Poland FDR article - interesting details

With Poland's membership in NATO at issue, a question has arisen as to whether America owes a debt to the Polish people for Franklin D. Roosevelt's having "betrayed" the Polish nation to Joseph Stalin at Yalta.
Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat has lately raised the issue of a moral debt to Poland for the 1945 summit where FDR accepted Stalin's assurances of free elections. Eizenstat was taken to task by columnist Lars-Erik Nelson for repeating a "50-year-old right-wing slander." Robert Novak defended the "betrayed" thesis.

Nelson's point: By 1945 Stalin had 12 million troops in Eastern Europe, and Dwight Eisenhower only 4 million in the West. Conservatives who condemn FDR for Poland's fate, says Nelson, are joining the "Blame America First" crowd. We couldn't save Poland!

But, in truth, Yalta was only the final betrayal of Poland, and not only FDR but Winston Churchill bears moral responsibility for a half-century of communist enslavement of the Polish people.

The first betrayal came with the British guarantee to Poland, after Neville Chamberlain was exposed as a dupe when Adolf Hitler tore up his Munich pact and marched into Prague. As Hitler pressed Poland for the return of Danzig, stripped from Germany after World War I, and demanded rail and road transit to the city across a "Polish Corridor" also taken from Germany, Warsaw, encouraged by British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, refused even to negotiate. The Poles were assured that if war came, Britain would be at their side.

But when Hitler invaded Poland from the west and Stalin invaded from the east, Britain declared war on Germany alone. Then, the British sat behind the Maginot Line while Poland was crucified. The British had goaded the Poles into standing up to Hitler though they had no plans to save or rescue Poland. Six million Poles would die as a result of having trusted in a British alliance.

The second betrayal occurred at Teheran in 1943, when FDR moved into the Soviet embassy compound and assured Stalin he would not object to his keeping the half of Poland and the Baltic states Hitler had ceded to Stalin in their infamous pact. As Robert Nisbet wrote in "Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship," FDR asked only that word of his concession not leak out before the 1944 elections, so Polish Americans would not react in rage. FDR told one visitor to Hyde Park he was "sick and tired" of East Europeans and their constant clamoring about boundaries and sovereignties.

The third betrayal occurred in the summer of '44. The Polish Home Army in German-occupied Warsaw, heeding appeals from Radio Moscow, rose up against the Nazis. As the Home Army was loyal to the free Polish government in London, which was demanding an investigation of Stalin's murder of Polish officers at Katyn, Stalin halted his own Red Army outside Warsaw to give the Nazis a free hand in crushing the Polish uprising.

British and Americans sought to aid the Poles with air drops of food and munitions. But Stalin refused to let the allies use air fields behind his lines to refuel for the return flight to England. Churchill drafted a strong letter to Stalin, asking that the allies be allowed to use the air fields assigned them, but to appease Stalin, FDR cravenly refused to sign the letter. The Home Army was butchered.

By February 1945, Poland had been overrun by a Red Army that could not be dislodged short of a new war. Yalta, writes Nisbet, "is not the source of the Soviet possessions in Eastern Europe ... Teheran is. But Yalta performed a service that was almost as important to Stalin. ... This was the invaluable service of giving moral legitimation to what Stalin had acquired by sheer force."

Britain had gone to war and lost 400,000 men and an empire for Poland's independence. Yet, as Poland receded into the darkness, not once did Churchill vent upon Stalin the oratory he used so often on Hitler. The rape of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was the moral cause that precipitated the war. Yet, Churchill and FDR, to appease Stalin, meekly acquiesced in the betrayal of that moral cause.

"Of one thing I am sure," FDR said at Yalta, "Stalin is not an imperialist." How explain his naivete about Stalin, to whom he gave everything, including a third of the Italian fleet and recognition of his puppet government in Poland? "Puerility," writes George F. Kennan. FDR once told his friend, ambassador William Bullitt: "I think if I give him (Stalin) everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy."

And thus was Poland betrayed.

 

Does this suggest that Poland should have negotiated with Hitler? After Munich and the destruction of Czechoslovakia? Yeah…

This is simply idiotic. Six million Poles died because its far stronger and megalomaniac-racist neighbour invaded her. Poland has no chance to stand against Germany in a prolonged war, with or without Allied help, because her industry was damned too limited. And supplying through the Mediterranean, Black Sea and then Romania was just to complicated to be effective.

What could the British do with their 10 ill-equipped divisions? There's no doubt that France should have immediately attacked the Rhineland to force a two-front war on Germany and disrupt her war effort in the long term, not to save Poland, to save herself and the rest of Europe. Then, why should Poland be saved from Germany and the USSR? Poland was a fascist, militarist and expansionist state which didn't hesitate to opress individual liberties, the national sport were the pogroms and also took advantage of weak and defeated neighbours —Czechoslovakia in 1939 being the best example.

As to the USSR, Russo-Polish conflict was centuries old and WWII was only another chapter. Stalin took his revenge on the humilliating defeats of 1920s.

Again, what reason did France and Great Britain have for declaring war on the USSR as well besides a warranty to Poland? Their interest or seccurity were simply not in conflict and geography made it extremely difficult to fight the Soviet Union.

The Red Army was not stopped or I'd like to see a source stating this. The Red Army constantly attacked on the Vistula and Warsaw sector, but it was not strong enough to pierce the German defences (stated by Glantz).

No, she did NOT. She went to war because France's security was threatened, therefore her own was threatened as well. Great Britain followed up her same foreign policy of 400 years: not to allow any European nation to dominate the continent. Then, with the war in Africa and U-boat campaign, her empire was a stake as well.

Roosevelt and Churchill knew very well that WWII was to be decided in the east, and therefore 80% of the credit goes to Stalin. At Teheran, the Allies had just landed in Sicily and were very far from seriously harming Germany, while at the eastern front, the German armies had lost all initiative and hope of victory.

At Yalta, the Red Army had destroyed 2/3 of the German Armed forces and was already at the gates of Vienna, Budapest and Berlin. And the Red Army had earned that. FDR and WSC were in no position to tell Stalin anything because they owed him VICTORY.

 

Seems to me that Poland could share in the blame for its misfortune for not being prepared for defending itself. If a small country like Finland can fight two wars against Russia and fight Germany toward the end of the war and do extremely well, then why can't Poland ? Also why do they not lay any blame at Russia's door ? The US has no responsibility for invading Poland, Russia and Germany are the agressors. Sounds like a lame argument to me.

 

Agreed Poland had a raw deal. Ironic that by not taking a stronger position against Stalin on Poland - the US and British solidified a deal set several years earlier ... the 1939 non-aggression pact Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact - only now the Soviet's got the whole thing. The US was not in a position to dictate anything to Stalin. The British were spent, as well. But I wouldn't suggest that they "owed" victory to the Soviets and I don't believe that FDR was naive about Stalin, albeit he was an optimist about Stalin's intentions. He was definitely cognizant of the political and military realities. Could FDR garner political support for a conflict over Poland against the Soviets? Probably not.

 

France did launch a very belated and limited offensive as suggested. They were unwilling to take all but the most limited casualities in doing this and, ran into the new (and secret) German S-mine (which the French refered to as "silent soldier") and a fair amount of defensive opposition. The French simply then stopped attacking.

 

I thought this might stir things up. As for the French,They like the British felt that the advantage lay with the defenders. WW1 thinking. That does sometimes work, but as we know didn't work in 1940 in this arena. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

 

chromeboomerang, this article is fully biased, ignorant and dull.

Now it would of course have helped if they had declared war on Russia, too...

Six million Poles died because two mighty and greedy neighbours invaded the country and there was no help against it. It was, so to say, Poland's fate. What do you blame England for?

 

Exactly. Did Great Britain and France gathered 3,5 people in crowded and unhealthy getthoes, starved them, shot them and then systematically annihilated them in industrialised killing centres? Did they enslaved and mass murdered the remaining 2,5 millions just because they were inferior Slavs?

 

On the British and French attitude one could say that they could have made a MUCH better effort in May-August 1939 negotiations with Stalin. By sending people that were not considered enough high-ranking who also did not have anything to offer really or power to make any decisions gave Germans the chance they needed. That I would call a total *******. And Hitler did not miss his chance.

Stalin was first-hand in negotiations with the military ambassadors of France and England but they messed it up totally.

I think the deal between USSR and France and England should have been considered first class importance but no...



I do think France and England have alot to answer on this one, really....

 

Does this suggest that Poland should have negotiated with Hitler? After Munich and the destruction of Czechoslovakia? Yeah…

This is simply idiotic. Six million Poles died because its far stronger and megalomaniac-racist neighbour invaded her. Poland has no chance to stand against Germany in a prolonged war, with or without Allied help, because her industry was damned too limited. And supplying through the Mediterranean, Black Sea and then Romania was just to complicated to be effective.

What could the British do with their 10 ill-equipped divisions? There's no doubt that France should have immediately attacked the Rhineland to force a two-front war on Germany and disrupt her war effort in the long term, not to save Poland, to save herself and the rest of Europe. Then, why should Poland be saved from Germany and the USSR? Poland was a fascist, militarist and expansionist state which didn't hesitate to opress individual liberties, the national sport were the pogroms and also took advantage of weak and defeated neighbours —Czechoslovakia in 1939 being the best example.

As to the USSR, Russo-Polish conflict was centuries old and WWII was only another chapter. Stalin took his revenge on the humilliating defeats of 1920s.

Again, what reason did France and Great Britain have for declaring war on the USSR as well besides a warranty to Poland? Their interest or seccurity were simply not in conflict and geography made it extremely difficult to fight the Soviet Union.

The Red Army was not stopped or I'd like to see a source stating this. The Red Army constantly attacked on the Vistula and Warsaw sector, but it was not strong enough to pierce the German defences (stated by Glantz).

No, she did NOT. She went to war because France's security was threatened, therefore her own was threatened as well. Great Britain followed up her same foreign policy of 400 years: not to allow any European nation to dominate the continent. Then, with the war in Africa and U-boat campaign, her empire was a stake as well.

Roosevelt and Churchill knew very well that WWII was to be decided in the east, and therefore 80% of the credit goes to Stalin. At Teheran, the Allies had just landed in Sicily and were very far from seriously harming Germany, while at the eastern front, the German armies had lost all initiative and hope of victory.

At Yalta, the Red Army had destroyed 2/3 of the German Armed forces and was already at the gates of Vienna, Budapest and Berlin. And the Red Army had earned that. FDR and WSC were in no position to tell Stalin anything because they owed him VICTORY. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Ralf,

Welcome aboard. Its good to have a Polish view. As with other Poles I have spoken to, they defend the actions of Great Britain. The Polish formations are a very important, yet often forgotten part of the war.

I visit Mont Ormel every year, where the Poles formed the 'cork' in the Falaise 'bottle'...

Regards

RED

 

Stalin is dead but his propaganda is still alive.
I liked this exspecially:Then, why should Poland be saved from Germany and the USSR? Poland was a fascist, militarist and expansionist state which didn't hesitate to opress individual liberties, the national sport were the pogroms and also took advantage of weak and defeated neighbours —Czechoslovakia in 1939 being the best example.
That means Poland deserved its fate?
It is not about political corectness (which tolerates lies sometimes), but nothing you said is true. Poland was maybe autoritarian state but never fascist.Poland was neither militarist or expansionist country because it simply couldn't afford to be such after 120 years of non existance.Opressing individual liberties happened not more often than in other normal countries in Europe. Oh yes, communnist were opressed more than others.Is that surprising? Frequent pogroms that's historical fiction.Poland wasn't better than others but it wasn't worse either.Invading Czechoslovakia was a reply to 1919 invasion on Polish territory (quite bloody).Poland took back what it lost unlawfully.The moment of doing that was ugly,Poland was quickly learnig REALPOLITIK.As time showed not quikly enough.

 

Hey, I never said nothing!

 

Sorry, I was so shocked.

 

Of course she didn't. But she didn't do much to prevent or post-pone the inevitable.

A right-wing autoritarian régime is a fascist régime. In a lower grade, if you want, but still. Pilsudski was like Hórthy, Mussolini, Franco or Perón.

Wasn't she? Fighting Trotski's Red Army in the middle of the Russian Civil War to gain territory at the expense of White Russia and the Ukraine? Taking parts of the destroyed Czechoslovakia in spring 1939 without hesitation, even if the Poles knew that they were the next in line and that Czechoslovakia could have been their only ally?

It's no justification.

Fiction? So was Auschwitz, I suppose.

Do you want me to list every progrom in independent Poland and how many

 

Of course she didn't. But she didn't do much to prevent or post-pone the inevitable.

A right-wing autoritarian régime is a fascist régime. In a lower grade, if you want, but still. Pilsudski was like Hórthy, Mussolini, Franco or Perón.

Wasn't she? Fighting Trotski's Red Army in the middle of the Russian Civil War to gain territory at the expense of White Russia and the Ukraine? Taking parts of the destroyed Czechoslovakia in spring 1939 without hesitation, even if the Poles knew that they were the next in line and that Czechoslovakia could have been their only ally?

It's no justification.

Fiction? So was Auschwitz, I suppose.

Do you want me to list every progrom in independent Poland and how many Jews were killed in each one?, because I can.

Hundreds of Jews just liberated from concentration camps were assassinated by Polish crowds in 1945 and 1946, just after liberation. Or is the Red Army to be blamed for?

And don't take me wrong. I respect the Polish people very much as well as the brave Polish veterans who fought the damned nazis all over Europe. Actually, one of the persons I admire the most of today's world is Károl Wojtyla. But I like to be cold and put things in proper perspective before anything else.

And one of the things I most admire of the Polish people is that they endured 6 years of Hell, a thousand times more than what any opressed people in History has suffered. And they came out of it standing with pride. But it happened that way because a lot of factors.

 

All right, now I know more about your genuine intentions, which were not clear in your first post, do you agree? But still I can't accept everything you write. The scope of this topic is terrifyingly wide. Honestly,I am afraid it is beyond my and your knowledge.For my each argument you can draw your one and so on... till every one on this forum dies of boredom.
So shortly:
"A right-wing autoritarian régime is a fascist régime. In a lower grade, if you want, but still. Pilsudski was like Hórthy, Mussolini, Franco or Perón".

Piłsudski died in 1935.He was neither president nor prime minister,he wasn't in charge of the army
Besides he was well known friend of Jews.For Poles he was a living legend, moral authority-it has partially remained untill today.

"Fighting Trotski's Red Army in the middle of the Russian Civil War to gain territory at the expense of White Russia and the Ukraine? Taking parts of the destroyed Czechoslovakia in spring 1939 without hesitation, even if the Poles knew that they were the next in line and that Czechoslovakia could have been their only ally?"

The main object of Lenin and Trotsky policy was to export revolution to Germany and further to the whole Europe through Poland.Poland desperately wanted to prevent it, we knew it would be the end of our young indepedence.Poland didn't want war because it was not prepared to it.Sometimes preventive war is the only choice.We formed coalition with Ukrainian leader Semen Petlura.The Red Army was a lethal danger for Poland and Europe.Heroic effort,patriotism and miracle saved us. Otherwise this forum woul'd be in Russian.With no reason Czeks were blocking arms supplies sent to Poland from France and Britain through Czechoslovakia in the critical moment of the war.Could they be our reliable ally in the future?

"Taking parts of the destroyed Czechoslovakia in spring 1939 without hesitation"
As I answered before Poland took all that belonged to her and was taken by force in 1919 when Poland was weak enough to be attacked.30 thousend soldiers of regular army fought against 2thousend of militiamen (usually accidental people).Of course the moment of action was the worst of possible ones.It was cynical.
I really like Czechs as a nation, in many areas we can learn from them.But that's different story.

"Hundreds of Jews just liberated from concentration camps were assassinated by Polish crowds in 1945 and 1946, just after liberation. Or is the Red Army to be blamed for?"
Partially.Remember that many "pogroms" were arranged and provoked by UB (infamous polish communist secret service).Certain facts appear today after many years (f.e.Kielce 1946).Certainly that's an easy explanation.
You must remember that Jews were perceived as traitors for collaboration with Soviets after the invasion of the 17th of November 1939.Communist authority during and after the war was introduced generally by polish Jews (who fled to Russia during the war).
I am just reading excellent book on this issue.
What else? Surely there were also mother f....s who killed for sadistic pleasure, money bacause of religious predujice.Tensions between Jews and Poles had lasted for hundreds of years.80 percent of the whole Jewish population lived in Poland in XVIII century. They didn't escape from here, maybe they were all in all quite happy here in the past.
cheers