Jump to content


We Need Your Help - Become a Site Supporter

For 16 years we've been delivering WWII discussion and research, help support our efforts for the next 16 years. Become a WW2 Forums Patron!


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Churchill turning his back on Poland


  • Please log in to reply
274 replies to this topic

#1 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 31 March 2016 - 06:24 AM

800px-Yalta_summit_1945_with_Churchill%2

The big 3...

 

When it came to... 'What to do with Poland' and the reclaimed territories, we sort of betrayed Poland a bit...

Sorry about that.

 

 

Also...

 

There was British lead food drops into East Germany out of protest to how bad we thought the USSR was taking care of it all on that side of the wall.


Edited by Ben Dover, 31 March 2016 - 07:41 AM.


#2 Owen

Owen

    O

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,179 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:44 AM

Couldnt do much else could he?

 

UK was worn out by a long war.

Massive Red Army sat in Poland.


  • A-58 and rkline56 like this

#3 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,631 posts
  • LocationKotka,Finland

User's Awards

2   

Posted 31 March 2016 - 08:03 AM

And...

 

Operation Keelhaul was a program carried out in Austria by Allied forces in May and June of 1945.Among those handed over were White Russians ( Left Russia in 1917-18 ) who had never been Soviet citizens including the General Andrei Shkuro and the Ataman of the Don Cossack host Pyotr Krasnov, despite the British Foreign Office policy stated after the Yalta Conference that only Soviet citizens, before September 11939, were to be compelled to return to the USSR. 


  • rkline56 likes this
Posted Image

#4 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 31 March 2016 - 08:08 AM

Still, Polishmen flew in the RAF for Britain in the promise that Britain'll keep their word.

 

But, world trade and politics I guess.


Edited by Ben Dover, 31 March 2016 - 08:09 AM.


#5 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 08:20 AM

"We" did not betray Poland. 

 

Please explain what Britain could've done to rectify the situation.



#6 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 31 March 2016 - 08:37 AM

"We" did not betray Poland. 

 

Please explain what Britain could've done to rectify the situation.

If Sir Winston Churchill couldn't answer that, what makes you think I can?

 

Powerless to stop something still means Britain couldn't keep her word.


Edited by Ben Dover, 31 March 2016 - 08:38 AM.


#7 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 09:55 AM

If Sir Winston Churchill couldn't answer that, what makes you think I can?

 

Powerless to stop something still means Britain couldn't keep her word.

 

What word was that? To fight with all means until Nazism was defeated? Would it have been better to admit defeat along with the French surrender? I wonder if there would then be any discussion of "keeping her word". 

 

I'm still wondering wherein lies the "betrayal" of Poland.



#8 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 31 March 2016 - 01:05 PM

What word was that? To fight with all means until Nazism was defeated? Would it have been better to admit defeat along with the French surrender? I wonder if there would then be any discussion of "keeping her word". 

 

I'm still wondering wherein lies the "betrayal" of Poland.

https://en.wikipedia...estern_betrayal



#9 Carronade

Carronade

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 01:24 PM

The article cited begins with "The concept of Western betrayal refers to the view....."  It's an article about an opinion that some people have.  It's not something factual that one can cite to prove that opinion.

 

Consider the case of a doctor who tries to save a patient, but the patient dies - does that mean the doctor betrayed the patient?  Sometime you just can't do anything.  The only things that "betrayed" Poland or Eastern Europe were geography and the balance of forces.



#10 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 01:41 PM

 

Not looking for a link to someone else's opinion on a wider theme. All I see in that article  is a lot of references to certain authors whinging and moaning with some unrealistic expectations of what Britain was capable of doing. An international "guarantee" is not a guarantee in the ordinary meaning (get a product replaced if it breaks), but an expressed commitment to try and ensure something. I'm still waiting to hear more of what these authors thought Britain could realistically do, beyond wage war on Germany. As if anything in war is certain.

 

Your thread title is "Churchill turning his back on Poland", and a picture of "the Big three". 

 

Question still remains; what "word" exactly? And again had Britain too, accepted a peace in 1940, where would that leave Poland (or the rest of Eastern Europe)? What was Britain's reply in those, the very darkest of days, when Germany had rolled over every other non-Fascist Country in Western Europe? 

 

Want to blame someone for Poland's ills? Blame Adolph and Joe.

 

When I see people make these complaints, I really wonder what on Earth are they thinking? That Poland would've been better off without the British guarantee? Would that somehow have stayed Hitler's hand, and prevented Joe from stealing in through the backdoor? That Europe would have been a better place had WWIII erupted in 1945? With the war in the Pacific still unfinished? 6 years of warfare in Europe not enough?


Edited by green slime, 31 March 2016 - 01:42 PM.


#11 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 31 March 2016 - 01:57 PM

I think it's just quicker and far more politer to apologise to Poland lmao, IDK.  :)..

Seems more 'fair'... Saw a war memorial 'by chance, as you do' along the banks of the River Thames that Battle of Britain memorial at Embankment.

battle-of-britain-war-memorial-victoria-

A lot of Polish names on this thing, I remembered observing.


Edited by Ben Dover, 31 March 2016 - 01:59 PM.


#12 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 31 March 2016 - 02:14 PM

Britain had no choice but to obey their USSR allies...

But that is still a cold thing to do. War must have been so great, we couldn't afford to keep our promise to Poland.

 -Had we have in some bizarre'ro wacky alt. history set in If Ifs & Butsland  where Poland were able to be liberated like France, then maybe

Warsaw and Paris could have been free to prosper.

Don't forget, pre-WWII Poland was full of intellectuals and scientists who enjoyed their freedom to do, like anyone else.

Though, I don't remember any Polish empire, but, IDK, and, I don't think that matters given it's 2016 and what's done is done. 


Edited by Ben Dover, 31 March 2016 - 02:17 PM.


#13 Ilhawk

Ilhawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 02:40 PM

I do believe that historians underestimate the power that the previous war held on the French and British reluctance towards war.  WW1 impacted everyone.  Who wanted to do that again, even if there was an idiot causing problems.  Was an assassination and movements in Eastern Europe causing some deaths worth the decimation again?  Everyone lost neighbors and relatives.  Germany had the advantage of losing the the bitter feelings it brought.  The time between WW1 and WW2 is about the same as the Gulf War until now.  Not that long. Seems like yesterday we were hearing about Scud missiles.

 

Also the British failure to advance on "The Bridge Too Far" I also believe was a result of British Officers being young men in WW1 and not wanting to see more butchering which was a possible outcome.



#14 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 02:47 PM

Intellectuals and scientists put to death by Stalin's orders, in the forests of Katyn. 

 

In the OP picture, Roosevelt is nearly dead, and Churchill was the head of spent (utterly exhausted) state. Rationing would remain for years a factor in everyone's lives across the Commonwealth, the housing shortage in UK was acute, as was unemployment; the UK really was shattered. So when some Polish quasi-intellectual makes statements such as:

 

After their so-called guarantees of March 1939, England was not interested in our army, it did not help us financially in our war preparations, and did not have the slightest intention to aid us during Hitler's invasion of Poland (...) The guarantee of Poland's independence, provided by England, was not a guarantee at all. On the contrary, it was a speculation, whose purpose was the fastest possible liquidation of the Polish state. England wanted Poland to fight Germany first, and to lose that war as quickly as possible, so that Germany would finally face Russia.

 

It is so much preening poppycock, the author should be bitch-slapped back to preschool.

 

1) The defence of Poland must primarily be an issue for Poland, not Britain. Loans need to be repaid. Britain's treasury was still almost bare after the first war... Poland wanted "gimmes"; well, tough. I don't hear Brits bitching about what they had to give up for US LL. Everyone needed to do their utmost. Apparently, Poland was expecting a Divine Interention led by the UK, complete with angels and mana.

 

2) If the object was to get the Soviets and Germans to fight, why did Britain ignore Soviet diplomatic attempts for 1938-39, with that express purpose (allow Soviet troops passage through Poland to fight Germany), for them finally to give up, and get the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?


  • Ben Dover likes this

#15 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 03:05 PM

If Sir Winston Churchill couldn't answer that, what makes you think I can?

 

Powerless to stop something still means Britain couldn't keep her word.

Britain kept her word : the promise was to help Poland with all means available; Britain helped Poland with everything that was available . 

 

Thus : QED 



#16 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 03:07 PM

I love love love this video...

 

And it's narrated by Robert Beltran

 

Admin edit: There was a video her that has been removed.  The video was already posted elsewhere in the forum.  Once in a day for such drivel is more than enough.

 

Basically, this video says that WWI stems from the American Civil War and the British Empire...

 

Some massive railway in Europe had to go. So WWI happened and somebody got assasinated to spark war so that railway would be destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-But I digress...

 

https://en.wikipedia...litary_alliance

And of course, you don't know who is Beltran : a charlatan working for Larouche .



#17 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 31 March 2016 - 03:11 PM

And of course, you don't know who is Beltran : a charlatan working for Larouche .

:D http://www.ww2f.com/...view=getnewpost

I liked it so much... We now have thread.

It basically explains how WWI came about.

 

robert-beltran-voyager-interview.jpg



#18 KJ Jr

KJ Jr

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,530 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 31 March 2016 - 04:00 PM

I am very confused by this. Correct me if I'm wrong, and with all due respect, didn't Britain and her Allies go to war with Germany and the Axis for 6 years. What about that is turning your back on Poland? There was nothing they could do immediately to help Poland but in the long run, the sacrifices speak for themselves. I am not saying this is revisionist history, but some historians like to drum of conversations and jot down their ideas in books off of unsound foundations. 


Edited by KJ Jr, 31 March 2016 - 04:00 PM.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Einstein
 

 

#19 toki2

toki2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 496 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 04:52 PM

I knew a few Polish families when I was young. The fathers were all Polish servicemen who were stranded in UK after the war. They settled here and married local women. They were grateful for the chance to stay here and they had their own clubs and churches that had services in Polish. I am sure they missed their families in Poland and hated that it was now part of the Soviet Union but such are the tragedies of war.

It is never mentioned, but the British endured prolonged rationing up to the early fifties because it was feeding refugees ,German citizens and POW's. 


  • Skipper likes this

#20 Skipper

Skipper

    Kommodore

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 24,752 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 05:59 PM

Roosevelt was sick and De Gaulle no invited. So Churchill stood alone v Staline. Staline had orchestred everything, from the place of the meeting, the timings, the rest places etc...

 

What happened to the Poles is a shame, but rahther than blame  Churchill , one could blame Staline for it. 


Vorsicht+Feind.JPG


#21 Coder

Coder

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 05:59 PM

Two points are calling to be made:

 

1) War rarely solves problems - rather, it creates fresh ones. In September 1939 Germany had dominated Czechoslovakia and Poland. In May 1945 the USSR was beginning the domination of Czechoslovakia and Poland (and elsewhere).

 

2) Holding Winston Churchill personally responsible for the post-war settlement of Europe, and illustrating that concept with a photograph of the 'Big Three' at Yalta in February 1945 (without bothering to caption the image properly) is unfair. Although important preliminary discussions took place at Yalta, between Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Josef Stalin, the final settlement was not reached until July 1945 in the Potsdam Agreement between the new 'Big Three', Clement Attlee, Harry Truman and Josef Stalin. Churchill, having learned what the British really thought about him as a peacetime leader, refused Attlee;s invitation to return to Potsdam, after the break for the British election results, and took no part in the ultimate agreement.


Edited by Coder, 31 March 2016 - 06:03 PM.


#22 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,502 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:52 PM

Wars often do solve the original problem, the hitch is they can create new problems.


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#23 m kenny

m kenny

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,465 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 09:23 PM

The UK said they would ensure the survival of a land called Poland. After WW2 Russia took back the land Poland took from them between the wars and Poland was compensated by a large chunk of Germany. Given the circumstances Poland  got a good deal.


  • Tamino likes this

#24 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 31 March 2016 - 11:01 PM

How can one betray a country that oppressed 40% of her own population and attacked a neighbour country - Czechoslovakia. For Churchill, the worth of Poland was just to instigate a conflict with both Russians and Germans, nothing else.


flag_eu.png


#25 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,204 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 06:45 AM

IMO the "betrayal" did happen, but it was more a matter if priorities and timing,  if the western allies had pushed Stalin for renouncing the Ribbentrop Molotov pact borders in 1941 they probably would have gotten it,  by 1945 it was too late and Churchill  had a very weak hand to play,

Stalin was on his home ground at Yalta (recent events on who Crimea belongs to notwithstanding), the Allies had committed to "unconditional surrender" and that tied their hands, if they wanted the Red Army to do the bloody work of taking Berlin, and nothing short of that would bring unconditional surender, they had to go along with "Uncle Joe".  I believe the battle cost the soviets as many casualties as the whole WW2 US losses, western troops would do better (less likely the Germans would fight to the death ad more manpower conserving tactics) but not by much,  


Truth is the first victim of conflict




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users