The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 120

Are Poles grateful to the Russians for winning the war?


valpomike 11 | 197
28 Sep 2011 #2
NO NO NO they are not.

Mike
OP KingAthelstan 9 | 142
28 Sep 2011 #3
so you would rather your people and culture and the very concept of a polish nation become slowly erased and been nothing more than slaves to the Volkduetch.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Poland_(1939%E2%80%931945)#Generalplan_Ost_and_expulsion_of_Poles

I am grateful to uncle Joe for winning the War, Britain would not have won alone.
PWEI 3 | 612
28 Sep 2011 #4
Do happen to have a copy of that plan? I've been looking for one for ages.
OP KingAthelstan 9 | 142
28 Sep 2011 #5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
Sasha 2 | 1,083
28 Sep 2011 #6
so you would rather your people and culture and the very concept of a polish nation become slowly erased and been nothing more than slaves to the Volkduetch.

It was an American who answered you. I'd rather wait for Poles to show up.
PWEI 3 | 612
28 Sep 2011 #7
KingAthelstan

No, I did not ask to a link to a wikipedia article about the plan, I asked for a copy of it. Do you have one or know where I can get one?
David_18 68 | 982
28 Sep 2011 #8
@KingAthelstan
Troll go away
legend 3 | 664
28 Sep 2011 #9
My parents from Poland and perhaps by grand parents said they
were happier with the Russians than the Germans. Of course the "communism" didnt help them after the war but my folks were still fairly wealthy Poles.
sascha 1 | 826
28 Sep 2011 #10
so you would rather your people and culture and the very concept of a polish nation become slowly erased and been nothing more than slaves to the Volkduetch.

slowly, very slowly, king. u honestly have the illusion that the amercanization of almost all europe is not some kind of erasion of culture? furthermore at the end most of europe is somehow 'connected' to us in that way that they are 'volksamericans'.

I am grateful to uncle Joe for winning the War, Britain would not have won alone.

btw, 'uncle' did NOT win the war alone. there were 4 allies who did that.
JonnyM 11 | 2,621
28 Sep 2011 #11
My parents from Poland and perhaps by grand parents said they
were happier with the Russians than the German

Some say this, some say the opposite.
OP KingAthelstan 9 | 142
28 Sep 2011 #12
btw, 'uncle' did NOT win the war alone. there were 4 allies who did that.

I'm not sure Uncle Sam would have won the war either( Britain would defiantly not have won alone.), had Hitler not invaded Russia, than a stalemate would have ensued, Rommel may well have won in the desert if he had all the Eastern Front troops at his disposal.

Stalingrad is what broke them so yes I am grateful to the Russian war contribution. They could just have easily signed a truce with the Germans like Lenin did with the Treaty of Brest-Litvorsk in 1917 and given away a chunk of their territory
bberlin62 - | 38
28 Sep 2011 #13
Are Poles grateful to the Russians for winning the war?

Oh yeah, Poles have many reasons to be grateful, Katyn is one of them.
Sire Brenshar 1 | 61
28 Sep 2011 #14
I'm not sure Uncle Sam would have won the war either( Britain would defiantly not have won alone.), had Hitler not invaded Russia, than a stalemate would have ensued, Rommel may well have won in the desert if he had all the Eastern Front troops at his disposal.

The general opinion (by historians at least) is that it took all of the big three to win the war. Each individually (Well, except Britain) had the resources, man power, and industry to be able to defeat Nazi Germany, only none/neither of them were in the right strategic position to do it, so they required the aid of one another. America was on the other side of the Atlantic and the Soviet Union made some crucial mistakes at Barbarossa's start, mostly due to the unique politicization of their army, that almost cost them the war, and negated them of some of their greatest benefits.

Even if there was no Eastern front, Rommel would not have any more troops coming his way; His logistics were pretty much already stretched to their max as things were. Unless they managed to somehow end Britain's naval dominance in the Mediterranean. Even if he could pull off a victory, it gained nothing for Germany, really. The goal was simply to cut British supplies from their colonies. Certainly a huge nightmare for the Brits, but Germany would be no better off.

Stalingrad is what broke them so yes I am grateful to the Russian war contribution. They could just have easily signed a truce with the Germans like Lenin did with the Treaty of Brest-Litvorsk in 1917 and given away a chunk of their territory

Stalingrad wasn't actually that much of a loss for Germany, rather it was more of a moral boost for their enemies. Even after Stalingrad Germany was able, and indeed still carrying out massive offensives. It was Kursk that lost the war for Germany, as they would be forced on the defensive, and we all know what that means on the steppes.

Germany would never have signed a treaty, remember they were there for Lebensraum. It was life or death for both sides.

To the topic itself, my opinion is that those Poles who actually know their history or care about it, would tend to be ungrateful. Only a few wouldn't. Its stupid to blame the Russians however, (First of the Soviet Union was hardly composed solely of Russians) as Stalin was its complete ruler. He was obeyed or people died.

I do not think Poles should be grateful, really, but being Anti-Russian because of it is simply stupid. Of course Poles would rather not be dead, but having their freedom taken away again afterwards is barely a substitute.
Jimmu 2 | 157
28 Sep 2011 #15
Is that kinda like saying that Poles should have been grateful to Imperial Russia because the Russians didn't let the Prussians and Austrians have all of Poland in the partitions?
sascha 1 | 826
28 Sep 2011 #16
Of course Poles would rather not be dead, but having their freedom taken away again afterwards is barely a substitute.

i mostly agree with what you commented, but honestly, do you think poles or anyone else in europe(all countries under us influence) are 'really free'?

i think that is a big lie. maybe it is not felt directly, but think about it. ;)
Sire Brenshar 1 | 61
28 Sep 2011 #17
Is that kinda like saying that Poles should have been grateful to Imperial Russia because the Russians didn't let the Prussians and Austrians have all of Poland in the partitions?

They didn't "let" anyone have anything. Russia could hardly have taken it all for herself. She did what she needed too.

But super-accuracy aside, the gist of your comment is completely correct. Russians, or rather Soviet apologists, (I doubt most Russians even care) should not demand Poles to be grateful. It simply doesn't work that way. You don't save somebody from murder just to rob them.

Not calling anybody a Soviet apologist or even stating that somebody is demanding Poles be grateful, but just putting my points and thoughts up on the forum's wall.
OP KingAthelstan 9 | 142
28 Sep 2011 #18
Of course Poles would rather not be dead, but having their freedom taken away again afterwards is barely a substitute.

I would rather live in a communist country than under Nazi occupation. Not ideal but it's like getting a really nasty painful slap and have someone prod you with a stick (Russia) or being shot in both legs and being dunked in Ice cold water and be urinated on,shat on, spat on and have the ends of your fingers burned off with a hot poker (Nazi Germany)

what would you prefer? I think I ill take the slap and a little prod with a stick and keep my legs.
Sire Brenshar 1 | 61
28 Sep 2011 #19
i mostly agree with what you commented, but honestly, do you think poles or anyone else in europe(all countries under us influence) are 'really free'?

i think that is a big lie. maybe it is not felt directly, but think about it. ;)

What, you mean in today's world?

No country is really "free", they all have obligations to their neighbors: treaties, alliances, common enemies, etc. A free country in this world is one that won't last long. You can't have no friends and expect the big neighbors to tear you apart.

I'd say we, as Europeans, should we create a real, complete EU, would be as free as we could get without endangering our individual nations. Of course, I find it hard to believe such a thing would ever happen.

Completely off topic by the way. Lets discuss the actual situation at hand.

I would rather live in a communist country than under Nazi occupation. Not ideal but it's like getting a really nasty painful slap and have someone prod you with a stick (Russia) or being shot in both legs and being dunked in Ice cold water and be urinated and shat on and spat on (Nazi Germany)

what would you perfer? I think I ill take the slap and a little prod with a stick and keep my legs.

Naturally. But it wasn't a matter of choice for the Poles. Its simply how things turned out. What is important is today's reactions to it, and I say Poles should not spit on Russians for what happened, but just accept it as an unfortunate consequence (or even better, the price) of liberation.

Oh yeah, Poles have many reasons to be grateful, Katyn is one of them.

This is something entirely else. The thread is about should Poles be grateful for the Soviet "liberation". Katyn didn't happen during that.
bberlin62 - | 38
28 Sep 2011 #21
The thread is about should Poles be grateful for the Soviet "liberation".

not liberation, for winning the war.
Poland was never liberated by the Soviets, Poland was invaded and Poles were enslaved by the Soviets for over 4o years. Poles don't have any reason to be grateful to the Soviets at all!!!
Sire Brenshar 1 | 61
28 Sep 2011 #22
Poles don't have any reason to be grateful to the Soviets at all!!!

This has been said many times already.

not liberation, for winning the war.
Poland was never liberated by the Soviets, Poland was invaded and Poles were enslaved by the Soviets for over 4o years.

"Liberation" (I did use quotes previously mate) is a flexible word here: Poland was "liberated" from the Nazis, aye? That doesn't mean it was "liberated", as in "free of foreign control".
sascha 1 | 826
28 Sep 2011 #23
Poland was never liberated by the Soviets

that means by ur logic they were never occupied.

Poland was invaded and Poles were enslaved by the Soviets for over 4o years

yes, and there were slave camps....

Poles don't have any reason to be grateful to the Soviets at all!!!

agaihn, by ur logic, no, but for real maybe yes?
bberlin62 - | 38
28 Sep 2011 #24
[quote=Sire Brenshar Poland was "liberated" from the Nazis, aye? [/quote]

yeah, only to be controlled by the Soviets. Just like the Soviets "liberated" the Nazi camps only to reopen (some) them right after the war and kept there their political opponents (mainly Poles).

edit
English language only, please
Sire Brenshar 1 | 61
28 Sep 2011 #25
yeah, only to be controlled by the Soviets. Just like the Soviets "liberated" the Nazi camps only to reopen (some) them right after the war and kept there their political opponents (mainly Poles).

Your running us in circles mate. Its been understood. The difference was that the Soviets weren't intent on ending Polish existence, or at the very least, didn't mean to do it by slaughtering them.

I can only say this, since there really isn't all that much to discuss here:

Poland would be better off after the Soviets drove the Germans out. That does not mean Poland was in a good state, but was simply that, better off. No longer in danger of becoming extinct, if you like. The situation had stabilized for Poles.
sascha 1 | 826
28 Sep 2011 #26
Sascha, przyznaj sie kacapie pierdolony ze jestes Sovietem i moze bede wtedy z toba rozmawial.

1st, this part of pf is ONLY in english.

2nd, why insults? did i insult u? very bad style, dude.

3rd, i am german.

4th, i was just using ur stupid logic. i know its hard to see when ur stupid. scheisse, oder? ;))

Just like the Soviets "liberated" the Nazi camps only to reopen (some) them right after the war and kept there their political opponents (mainly Poles).

u hate the soviets, right? r u maybe from east berlin? ;)
bberlin62 - | 38
28 Sep 2011 #27
No longer in danger of becoming extinct, if you like

except for thousands of ex AK fighters who were brutally murdered by the Soviets and their few Polish commie followers.
legend 3 | 664
28 Sep 2011 #28
Some say this, some say the opposite.

Indeed you are right.

I'm not sure Uncle Sam would have won the war either( Britain would defiantly not have won alone.), had Hitler not invaded Russia, than a stalemate would have ensued, Rommel may well have won in the desert if he had all the Eastern Front troops at his disposa

Care to explain? Are you speculating how the war would play out without Russia?

Poland was never liberated by the Soviets

In essence Poland as a physical nation was liberated by the Russians AND at the same time occupied.
For example when the Uprisings were happening. The Russians stood there. If Russians AND Poles
went in that would be more LIBERATION than saying go to hell Poland.
bberlin62 - | 38
28 Sep 2011 #29
In essence Poland as a physical nation was liberated by the Russians AND at the same time occupied.

This is what I meant, it wasn't a real liberation and that's why Poles don't have any reason to be grateful to the Soviets.
a.k.
28 Sep 2011 #30
Do happen to have a copy of that plan? I've been looking for one for ages.

Have you already thought about writting a letter to MEN?


Home / History / Are Poles grateful to the Russians for winning the war?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.