The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 75

Yalta Conference and Poland


HWPiel 1 | 64
15 Feb 2010 #61
The issues which were decided in Teheran were the fate of Yugoslavia and Greece and the fate of Germany was decided in Yalta.

Yup... it all came down to the Big Three Conferences, of which there were 21 in all. Tehran and Yalta being the most significant... for its bad outcome for Poland.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
18 Feb 2010 #62
"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." -- Marshall Rydz-Smigly

Hm.., : ) After grabbing Teschen from Czechoslovakia and Vilnus from Lithuanians in 1938, I wouldn't be supprised to hear these words from Marshal Smeagol. Lots of mania of grandeur and pretense on the Middle Ages.

There seems to be an atmosphere that Poland was sold, cheated on,...
Poland received a huge chunk of German lands in the west. Ukraine, Belorus' and Lithuania received their ethnic territories. The last 3 countries lost over 3 million soldiers defending these lands, their homes and families. And now there is a pathetic cry of some selling?!

Give me a break.
hague1cameron - | 85
18 Feb 2010 #63
if you p!ss your neighbours off enough, eventually they will turn around and slap you

It seems you are in need of some of that treatment.

Yet if anyone could "save" Poland at the time - it would've been America!

100% accurate they had the BOMB, so all they had to do was insist and the soviets were in position to refuse.
Exiled 2 | 425
18 Feb 2010 #64
Poland could not be saved because there were Autobahnen perfect for tank move,flat fields and railway network built by Germans which could carry huge quantities of ammunition.Soviets knew that without Poland their positions in Europe were in danger,the West could grab them in no time.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
20 Feb 2010 #65
How about General Patton's plan, which was to keeping pushing with the Allied armies and drive the Reds out of Europe altogether?

This plan was not too popular with the Allies, who had Patton killed not too long after the war.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
21 Feb 2010 #66
How about General Patton's plan, which was to keeping pushing with the Allied armies and drive the Reds out of Europe altogether?

There was absolutely no appetite on the part of the UK or France to carry on, Germany was broken and many other players had plenty of issues internally - look at how close the Communists came to taking control of several countries! Sure, the Red Army was exhausted and was there for the taking - but America would have had to do it alone. Given that at the same time, they were facing the prospect of a potential land invasion of Japan, it seems unlikely that anyone wanted to bother with the Soviet Union.

The *only* thing open to the Allies was the bomb - a clear message to the Soviet Union that they either withdraw or face immediate nuclear bombing would have worked.
Steveramsfan 2 | 306
21 Feb 2010 #67
How about General Patton's plan, which was to keeping pushing with the Allied armies and drive the Reds out of Europe altogether?

And how were the Allies supposed to do this? The Italian Campaign and D Day were just bit parts in WW2. The West just kept the Nazi's busy while Stalin smashed them. There was no way we would have beaten the Red Army.

Even in the 80's NATO would have been smashed.

Hindsight is great.

The Brits and Americans should have trusted Stalin and made a pact before Stalin made the pact with Hitler. In Hindsight, when we hesitated we sealed Poland's fate. It was not foreseen at the time.

By Yalta the Red Army was too powerful and able to dictate what would happen. The UK were Americas Lap Dogs by 1945 and nothing has changed since.
Barney 15 | 1,476
21 Feb 2010 #68
the Red Army was exhausted and was there for the taking

Operation Unthinkablee
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,424
21 Feb 2010 #69
Germany was broken

but America would have had to do it alone.

There were millions of german soldiers actually hoping and waiting for the Patton's on the US side.
Talk was big that they would soon close ranks and go against the red army. For many that was also the reason to surrender so easily to the american troops. Patton left whole divisions as POW's but still armed...no joke here!

The US army together with the Wehrmacht and all eastern armies like the Poles who now fought against the Russians...the Red Army would had been toast (or at least shoved back where they belonged)!

But Patton and his thinking didn't fit in Eisenhowers and Roosevelts plans...Maybe it would had been harder to sell at home why the "mean Germans" now became allies of a sudden...but then they did this propaganda trick again before, from the "mean commies" to "Uncle Joe" (and back again)...*shrugs*
Steveramsfan 2 | 306
21 Feb 2010 #70
The Red Army was on a role and at the height of their powers, I don't think the west had a chance and it was good the Red Army stopped on the Elbe river.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
21 Feb 2010 #71
The US army together with the Wehrmacht and all eastern armies like the Poles who now fought against the Russians...the Red Army would had been toast (or at least shoved back where they belonged)!

Without going to far afield, all your points are right on...And yes, for sure, the Red Army would have been shoved right back where they belonged with American and German boots up their ass...But, you see, there was a serious Communist penetration in the US Government, and the UK, although less so...Or maybe, should I say, a penetration by the folks who invented Communism.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
21 Feb 2010 #72
The US army together ...

From how I understand it, Russian supply lines were ridiculously overstretched in the race to Berlin - compare this to the Western Allied lines which were much more stable, combine that with quite a few countries internally hostile to the Soviets (Poland and Finland immediately come to mind, but the Baltic countries could also be relied on) and a Germany humiliated (and being threatened with partition) and there may just have been an opportunity to finish off the Soviet Union. It would've almost certainly required swift, decisive action - and crucially, they would've had to nuke the Soviet Union to end communism there. Anything less would've just been suicidal.

I'm just not convinced most countries in the 'free' world had an appetite for more warfare - and as I said, quite a few countries were more than content with Germany divided and the Iron Curtain going up.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
21 Feb 2010 #73
It would've almost certainly required swift, decisive action - and crucially, they would've had to nuke the Soviet Union to end communism there.

First point, correct; Second, debatable.

The 'bankers' and the Jews high up in both the US and the UK both vetoed any such plan....Their plan was for the destruction/neutralization of Germany as a European power, and the continuation/expansion of the Communist gangster system in both Russia and Eastern Europe...Plus, the establishment of the Zionist state in Palestine.

The use of the atomic bomb was a 'scare tactic', purpose being to establish a 'World Organization' that would control all nuclear weapons...Who better to test this on than the defenseless Japanese, who were ready to surrender.
Prusakowski - | 25
26 Mar 2010 #74
The US and UK leaders of the WW2 western allies used the Poles as disposable cannon-fodder to 'soak up lead' so that the Yanks and Brits would have lowered bodybag counts.

It wasnt just Arnhem , but Monte cassino, Falaise , wherever the lousiest combat battle tasks with the highest probability of death were likely they were dumped on any available Poles and the 'reward' was to be 'sold out' later at the Yalta Conference by Roosevelt.
Ironside 50 | 10,906
28 Mar 2010 #75
WWII for Poland
12,5 million citizen's less
people with university education survived about 6 percent of population
Warsaw destroyed, half pre-war territory annexed by Soviet's, most of the industry in ruin, people starving,
so called compensation - German territories, needs to be settled, all major towns in ruins, most of industry destroyed or moved into Soviet Union!
Now its only may 1945!
Later soviet occupation, Polish heroes, officers and politicians hunted down and murdered sent to heavy labour in Siberian wasteland.
Many of people with education and experience with running the country forced to remain abroad!
And then 40 years of Soviet yoke and brainwash of many ...........
So, some bitterness is understandable, I'm surprised as you are living in Poland !
Most of what you experience is result of WWII !
Its no some lost of the Empire because for average Joe there were no much difference while for average Joe in Poland there were a world of difference!

Your inability to comprehend such bitterness is amazing, and I don't mean only you Jonni:)


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