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 8 of 13
sort: Latest first   Oldest first   |
Ozi Dan   
27 Aug 2010
Off-Topic / Übertough Pole with bullet in his head [16]

Pole suffers longest hangover: a bullet in his head for five years

I find it difficult to believe that he was unaware of this. I had bullet fragments lodge in my face as a kid and knew about it straight away. The burning sensation and rivers of blood are usually a dead giveaway! Still a dull ache under my cheekbone when I press on the little buggers.
Ozi Dan   
27 Aug 2010
History / A view of Poland from far far away [15]

Hi GalloG and welcome to the forum. Great post too by the way.

The Deluge is particularly well known in HEMA circles due to the famous saber duel scene,

The one on top of the battlements of Kamieniec-Podolski between Pan Wolodjowski and the Turk?
Ozi Dan   
27 Aug 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

Space does not avail me if I attempt to quote from some of your other posts which run in the same demeaning manner.

I regret you took offence to some of my comments. I suspect however if you look objectively at the chain of posts passing between myself and yourself you'll see that you instigated these types of remarks. You could perhaps start by looking at

Well duh!

at your #126. If you play the game don't spit the dummy if you get played.

you probably meant 'comprehend' not "apprehend".

No, I meant what I said. If you review a dictionary you'll understand.

I couldn't stand to listen to any more of his lawyer-eeze. I'm sure you can identify with that. Also, he didn't take my suggestion to leave.

Whilst I accept your explanation I find that scenario difficult to believe. No need for further comments though.

It is the rare human who can overcome his/her conditioned beliefs and judge another person or scenario neutrally if not objectively. Common sense is the best weapon of survival and needs no mantra.

Now that's a good point and hits the nail on the head, though I would again suggest that it's impossible to be objective in many scenarios and all one can do is acknowledge that 'failing', if it can be termed as such.

There is a difference between self-defense which may entail killing someone and murder.
One is moral and the other is wrong.

I'm not sure where morality comes into the act of self defence. I would have thought that considerations as to the morality or otherwise of the act occasioning self defence would be subservient to the immediate instinct to survive, thus defending oneself. It could be that if a defendant per se argued that they thought their act of self defence was moral, the prosecution could seize that revelation and say if you had time to consdier the pros and cons of the morality of that act, the act of self defence was effectively pre-meditated and not a spur of the moment fight or flight reaction, which is the real test of self defence isn't it? Moreover, wouldn't the question of morality, if it applied, be an objective test, on the balance of probabilities? If it were subjective to the defendant then anyone could say that they shouldn't be punished for doing something which they subjectively believed to be right, just or moral.

As to your #137, I comment as follows:

1. Legal cases rise or fall in the main on the evidence presented to the judiciary and the way in which the alleged facts contained in the evidence are applied to the law when trying to persuade the judge to prefer or favour one side's story over the other. No Western jusridiction that I'm aware of is subject to star chamber justice and if the judiciary are seen to have erred there's always the appeals process after the first instance decision.

2. I can't help but feel that if you took the time to actually sit in on legal proceedings you would broaden your understanding as to how the legal system works but more importantly how it effects the participants in it. Whilst statisitics, studies, blog comments and so on are interesting, they don't replace experiencing the law first hand.

3. If you feel that the 'law' fails men, look to your government who make the law. Anything else is preaching to the converted.

4. You seem to infer that the legal system fails men because it is feminised, biased and so. Could it be that men fail themselves because their evidence is bad?

Anyway, I think we've reached the end of this debate. That said, I think you're pretty wide of the mark and, with respect, wrong in saying the law is feminised, because it isn't, and there's no proof of that. I do however appreciate your points of view and they've certainly given me some food for thought and I hope mine have too. Catch you around chief.
Ozi Dan   
13 Aug 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

Glad to know that you're not a feminist apologist.

Yes, you communicate like a liberal.

Oh? ...then you are a liberal.

I thought you had more to bring to the table than these vacuous comments and I am, with respect, disappointed that someone who professes an interest in critical thinking would choose to deliver rote rather than analysis. It seems I was mistaken as to your capacity and intent.

No, truth is not malleable. It isn't putty that can reshaped to fit someone's beliefs. Just because you may believe something to be true doesn't mean it is factually true.

So who, then, is the arbiter of 'truth' when a dispute as to the truth arises in metaphysical debates (as opposed to non contentious issues such as one plus one equalling two)? I'm looking for something other than "you're a liberal, I'm not, so I don't need to argue anything because being non-liberal means I'm always right" and would prefer you opting out of the discussion if that's all you can come up with mate.

Would it make you feel better if I said that to me, truth is subjective, however in finding the truth, my beliefs, no matter how strong, will be held subservient to facts which I subjectively believe to be objective and therefore plausible as being true in fact? If you pick that sentence apart you'll see I've posited some aspects of my 'truth' rationale outside of the liberal paradigm to which you ascribe me. What do your philosophical studies arm you with when faced with a person or situation that does not precisely match a political/philosophical mantra?

A lawyer tried to talk to me like that once but I escorted him out of my office. What gobblygook. There are facts and there is bullcrap. I'm a proponent of facts.

Why would you escort your lawyer out of your office when it seems that lawyer presented you with a prime opportunity to exercise your critical thought by having a face to face discussion involving, as it would seem, all the topics you show an interest and expertise in?

If you didn't understand the point I was making then ask for an explanation in more simplistic terms rather than discounting it as gobblygook. It seems that again you misconceive or don't apprehend what I was saying because I was speaking of 'truths' (not facts, which are foundations for truth to be determined upon) and trying to challenge your notions of same.

Murder is plain wrong; no 'ifs' about it. Trying to spin it in some way only diminishes the person attempting to do so.

Again, I agree. There were no 'ifs' in what I was saying nor was I trying to spin it, and I thought that that was fairly clear to someone who seems to have capacity to discuss these types of issues. You asked me to look at it in subjective terms and I did. Relative to me, it is wrong. Subjectively speaking, it is wrong. I did what you asked and still you argue against my though processes as though you know what I think more than I do?!

Self defense is not murder.

How on earth did you come up with that comment in answer to the words you quoted me on? I challenged the basis to which you asked me to respond by presenting you with clear contra-indicators (it should have been objective cf subjective because self defence is objectively tested) to your premise being the correct one.

I know it's not murder, you know it, so why point out the obvious? Hang on though. You're trying to catch me out here aren't you. Are you trying to say that if 'self defence' is established objectively, it is a complete defence, and the act of murder cannot have been committed by virtue of it being a complete defence to the charge? Or are you saying that self defence, as a defence to such charge, is a factor in mitigation which does not contain a complete defence but serves to ameliorate the harshness of a penalty for murder in those circumstances?

Yes you are wrong and no, your 'relative' style of discourse doesn't reach a level which tests me.

I thought I was fairly correct, but if you say otherwise could you please pick my assumptions apart and tell me where I've erred so I can save myself the embarrrassment of being wrong again?

Just google or yahoo him.

No thanks - I'd much prefer to hear your take on what he says - it is a forum after all.

I'm still out in 'God's country' so my retorts, which are not ambiguous like yours, will be few until I get back.

No problem. I like the way you threw in the self serving 'my posts are better than yours because yours are ambiguous' at the end. Forgive me for self indulging, but it's been my epxerience that those types of comments usually mean the person making them feels like they're coming second.
Ozi Dan   
13 Aug 2010
History / Is there any part of Polish history that's at least a bit glorious? [192]

I've done plenty of research and it all points to the fact that Britain kept the commitments laid out in the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland. But seeing as you claim it did not, perhaps you could be so kind as to point out the ways in which it did not.

I find it difficult to believe that you would profess ignorance of the breaches to the Treaty given that you and I have discussed it at length and you were shown prima facie breaches.

If memory serves, the ball was left in your court some time ago in our discussions on another thread (Should HMG compensate Poles etc) regarding Art. 5. when you said:

With pleasure, once I get back to the office on Monday: writing long posts on my iPhone is a pain in the butt.

Are you back in the office yet? Now's your time Harry...

I posted that photograph as one showing that the best ships of the Polish sailed away from conflict before WWII even started. Of course you can not accept that fact and so you lie about it.

Peking Plan, no? For the benefit of those unfamiliar with it, by mutual agreement between Britain and Poland, several ships of the Polish Navy steamed to a British port and served the balance of the war ostensibly under British command -that factual matrix is correct isnt it Harry? Out of interest, do you have any piccies of those Polish ships fighting for Britain?

Perhaps if the British had steamed some of their ships to Poland's aid at or before the commencement of the war and placed themselves at the disposal of the Polish navy then... well, we couldn't have had that because that would have been honouring Art. 1 of the Treaty.

And if some Ukrainians felt betrayed, I'm sorry for them, but does that make Poland the worst country ever ?

On the information to hand, it was base betrayal of the Ukraine. Pilsudski's attitude toward, and apology to, the Ukrainian delegation at the conference, is evidence enough of that. Ergo, there is no point in arguing against the occurrence of a historic truth, no matter how distasteful to Poles, unless you can show something in mitigation of that act to serve as an explanation rather than an excuse or complete defence.

Your last part is correct - whilst Poland indulged in an act of stupidity and betrayal, such act does not serve to preclude Poland from arguing that some other nation betrayed it, particularly where such act of betrayal arose in circumstances and per agreements wholly unrelated to the Polish-Soviet War.

or maybe better question would be where have you born?

Harry is a true-blue, dinky di Aussie just like me.

Were you born in Sydney like me Harry? We could have been born in the same hospital mate and shared wet nurses?
Ozi Dan   
12 Aug 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

I was watching a couple on Rush Street in Chicago who had too much to drink. The young woman kept hitting her beau

Without being critical, it seems as though your reaction fits the study findings you linked in your #123. I fail to see however how you could link those types of behaviours you witnessed to blameworthiness on 'feminism' per se.

feminist apologists like you.

Why would you say this - are you trying to be provocative? I'm not really interested in your opinion of me, but if you wish to dissolve our discussion into this type of nonsense then I can oblige.

No doubt you believe this and indeed, lots of liberals believe this because then any argument they make seems true to them.

No doubt if I didn't believe it wouldn't have said it. I fail to see however how your opinion on liberals has anything to do with my point. Did you understand it?

I've often said, 'with liberals, everything is relative'.

Isn't it though? Except perhaps with indisputables such as the earth being flat, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and so on?

Perhaps it's different in the USA, but here in Oz we don't equate these types of arguments with a political doctrine.

It surprises me how many advocates of Michel Foucault's faulty subjective philosophy there are.

I'm unfamiliar with this bloke and this philosophy. Sounds fascinating though - can you elaborate? How many advocates are there?

The idea that there is 'my truth', 'your truth', 'their truth' etc is ridiculous, yet this is how some people attempt to argue.

Is it really ridiculous? Doesn't the fact that your 'truth' being at odds with my 'truth' support the notion that there is no one indisputable truth but rather a whole set of 'truths' relative in strength, merit and credibility to every different person or set of persons. Or are you saying that the 'truths' you believe to be true must be true simply because you don't ascribe to relativity and because of that your truth is better and cannot be challenged simply because relativity is ridiculous?

I'll give you a definitive truth or fact. Murder is wrong, now try to be "subjective" about that.

Murder is wrong, in relative terms, and subjectively speaking. Or did you mean for me to try to be 'objective' cf 'subjective' and simply mixed up the wording? On second thought, you can't have meant me to 'be objective' because if you had, then you wouldn't have precluded me from arguing objective notions of mitigation or self-defence, the test of which is objective. Am I wrong here, or am I testing you?
Ozi Dan   
10 Aug 2010
History / Polish Civil War after the German Occupation in WW2? [7]

I'm pretty sure that there were some pretty hard core battles raging up until 1947 set against that backdrop. Someone like Sokrates can probably assist with the data there.
Ozi Dan   
10 Aug 2010
History / Polish Civil War after the German Occupation in WW2? [7]

What happened to Poland after the German Occupation in World War II?

It was occupied by the Soviet regime and fighting continued in isolated pockets around Poland until about mid 1947. It was largely remnants of the AK against Soviet/Soviet controlled security personnel, though I stand to be corrected as my knowledge here is hazy at best.

Apparently communism appealed to the Polish People? Why was that?

No, it didn't appeal to the Polish people. Communism was forced on Poland. Had Poland prevailed as an independant and sovereign nation post WW2, it's political make-up would not have been communist. Polish communists at the time of the Rising numbered I believe in the hundreds - the appeal was therefore limited.

Who were the AK?

The AK was the Polish Home Army, arguably the largest, most effectual, coherent and homogenous underground resistance movement during WW2. With hindsight, they fought in vain. To some, they were right-wing recalcitrants and trouble makers. To those that matter or have an ancestor who fought in their ranks, the archetypal AK soldier was a paragon of military virtue and commitment to a free Poland. The AK is now but a memory and legacy held dear to some - featured as a photo on a bedroom wall of a smiling ancestor in motley combat garb - and a reminder of betrayal, folly and the injustice of war.
Ozi Dan   
10 Aug 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

Let me guess; you made excuses for women.

Bad guess and no excuses - excusing the conduct of someone else is impossible. What in my posts caused you to guess that? Are you saying I’m biased against men Zimmy?

My post was more to do with questioning your rationale - you've made quite a few assumptions and suggestions which unless gleaned from or made in conjunction with personal experience have less probative value, in my opinion.

At any rate, I'm sure that there wasn't a good retort to the Fiebert studies which speak for themselves.

My 'retorts' to the Fiebert studies were already posted. The studies don't align with my experiences in practice, but that doesn't mean the studies are invalid. I rely on first hand experience over data gleaned from surveys. If my experiences change in future such that they align with the studies' findings then I will be persuaded. That is the difference between practice and theory or reading something as opposed to being part of it. Have you dealt with any domestic violence matters personally Zimmy? If so, do the Fibert studies accord with what you’ve experienced?

Let me guess – no the former, ergo N/A to the latter.

I run into recalcitrant people who don't like what is put in front of them all the time. They have a problem with cognitive dissonance which upsets their belief system. It's difficult for people to change their minds about something they've always believed to be true but which is not. This seems to be the case with domestic violence as it pertains to both men and women.

And therein lies the rub - belief of an objective truth presupposes that the truth is incontrovertible and unshakeable. The fact that your postulations and attached studies do not align with my experience merely serves to demonstrate that the topic we are discussing does not actually hold an objective truth to which either of us can be tested against in the sense of the rightness or wrongness of our beliefs, or in my case, understandings.

It's difficult for so many people to be objective when so much cultural brainwashing clouds the real truth, and so much of this is due to "political correctness" which makes some people feel good although it masks the real truth.

I would go further than that and say that it's impossible for people to be objective and go even further by saying that the only objective truth is that truth is subjective. All one can do is acknowledge this failing and endeavour to take it into account.

"There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking." ..........................Alfred Korzybski

Ah, to enjoy just one day when I don't have to think about anything! Doubting however requires thought, so I'll just start believing everything.

"Personally, we are always ready to learn, although we do not always like being taught".

- Winston Churchill

"Minds are like parachutes - they only function when they are open".

- Thomas Dewar
Ozi Dan   
9 Aug 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

G'day Zimmy,

I posted late last week quite a detailed response to your last posts but they have been wiped from the forum, and I honestly don't intend to reconsider and redo it. I don't know why my response was wiped but note with a sense of wry amusement that the well considered and insightful post of another member contained at #125 remains in all its glory - obviously mine was far more irrelevant and vacuous. Anyway,thanks for your input and catch you around champ.
Ozi Dan   
5 Aug 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

Explain how so many analyses' have come to the conclusion that women initiate at least as much domestic violence as men.

The explanation is simple: in general terms, some of the studies reveal that the female survey participants purportedly disclosed to the surveyor that they initiated DV. Some of the studies conclude that a greater number of females than men made such admissions.

Here are some things that should be borne in mind though:

1. Credibility and bona fides of the participants. For example, are their any differences between the potential for exaggeration and/or downplay between males and females when making admissions in these contexts? Can we take away anything from Lejeune's comment regarding a proposition that women could be more likely to accept responsibility for committing DV, thus the disparity?

2. The actualquestions asked.

3. How many of the participants who admitted being abused actually took steps to apply for a protection order. If they didn't, then why not?

4. What about other forms of DV such as threats to commit it, financial deprivation, mental abuse and so on?

It was interesting to note one study which found that in men a higher education level achieved a commensurate reduction in physical abuse whereas the opposite was the case for women.

In any event, I found the studies surprising. They certainly don't mesh with my experiences in practice. Can you now explain how that is? Can it be reconciled with my Stockholm Syndrome analogy.

You might also want to link here; I recommend reading the article and then watching the informative video.

I'm unsurprised at the reaction but disappointed. Isn't this study however more apposite to public reaction to DV (committed in public) than to the debate on gender proclivity to commit same?

It depends on the state. Where I live, 99% of the time, the woman gets custody of the kids.

That's interesting though astounding. How do you come by that statistic? Is it the case that US law automatically favours mothers over fathers? Or could it be that in 99% of cases the Judge decides that on the evidence the child is best living with the mother? It would have to be the former wouldn't it?
Ozi Dan   
4 Aug 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

it still hasn't sunk in that women initiate domestic violence as often as men.

I'd have to respectfully disagree. I've dealt with several dozen domestic violence matters and based on my experience, it is unfortunately men who are disproportionately represented as the alleged abuser. Here are some general comments I can make based solely on my experience in practice:

1. About 5% of aggrieved spouses are male. Initial arguments of "I'm a bloke and who's going to believe I was bashed by my wife" are fairly common though misconceived.

2. However, men are more likely than women to prosecute an alleged incident of domestic violence by making an application for a protection order. They too are more likely to go all the way with a case and are untroubled at the prospect of facing their ex in court and giving oral evidence against them.

3. Both men and women are fairly equal in awareness as to what is domestic violence and what can be done to apprehend it. Our legislation on domestic violence DOES NOT draw any distinction between men and women.

4. Feminist discourse, women's lib and so on plays no part whatsoever when at the coal face of domestic violence litigation. Arguing such academic concepts before a Magistrate would be dismissed as irrelevant.

5. Robust cross examination usually uncovers irrelevant, untrue or incredulous stories of domestic violence allegations. The witness box is a great leveller. Applications for a protection order based on such rejected/untrue premises can lead to costs orders being made against the claiming party.

6. Some women who have suffered DV also tend to suffer from an attachment manifestation to their spouse that is akin to "Stockholm Syndrome" whereby they will defend the actions of the allegedly abusive spouse and/or blame themselves for having domestic violence committed against themselves. This is why some women find it very hard to divulge and/or prosecute domestic violence or leave the relationship. Counselling is crucial for the woman to overcome this, though it can also be broken by direct intervention i.e. Child Protection Agency threatening to take the children because an abused spouse is incapable of protecting her children and so on. I haven't experienced this phenomenon with men, which is a crucial distinguishing point.

7. It could be that Feminist ideology recognises that women are more prone to silence or self blame and therefore adopts a militant form of academic advocacy to bring these issues to light on behalf of women, because of matters mentioned on point 6.

That's the major problem. Men don't initiate divorce as often as women do because they realize how unfair the court systems are. Men don't want to lost their kids. Women are not as inhibited to file for divorce because the loss of children is not something that concerns them. Unless they are druggies or some kind of provable troublemaker, they'll get the kids, even if they are the violent ones during marriage.

Care to back that up with some cold hard evidence, such as written judgments analogous to your claim? I'd like to think that the US judicial system is more proactive than that.
Ozi Dan   
13 Jul 2010
History / Quotes of Polish or German kings, generals [39]

"It was a brawl, a scrap, a bagarre" - Pilsudski's description of the 1920 Battle of Warsaw - a masterful understatement.

"Permit me Sir to be the master of the sheep as well as the goats" King Zygmunt in response to criticism from the Papal Legate regarding Poland's acceptance and tolerance of heretics in the C16.

Edit:

Should have been goats first then sheep last.
Ozi Dan   
5 Jul 2010
History / Poles in the Napoleonic era [224]

I meant not Polish because of the surnames, or do you mean their uniforms are Polish?
Ozi Dan   
5 Jul 2010
History / Role of Serbian medieval cavalry in formation of Polish hussars [20]

Who would have thought our Turk smashing Husaria could also help you smash your business opposition? Interested?

"Then the Husaria broke into a wild g allop and the heavy mass of men and horses cascaded over the Turkish ranks, bowling over the first, slicing through the second.."

qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/thinking-lean-17 th-century-poland
Ozi Dan   
5 Jul 2010
History / Poles in the Napoleonic era [224]

Below are some cool PHOTOS of Napoleonic veterans in full uniform. There are 2 of uhlans but they don' seem to be Polish unfortunately:

dl.lib.brown.edu/libweb/collections/askb/veterans.php

Has anyone got photos of Polish veterans?
Ozi Dan   
1 Jul 2010
History / Should HMG compensate Poland and/or Polish veterans? [90]

Britain made no guarantees whatsoever to Poland's borders or sovereignty:

Where have I said Britain did? I didn't, which kind of makes a mockery of the balance of your post, doesn't it. You know perfectly well what my argument is and because you refuse to acknowledge that it was a prima facie breach of Art. 5 you again resort to smoke and mirror rubbish. I can tell you mate - you've certainly got 10 points in my books for effort, but I'm not stupid and I see your deflections and obfuscations for what they are.

And given that Poland had demonstrated repeated in the interbellum that its idea of where its border should be were rather different to those of its neighbours and that Poland was happy to invade its neighbours

I've rubbished this tripe elsewhere so no need to repeat my position. You seem devoid of any ability to argue something other than tangential theories, so I'll give you some ammunition to use against my arguments (don't tell anyone I told you) and you can expand on them:

1. Which Polish Goverment signed the original treaty and which Polish government was around when I allege Art. 5 was broken? Is there anything in the treaty regarding subrogation type arrangements of party's obligations and rights to remedies?

2. Was there anything in the treaty which could, in executing it, frustrate another treaty/agreement of greater significance.

3. Were there any express, implied or collateral terms to the treaty regarding what is to be done in the event of an alleged breach?

4. Which of the above are red herrings (if any) and which are plausible foundations (if any) for an argument contrary to mine?

Give me a real run for my money Harry.

I'm honoured that you hold me in league with reputable and professional historians! I am however just a humble lawyer and a mere student of history.

In any event, would you do this Honorary Historian a service and point me to exactly where my inventions re the treaty lie?

Hmm...I find it odd

Seanus my man, I see you've made some useful comments on mobilisation but you're a bachelor of international law so this should be right up your ally. What do you think? I see you've refrained from giving us your input in that regard when clearly it's needed. I really know two fifths of bugger all about International and K. law so your input could tip the balance here. ;)
Ozi Dan   
30 Jun 2010
History / Should HMG compensate Poland and/or Polish veterans? [90]

The fact that you continue to denigrate me despite the fact that we had a mutual understanding to remain civil whilst in disagreement merely cements my suspicion that you deeply fear me and what I have to say on this forum. The further fact that you failed to accept my offer that I would not use the term "Pom" in exchange for you not using derogatory words is of itself testament to the fact you really don't care about addressing and diminishing 'racism' but rather you thinking that the endless and embarrassing propagation of a lie will somehow make you more convincing and me less so. Not being able to respond in any meaningful fashion, you resort to calling me racist at every opportunity.

but he can never explain how the agreement to move Poland's borders west is a threat to Poland's independence.

The fact that HMG acquiesced to the border shift, the change of Poland's post War geo-political make up and descent into Stalinist hegemony without Poland's knowledge or consent and without telling Poland that this would happen speaks for itself as to that information being crucial and a relevant matter re what information ought to have been shared per Art. 5. If you cannot or will not accept that self-determination as to borders is of itself a prima facie exercise of political and national independence and that foreign and unilateral changes as to same threatens and indeed extinguishes that independence then you fail to understand what national sovereignty and independence mean.

I think it's a major fail of Ozi dan to involve the Teheran conference in it.

This seems to be another example of what you think being at odds with the reality of the situation. Given that I posted the thread and clearly set out that it was my view that Art 5 was breached having regard to what occurred at Teheran, I fail to see your logic unless of course you know my thoughts better than I do myself?

Ozi dan reveals himself now as a revisionist, unfortunately and disqualifies himself.

A revisionist? Me? That would make for an exciting argument. Pray tell what leads you to that conclusion, setting out what I have said and then comparing that to what a revisionist statement is. Would you have to show that objectively or subjectively?

You have disqualified yoursefl as serious historian and. Goodbye.

Edit: that's what you get when you try to make real historians ridiculous.

I see the comments I made to you the other week re questioning your 'historian' credentials are still upsetting you. I'm sorry you still feel that way.

In any event, I've never said I'm a historian, though I suppose, like you, I could pretend to be one, couldn't I. Carrying on about how good you are and what academic credentials you have (I don't reckon you have any mate) merely makes you look like a dill, especially in light of the fact that you more often than not make no sense, refer to yourself in the third person and embarrass yourself even further by signing off with your child-like and vaguely feline sigil.

I really like the way you were miffed enough to come back and edit your post with that comment about me trying to make real historians look ridiculous. That tells me that you did feel as though you had been ridiculed and needed to add that comment as a final stab against me to preserve your ego, because its all about an ego trip for you isn't it mate. Given though that you are not a real historian you don't have to worry about me trying to ridicule you, do you.
Ozi Dan   
29 Jun 2010
History / Should HMG compensate Poland and/or Polish veterans? [90]

How do you judge Britain's preparedness (logistical, strategical & psychological) for war?

I was thinking more along the lines of strict breach of contract (Art 5) rather than the more nebulous issues with Art 1. In any event, it's up to HMG to show evidence as to their preparedness and if on balance their preparedness was objectively such that they discharged their obligation of doing all in their power to assist, then they're fine. If however they didn't show that they did all in their power (an objective test, not subjective) then they breached Art 1. It's that simple.

How does one quantify the damages to the individual in question?

Difficulties in setting out quantum of damages shouldn't bar compensation being paid should it? Perhaps a principal lump sum plus interest at say 9% per annum (as and from say Dec 1943) to the current Polish Govt to then be divvied up to genuine Polish claimants at the Polish government's discretion. There could be components of special damages, general damages, economic loss, pain and suffering and so on. That would be, in our hypothetical, up to the Polish claimant to set out.

The litigious carousel would never stop.

It never does my friend. It's just a question of jumping on then jumping off at the right times. In any event, ‘opening the floodgates’ arguments are usually left for the legislature when formulating laws rather than used during litigation to try to stop same.
Ozi Dan   
29 Jun 2010
History / Wealth of the Polish nobility [29]

Wealth of the polish nobility

I heard that some Polish nobles were so wealthy that they deliberately slipshod their horses gold horseshoes so they would fall off. The fact that they deliberately let them lie in the street thereafter was testament to the fact that they were so wealthy that the loss of a gold horseshoe meant nothing.
Ozi Dan   
29 Jun 2010
History / Should HMG compensate Poland and/or Polish veterans? [90]

It's trite to say that HMG breached Article 5 of the treaty of mutual assistance and the jury's still out on other Articles of same, particularly Article 1.

Should HMG compensate Poland and/or surviving Polish WW2 veterans? Breach of contract but also loss of opportunity spring to mind as potential causes of action (ie the reasons and factors behind why compo ough to be paid).

I reckon that as and from the Teheran Conference (December 1943) compensation ought to be calculated, if not before. Britain (and the USA to be fair) 'bought' Stalin's compliance and co-operation (whether or not that was already there is a different argument) at the expense of Poland falling under Communist hegemony, amongst other concessions acquiesced to. Maybe that's fair enough, but the time has come to pay the piper, or in our case, the sacrificial lamb. Or is Poland and the relevant Polish people out of time in making such a claim? Would it be fair for the current British Govt. to have to dip into tax revenue to pay the compensation?

In responding, please confine arguments to relevant issues. I'm not interested in arguments like "Poland should pay the hire fees for the planes they used in saving GB during the BoB" or like nonsense.
Ozi Dan   
29 Jun 2010
History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]

You and Ozi Dan should make thread for both of you - Ozi Dan and Harry exchange their views on Poland, Polish history and life.

I'm sorry for going off topic with your interesting thread. Your idea of a thread for both me and Harry gave me a laugh though. If we did it, people would think us bigger dickheads than we already are: 2 Aussies on a Polish forum, one of whom has never been there, the other who doesn't speak Polish, swapping arguments on Poland on a dedicated thread.

Per your thread though, if you go to the online Time magazine archive (google it) there are some excellent contemporary articles directly concenring Poland and England just before WW2. If I recall the articles correctly, there was a lot of camaraderie and mutual backslapping. Once you're in the archives, search for Smigly-Rydz and Colonel Beck and that will point you in the right direction.
Ozi Dan   
23 Jun 2010
History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]

Why did Hitler have to be stopped?

Why do you ask a rhetorical question?

Nazi policy was to be friendly towards the British as they were supposed to be natural allies.

Why then did HMG not form an alliance with Nazi Germany if that was the case, rather than with Poland?

How nice of you to call actions in which several hundred British servicemen lost their lives "irrelevances".

I apologise unreservedly to any British who were offended by my words - I certainly didn't intend my words to convey that sentiment or to cause offence and I retract that. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Brits and Cth soldiers who fought in WW2 and you're aware of that.

Several hundred of those brave Poles even managed to arrive in Britain before Britain had even declared war!

Peking! Peking! Peking! A joint operation, mutually consented to, whereby some ships of the Polish navy went to Britain and served under HMG with gallantry. How Polish is that!

And of course you don't give any examples of what more could have been done in 1939.

The burden of proof is not on me to give examples - how can I speculate on the state of mind of a government concerning what that government subjectively believed could be achieved assistance-wise but having regard to what was in their power to do? I can't prove a negative, can I?

It's on you to convince that HMG did all in its power to assist. Did they? What more could they have done that they didn't do?

Could you please quote the part of that treaty in which Britain commits to protect Poland's borders?

Could you please quote the part of the treaty which provides particulars as to when/how etc. article 5 is to be suspended? You can't can you. That's because there is no such provision, whether express, implied or collateral to the treaty, and no matter how hard you try to deflect it doesn't change the fact that HMG committed a prima facie breach of article 5 by not telling Poland about what happened at Teheran in respect of the relevant matters raised there concerning the future of Poland.

Could you remind me of the nationality of the supreme allied commander? The same man who favoured the broad front strategy.

I assume then that you do not disagree with the fact that Anders' proposal was not consented to. Good.

I'll also assume that any further rhetorical questions and/or questions posed as responses simply mean you agree to my contention in default of a genuine response, and that no further response from me is required.

You would be if you'd been disqualified from driving for causing accidents that injured C, L and U.

Really? Are you saying that a claimant can be wholly precluded from seeking remedies under a cause of action in say a motor vehicle accident (negligence) matter solely on the basis that at the time the cause of action arose the claimant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence? Or are you saying that a claimant can seek remedies at first instance but will then have such application dismissed on the basis of being disqulaified? Can you provide links to the applicable legislation and case law supporting your proposition? Do you get a feeling of deja vu here?

And Poland really should have been disqualified from driving.

And therein lies the answer. 'Poland' was not disqualified, no matter how much you wish it was. My proposition stands.
Ozi Dan   
22 Jun 2010
History / Poles in the Napoleonic era [224]

Another?

Yes, with Albuera it constitutes 'another', unless of course you wish to argue the use of 'another' in the English language with me...

Could you perhaps give details of the other Napoleonic battle at which Poles beat the British?

No I can't sorry because I'm unaware of any other Polish victories over the Brits except for Fingerola and Albuera. You seem to suggest there were? Please indulge us with a recital.

And perhaps you could do it without resorting to your standardous racism?

I'm unfamiliar with the term "standardous".

Where have I resorted to racism?

The article which Poles love to bang on and on and on about but can never explain quite how it was broken by the British.

I'm unfamiliar with any Pole banging on about art. 5 except myself. I've explained my rationale there in another thread that you are aware of. My proposition still stands in the absence of any genuine response (ie something other than the Sikorski border revelation you cravenly adopted after Sjam, to which he received my response which you can look up).

Did Polish hands rip out articles one, two, three, four and five of the 1920 Treaty of Warsaw? Or did Poland always intend that treaty to be like the 1918 interim agreement with Czechoslovakia, the 1920 Suwałki Agreement and the 1925 Czechoslovak-Polish treaty, i.e. binding only until such time as Poland decided to p!ss all over it?

They may well have, though in all likelihood if we accept your version of events those clauses were probably just ignored by Poland without the need to resort to ham-fisted attempts at subterfuge and deception. In any event, your comments are irrelevant to the issue of the treaty between Poland and England for reasons I have mentioned in the thread "Poland in London's eyes etc etc". I am of course open to your counter arguments but you'll probably just ignore my contentions, which you always do when I argue something you cannot refute...
Ozi Dan   
22 Jun 2010
History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]

If you want to, I can provide you some links to articles that I've written in the 90's and teens of this century, but it will have to be via PM and tomorrow morning as they reveal my name and you understand I don't want my name out in the open AND it's a quarter to two in the morning right now and I am turning in. Just send me a PM if you want me to provide you links.

No need. I accept your explanation and will take you at your word. I can't however speak for other forum members who may wish to test your credentials.
Ozi Dan   
22 Jun 2010
History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]

An edited response to your edit:

They did however, declare war on Nazi Germany in response to the German invasion of Poland, or didn't they?

Agreed. That is trite.

The things you postulate about the Teheran conference are irrelevant in this respect.

Irrelevant or unable to be responded to? I say it's relevant because:

1. the discussion is about Poland in the eyes of London before WW2

2. the eyes of London cast their gaze upon Poland and signed a treaty with Poland before WW2

3. I suggest that article 5 was subsequently breached.

4. London's eyes therefore closed to what happened at Teheran, winked at the SU, looked to Poland innocently and most likely squinted when the SU occupied Poland, executed its finest and brightest, and remarked 'this was agreed on at Teheran'.
Ozi Dan   
22 Jun 2010
History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]

I am aware that the annexation of the rest of CZ made Britain aware of the true intentions of Hitler cs, and that they vowed not to give in as there would never be peace with Hitler, no matter how they would give in to him.

Then why not say that, because on my reading of your post you say HMG went to war because of Poland then suggest that Poland should be thankful because of that?

What other thread? Can't you give me a nutshell?

Pls refrain from making suggestive remarks. Thank you.

I'm entitled to make suggestive remarks. The suggestion was that if you are indeed a historian then point us to your published works. Again, no need to profess indignation.

Pls refrain from showing your antipathy against me. Thank you.

There is no antipathy. I made a statement that no historian I am aware of carries on in your name and style.

Have you got any responses to any of the real issues contained in my post?
Ozi Dan   
22 Jun 2010
History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]

That's actually true. Early 1940, up until April 1940 Hitler was still hoping to make peace again with Britain or get a truce or sth. Because he saw the British as a fellow Germanic country.

That's an interesting anecdote on a self serving statement(s) from Der Fuhrer but largely irrelevant to the context of the discussion. It's irrelevant because upon the Nazi invasion of CZ in early 1939, HMG's resolve stiffened to the point where it was realised that the Nazis had to be stopped per se, quite apart from any notions of contractual obligations or altruistic purposes viz Poland. If memory serves it was Beaverbrook or like politician of anti-war ilk who uttered words to the effect that it was going to be a war of attrition with either GB or Germany prevailing. Don't fall into the trap of allowing assumption and hypothesis back up a statement which you purport to be incontrovertible.

But have any of you bright historians have any idea how she pssbly could've done that?

No need to profess indignation here. As far as I'm aware, you're the only person on this forum who purports to be a 'historian' but whose statements tend to suggest otherwise. Perhaps you'd indulge us armchair historians by referring us to some of your works on history - I however must profess to being unfamiliar with any genuine historian who signs himself off with a childish and vaguely feline monogram or who refers to themselves in the third person.

As to the real issue, there's no doubt in my mind that HMG were solid on the course of action that nothing more could have been done in '39 except for leaflet drops, a raid on Wilhelmshaven and other irrelevances that some may deem deserve mention. Historians such as yourself tend to wring their hands and say 'what more could we have done' and 'we did all we could because (insert your favourite contra-indicator to assistance)'. What I've never been able to reconcile however is how, in due course, several tens of thousands of Poles, if not more, managed to travel their way across wartime Europe and arrive in England after the fall of Poland and place themselves in the service of HMG. Given the difficulties you've elaborated on in excusing HMG from further assistance, it's nothing short of a miracle.

In any event, here's an easier one though - what could HMG not have done to help Poland? Here's a few:

1. Enter into the treaty of Mutual Assistance with Poland knowing that no meaningful assistance could be rendered, or, not caveating the term of obligations of assistance by setting out when, how and in what manner that assistance would be delivered or if there would be any matters absolving them of doing all in their power to deliver assistance. Once mutual obligations are formalised, each party expects the other to adhere to same. 'Doing all in your power' means just that, and cannot be read down, because it frustrates the intent of the treaty and makes it redundant. No amount of sighing, deflection, revisionist dogma, hand wringing or blame shifting will change the fact that at best HMG read down their obligations and at worst, failed to do all in their power to assist. In any event, Poland rightly assumed the treaty meant what it said and relied on HMG to fulfil same. A contracting party can be estopped from denying the existence or meaning of a clause if the other party relied on that clause to their detriment.

2. Breaching clause 5 of the treaty by not telling Poland about the relevant outcomes of Teheran. Poland could have then decided if it wished to continue fighting alongside the allies with the knowledge that HMG and the USA had acquiesced to Stalin's fait accompli regarding Poland's make up post WW2. Again, no amount of sighing, deflection, revisionist dogma, hand wringing or blame shifting will change the fact that a few simple words would have discharged that obligation.

3. Not consenting to releasing Anders and his troops in early-mid 1945 so they could fight their way back to Poland. Why not? Because HMG feared that the post war geo-political makeup, purchased partly at Poland's expense, could be displaced if, heaven forbid, Poland fought back against an invader and occupier.

No doubt some will say Poland breached treaties with other countries and so on, and that by virtue of those purported breaches Poland does not have standing to complain about the treaty with Britain. That is however irrelevant. If I breach a contract with party A am I precluded from complaining that my different contract with party B has been breached by party B? No.

If I cause a car accident and injure party A, then am injured by party B who caused another accident, am I precluded from bringing an action against party B simply because I caused another different accident and injured A? No.
Ozi Dan   
18 Jun 2010
History / Poles in the Napoleonic era [224]

napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Fuengirola.htm

The above is an interesting link (notwithstanding the broken English) to the battle of Fuengirola, which if accurate, is an example of another Napoleonic battle where the Poles fought the Poms and won despite being significantly outnumbered.

What I find most interesting however is the suggestion that someone ripped out the British casualty list of that battle from the record, and the further suggestion that other records from Wellington viz Waterloo were 'missing'. It begs the question of how many other records of a compromising nature have gone missing and how prevailent is/was this practice in England (perhaps 'invisible hands' also ripped out art. 5 of the mutual defence treaty btwn Poland and the UK? ;-)).

No doubt our English friends on this forum will not fail to defend Pomgolia's honour ;) - pip pip.
Ozi Dan   
9 Jun 2010
Genealogy / BOGDAN Family Lost In WW II [8]

Janina Bogdan (born 12 June 1902) Shot with 197 other Poles on 17 September 1940 in the Palmiry forest after detention in the Pawiak. I have no info as to charge, date of arrest etc. RIP Janina.