The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Posts by Ozi Dan  

Joined: 22 Nov 2007 / Male ♂
Last Post: 17 Feb 2016
Threads: Total: 26 / Live: 17 / Archived: 9
Posts: Total: 569 / Live: 349 / Archived: 220
From: Australia
Speaks Polish?: No
Interests: Martial arts, fishing, reading, the Napoleonic wars, my missus, Poland, cars......

Displayed posts: 366 / page 4 of 13
sort: Latest first   Oldest first   |
Ozi Dan   
28 Mar 2013
History / A question regarding government positions in the C19 [5]

Hi all,

Wondering if any of our resident Polish history buffs (I'm thinking someone like Ironside, Grzegorz, Hague or Harry) could help me out here please?

What would it mean to have been a Marshal of the szlachta in a district, and a judge, in the early to mid 19th Century? What would have been the role of a Marshal (Marszalek), how was it conferred on an individual, and what were the responsibilities and obligations associated with same? Was there any educational requirements, such as a University degree? Were there any military connotations in respect of being a Marshal?

Any and all information here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Cheers, Dan
Ozi Dan   
27 Mar 2013
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [1544]

What do you think about the right to own the guns?

I'm not sure about a right being enshrined, but would prefer to see some form of strict licensing system put in place. A "Right" predicates a gun owner (or potential one) being able to acquire and keep a weapon without the sorts of checks and balances that a licensing system would have, and I think such system ought to be preferred.

""If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."....... Joseph Stalin

Anecdotally, I heard a story a few years back that during the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviets were contemplating some form of invasion of the USA but gave that the kibosh when the intelligence came through that they would probably have to also battle the millions of US citizens who held their own firearms.
Ozi Dan   
21 Mar 2013
History / For what the Germans owe Poland one trillion U.S. dollars? [299]

And in 2013 it was reopened on Polish Forums,,ROTFL!......................................This dispute has been settled by YOUR government 10 years ago, isn't it about time you stop moaning and whining about WWII???Over the years Ive seen some stupid threads on this forum, but this takes the cake!

Calm down bro. No need for hyperbole, capital letters and misplaced uses of punctuation marks. Let's leave emotion at the door and discus these terms of settlement you refer to, okay?

Don't play stupid, man.

Ok bro. If I don't play stupid will you show us a copy of the terms of settlement you refer to?
Ozi Dan   
20 Mar 2013
History / For what the Germans owe Poland one trillion U.S. dollars? [299]

All this talk about reparations is pure nonsense and helps no one.

C'mon bro, you know these types of thought terminating cliches don't work on me. Why don't you point out why it is nonsense and why it doesn't help anyone, then link that to your assertion (assumedly) that there should be no compensation, then we can have a real discussion.

"In 2004 the Polish and German governments declared the issue settled."

But this is just a link from Wikipedia, uncited and anonymous. Why don't you show us the actual terms of settlement?
Ozi Dan   
20 Mar 2013
History / For what the Germans owe Poland one trillion U.S. dollars? [299]

Hi Monia,

Do these calculations on quantum include a percentage increase for loss of opportunity arising from these assets being stolen/destroyed, as well as interest?

I only wish that Germans would return stolen arts and libraries with priceless works carefully collected by our fathers for centuries .

This is very important I think, but the problem now is that most of these items will probably now be in the hands of private collectors, who are probably bona fide purchasers for value.

Not a single person posting on this forum was alive during WW2; they've had their entire lives to work, save and build. Blaming someone else's dead grandparents for your current lack of Mercedes is infantile beyond belief.

Hi Rich - If you think the argument for compensation in these circumstances is based on a failure to accrue material wealth purely by virtue of a poor work ethic, then you are misconceived.
Ozi Dan   
25 Feb 2013
History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [285]

The modern day Polish state has done absolutely nothing to counteract the Communist era legislation, and has routinely endorsed it by prosecuting people under those laws.

Utter nonsense, and a sterling example of a non sequitur - a prosecution under an old Soviet law is most certainly nothing to do with an endorsement of the government that created such law, but is most certainly in line with not offending the principle against retroactive legislation. It would be an interesting scenario indeed if every new government repealed all laws created by its predecessor purely by virtue of the fact that the new government was concerned that the retention of such laws could be seen as an 'endorsement' of the old and different political party.

Prosecution under the Constitution? Didn't know any Constitution anywhere carried penalties for breach, because that isn't the purpose of a Constitution, but you're the 'expert'.

But are you sure that it didn't have the authority?

Positive.

The presence of Mikołajczyk as Deputy Prime Minister after resigning as the Prime Minister of the Government-in-Exile certainly gave a great deal of legitimacy to the parliament at the time, along with Prime Minister Morawski.

The presence or otherwise of Mikolajczyk has as much relevance to the issue of legitimacy as the mere presence of 100's of 1000's of Poles in the concentration camps does to an argument that the concentration camps were endorsed and legitimised by the Polish people because of their presence there.
Ozi Dan   
22 Feb 2013
History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [285]

The modern day Poland recognises the laws created from 1944-1989 as legal and binding.

The issue is not about what modern day Poland chooses to adopt from the Communist era, but rather the issue is whether or not at the time (44/45) the Communist installed puppet regime was lawful. It was not.

Seeing as you seem an expert on Polish Legislation, can you tell us if it's the case the modern day Poland enacted legislation legitimising Communist era legislation, or if such Communist legislation continued to be in force by virtue of not being repealed by modern day Poland.

The fact that the parliament that pushed through these rules was a puppet parliament is neither here nor there, as we're speaking about the strict legality of the situation.

You just don't get it - the 'puppet parliament' pushing through these 'rules' (what rules?) did not have authority or jurisdiction to do that. You cannot create a law to give you authority to create another law if the law does not give you the power to do so at first instance. This is legal theory 101. It can't take it in any further or make it any simpler than that.

You're claiming that the situation wasn't legitimate, so surely you should prove this.

Really? Are you really that hell bent on your position that you wish me to engage you in an illogical exercise even after I told you I wouldn't because I'm not that dumb? Please, have some self respect - it's getting embarrassing.

For fun, I'll meet you half way though and grant you an indulgence just to show you the absurdity of your position. My proof of the fact that it was illegitimate is that it's illegitimate according to the 1921 and 1935 Constitution and the universally understood concept of sovereignty. Go on, ask me specifics of my proof - my answer will always be it is illegitimate according to the Constitution and sovereignty.

By the way, you've ignored my other contentions in my post 195, so it can only be assumed that they are accepted. This is the new by-law of Polishforum that I hereby create according to the existing Rules of PF and because there is nothing in the Rules that says I can't. If admin creates a Rule that purports to prevent me from doing this, my contingency Rule that I've now created takes effect such that any Rules created by Admin. that do not accord with or frustrate any previous or future Rules that I may create are automatically repealed. Moreover, because some Mods have been the subject of (undue) criticism, I don't recognise their Authority, nor, by virtue of their association, the Admin of PF. In the vacuum created by that fait accompli, my actions I deem to be legitimate, because there is no-one to say otherwise.This is all done according to the PF Rules just in case you're wondering - if you don't agree, prove that I can't do it.

What rules are you referring to?

C'mon man, get with the program - he's referring to the Rules from the treaty of the Constitution of Mutual Assistance and the legislation created by the sovereignty of Westphalia's lawful puppet government of Soviet constitutional theories and practices. If you don't know about this, how can he discuss it ;)

And you should remember that when Wa£ęsa was installed as Poland's first democratically elected post communist President.

Careful here Hague - was Ryszard Walesa constituted of the 1921 Constitution and Rules of legally strict legal sovereignty?
Ozi Dan   
22 Feb 2013
History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [285]

Except it wasn't unlawful.

Yes, it was. Let me be abundantly plain with you - it was a government installed by a foreign, alien power. A change in law of a country imposed by a foreign power to suit that foreign powers own ends is not lawful, nor is it the law. That is the rational of sovereignty - a country makes its own laws. Unless there was some legal authority that was created by the native Polish government (the government in exile or it predecessor) which provided to the effect that a foreign alien power had jurisdiction to install such foreign government and/or change the law to that end, in these particular circumstances, then it was unlawful. It matters not that foreigners said that the govt in exile was illegitimate and therefore able to be swept aside, because that is what sovereignty is all about.

The Polish state had more or less ceased to exist, and certainly the Colonel's government in London was not legitimate or lawful by any stretch of the imagination.

The government had not though. The government in exile was the native Polish government, as flawed as it may have seemed to some. There was no organic and native Polish authority for the proposition that the Govt in Exile was not lawful, simply because no such finding had been made by any judicial body with jurisdiction to do so.

And as I keep saying, their actions were in accordance with the legally implemented 1921 Constitution. Of course, it was amended to suit them, but it was all done legally in terms of constitutional theory.

I'm well aware that you keep saying it, but merely saying it is not proof of the fact that remains to be proven. You are engaging in the subtle tactic of proof by verbosity. Once again - set out the placitum of either Constitution which supports your claim either prima facie or by virtue of such placitum being the head of power under which another piece of legislation was enacted.

For example:

Article "X" provides that in the event of "A" occurring, the government of the Soviet may, without reservation or limitation, install, or assist in the installation of, any form of government of any makeup whatsoever, with such government to have absolute and unchallenged authority over Poland,

or,

Article "Z" of the Constitution is the head of power under which "Y" Act was created, with such Act (a) not being in conflict with the said Constitution; and, (b), prescribing that in the event of "A" occurring, the government of the Soviet may, without reservation or limitation, install, or assist in the installation of, any form of government of any makeup whatsoever, with such government to have absolute and unchallenged authority over Poland, pursuant to Section "W" of said Act.

I appreciate that it is convenient to base your opinion on what the Soviets said was lawful, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

Of course, it was amended to suit them, but it was all done legally in terms of constitutional theory.

And therein lies your petard. The Soviets and/or their puppet regime had no authority or jurisdiction to amend anything whatsoever. Again, this is what being a sovereign nation is all about. You are misconceived if you believe that in theory everything was "lawful", because the application of law to the facts is not about theory, but about actually applying laws to facts. I've asked you to do this, but you haven't, and you refuse to.

I've already explained to you how Polish constitutional theory works. The Lublin government derived its authority from the 1921 Constitution and the country functioned according to that document from 1944 to 1952. Every act on paper during that time conformed to the Constitution, and the laws passed were in accordance with it.

You've done no such thing. You've made bald assertions based on nothing it seems but

an old Communist trick of gaining legitimacy on paper.

It was no such thing.

This body organised the 1947 election, and thus gave legitimacy to the Communist government. In terms of pure law and theory, this process was legal.

I repeat, a foreign power cannot legitimise its takeover of another country by creating the matrix to which such purported legitimacy is derived. This is pure fallacy of circular cause and consequence.

And can you provide any proof that the process wasn't in accordance with the 1921 Constitution?

You misconceive my capacity and intent if you think I would be dumb enough to engage you in sipping from Russell's teapot.

If it wasn't legitimate, how could they try people today in court under the laws passed from 1945-1989?

Fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If you don't even know the principles of sovereignty, how can you talk about the subject?

This comment suggests to me you cannot either support your proposition or indeed do not know yourself what sovereignty means. I asked you to be specific and set out particulars of this supposed 'claim' of the Lublin Govt and how it accorded with your postulated concept of universaly understood sovereignty. You failed to do either, but chose to tell me that I don't know what sovereignty means and essentially 'go read a book'.

This is an excellent way to add persuasiveness to a shakey position - you've sold me.
Ozi Dan   
21 Feb 2013
History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [285]

What part of TheOther: they share a lot of their history didn't you understand?

To be honest, I didn't really understand any of what you were saying, hence my question.
Ozi Dan   
21 Feb 2013
History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [285]

What the Soviets did is irrelevant to the discussion, as we're merely talking about the legitimacy of the Communist government in legal theory.

It has everything to do with it because it was the Soviets who installed the Polish Communist Govt which is one of the key reasons behind why the Polish Communist Govt is illegitimate and unlawful.

You're mixing up constitutional theory and practice.

That's an interesting opinion. Do elaborate so I can learn from my mistakes...

but in terms of strict legality, yes, it was.

You could so easily vindicate your position by, once again, specifying which piece of legislation/Consitution (and the particular section, article etc) is authority for the proposition the the Communist Govt was 'legal'. Had you based your proposal on such foundations, you would have already provided us with such authorities, but you haven't, despite my request, which from previous experience really means your suggestions are baseless and wrong.

One cannot postulate a 'legal' submission without reference to the law or case authority to which it relates. Merely saying something was

done in accordance with the law

is not enough. It will be asked, as I have done, 'which law'? You seem to be saying 'the Constitution', but which Article of the Constitution?

The Lublin Government was the only one that could present a claim in 1945 based on the universally understood principles of sovereignty, which is why it was recognised by the West.

Please particularise the purported 'claim' and let us know how it accorded with this supposed universally understood principle of sovereignty. It must have been a principle promulgated and universally understood by the Soviets alone however, because I'm unaware of any principle or otherwise in respect of the legal and factual matters concerning sovereignty that say it's okay to occupy a country then install a puppet regime whose raison d'etre is to slavishly follow the said occupier's political and social mantra.

Poles and Germans walked a very long way together; they share a lot of their history. That's what they owe each other.

Please, don't be ridiculous. We all appreciate your favouring of your German heritage over your Polish one, but what historical common path of mutual harmony did Poles and Germans as nations walk together?
Ozi Dan   
20 Feb 2013
History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [285]

In constitutional theory, what the Soviets did or didn't do is irrelevant.

I'm confused now - first you say that the Communists were more legitimate than the Govt-in-exile by virtue of your opinion on the way in which they supposedly espoused the 1921 Constitution, now you're saying it's irrelevant?

It was not legitimate. If it was, then it would have entered in force in accordance with the previous constitution of 1921, but it didn't. There were rules, and these rules were not followed.

If we accept your position here, then please show us specifically from the 1921 Constitution where it provides for a puppet Soviet government to be installed in the event of a domestic Constitutional crisis, and further where it prescribes that said puppet regime should adopt the nomenclature and style of a Communist dictatorship for 45 years whilst presumably caretaker of Poland pending the resolution of said Constitutional crisis.

It doesn't does it.

That's because there can never be legitimacy in any way, shape or form surrounding the way in which the Soviets took over Poland and installed a puppet regime because such regime was never born of the ultimate legitimising factor - the will, consent and creation of the Polish people.
Ozi Dan   
20 Feb 2013
History / WWII - who really was the first to help Poland? [901]

Whenever I read a thread like this (and I didn,t read all of it) I always think of poor old General Patton, now there was a man with vision, he hated the Soviets and could see what a threat they would be, he and Churchill argued that while the West had such a huge and co-hesive Armed Force they should push through Germany and the Eastern countries of Europe, inevitably destroying the Soviets and pushing them back into Russia.

Hi Dreadnought - you're right, Patton was all for a strike to the East, as he saw the writing on the wall. If memory serves, he assessed the situation and saw a strung out Soviet Army (I think he even mentioned their food source as livestock dragged behind them on ropes) who presented an opportunity to be pushed back many hundreds of miles. Imagine this scenario too if Anders had been released (as he requested) to take his Polish Army back to Poland - what about the potential for a few hundred thousand more AK soldiers swelling the ranks (beaten, but as yet unbroken), unrest in the Berling Army, desertions, an upsurge in moral in all Poles, a show of hands from all the rank and file Poms who would join their Polish friends and allies (knowing what I do about the loyalty of Poms to their mates, I'd say 9 out of 10 who served alongside the Poles would probably have gone along with Anders too)...

Realistically, one cannot expect however that any victory over the Soviets would have come lightly. Probably tens of thousands of American and British dead. As much as it would have been a dream come true for the Poles to have their friends and allies become their saviours, I cannot in good conscience see how it would have been fair or just for them to have made that sacrifice for a free Poland. The weight of that on any Pole's conscience would have been unbearable.
Ozi Dan   
19 Feb 2013
History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [285]

Arguably, in terms of constitutional theory, the Communist government had more legitimacy than the Government-in-exile as the Communists derived their legitimacy from the 1921 constitution, while the Government-in-Exile used the 1935 one that wasn't legally adopted.

There are no placitum from either Constitution which provide that legitimacy of rule of an invader may be sourced from mere reference to the Constitution, far less so from reference to a superceded Constitution. Respectfully, your theory is a nonsense. If you can show me placitum from either Constitution that support your theory then please do so.
Ozi Dan   
19 Feb 2013
History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [285]

The shift of the borders was the result of an agreement between Russia, United States, Britain and France. Poland had not been invited to negotiate or to sign this agreement.

Precisely. Poland cannot be held to account for something that was done without the consent or execution of its lawful government. As the "Polish" communist government was not lawfully constituted in any manner, then any acts/omissions purportedly ascribed to Poland in a blameworthy sense post the installation of the Communist puppet government are incorrect and the Polish people have no legal, ethical or moral responsibility to feet guilt for same, let alone to have to answer such misconceived and absurd accusations. Such is the 'benefit' of having others force decisions and take action purportedly on your behalf -you get to skip the blame if things go wrong.

I of course am open to any genuine challenge against my position...
Ozi Dan   
19 Feb 2013
History / Polish military uniforms - collar markings [32]

Thanks Jason and Grubas - exactly what I was talking about.

Jason, your photos show similar lines to the picture of my grand uncle from the 1920's, though his lines were a little shorter. Nice photos too mate - ancestors?

Grubas, yours show the thicker bar,which I suspect is far more modern. Sometimes the bar is hollow, with further lines/scrollwork within that hollow section.

Any idea as to who came up with these and why they appear as they do?

Thanks guys.
Ozi Dan   
19 Feb 2013
History / WWII - who really was the first to help Poland? [901]

I think that this is a Soviet propaganda poster,

Hi Goofy, this was actualy a Nazi propaganda poster, designed with the intent to agitate the Poles into ceasing assistance for HMG by virtue of the fact that HMG failed to do everything in its power to assist Poland in the early days of WW2, as obliged under the Treaty.

If nothing else, it shows that even the Nazis were aware of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance and its abject failure.
Ozi Dan   
19 Feb 2013
History / Polish military uniforms - collar markings [32]

Mate, it's those diagonal/zig-zag lines that are embroidered on officer's shirt collars, and they also appear on the cuffs of coats and the band around the czapska. I've got a photo of my grand uncle from, it appears, the 1920's, with just a solid embroidered zig zag line on his collar, whereas my other grand uncle's and dziadeck's collars (pics from just before WW2) show the zig zag but as a thicker 'bar', with other zig zaggy lines inside the border. I'm not very computer savvy so I don't know how to post a picture. Cheers mate.

PS - I'm not talking about chevrons which appear on the arm of a shirt.

Generally speaking, diagonal stripes are given for two reasons, a certain duration of active duty, such as one stripe for every three years; and also for service spent out-of country.

Thanks Jason. They seem to have commenced in the late 18th Century, and particularly around the time of the Napoleonic Wars. Any idea as to why they are shown as squiggly lines, and where the idea came from?
Ozi Dan   
18 Feb 2013
History / Polish military uniforms - collar markings [32]

Hi all,

Hope everyone had a lovely xmas and new years!

A question for our Polish military experts - does anyone know if the squiggly diagonal bars on Polish army shirt/jacket collars have any significance or meaning, or are they purely decorative?

Cheers Dan
Ozi Dan   
28 Nov 2012
History / Memos show US hushed up Soviet crime against Poland [97]

was it worth being hungry to try to save Poland? and he said, "yes, because it wasn't such an abstract concept, the Poles were stationed in town so you could understand what the war was for"

Hi Tim,

Welcome to the forum. I think what your dad said was probably true of the sentiment of many ordinary British people at the time, as well as the rank and file of the Army - given the nod by HMG, they probably would have fought with their Polish comrades to the bitter end. I made a thread some time ago which you might like to look at in praise of some of the Pommy politicians who risked so much to voice their outrage at the treatment of Poland after the war.

Dad was too young to vote in 1945 but it would be nice to think that lots of people could have been persuaded to fight on

I don't think this would have been fair or just on the British people, because by then it was too late. You'll note that the common conception of some of the fantasists of this forum when put to task about HMG's betrayal of Poland is to say words to the effect of "what could we have done at the end of the war, Britain was broke, tired etc etc". This is clearly designed to obfuscate the real issue, namely that the betrayal lies in the fact, inter alia, that HMG knew of Stalin's designs on Poland from at least as early as the Teheran conference and refused/failed/neglected to tell the Poles, an obligation not only contractually based upon the Treaty of Mutual Assistance of 1939, but, I would argue, a moral one as well. Consequently, from that point, the Poles under the nominal command of HMG were fighting for absolutely nothing to do with their own future and interests as their fate was sealed. I have at various times in this forum elaborated on my position if you feel like looking into that.

Are you aware that Gen. Anders requested the release of Polish units from the command of HMG during the early to mid months of 1945? He was intending to have his Poles travel (or fight) their way back to Poland. He was rebuked and refused, I think by Lord Allenbrooke. If the suggestion that Churchill telegraphed someone at the closing stages of the war to prepare for the possibility of rearming the Germans to potentially fight the Russians is true, it staggers the mind as to why Anders was refused.

Are you also aware that the Independent Polish paratroop brigade that was decimated at Arnhem under the auspices of HMG had a raison d'etre to be dropped in Poland in support of its liberation, specifically in support of the Warsaw Uprising? My dad was in Warsaw at this time and witnessed the Allied supply drops by parachute. The euphoria in Warsaw at seeing these parachutes, and the abject disappointment when it was realised the Polish paras weren't coming, was incalculable..

I think it was General Gubbins who articulated quite well the dynamic between HMG and Poland in WW2 when he said words to the effect that Poland would be squeezed until no more use could be had of it then was to be cast overboard by HMG. Perhaps it was the case that Anders and the Polish paras had not been sufficiently squeezed at the time of the question of their release. Is it any wonder that descendants of these Poles are bitter at the treatment of their forebears.

I for one believe that the UK and France only declared war on Germany because they wanted to avoid a reversal of the Treaty of Versailles under all circumstances; thus keeping a potential global competitor at bay. Fighting for freedom and democracy, fighting for Poland? Don't think so...

Poland

Germany

How do these events sit with you, being half Polish and half German (an honest question)?
Ozi Dan   
30 Aug 2012
History / Warsaw Rising 1944 - National Disaster or Triumph of Spirit ? [272]

Sorry, I thought it was. Are you familiar with General Bear Cub and his deposition? His is a tragic story, and one of many similar stories of the heroes of the Rising (like Kontrym, Nil, Pilecki) who faced judicial murder at the hands of the Soviets.

My dad went through the Rising as a small child and told me many things about his experiences. They are all tragic and gut wrenching, except for the story of the Polish/Jewish doctor who was saved by the Wehrmacht from the SS because he saved the life of a Wehrmacht Officer.
Ozi Dan   
30 Aug 2012
Feedback / Why are there so many on here, who do not like Poland [150]

I repeat nothing to do with 3.5 million not assimilated Jews living in II RP

I understood that most Polish Jews were quite well assimilated and it was only a minority who decided not to?

I agree that assimilation is very important, if nothing less than to show respect for the nation that took you in.
Ozi Dan   
30 Aug 2012
Genealogy / Mongolian the Golden Horde - do Poles have Mongolian ancestry? [255]

but most Polish Mongol ancestry

Wouldn't it be interesting if one of our forum members actually had a genuine family tree done up that could properly trace their ancestry back to some Mongol or Tatar individual/family. What about yourself Des? Any Tatar ancestors?

I'd even go further and say it doesn't tell the whole story about ancestry.

In the sense that we are also made up of what our immediate environment bestows on us?
Ozi Dan   
30 Aug 2012
History / Warsaw Rising 1944 - National Disaster or Triumph of Spirit ? [272]

What was the point of the Warsaw Uprising in 1944? (same point)

May I suggest you read the deposition of General Bear Cub (Leopold Okulicki) to the NKVD after his capture? It sets out the reasons, in his eyes (and he was a senior commander) for the Rising. It should be available online or is transcribed in Rising 44 by Norman Davies, another 'must read' on the Rising in my opinion.
Ozi Dan   
30 Aug 2012
History / Czech and Polish character in World War two [81]

Or about the Polish navy doing a runner before the war started.

It's Groundhog Day!

The entire Polish Navy? I thought it was just 3 Polish Destroyers? Ah, now I remember - the Peking Plan.

To refresh your memory, this was a scheme devised by HMG to remove these ships from the Baltic to go to Britain. The Poles agreed, presumably, amongst other things, in anticipation of having to discharge an obligation under Art 1 of the Treaty you and I know so well. In passing, these Destroyers served under the Royal Navy for the duration of the war (I think one was sunk in battle).

Would you be so kind as to tell me how many of the RN's ships steamed to Poland's aid at or before the commencement of hostilities? Just numbers, if you please - no need for any explanations.

By that logic Poland chose to be an enemy of both Germany and the USSR.

If we use such logic, then Poland deserved it.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Ah, Western Betrayal. Common to both Czechs and Poles, they were systematically brainwashed with this.

This is an excellent example of argument by innuendo, and I applaud your courage in setting yourself up for correction as an example to show the forum how some posters may be disabused of their mischievous comments.

But I suppose that if for 50 years every book anybody can read says "Britain was responsible", it does take a bit of time for everybody to learn what really happened.

I'm confused here Haz. You're saying that for the last 50 years all books that say "Britain was responsible" were essentially wrong, and that everyone will learn what really happened given time, it flows that you purport to know what really happened (presumably from your own source of books), but how can anyone believe you when you get something so simple like the Peking Plan so horribly wrong in terms of what actually happened?

It's like the time when you were going to give us the actual invitation of HMG to the Free Poles to the Victory Day celebrations but came back with an itinerary of all things, or like the time you said that the Polish Eastern border was somewhat Sikorski's doing (even though he was dead when it happened), or like the time when I asked you to provide Court judgments to back up your claims and you cut and pasted some blogs, or like the time when you actually cited a judgment but the findings of same actually contradicted your claims...

Honestly, how can anyone believe your claim that we'll all know what really happened when it seems you don't actually know what happened yourself?