description of the nations ... but 20th century history.
pirate - | 22
19 Jan 2010  #27
couldn't give a hang about what was in the Polish interest

Old post i know but....

Churchill's plan to liberate Poland from the Russians was called Operation Unthinkable British Troops were instructed to stockpile weapons to rearm German POW's for the invasion.

Yes, he was quite mad.
Harry
19 Jan 2010  #28
Funny how even now many many Poles see the failure of Britain to attack the USSR and liberate Poland as being an example of Britain selling out Poland.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
19 Jan 2010  #29
Ah, it's always fun to ask them what they expected Churchill and Britain to actually do.

Truman, for some bizzare reason, doesn't get mentioned at all - and Roosevelt is excused on grounds of being sick. Yet if anyone could "save" Poland at the time - it would've been America!
Honest George 1 | 105
19 Jan 2010  #30
Douglas MacArthur

Ask yourselves who stopped this great man, who was in the position to eradicate the world of communism.

Think how different the world would have been.

No " cold war " etc.

Evil forces at work ?


Home / History / Yalta Conference and Poland
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.