Churchill turning his back on Poland

@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.org/m/German_maps/various/Small_scale_maps_nazi/The_Peoples_and_States_of_Central_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?



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...

 

@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.

 

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.

 

@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.

 

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.

 

@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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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??

 

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.