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

#51 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 08:25 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.

 

I guess the Poles learned the lessons well from the Austrians, Prussians, and Russians.

 

Partioning. It's good for you and it's good for your (new) neighbour(s).



#52 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

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

Posted 04 April 2016 - 08:52 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.

The war was too much for GB to fend the USSR off from Poland.
France fell, Poland fell, if GB would have fallen, that'd have been all the signers of the treaty gone... but GB lived up to freeing France, but sort of was powerless to let Poland remain sure, GB did 'de-Nazi' Poland, but USSR invaded.
It's like... If Hitler would have invaded GB then Poland and France would have declared war.

Edited by Ben Dover, 04 April 2016 - 08:59 PM.


#53 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,590 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 08:57 PM

How big was the British Army, August 31st, 1939? 


"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

#54 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

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

Posted 04 April 2016 - 09:02 PM

How big was the British Army, August 31st, 1939?

You count the empire Yeah? No?
Well, GB being in the war meant other armies came to GB's aid too.
Mother Britain and all.

Edited by Ben Dover, 04 April 2016 - 09:03 PM.


#55 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,590 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 09:42 PM

Numbers is nice. 


"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

#56 Brian Smith

Brian Smith

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 04 April 2016 - 09:58 PM

From a quick google, I am sure different sources will have different numbers but gives some idea of how depleted the army became between the wars. 

 

In 1939 the regular British Army had a strength of 227,000 men, inclusive of British troops in India and Burma, and was organised in:

 

  • 2 regiments of the Household Cavalry
  • 20 regiments of cavalry of the line
  • 5 regiments of foot guards
  • 64 regiments of infantry of the line
  • the Royal Artillery
  • the Royal Tank Regiment
  • auxiliary units and services.

This force was supported by the Territorial Army which had a strength of 204,000 officers and men organised in a field force of nine infantry divisions, one mobile division, two cavalry brigades, and an anti-aircraft corps of five divisions. During 1939, there was a massive increase in the size of the Territorial Army as it was put on a war footing and by August it numbered 428,000 men.
The need to protect the large Empire meant that large garrisons had also to be maintained by these troops.


  • OpanaPointer and Ben Dover like this

#57 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

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

Posted 04 April 2016 - 10:15 PM

Numbers is nice.

Well, now you can thank Brian Smith for doing your googling for you.

IDK the numbers, I'm sure if you wanted to know that data so bad, for whatever point, then you'd have probably found that out yourself.

Also, countries far and wide sent their troops, under the empire, because of GB's involvement.
I don't know if they had a choice or a vote/say on the matter??

Edited by Ben Dover, 04 April 2016 - 10:17 PM.


#58 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,590 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 10:26 PM

The numbers were to contrast with the Heer. And you have a way to go with being rude, you're not very good at it yet. 


"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

#59 steverodgers801

steverodgers801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:54 AM

Is response to the western ally agreement to accept that Poland could only be freed by war, Stalin withdrew from Austria and ordered the Greek communist party to give up the power they had won in the Greek civil war.  Roosevelt and Truman had to still deal with Japan and they believed they needed Soviet help so they were not going to press the issue over Poland.



#60 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,590 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 04:03 AM

Is response to the western ally agreement to accept that Poland could only be freed by war, Stalin withdrew from Austria and ordered the Greek communist party to give up the power they had won in the Greek civil war.  Roosevelt and Truman had to still deal with Japan and they believed they needed Soviet help so they were not going to press the issue over Poland.

With the largest land army on the planet spread out over eastern Europe there was little they could have done anyway. Truman wrote to Bess that he'd achieved his one goal at Potsdam, getting the Great Stalin to confirm he would enter the Pacific war. 


"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

#61 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:23 AM

Well, now you can thank Brian Smith for doing your googling for you.

IDK the numbers, I'm sure if you wanted to know that data so bad, for whatever point, then you'd have probably found that out yourself.

Also, countries far and wide sent their troops, under the empire, because of GB's involvement.
I don't know if they had a choice or a vote/say on the matter??

 

Wow you make a snide comment about someone doing googling for someone else then come up with that last line?  If they were other countries (as oppose to colonies) they certainly had a choice.  I seam to recall that Canada for instance took several days to declare war on Germany.  Even in the colonies like India recruitment was voluntary I believe.
 



#62 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

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

Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:56 AM

Wow you make a snide comment about someone doing googling for someone else then come up with that last line?  If they were other countries (as oppose to colonies) they certainly had a choice.  I seam to recall that Canada for instance took several days to declare war on Germany.  Even in the colonies like India recruitment was voluntary I believe.
 

My grandmother who I live with was adopted and raised by her mother's brother who was born in London, and moved to Canada as a boy and came back to London with the Canadians to fight for Canada in the war (WWI)... The Canadians came to London, full Mountie uniform and everything back then, and went over to France to fight (like everyone else) - but still, basically my grandmother's dad 'Grandad Wright' - Wright also being her mother's maiden name.

He stayed in London however, and because he lived outside of Canada, never saw his war pension.

I guess WWII was different, and not like WWI. WWII it seems, Canada decided to go to war, not GB deciding that for Canada.

.. Either way, Canada were there in WWII... I think everybody but India and Ireland were there in WWII.

Even Palestine did its bit under British rule and created Israel (probably amongst doing other things); I remember -

Israel was made by Britain out of Palestine and recognised by the United States thus making Israel official.


Edited by Ben Dover, 05 April 2016 - 01:05 PM.


#63 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:10 PM

Well Northern Ireland was part of Great Britain and still is so they were there.  The Republic of Ireland was not only not part of Great Britain it wasn't even part of the Commonwealth.  On the other  hand a lot of Irish joined the British army during WWII.  There was a series of articles not too long ago (a year or so I think) about Irish who had deserted from the Irish Army to join the British one during WWII.  As for India there were multiple divisions of Indian troops in British service during WWII and India was still a colony at the time.

 

Palestine on the other hand was a protectorate.  There were some who volunteered from their to serve in the British forces but there were also some who served the Axis powers (a very few, relatively speaking, Indians did the same).



#64 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,590 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:51 PM

 

 

Palestine on the other hand was a protectorate.  There were some who volunteered from their to serve in the British forces but there were also some who served the Axis powers (a very few, relatively speaking, Indians did the same).

Guenther Rothenberg, my lead prof. at Purdue, had left Germany with his family in 1937 and arrived in Palestine in time to join the Jewish Brigade of the British Army. He went on to fight in North Africa and Italy. After the war he went to school and eventually became a professor at Sandhurst, where one of his student was John Keegan. 


"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

#65 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,590 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:52 PM

A Palestinian who joined the Axis was the Mufti of Jerusalem. He spent most of the war in Berlin IIRC. 


"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

#66 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 05 April 2016 - 05:20 PM

A Palestinian who joined the Axis was the Mufti of Jerusalem. He spent most of the war in Berlin IIRC.

Indeed OP, he was great mufti of Jerusalem, an uncle of Yasser Arafat, an ideological father of the present day Islamist militant extremists, or in plain English - terrorists from the Middle east.

 

Recently, we have talked about the Mufti of Jerusalem HERE.


Edited by Tamino, 05 April 2016 - 05:29 PM.

flag_eu.png


#67 Coder

Coder

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 06:30 PM

Well Northern Ireland was part of Great Britain and still is so they were there.  The Republic of Ireland was not only not part of Great Britain it wasn't even part of the Commonwealth.

 

The Republic of Ireland did not exist at the time of WW2. The so-called southern part of Ireland, which became a sovereign independent state in 1922, took the name Irish Free State, and was a member of the Commonwealth. It retained that status until 1947, when it declared itself a Republic, and left the Commonwealth.

 

In 1939 the Irish Free State declared neutrality in WW2. It also declared neutrality in the Cold War, and has never joined NATO.



#68 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 April 2016 - 06:44 PM

Thanks for the correction.  I have read that some in Ireland considred fighting both ways if the British and Germans invaded although that may have been more political posturing than anything.  Hadn't realized that Ireland was in the Commonwealth at that point.  That may explain the ease with which my Uncles officers club procured their supply though.  I thought the border would have been tighter than it probably was.



#69 toki2

toki2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 499 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 09:23 PM

It was decided that British citizens of Northern Ireland would not be conscripted as it would cause an unwanted complication by those who still strived for a united Ireland. Many volunteered, both Republicans and Loyalists.

#70 Ben Dover

Ben Dover

    Senior Member

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

Posted 06 April 2016 - 03:12 AM



#71 Coder

Coder

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 07:49 AM

 

Since, as I have already pointed out, the Republic Ireland did not exist at the time of WW2, this document, whatever it is, is clearly not worth the material of which it is made.



#72 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 09:48 AM

Since, as I have already pointed out, the Republic Ireland did not exist at the time of WW2, this document, whatever it is, is clearly not worth the material of which it is made.

 

That the Irish state, whether it be called "Free" or "Republic", mistreated those Irishmen that fought in World War 2, long afterwards, and that is despicable.

 

As it became the Republic, it inherited the obligations and treaties of it's predecessor.

 

It's not a few men here. An estimated 60,000 left the Free State to fight against Nazism. Coming back home to find themselves ostracized, and discriminated against, barred from public service, was life-shattering for most.

 

The republic continued with the shameful discrimination. Therefore the "document's"  title is still clearly valid.



#73 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 06 April 2016 - 10:48 AM

There were as I mentioned previously a significant number who deserted from the Irish Military to join the British military.  I can see a government not being enthused about that.  I don't remember reading about any significant number of them being harshly punished for by the Irish government for said desertion.



#74 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 11:40 AM

There were as I mentioned previously a significant number who deserted from the Irish Military to join the British military.  I can see a government not being enthused about that.  I don't remember reading about any significant number of them being harshly punished for by the Irish government for said desertion.

 

That would depend on your interpretation of "harsh".

 

Being unable to get a job, being blacklisted, and ostracized is IMO, pretty harsh. The "Starvation Order". Many of these people (and their families with them) suffered for the rest of their lives. For the crime of fighting Nazism. Those that deserted to enter a criminal career were not on the Blacklist...

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16287211

 

http://www.telegraph...ight-Nazis.html



#75 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 06 April 2016 - 11:51 AM

Considering the penalties that can be assessed for desertion in most countries they weren't all that harsh.  However I find the ongoing blacklisting and social reprisals rather repugnant.  My impression is that the ostracization wasn't by government edict and is more a comment on the short sightedness of the individuals doing it.  I think both were regrettable but at least the initial official reaction was in some ways understandable.  Were said sanctions also taken against Irish citizens who didn't desert from the Irish army to join the British one? 

 

Somewhat related, I have read that members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were blacklisted but I'm not sure what all that entailed other than they didn't have an easy time getting into the US military in WW2.


Edited by lwd, 06 April 2016 - 11:53 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users