maybe after those losses and betrayals, 50 years of communizm we live now in a free, democratic, "well fed )" country.
all of this made us stronger
and in opposite to your oppinion it pisses me of when I watch US films showing americans fighting to get enigma in "U-5.."

YestI am conviced that without polish sacrifices WW2 would have a different end.
This victory was stolen from us in Jalta and Postdam.
Yes we were betrayed and sold for peaceful life of Sons of the West.
End please dont put me togheter with some anisemites because for me is a biggest insult

AMEN

and sorry but looking at the behaviour of Spain, France and specially Germany You have no right to tell any Pole that their granfather was not betrayed.
who do you represent?
Spain?-
France?-
or Germany?-

off course you could write me that you are a cosmopolitan. But you somewhere there was a place that you grew togheter with your political oppinions. and world perspective.
It must hav an impact on your life
So
Now I am not suprised with Your anti-Polish position on this forum you already proved

I will not put you to-gether with anti-semites.

But I will put you in my 'Victims of Goebbels' propaganda' list.

Because Poland contributed to VE day, but Germany would have ultimately been defeated with or without Poland. Therefore, even if very important, her contribution was not vital nor decisive.

Nor was Poland sold or betrayed, because the US and UK were not going to start WWIII for Poland's sake. And thank God they didn't.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

tell me what was the reason UK started war against Germany??

The main tradition and rule of British foreign policy during the last 500 years: not letting any European nation become dominant in the continent, because, once achieved that, outersea expansion follows, treathening British interests.

Felipe II, Louis XIV, Louis XV, Napoléon I, Wilhelm II and Hitler got a taste of it.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Ok I will help You: [img]smile.gif[/img] ))

On September 1, 1939, at 4:45 a.m., fifty-eight German army divisions invaded Poland all across the 1,250-mile frontier. Exactly one week earlier, on August 25, Britain had signed a mutual assistance treaty with Poland, warning Nazi leader Adolf Hitler that such an invasion would warrant British intervention. Despite the agreement, Hitler expected appeasement from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain--the same British leader who had given Czechoslovakia away to German conquest in 1938 with his signing of the Munich Pact.
However, Chamberlain would not allow Hitler's new desecration of Europe's borders to stand, and on September 1 he demanded that Germany withdraw from Poland.
The next day, he presented German forces an ultimatum: withdraw by 11:00 a.m. on September 3 or face war with Great Britain.
On September 3, a few minutes after the expiration of the ultimatum, Chamberlain appeared on national radio to solemnly announce that Britain was at war with Germany. Australian and New Zealand immediately followed suit.

Had it been Belgium (like in 1914), Friedrich 'der Große's Prussia (like in the XVIII Century) or Portugal (like in 1808)… Great Britain and France would have gone to war with Germany.

If Germany defeated Poland, her might would increase and the military treath on France and Great Britain would also increase.

They had to act. They did. They were right.

History doesn't work with Christian charity, but with Darwinism.

Germany was a treath for all Europe, Great Britain and France included. So, they went to war, not for Poland or Czechoslovakia, but for their own sake.

In the end, once Nazi Germany rested in ahes, it was for the WORLD's sake.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

You are both right.

As Freddy states British Foreign Policy has traditionally followed a line of not allowing a continental power become dominant. This was the underlying reason for the British declaration of war. Britain appeasement was based as much on Chambelain's, and Hore-Belisha's, realisation that the British military was un-prepared for war.

Poland being the reason for declaring war, againt this is quite true. The British public would not have stood for a decalration unless it was given a reason. The most ommon one which the British public stand for is standing up for the 'little guys'. This is the same 'reason' as WWI, the example used being the violation of Belgian neutrality. The undelying reason was not to allow German hegemony in Europe.

__________________
Thoughts on Military History
Cornish Scale Modellers
Ross' Military Modelling and Art

Of course I belive in darwinizm
but as Mahross said withot that reason The British public would not have stood against Nazis

Stanchev,

Perhaps you would be kind enough to give us the sources of these facts you have posted.

Facts are meaningless without knowing their origin.

I would be interested to know where the list of resistance claims comes from as it so precise in detail, something I find hard to believe with such operations as they would hardly have kept detailes records.

So perhaps you would share with us what books this infomation comes from? I trust its from a book as I find some web-sites to be too unreliable in content.

So as you didnt respond to my last post on the subject I kindly ask again.

Many Thanks

Piers

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

please remind me your last post
and what is the purpose of your request?
Even If I will give you the source it will be report prepared by polish Undergrond Army and send to polish exile government in London
and it wont have any value for You ( because its polish)

and please try to support your oppinions with the sources
I am very interested in those materials

but what the hell
here it is

List of confirmed sabotage-diversionary actions of
the Union of Armed Combat (ZWZ) and Home Army (AK)
from 1 January 1941 to 30 June 1944
Source: Bohdan Kwiatkowski, Sabotaż i dywersja, Bellona, London 1949, vol.1, p.21

So how do you know that the source is accurate?

Not saying that it isnt but how did they have a system that allowed the complete and systematic correlation of such data?

What methods did they have for confirming the sabotage? It just seems such a difficult area to provide such exact figures for.

And I dunno why you get so angry... Im interested in your sources as that shows the viability of your claims and shows the likelyhood of their accuracy. Although I have to say I have seen my fair share of inaccurate and inflated operational analysis documents...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

you will have the right to disqualify those source only when you check them
and again I am asking You
excpect from yourself first then from other members.
I can see that you are writing your oppinions without any backup
how can I belive ?
You did not made up those informations?

i wonder If you be pleased If those info wher sent by Gallup [img]smile.gif[/img] ))

and give me your facts
If you have any?
give me your perspective
and please stop denying and laughing at mine oppinion because you seem to just critisize mine without putting your stories instead
(its too easy)

Again !
what are your sources about Monte Cassiono captureb Monte Cassino Hill and the Abbey, Hills 593 and 569, San Angelo and Mas Albaneta ??

Give me some stories and testimonies

If this is your reason for sending replies I suggest you leave this Forums right away.

[img]graemlins/no.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

---------------

Anyways, being from a country that was in the same kind of position Poland was in WW2 and there was only 4 million of us, I cannot though understand the accusations you are making. We were attacked by Russia, we got minor if any help from the western allied, however we managed to hold on and beat the Red Army attack in 1939-1940 in the war called " the winter war". Four (!) million against 200 million and we held on. YOU think about that! In 1944 we even destroyed 600 Red Army tanks in one battle alone at Tali-Ihantala and the battle was as huge as in El-Alamein itself leading to the peace between Finland and Russia.

I definitely can understand the politics of the time and I don´t accuse that the western allied did not help us even if I´d hope they would have. I can see the reasons why and you should too. So stop whining.

If you consider that the western allied should have helped Poland then what are your thoughts on helping the Baltic coutries, and Finland? We did not get help either, remember that! Or are you ONLY thinking about Poland? I tend to think so by now.

__________________

You dont have to like my oppinions I'am not suprised.

anyway I never wrote and make an arguments about Finland and its role in the 2WW.
I think the position of Finland was very difficult at that time
same as Poland squeezed between 2 powers.
and indeed fought a brave war against USSR

so why are attacking me?

and please dont compare Polish martyrology to Finish (almost nothing)during that time
Finland simply did not need help that time
Poland was attaced from 2 sides By Germany and Soviets almost same time
the biggest genocide ever took place on polish land ( commited by the Germans)
Simply Finland did not need help as much as Poland

In september Sosabowski Parachuters were supposed to be dropped near Warsaw ( (Uprising took place)
They all were dropped in Holland ( without proper equipment)

They even did not let polish soldiers to help Polish fighters surrounded in our capital

Not a very good opinion anyway!

__________________

'....the 75mm howitzer...was the best possible gun for use with airborne troops. I asked ( the Director of Land/Air Warfare ) if he could supply my artillery battery with these guns. None had yet arrived in Britain, but he said straightaway..:

'I shall let you have the very first which arrive - I cannot refuse you'.

---

The brigade was still three hunded men short...My main worry at the time was to accustom the troops to their new battle equipment and a smaller problem was to discourage them from carrying too much gear....'

Sosabowski, 'Freely I Served' pages 128 & 138.

It's true that the 75s did not ultimately go to Arnhem due to a shortage of gliders, but the 6-pounders did go as planned. Certainly this annoyed Sosabowski, but I cannot find in his book any major complaints as to quality of equipment.

The thought of towing gliders, or trundling along in C-47s, all the way to Warsaw is totally impacticable at that stage of the war.

The Luftwaffe would most certainly have spoilt that particular party - glorious, maybe, but would it have been war ?

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

have you heard about shotage of boats for crossing the river they desperatly wanted to cross?

Yes - and I've also heard about the massive logistical problems of getting just about anything up the single road from Belgium.

It wasn't a devilish anti-Polish plot by the dastardly British.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

yes it was just incompetence