The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 34

Russo-Polish row over who started WW2


Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
28 Sep 2015 #1
Russia's ambassador to Poland has been summoned by the Foreign Ministry to explain his insulting anti-Polish remakrs. The ambassador accused Poland of being co-responsible for starting WW2 and used the typical Stalinist propaganda line to explain away the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #2
Of course we didt start this war.tho emvarrasing warmongreling of pilsudskis leutenants was somejow provoking.it was time when russia offered polabd anty hitler alliance,with turkey poland and russia.poland refused,saying we strong enough to conquer germany.tooke em 2 weeks to escape with polish gold reserves,once **** hit the fan.lol.ahhh..stupidity of rulling elite in poland late 30-ties was legendary.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
28 Sep 2015 #3
Russia's ambassador to Poland has been summoned by the Foreign Ministry to explain his insulting anti-Polish remakrs. The ambassador accused Poland of being co-responsible for starting WW2 and used the typical Stalinist propaganda line to explain away the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Isn't this just the usual Russian tactic of taking offence over something that's partially their fault (the memorial) and then being incredibly insulting back?

Don't rise to it Poland, it's just Russia trolling as usual.
Marsupial - | 886
28 Sep 2015 #4
Another comedy routine from russia. Very funny.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #5
Nah.all he said was historically accurate.poland diplomatic stupidity was partly to blàme for creating hostility in europe.litvinow was very polands friendly.he was replaced with hostile to poland molotov after litvinov failed to forge soviet-poland anty hitler alliance.read some boks.william shearer is good to start
Marsupial - | 886
28 Sep 2015 #6
I have to say that era....I haven't read anything substantial......I think I will. Got more detail?
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #7
Rise and fall of german reich.by william sherer.he was american corespondent to bundestag,in 30-ties.very good reading,not academically boring,cus he was jurnalist not historian.but he lived and wrote all facts during pre war time.he had all access to embassies and bundestag.interesting reading
Ironside 50 | 11,049
28 Sep 2015 #8
Nah.all he said was historically accurate.poland diplomatic stupidity was partly to blàme for creating hostility in europe.litvinow was very polands friendly.he was replaced with hostile to poland molotov after litvinov failed to forge soviet-poland anty hitler alliance.read some boks.william shearer is good to start

William Lawrence Shirer the rise and fall of the third Reich, American correspond in Berlin until 1940.
He was clearly biased and doesn't know what he is talking about when writing about Soviets.
He was named in Red Channels i.e.The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television.

There is no row, just Russian political action, its aim remind unclear as yet.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #9
William Lawrence Shirer the rise and fall of the third Reich, American correspond in Berlin until 1940.
He was clearly biased and doesn't know what he is talking about when writing about Soviets.

But of course you didnt read anything of his works.lol.i did. He gives reader chance to look from different perspective.he was there all the time.in bundestag and embassies.ect.he saw politick in making.he seems to be very critical towards polands foreign diplomacy.but cant blame him for that.bunch of idiots and thieves they were.
pinhead
28 Sep 2015 #10
Has any country whinged about the War as long as the Poles have? Most of Europe have moved on and get along, whereas the Poles still have a massive chip on their shoulder.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #11
Not sure about poles.but politytian inpolanddo use history for their pourpose.and running from one memorial to another.it is embarrasing sometimes
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
28 Sep 2015 #12
There is no row, just Russian political action, its aim remind unclear as yet.

Isn't it just the usual Russian behaviour towards her neighbours? I don't think it's anything to worry about - in fact, Poland plays the game by reacting. Poland did cleverly point out however that the USSR even admitted their role in the invasion in 1989.

but politytian inpolanddo use history for their pourpose.and running from one memorial to another.

It really is too much. I'm all for having one day when we remember the victims, but when politicians seem to spend more time at memorials than actually doing their job, you have to wonder. And yes, everyone seems to be guilty.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #13
Poland did cleverly point out however that the USSR even admitted their role in the invasion in 1989.

No.they misundetstood.there is no denying about russian enteting poland in september.he was refering to poland arrogant pre war diplomacy and warmongering when he saud poland was partly responsible for what happened.we insulted and alienated everyone around.even people like litvinov,who wanted to put soviet soldiers in poland to protect from germans.of course one could say it would be risky.nevertheless he was friendly and we show them middle finger
Ironside 50 | 11,049
28 Sep 2015 #14
But of course you didnt read anything of his works.lol.i did.

I read the rise and fall a long time ago, but contrary to you I don't became what I read. It his point of view, no more nor less.

o be very critical towards polands foreign diplomacy.but cant blame him for that.bunch of idiots and thieves they were.

Yeah, sure idiots who were to navigate a cure in such a way as to remain neutral or at least to not tie Poland to any of the two potential suitors both worth each others both totalitarian aggressive regimes, unfortunately Poland had them for neighbors, you cannot fight with geography, the only fault I can find in government at the time is a fact they didn't recognize need for giving in to Hitler's demands at the time and instead choose to take word of the two world leading powers France and Britain - a huge mistake - thinking they were talking to gentlemen.

Who is to blame?
Germany and Soviets of curse.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #15
Who is to blame?
Germany and Soviets of curse.

You still dont get it.sure blame everyone.geography is ti blame you said.so why slovskia and chech survived unscratched?and hungary and romanians and italy who changed the side when nesseserry.no its not geography the reason poland was wrecked.its stupid diplomacy,arrogand and blinded by some french empty assurances.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
28 Sep 2015 #16
diplomatic stupidity

The anti-German pact Stalin propsoed to Poladn wold have entailed Russian troops entering Polish territory. The very thought was overwhelmingly abhorrent. Poland also turned down Hitler's offfer of an anti-Comintern alliance. Poland had non-aggression pacts with both Germany and Russia and both the USSR and Germany violated it with their dual invasion of September 1939.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #17
The anti-German pact Stalin propsoed to Poladn wold have entailed Russian troops entering Polish territory

Yes.hows supose to common territorial defence alliance work without soviets entering poland?not to mention that,this was proposed not demanded.poland never negotiated litvinov proposals and refused in very rude way to take part in conferencess.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
28 Sep 2015 #18
Poland also turned down Hitler's offfer of an anti-Comintern alliance.

Yes, I still wonder to this day what would have happened if Poland had joined such an alliance. Poland walking into Lithuania would have been certain, the Czech lands would have been carved up between Germany and Poland (with a puppet Slovak state), Hungary may have joined too - and possibly Romania to avoid getting invaded by Hungary. Poland would have surrendered some areas to Germany in exchange for non-aggression (but been compensated with additional territory and sea access in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine). The USSR would be finished, and it's possible that France would concede some territory to keep Germany happy.

In a strange way, Poland's refusal to join such an alliance may well have saved Europe.
Ironside 50 | 11,049
28 Sep 2015 #19
You still dont get it

No, you don't get it.

Prewar politics of Polish government was erroneous in that regard that they trusted France and Britain as well as were overconfident and so on.
Ultimately Soviets and Germany totalitarian regimes are to blame, they were harboring aggressive and totalitarian schemes.
They started the WWII as they wanted to start it. That war would started in 1939 regardless of whether or not Poland would give in to Germany. The only difference would be that another country would have been first to became an object of German aggression.

s stupid diplomacy,arrogand and blinded by some french empty assurances.

Getting emotional doesn't help in diplomacy or politics.

Yes, I still wonder to this day what would have happened if Poland had joined such an alliance.

Well, Germany would attack France in 1939.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #20
No, you don't get it.

Lol.you dont get it.you dont know how situation would fold if different decission were made.polish elites had job to put poland in best position where we would land safe in any cirxumstances.or at least try to get poles out of harm way.many countries did that just fine.in this regard they failed big time.did everything to provoke and ******* after surprised that french were not willin to leave maginote line.
Ironside 50 | 11,049
28 Sep 2015 #21
Lol.you dont get it.you dont know how situation would fold

Yes, you know it all, obviously and you have been there and done it all. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us, simple folks.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #22
Me?i tell you something.a fking horse as a foreigh minister would do better job than them.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
28 Sep 2015 #23
put soviet soldiers in poland

If Russians troops were allowed to enter Poland they would never leave. Stalin would have found one of his devious, forked-tongue excuses such as protecting Poland against future German aggression or some such. Even making Poland a Soviet protectorate of sorts the same way Bohemia and Moravia were for Hitler. Our beloved Poland was a sheep between two rapacious wolves. Plus Stalin had a personal grudge against Poles -- his stupid self-willed insubordination of 1920 in Poland made the Bolsheviks lose the war.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
28 Sep 2015 #24
f Russians troops were allowed to enter Poland they would never leave.

possible...but stalin was not immortal...and soviet troops were in Poland after war anyway.so whats the fuss about?
Poland should surrender and let them fight each other,mop after.2 madman with knives want to fight,why getting in between?
but its not about that.

Plus Stalin had a personal grudge against Poles

well...i dont know about that..some of his associates had grudge.he did try to forge alliance with poland against hitler...probably to create buffer zone against rapid hitler aggression.

but once it failed,he replaced litvinov with molotov and then all policy changed.instead defence pact against hitler,they changed to cooperation pact.at polands expense.

not to mention that both Britain and France wanted to include Russia in alliance ,but Poland refused. Polands argument was that we can handle Germany alone,no need Russia..

so we had tools and options..but throw them away..in that light this ambassador was right..we are partly to blame for what happened.and how things unfolded.

.lol
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
28 Sep 2015 #25
Poland should surrender and let them fight each other,mop after.2 madman with knives want to fight,why getting in between?

Indeed. Never quite understood the Warsaw Uprising for that exact reason. The USSR would have had to have thrown everything at the Germans to cross the Wisła, the Germans would have fought for all they had in return and Poland would have still had that little chance to break free later.

I've said it a few times, and maybe as Pawian's back, he could comment - but I've always thought that the Russian race to Berlin could have been hurt badly if the Poles had cut their badly-stretched supply lines after the USSR reached the Oder. It would've suddenly been a two-front battle for the USSR - and they would've been forced to pull back to deal with the Poles. At that point, it's conceivable that the Germans could have mounted a counter-attack - and the USSR would have been in a mess. Germany would still lose to the Western Allies, but possibly, the USSR could also have been neutralised.
Ironside 50 | 11,049
28 Sep 2015 #26
Seems like Putin is playing at establishing zones of influences again and that diplomatically orchestrated dig at Poland is aimed at provoke something which he would call as some kind of conflict and by that eliminate Poland from notations about Ukrainian conflict which is due to start anew in few months.

Putin even can back off form Syria, or offer an agreement which would see Assad resigning, not his people though.

Never quite understood the Warsaw Uprising for that exact reason.

Polish Government in London had been depended on France and than Britain and strongly influenced by that fact. Even first government which constituted in Paris was heavily influenced by France, they demanded that Sikorsky became Prime Minister instead of President of Poland nominee.

So, even you reasoning make sense as well as elimination of Soviet agents and terror groups on Polish territory, in practice instruction from London ordered them to thread them as allies.

NSZ wasn't bound by that loyalty and were defending local population against Soviet groups and hence their name are being blackened even today by ideological progeny of Soviets and by Harry.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
28 Sep 2015 #27
So, even you reasoning make sense as well as elimination of Soviet agents and terror groups on Polish territory, in practice instruction from London ordered them to thread them as allies.

Do you think that the Western Allies would have defended the USSR against Poland breaking their supply lines and causing untold amount of carnage on the liberated territory? I'm not convinced they would have - America would have known that the bomb would deal with Japan, Churchill would have been happy to see Stalin in trouble, and the French...well, who cares about them?

But I hear what you're saying, and don't disagree.
Ironside 50 | 11,049
28 Sep 2015 #28
Do you think that the Western Allies would have defended the USSR

They had a very good change and allegedly were considering that option in 1945, after all the had A-bomb long before Soviets.
General Patton was strongly lobbying for it, he died conveniently in a road accident.
Lyzko 30 | 7,378
28 Sep 2015 #29
As usual, Poland was caught in the middle once again. The so-called "Polish Corridor" was strategically important to both the Germans and the Russians, but to suggest somehow that Poland instigated the march into Gliwice aka Gleiwitz is patently ridiculous trolling!

Hitler attacked unprovoked in Europe as did Japan in Asia. Maintaining otherwise yields nothing other than producing a lot of much ado about nothing. The facts of history speak plainly for themselves:-)
Marsupial - | 886
28 Sep 2015 #30
Doesn't sound like I will learn much from reading this book. Allying to nazis or stalin was not the answer. Already know what the french and English did. As far as russian troops in poland they would have been swept away like toys because they were rubbish at the time. All those views ignore once again the sheer size of the nazi army. Bit pointless.


Home / News / Russo-Polish row over who started WW2
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.