Betrayal

Discussion in 'Poland' started by Polish_Street_Soldier, Jun 26, 2004.

Tags:
  1. marek_pk

    marek_pk Senior Member

    For those interested I not long ago finished a book which talks about the question of “betrayal” as well as the The Kosciuszko Squadron in the Battle of Britain.

    A Question of Honor
    The Kosciuszko Squadron:
    Forgotten Heroes of World War II

    by Lynne Olson and
    Stanley Cloud


    Marek
     
  2. Stephen

    Stephen Member

    The agreement between the UK and Poland had a secret protocol that said it only applied to Germany. The British did not guarantee Polish borders only independence.

    Britain promised to help Poland with all the means in her power? open to interpretation as to what exactly is meant. In fact the British decided to do nothing as the sending of military aid or allowing the Poles to buy military supplies would slow down their own re-armament. The British General staff reported that Poland would inevitably fall to Germany if war broke out and the most that could be hoped for was a 6 month resistance so any aid sent would be lost.

    At Franco-British staff talks in early April it was decided that if Poland was attacked they would adopt a defensive strategy. If Poland held out long enough a strong Western Front could be established.

    The French did promise various military measures such as an offensive 17 days after French mobilisation and an agreement was signed on May 19 1939. This agreement had no legal standing as it had to be ratified by the French Foreign Minister which he did not do till September 4 1939. The French lied about measures they were taking during September.

    Churchill certainly tried to help the Poles but his relations with the Soviets were of more importance. Roosevelt seems to have taken little or no interest in Poland and without Roosevelts support there was nothing Churchill could do as by the wars end Britain was the junior partner in the alliance.

    The British never had much interest in Poland it was only important because they knew that after the breaking of the Munich agreement if a stand was not made all eastern Europe and the Balkans could go into the German camp. The British were worried Poland could move into the German camp which is one reason they gave it. By giving a guarantee they thought Hitler would not go to war over Danzig and the corridor it was not worth it in their eyes. It was hoped Poland would make concessions and the UK and France would offer the return of some German colonies and trade agreements. Hitler it seems decided on war after the guarantee and the Poles never had any intention of making concessions.
     
  3. Novaliee

    Novaliee Junior Member

    I think that the U.S. and Britain didn't have that much time to reply when Germany attacked Poland, but mostly we didn't repond because the U.S. was clinging to isolationism and both Britain and the U.S. didn't see Germany as a threat to themselves. I think the U.S. should've just given up isolationism and joined the war earlier than it did. We should've helped Poland.
    ~Nova~
     
  4. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    FDR sold out the Poles to the Russians. Had they gone with Churchills plan Anglo/Americans would have cut the Russians off from most of the Eastern European nations with an alternate invasion route. As for 1939, The Poles were a soveriegn nation which needed to defend herself from the German Aggressors. It wasn't Britains fault that Poland did't have a modern army. Poor Leadership and zero Air Power won't win the day. The Polish soldier was a good fighter(Cassino)...They deserved support from their betters.
     
  5. Glider

    Glider Senior Member

    I don't think that anyone would doubt that Poland suffered more and received less support all through the war than any other country.
    Even at the end of the war, in the victory parade held in the UK, Poland was the one country that wasn't allowed to participate. Noway, France, Belgium, Greece, Czech and all the others had a participating presence but not the Poles. How could we have been so mean.
     
  6. ourbill

    ourbill Senior Member

    I have just read this thread and I am amazed at the knowledge of some of the writers. Polish WW2 history has always been a unknown area for me so I can't really have any comments that would progress the debate. However, quite a few polish military personnel, after escaping from either the Germans or the Russians headed for UK in one way or another. General Anders is a case in point.

    On a personal note. I have one friend or rather a distant relative whose father was from Lithuania, and who eventually fought with the British Army at Cassino and finally stayed in UK till his death in 1990. We know very little about his life before he arrived in UK 1946. He never talked about his childhood or how he came to be in the British Army but talked often about his army life. He was one of many who were welcomed to UK and because their country was part of the USSR were not quite trusted after the war, and could, in all humanity, not be sent back to Lithuania. Thank heaven that things have changed for the better. I would like to know from our Polish friends if there are books or better still a web-site about Polish/Lithuanian British Army members.

    I think betrayal is too strong a word to use. Britain didn't have the power and military strength at the time to bully Germany into retreating from it's objectives. Diplomacy was all Britain could do and buy time for what was seen as an inevitable war with Germany. Another war with Britain must have been a joke to Hitler at the time. Germany was not going to back down it was too late.
    I found this little gem:

    Stay cool
    Roger
    View attachment 1499
     
  7. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    We went to war on the side of Poland and lost many thousands of British lives. had the Allies and the Americans gone to war with Russia, they would have been badly beaten. The vast expanses of the Russian steppes would have swallowed up hundreds of thousands of troops, maybe millions, it would have been a war without end.

    It is about time this little Island stopped running to other Countries aid. We get no thanks for sacrificing hundreds of thousands of our young mens lives. All we get is the brickbats...It is about time we stopped helping anyone..let them get on with it, and fight their own battles.

    Perhaps they could be used to stop the silent invasion of GB instead. Why should we give our young men to help any other country? No way.. bring them all home. if they wish to kill each other? let them get on with it....
    Sapper
     
  8. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Here is a copy of the Anglo-Polish Mutual Assistance Treaty signed in August 1939:



    No. 19.

    Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland.-London, August 25, 1939.
    THE Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government:

    Desiring to place on a permanent basis the collaboration between their respective countries resulting from the assurances of mutual assistance of a defensive character which they have already exchanged:

    Have resolved to conclude an Agreement for that purpose and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

    The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

    The Rt. Hon. Viscount Halifax, K.G., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs;

    The Polish Government:

    His Excellency Count Edward Raczynski, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Polish Republic in London;

    Who, having exchanged their Full Powers, found in good and due form, have agreed following provisions:-

    ARTICLE I.
    Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

    ARTICLE 2.
    (1) The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.

    (2) Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that Contracting Party, the provisions of Article I will apply, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State concerned.

    ARTICLE 3.
    Should a European Power attempt to undermine the independence of one of the Contracting Parties by processes of economic penetration or in any other way, the Contracting Parties will support each other in resistance to such attempts. Should the European Power concerned thereupon embark on hostilities against one of the Contracting Parties, the provisions of Article I will apply.

    ARTICLE 4.
    The methods of applying the undertakings of mutual assistance provided for by the present Agreement are established between the competent naval, military and air authorities of the Contracting Parties.

    ARTICLE 5.
    Without prejudice to the foregoing undertakings of the Contracting Parties to give each other mutual support and assistance immediately on the outbreak of hostilities, they will exchange complete and speedy information concerning any development which might threaten their independence and, in particular, concerning any development which threatened to call the said undertakings into operation.

    ARTICLE 6.
    (1) The Contracting Parties will communicate to each other the terms of any undertakings of assistance against aggression which they have already given or may in future give to other States.

    (2) Should either of the Contracting Parties intend to give such an undertaking after the coming into force of the present Agreement, the other Contracting Party shall, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the Agreement, be informed thereof.

    (3) Any new undertaking which the Contracting Parties may enter into in future shall neither limit their obligations under the present Agreement nor indirectly create new obligations between the Contracting Party not participating in these undertakings and the third State concerned.

    ARTICLE 7.
    Should the Contracting Parties be engaged in hostilities in consequence of the application of the present Agreement, they will not conclude an armistice or treaty of peace except by mutual agreement.

    ARTICLE 8.
    (1) The present Agreement shall remain in force for a period of five years.

    (2) Unless denounced six months before the expiry of this period it shall continue in force, each Contracting Party having thereafter the right to denounce it at any time by giving six months' notice to that effect.

    (3) The present Agreement shall come into force on signature.

    In faith whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Agreement and have affixed thereto their seals.

    Done in English in duplicate, at London, the 15th August, 1939. A Polish text shall subsequently be agreed upon between the Contracting Parties and both texts will then be authentic.

    (L.S.) HALIFAX.
    (L.S.) EDWARD RACZYNSKI.
     
  9. marek_pk

    marek_pk Senior Member

    I've read that Britain went to war for Poland. Its seems more like that they declared war to try and halt the Nazis because otherwise they would keep attacking more countries, Britain included.

    I've also read that Poland was unprepared for war. But I've read that the French insisted that the Poles stop moblisation to avoid "provoking" the Nazis. Due to this the Polish Army had only a third of its army armed and in place.

    Marek.
     
  10. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Was the British agreement based on practicality or principle? If war was declared on Germany, why not Russia as well? After all, if war was declared on both, Hitler could have simply withdrawn from Poland and sought an agreement to ally with Britain and France on the destruction of Russia could he not? Was that not his ultimate goal? My understanding was that he really didn't have an interest in fighting the British. If it was practicality then why not declare war on Russia and not Germany instead since when it comes to genocide, Stalin made Hitler look like a lightweight.
     
  11. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 7 2006, 10:39 PM) [post=45399]If war was declared on Germany, why not Russia as well? After all, if war was declared on both, Hitler could have simply withdrawn from Poland and sought an agreement to ally with Britain and France on the destruction of Russia could he not? Was that not his ultimate goal? My understanding was that he really didn't have an interest in fighting the British.
    [/b]

    Hitler's main goal was to ensure the Lebensraum of Germany in Central and Eastern Europe. From what he said in the Hossbach memorandum, he was quite aware that this meant a war against Great Britain and France. And that was a risk he was willing to take.
    Besides, how could the Germans have gone at war with the Soviet Union without invading Poland ?

    </div><div class='quotemain'> If it was practicality then why not declare war on Russia and not Germany instead since when it comes to genocide, Stalin made Hitler look like a lightweight.[/b]

    Oh really ? Maybe we can learn more about how one can forget places like Treblinka, Sobibor, or Babi Yar ?
     
  12. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    </div><div class='quotemain'>Oh really ? Maybe we can learn more about how one can forget places like Treblinka, Sobibor, or Babi Yar ?[/b]


    Not dishonoring the victims of the Nazis in any way No one disputes Hitlers regime needed to be eliminated.


    Focus on the question at hand.

    How many people do you think Stalin Killed Exxley? How many people do you think Communism has killed? Add Mao to the list and Pol Pot as well as Vietnam. Now I don't believe that the Western Allies should have gone to war with Russia. Although there was a disastrous plan on the books to aid Finland against Russia.

    It always amazes me that Stalin always gets a free pass.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>Especially when most of the EU countries have right wings governments. And even the one with left wing governments are hardly what one might call socialist.[/b]

    You've got to be kidding right?

    <span style="color:#FF0000">Edited</span>
     
  13. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    <span style="color:#FF0000">Edited</span>
     
  14. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (Herr Oberst @ Feb 8 2006, 04:23 AM) [post=45407]</div><div class='quotemain'>Oh really ? Maybe we can learn more about how one can forget places like Treblinka, Sobibor, or Babi Yar ?[/b]


    Not dishonoring the victims of the Nazis in any way No one disputes Hitlers regime needed to be eliminated.


    Focus on the question at hand.

    How many people do you think Stalin Killed Exxley? How many people do you think Communism has killed? Add Mao to the list and Pol Pot as well as Vietnam. Now I don't believe that the Western Allies should have gone to war with Russia. Although there was a disastrous plan on the books to aid Finland against Russia.

    It always amazes me that Stalin always gets a free pass.

    [/b]
    Stalin can be held responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but certainly less than Hitler, and definitively not in such a short span of time. And we're talking about Stalin not Communism in general, not Mao or Pol Pot in case you failed to notice.

    Claiming that Stalin was a bloodthirsty murderer is one thing. Claiming that he makes Hitler looks like a lightweight is crap to say the least.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>You've got to be kidding right?

    <span style="color:#FF0000">Edited</span>[/b]

    Focus on the question at hand.
    In case you failed to notice again, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand (that quote from me was taken from another thread, one has to wonder why you posted it here), not to mention there are some Forum guidelines that some people forgot to check.
     
  15. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Three things:

    First, let's get rid of this argument about the Danish cartoon and its impact thereof. Completely OFF-TOPIC.

    Second, there was not much the Allies could do to check Stalin in 1944 and 1945. He was a master of the double-cross, and the British and Americans had to rightly fear that he could pull another switch and sign an armistice with Germany, which would create a repeat of the 1918 situation, where the Germans were able to launch a massive offensive with troops pulled from Russia, after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Given how fiercely the Germans fought and counterattacked, right up to the last day of the war, it was a legitimate fear. Poland's martyrdom is a horror, but it was hard to avoid. I do think the free Polish veterans who couldn't go home deserved a better deal from their allies...certainly they should have been in the parade. I'm also disturbed that the Battle of Britain memorial 50 years later did not include the Polish Squadron symbols initially.

    Third, it's worth noting that in 1939, while the British and French did not declare war on Russia, their planning was aimed at attacks on Russia, not Germany. They were revving up intervention in Norway and Sweden on the side of Finland, to battle the Reds and occupy the iron fields, as well as a bombing raid on the oil facilities at Baku. It was amazing that they planned more aggressive action against a nation that was ostensibly neutral and the one with which they were at war.
     
  16. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    <span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:100%"><span style="color:#FF0000">As you will see, I have been through some of the recent posts and deleted references to current worls events. This is because the rules say WE DO NOT DISCUSS THEM ON THIS FORUM. So please take my advice and don't.</span></span>
     
  17. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Kiwiwriter @ Feb 8 2006, 10:15 AM) [post=45422]Second, there was not much the Allies could do to check Stalin in 1944 and 1945. He was a master of the double-cross, and the British and Americans had to rightly fear that he could pull another switch and sign an armistice with Germany, which would create a repeat of the 1918 situation, where the Germans were able to launch a massive offensive with troops pulled from Russia, after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Given how fiercely the Germans fought and counterattacked, right up to the last day of the war, it was a legitimate fear. Poland's martyrdom is a horror, but it was hard to avoid. I do think the free Polish veterans who couldn't go home deserved a better deal from their allies...certainly they should have been in the parade. I'm also disturbed that the Battle of Britain memorial 50 years later did not include the Polish Squadron symbols initially. [/b]
    Kiwi, virtually all Germans including those in the Nazi party viewed WWII as being with Russia. To them and with Hitler, the war with Britain was unfortunate, not merely because he was losing resources to the fight with them but because he viewed them through the "Evolutionist Spectacles" of them being a higher breed of human and in his idealistic view regretted having to fight them for that reason mostly. He believed he was the mechanism of Natural Selection and it went against his ideals to kill the British as they were a "higher" race and the Jews were to be extinguished because they were a lower race and Natural Selection dictates that. At least that's what he said he believed. Near the end of the war, most Germans were bitter that we did not rearm them and send them to destroy Russia. Of course most didn't know about Hitler's 6 million genocide but they didn't know about Stalin’s 26 million genocide either. That is why they always wanted to surrender to the Allies even in east Germany. They believed the British and Americans to be civil and advanced races where the Russians or Slavs were a subspecies just like the Jews supposedly were. This indoctrination was pervasive. It was not anecdotal. No way in Hades the Germans would have ever allied with Russia beyond 1941. No way Stalin would have allied with the Germans either. This is why he wanted to conquer Germany to completely destroy the people as he did his own dissidents. Had the allies left Germany to Stalin then he would committed a complete genocide of all the Germans as well. I think here on this forum with a number of people, there is a gross ignorance of just how incredibly ruthless and evil Stalin was, extensively because he was allied with our nations.

    After German capitulated, Patton wanted to attack Russia because he could see what they were trying to do. It was Truman who was ignorant beyond words in thinking that the end of aggression in Europe had happened in Germany. It reminds me of President Bush – 41 (Sr) thinking that Hussein would behave and be a good boy simply because the coalition wiped out most of his army. Communism is not static. Dictators are not trustable. If a communist nation is forced to be static it implodes into a state like North Korea. It is a consumer (waster) of productivity unlike capitalism. Patton said that Russia would easily destroyed where they were because their army had spent its resources driving to Germany and they could be trapped in Germany by a pincer move to cut them off from any reinforcement and then we could have easily bombed them into collapse. He wanted to do this immediately in eastern Europe while we still had the army there to easily do it.

    (Kiwiwriter @ Feb 8 2006, 10:15 AM) [post=45422]Third, it's worth noting that in 1939, while the British and French did not declare war on Russia, their planning was aimed at attacks on Russia, not Germany. They were revving up intervention in Norway and Sweden on the side of Finland, to battle the Reds and occupy the iron fields, as well as a bombing raid on the oil facilities at Baku. It was amazing that they planned more aggressive action against a nation that was ostensibly neutral and the one with which they were at war.
    [/b]
    I really don’t get your point here. If Britain and France were on the brink of invasion, they had the perfect incentive they needed in the co-invasion of Poland to do just that. If what you said was true and if Britain and France was to choose one of the two invading nations to arbitrarily declare war on, then Russia would be the no-brainer choice. Hitler wouldn’t have given a crap. He would have joined the fray and have pulled out of Poland just as an act of solidarity. That was my point. Russia would have been easier to conquer than Germany, especially in 1940. To me it seems your argument is non-sequitur.
     
  18. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Second, there was not much the Allies could do to check Stalin in 1944 and 1945. He was a master of the double-cross, and the British and Americans had to rightly fear that he could pull another switch and sign an armistice with Germany, which would create a repeat of the 1918 situation, where the Germans were able to launch a massive offensive with troops pulled from Russia, after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Given how fiercely the Germans fought and counterattacked, right up to the last day of the war, it was a legitimate fear. Poland's martyrdom is a horror, but it was hard to avoid. I do think the free Polish veterans who couldn't go home deserved a better deal from their allies...certainly they should have been in the parade. I'm also disturbed that the Battle of Britain memorial 50 years later did not include the Polish Squadron symbols initially. [/quote] Kiwi, virtually all Germans including those in the Nazi party viewed WWII as being with Russia. To them and with Hitler, the war with Britain was unfortunate, not merely because he was losing resources to the fight with them but because he viewed them through the "Evolutionist Spectacles" of them being a higher breed of human and in his idealistic view regretted having to fight them for that reason mostly. He believed he was the mechanism of Natural Selection and it went against his ideals to kill the British as they were a "higher" race and the Jews were to be extinguished because they were a lower race and Natural Selection dictates that. At least that's what he said he believed.


    Not in the Hossbach memorandum. Try again.


    After German capitulated, Patton wanted to attack Russia because he could see what they were trying to do. It was Truman who was ignorant beyond words in thinking that the end of aggression in Europe had happened in Germany. It reminds me of President Bush – 41 (Sr) thinking that Hussein would behave and be a good boy simply because the coalition wiped out most of his army. Communism is not static. Dictators are not trustable. If a communist nation is forced to be static it implodes into a state like North Korea. It is a consumer (waster) of productivity unlike capitalism. Patton said that Russia would easily destroyed where they were because their army had spent its resources driving to Germany and they could be trapped in Germany by a pincer move to cut them off from any reinforcement and then we could have easily bombed them into collapse. He wanted to do this immediately in eastern Europe while we still had the army there to easily do it.


    The exact claim from Patton was that his Third army alone could wipe out the entire Red Army and that the Soviet had no airforce left in 1945. Shall we say the poor man was definitively out of his mind. And it seems obvious that Angie had already stressed out the reasons why the huge majority of the people in Western countries didnt really share his views, nor did they have the spirit to go on.


    Third, it's worth noting that in 1939, while the British and French did not declare war on Russia, their planning was aimed at attacks on Russia, not Germany. They were revving up intervention in Norway and Sweden on the side of Finland, to battle the Reds and occupy the iron fields, as well as a bombing raid on the oil facilities at Baku. It was amazing that they planned more aggressive action against a nation that was ostensibly neutral and the one with which they were at war.
    [/quote] Hitler wouldn’t have given a crap. He would have joined the fray and have pulled out of Poland just as an act of solidarity. That was my point. Russia would have been easier to conquer than Germany, especially in 1940. To me it seems your argument is non-sequitur.


    Lol. And he would have perhaps also pulled out of Bohemia-Moravia, out of Memel, as an act of solidarity ??
     
  19. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    But folks we are doomed to repeat history if we don't learn the lessons from the past. The lesson concerning Poland and its betrayal was Appeasement. Germany was never able to win World War II and the whole mess could have been finished off alot sooner had the European allies acted right away with Czechloslovakia...or even the Rhineland...never mind Poland. It's interesting to me that current affairs concerning appeasement are repeating the past.
     
  20. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 8 2006, 11:09 PM) [post=45430](Kiwiwriter @ Feb 8 2006, 10:15 AM) [post=45422]Second, there was not much the Allies could do to check Stalin in 1944 and 1945. He was a master of the double-cross, and the British and Americans had to rightly fear that he could pull another switch and sign an armistice with Germany, which would create a repeat of the 1918 situation, where the Germans were able to launch a massive offensive with troops pulled from Russia, after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Given how fiercely the Germans fought and counterattacked, right up to the last day of the war, it was a legitimate fear. Poland's martyrdom is a horror, but it was hard to avoid. I do think the free Polish veterans who couldn't go home deserved a better deal from their allies...certainly they should have been in the parade. I'm also disturbed that the Battle of Britain memorial 50 years later did not include the Polish Squadron symbols initially. [/b]
    Near the end of the war, most Germans were bitter that we did not rearm them and send them to destroy Russia. Of course most didn't know about Hitler's 6 million genocide but they didn't know about Stalin’s 26 million genocide either. That is why they always wanted to surrender to the Allies even in east Germany. They believed the British and Americans to be civil and advanced races where the Russians or Slavs were a subspecies just like the Jews supposedly were. This indoctrination was pervasive. It was not anecdotal. No way in Hades the Germans would have ever allied with Russia beyond 1941. No way Stalin would have allied with the Germans either. This is why he wanted to conquer Germany to completely destroy the people as he did his own dissidents. Had the allies left Germany to Stalin then he would committed a complete genocide of all the Germans as well. I think here on this forum with a number of people, there is a gross ignorance of just how incredibly ruthless and evil Stalin was, extensively because he was allied with our nations.
    [/b]
    Hitler can be certainly be held responsible for more than 6 million deaths :

    - 5,1 to 6 Million Jews
    - 6 to 7 Million non Jewish civilians (mostly Poles and Soviets)
    - 200,000 Homosexuals
    - 250,000 Gypsies
    - 275,000 Handicapped

    Not to mention the other deaths caused by the War in Europe which can be blamed on Hitler to one extent or another.

    Shall I even mention that the huge majority of those deaths happened between 1939 and 1945 which gives him a yearly death total far higher than Uncle Joe.

    Lastly, Stalin didnt commit a complete genocide of all the Germans in the former DDR so its another bogus claim from someone who is obviously more ignorant than most people on this forum.
     

Share This Page