History /
Yalta Conference and Poland [78]
My point is a simple one and one that many Poles overlook
Your point is in fact not such a simple one, and it is misleading because you've failed to give context (whether deliberately or through naivety) to Sikorski's postulation, as follows:
1. The 'pragmatism' of the proposed boundary was only theoretically pragmatic to all parties because it was made in contemplation of Poland emerging from WW2 as a sovereign and free nation, as well as on the basis that the USSR would leave Poland alone.
2 Ergo, Sikorski's proposed demarche was made on the basis that in return for territory a rapprochement with the USSR would be the consideration, along with Poland's sovereignty guaranteed (plus of course German territory in compensation).
3. Your bald assertion, taken at face value, suggests and presupposes that Sikorski would give away territory dear to Poland in exchange for no consideration from the USSR - this is, to say the least, far fetched.
4. A parable? I'm not getting on with my neighbour so in an effort to heal the rift I propose to give my neighbour my vehicle in exchange for my neighbour leaving me the heck alone and not trying to steal my stuff. I tell my 'friends' of my intentions. I become incapacitated and my neighbour takes it from me, when my 'friends' are watching, and also takes my house, rapes my wife, forces my children into servitude and steals my grandad's war medals. My 'friends' later justified the transaction by saying I told them I intended to part company with my car anyway thus the result was inevitable - they just 'forgot' what I expected in return but didn't want to step on my neighbours toes. Realpolitik doesn't make it right. Puts a different spin on it, doesn't it Sjam.
The 'reality' you suggest was not a consequence of Sikorki's proposal, nor was it 'inevitable', nor a justification per se, but don't let that get in the way of your arguments.
Troll lesson no.1 ....... Why let facts stand in the way of a good arguement ;-))))
Indeed. I've found that one should exercise caution when saying these types of maxims lest the obvious occur. I've got one too however - people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones :-))))))))))))))))))))))
if you keep poking a dog with a stick eventually it's going to bite you.
Aarrghh me hearty - wouldn't the more appropriate metaphor have been poking the parrot with a cutlass?
Pray tell, in all seriousness, what you mean by poking the Russians. A piece of eight to you if you come up with one example that justifies Poland getting the metaphoric bite.
Were we really expected to confront Russian on our own?
Not at all - that is unrealistic and I don't believe that was the expectation. I believe that the grievance lies in the diplomatic arena.
I've commented substantially elsewhere in this forum on my thoughts there and as far as I know, my assumptions remain unchallenged and prevail. Those posts are mainly in my thread "What did Poland get out of the wars and struggles for others" and discuss the Teheran Conference, estoppel, balance sheets of contributions and other such things. I'm sorry but I don't intend searching then cutting and pasting my old comments but you should be able to find them using the 'search' tool if you're interested in having a read. I'd welcome a serious challenge to my theories.....anyone?
"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." -- Marshall Rydz-Smigly
Can we please have the entire dialogue if possible? I can't imagine that the Marshall would have walked up, said just those words, then departed. Perhaps what was said before and after will give context and meaning and settle this 'quandary'.
