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

#26 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,468 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 10:52 AM

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.

Taking the rump Czech area was in the national interest of Poland. If they didn't take it someone else would, i.e. Germany, putting the Heer on the western AND southern flanks of Poland. Think of it as the Donner Party Solution. 


"One of our King Tigers could take five of your Shermans, but you always had six of them."


WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

#27 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 01 April 2016 - 11:03 AM

Taking the rump Czech area was in the national interest of Poland. If they didn't take it someone else would, i.e. Germany, putting the Heer on the western AND southern flanks of Poland. Think of it as the Donner Party Solution. 

Of course Britain and France would back anything to give a Germany a problem... But why would they do that treaty? If Britain and France were so reluctant to go to war with Germany?

 

The then Prime Minister Anthony Eden wanted appeasement before Churchill took over as War Time Prime Minister..



#28 Owen

Owen

    O

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 11:26 AM

 

 

The then Prime Minister Anthony Eden wanted appeasement before Churchill took over as War Time Prime Minister..

 

Eden ???

he was PM in the 50s.

 

You mean Chamberlain


  • bronk7 likes this

#29 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 01 April 2016 - 11:30 AM

Eden ???

he was PM in the 50s.

 

You mean Chamberlain

... D'oh!

 

 

Yeah, that guy. Chamberlain.



#30 bronk7

bronk7

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,009 posts
  • LocationMIDWEST

Posted 01 April 2016 - 11:55 AM

Eden ???

he was PM in the 50s.

 

You mean Chamberlain

kind of like me ..I'm always thinking 70s, 80s when it's the 2000s



#31 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,468 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 11:57 AM

Of course Britain and France would back anything to give a Germany a problem... But why would they do that treaty? If Britain and France were so reluctant to go to war with Germany?

 

The then Prime Minister Anthony Eden wanted appeasement before Churchill took over as War Time Prime Minister..

Hoped for deterrence. Too little, too late, but that's how it went. 


"One of our King Tigers could take five of your Shermans, but you always had six of them."


WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

#32 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 01 April 2016 - 01:12 PM

kind of like me ..I'm always thinking 70s, 80s when it's the 2000s

In regards to my mess up with history there;There be dragons then okay; IDK... - Sorry. Though I probably should have known it was Chamberlain.


Edited by Ben Dover, 01 April 2016 - 01:15 PM.


#33 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:28 PM

 

 

The then Prime Minister Anthony Eden wanted appeasement before Churchill took over as War Time Prime Minister..

This is not correct   appeasement ended on 3 september 1939,and on that day Chamberlain was PM,not Churchill . Besides, Churchill was initially not opposed to appeasement .Neither was Eden in 1936.



#34 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 01 April 2016 - 03:01 PM

This is not correct   appeasement ended on 3 september 1939,and on that day Chamberlain was PM,not Churchill . Besides, Churchill was initially not opposed to appeasement .Neither was Eden in 1936.

Chamberlain** Not Eden (idk what Eden was up to during WWII so, you might be right. But I meant Chamberlain.

https://en.wikipedia...declaration.ogg

 

 

Or


Edited by Ben Dover, 01 April 2016 - 03:02 PM.


#35 m kenny

m kenny

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 06:22 PM

Eden in Normandy

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=OqhF9_3VZEg



#36 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 01 April 2016 - 07:36 PM

Really, was Poland betrayed or Poland has betrayed both her minorities and the League of Nations? To answer that question we should study history of Poland in 20th century as entirety, not just carefully selected episodes of temporary setbacks. 
Article 93 of the Treaty of Versailles stated that: "Poland accepts... provisions... to protect the interests of inhabitants of Poland who differ from the majority of the population in race, language, or religion". It is a notorious truth that Poland has treated her minorities meryclessly. Then, later, at Postdam Poles were handed over new territories, large parts of Germany with free hands to perform a ruthless, unprecedented ethnic cleansing - never seen before regarding both the size of expulsions as well as lack of compassion for former compatriots of different origin, language and religion. Poles are in fact the largest profiteers of two world wars. Poland has emerged as a pure national state as a result of destruction of many minorities. 
 
Before the butchery has started, there were just 60% citizens of Poland of polish ethnicity. Really, who was betrayed and where these missing minorities are now? 

Edited by Tamino, 01 April 2016 - 07:39 PM.

flag_eu.png


#37 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,767 posts

Posted 02 April 2016 - 01:21 AM

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.

 

Seriously? Just incredible. In need of a good slap?

 

How on Earth was Churchill conspiring this, when he had no minister role until after war was declared, then he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, and joined Chamberlain's small War Cabinet? 


  • Tamino likes this

#38 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 02 April 2016 - 06:32 AM

Seriously? Just incredible. In need of a good slap?

 

How on Earth was Churchill conspiring this, when he had no minister role until after war was declared, then he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, and joined Chamberlain's small War Cabinet? 

No need to slap, quite the contrary. There is nothing wrong in instigating a conflict among your enemies. And by the way, I consider Churchill the greatest leader of the second world war. We owe him and Britons a great deal for saving us from the Nazi vermin. 

 

Now, lets get back to the subject: were the Poles betrayed or were the Poles the greatest profiteers of the ww2? 


flag_eu.png


#39 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • LocationThe London borough of Croydon, GB

Posted 02 April 2016 - 02:37 PM



#40 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 04 April 2016 - 11:51 AM

.... 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.

??? If Poland had been independent perhaps but that was hardly the case was it?


Edited by lwd, 04 April 2016 - 11:51 AM.


#41 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 04 April 2016 - 02:39 PM

@lwd
When Poland really was independent? And take a look, please, at ethnic map of east Europe of 1900-1920 and compare it to inter- and post-war Poland. Perhaps you would realize then what they did silently behind the widely spread myth of 'poor Poles' that have been 'overrun twice'.
EDIT: You don't have to search, just look below. M Kenny is right, without any further questions about abstract categories such as 'independence'.

http://www.mapywig.o...l_Europe_4M.jpg

Edited by Tamino, 04 April 2016 - 02:56 PM.

flag_eu.png


#42 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,767 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 03:27 PM

@lwd
When Poland really was independent? And take a look, please, at ethnic map of east Europe of 1900-1920 and compare it to inter- and post-war Poland. Perhaps you would realize then what they did silently behind the widely spread myth of 'poor Poles' that have been 'overrun twice'.
EDIT: You don't have to search, just look below. M Kenny is right, without any further questions about abstract categories such as 'independence'.

http://www.mapywig.o...l_Europe_4M.jpg

 

What does the map have to do with the price of cheese?

 

Are you trying to say Hitler was vindicated for attacking Poland, due to the German minorities living there? What about further back in history?

 

pol-part.gif

 

Its not like the Polish state of 1772 was begging to be partitioned. 

 

In the First Partition, Poland lost somewhere in the realm of four to five million citizens (of ca 14 million).

 

I guess the Poles learnt how to treat minorities from the Germans and Russians, after all... 



#43 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 04 April 2016 - 03:35 PM

@GS

 

Are you suggesting that the world belongs to amoebas because they were the first moving creatures populating the Earth.

 

Be serious, please, I know you can.

 

Poles have doubled their Lebensraum over the past century at expense of Germany. That is a simple fact, whether you introduce ideology in this consideration or not. Numbers do not lie.


Edited by Tamino, 04 April 2016 - 03:36 PM.

flag_eu.png


#44 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,767 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 04:13 PM

@GS

 

Are you suggesting that the world belongs to amoebas because they were the first moving creatures populating the Earth.

 

Be serious, please, I know you can.

 

Poles have doubled their Lebensraum over the past century at expense of Germany. That is a simple fact, whether you introduce ideology in this consideration or not. Numbers do not lie.

 

Come now, I know you at least like to pretend you are serious. 

 

Because of your arbitrary cutoff date, which suites your agenda to a "t".... Or should we list Russian "misdemeanors" in any century, up to and including, the present one?The "Germans" have a less tardy history prior to the twentieth century, mostly because for the lengthiest part they didn't have one; but they sure made up for that with vigour.

 

It was basically only in Austrian occupied Poland, that Polish culture was allowed to thrive in any real form. Polish language was oppressed both in Prussia/Germany, and Imperial Russia. Therefore, it is hardly surprising the consequence; your "map" of ethnicity has fewer "Poles" in those regions. Prior to the partitioning, those regions were Polish, (or Polish-Lithuanian) for an exceedingly long time. 


Edited by green slime, 04 April 2016 - 04:28 PM.


#45 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 04 April 2016 - 06:21 PM

Taking the rump Czech area was in the national interest of Poland. If they didn't take it someone else would, i.e. Germany, putting the Heer on the western AND southern flanks of Poland. Think of it as the Donner Party Solution. 

Similar statements could be used to depict Italian attack on France, but that was qualified as a "a hand that held the dagger has struck it into the back of its neighbor". I prefer using just one yardstick. Essentially, what Poles did to Czechoslovakia belongs to the level of beating a man lying on the floor after receiving a knockout blow.


Edited by Tamino, 04 April 2016 - 06:43 PM.

flag_eu.png


#46 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 04 April 2016 - 06:28 PM

@Grren Slime

The map I have shown points to the real roots of World War 2: Versailles was an utter injustice whilst Potsdam was atrocity committed against German nation.  


Edited by Tamino, 04 April 2016 - 06:48 PM.

flag_eu.png


#47 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,468 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 07:08 PM

Similar statements could be used to depict Italian attack on France, but that was qualified as a "a hand that held the dagger has struck it into the back of its neighbor". I prefer using just one yardstick. Essentially, what Poles did to Czechoslovakia belongs to the level of beating a man lying on the floor after receiving a knockout blow.

Mussolini said he needed 5,000 dead Italians to have a place at the peace talks. I don't think the equivalence you hope for is actually there. 


"One of our King Tigers could take five of your Shermans, but you always had six of them."


WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

#48 Brian Smith

Brian Smith

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • LocationBridlington East Riding Yorkshire England

Posted 04 April 2016 - 07:15 PM

Mussolini said he needed 5,000 dead Italians to have a place at the peace talks. I don't think the equivalence you hope for is actually there. 

Well he got them, and still did not get a place in the peace talks. However not sure what that has to do with Churchill and Poland. If Poland was betrayed surely that was during the time it took for the rest of the world to realize the need for action.



#49 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 04 April 2016 - 07:25 PM

@OP
Of course there are always differences, but these details do not justify Polish aggression on Czechoslovakia. What Poles did was betrayal of a neighbor, despite attempts to embelish an uggly past.

flag_eu.png


#50 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,767 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 08:23 PM

@Grren Slime

The map I have shown points to the real roots of World War 2: Versailles was an utter injustice whilst Potsdam was atrocity committed against German nation.  

 

Which in turn had its roots in other utter injustices and atrocities backwards in time. 

 

Writing the Austro-Hungrian Empire a "blank cheque" vs little Serbia to mention just one. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users