Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Churchill turning his back on Poland

Discussion in 'Post War 1945-1955' started by Ben Dover, Mar 31, 2016.

  1. Ben Dover

    Ben Dover Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    The London borough of Croydon, GB
    [​IMG]
    The big 3...

    When it came to... 'What to do with Poland' and the reclaimed territories, we sort of betrayed Poland a bit...
    Sorry about that.


    Also...

    There was British lead food drops into East Germany out of protest to how bad we thought the USSR was taking care of it all on that side of the wall.
     
  2. Owen

    Owen O

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    405
    Couldnt do much else could he?

    UK was worn out by a long war.
    Massive Red Army sat in Poland.
     
    A-58 and rkline56 like this.
  3. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    21,632
    Likes Received:
    940
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    And...

    Operation Keelhaul was a program carried out in Austria by Allied forces in May and June of 1945.Among those handed over were White Russians ( Left Russia in 1917-18 ) who had never been Soviet citizens including the General Andrei Shkuro and the Ataman of the Don Cossack host Pyotr Krasnov, despite the British Foreign Office policy stated after the Yalta Conference that only Soviet citizens, before September 1, 1939, were to be compelled to return to the USSR.
     
    rkline56 likes this.
  4. Ben Dover

    Ben Dover Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    The London borough of Croydon, GB
    Still, Polishmen flew in the RAF for Britain in the promise that Britain'll keep their word.

    But, world trade and politics I guess.
     
  5. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    431
    "We" did not betray Poland.

    Please explain what Britain could've done to rectify the situation.
     
  6. Ben Dover

    Ben Dover Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    The London borough of Croydon, GB
    If Sir Winston Churchill couldn't answer that, what makes you think I can?

    Powerless to stop something still means Britain couldn't keep her word.
     
  7. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    431
    What word was that? To fight with all means until Nazism was defeated? Would it have been better to admit defeat along with the French surrender? I wonder if there would then be any discussion of "keeping her word".

    I'm still wondering wherein lies the "betrayal" of Poland.
     
  8. Ben Dover

    Ben Dover Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    The London borough of Croydon, GB
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
     
  9. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    269
    The article cited begins with "The concept of Western betrayal refers to the view....." It's an article about an opinion that some people have. It's not something factual that one can cite to prove that opinion.

    Consider the case of a doctor who tries to save a patient, but the patient dies - does that mean the doctor betrayed the patient? Sometime you just can't do anything. The only things that "betrayed" Poland or Eastern Europe were geography and the balance of forces.
     
  10. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    431
    Not looking for a link to someone else's opinion on a wider theme. All I see in that article is a lot of references to certain authors whinging and moaning with some unrealistic expectations of what Britain was capable of doing. An international "guarantee" is not a guarantee in the ordinary meaning (get a product replaced if it breaks), but an expressed commitment to try and ensure something. I'm still waiting to hear more of what these authors thought Britain could realistically do, beyond wage war on Germany. As if anything in war is certain.

    Your thread title is "Churchill turning his back on Poland", and a picture of "the Big three".

    Question still remains; what "word" exactly? And again had Britain too, accepted a peace in 1940, where would that leave Poland (or the rest of Eastern Europe)? What was Britain's reply in those, the very darkest of days, when Germany had rolled over every other non-Fascist Country in Western Europe?

    Want to blame someone for Poland's ills? Blame Adolph and Joe.

    When I see people make these complaints, I really wonder what on Earth are they thinking? That Poland would've been better off without the British guarantee? Would that somehow have stayed Hitler's hand, and prevented Joe from stealing in through the backdoor? That Europe would have been a better place had WWIII erupted in 1945? With the war in the Pacific still unfinished? 6 years of warfare in Europe not enough?
     
  11. Ben Dover

    Ben Dover Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    The London borough of Croydon, GB
    I think it's just quicker and far more politer to apologise to Poland lmao, IDK. :)..
    Seems more 'fair'... Saw a war memorial 'by chance, as you do' along the banks of the River Thames that Battle of Britain memorial at Embankment.
    [​IMG]
    A lot of Polish names on this thing, I remembered observing.
     
  12. Ben Dover

    Ben Dover Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    The London borough of Croydon, GB
    Britain had no choice but to obey their USSR allies...
    But that is still a cold thing to do. War must have been so great, we couldn't afford to keep our promise to Poland.
    -Had we have in some bizarre'ro wacky alt. history set in If Ifs & Butsland where Poland were able to be liberated like France, then maybe
    Warsaw and Paris could have been free to prosper.
    Don't forget, pre-WWII Poland was full of intellectuals and scientists who enjoyed their freedom to do, like anyone else.
    Though, I don't remember any Polish empire, but, IDK, and, I don't think that matters given it's 2016 and what's done is done.
     
  13. Ilhawk

    Ilhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    44
    I do believe that historians underestimate the power that the previous war held on the French and British reluctance towards war. WW1 impacted everyone. Who wanted to do that again, even if there was an idiot causing problems. Was an assassination and movements in Eastern Europe causing some deaths worth the decimation again? Everyone lost neighbors and relatives. Germany had the advantage of losing the the bitter feelings it brought. The time between WW1 and WW2 is about the same as the Gulf War until now. Not that long. Seems like yesterday we were hearing about Scud missiles.

    Also the British failure to advance on "The Bridge Too Far" I also believe was a result of British Officers being young men in WW1 and not wanting to see more butchering which was a possible outcome.
     
  14. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    431
    Intellectuals and scientists put to death by Stalin's orders, in the forests of Katyn.

    In the OP picture, Roosevelt is nearly dead, and Churchill was the head of spent (utterly exhausted) state. Rationing would remain for years a factor in everyone's lives across the Commonwealth, the housing shortage in UK was acute, as was unemployment; the UK really was shattered. So when some Polish quasi-intellectual makes statements such as:

    After their so-called guarantees of March 1939, England was not interested in our army, it did not help us financially in our war preparations, and did not have the slightest intention to aid us during Hitler's invasion of Poland (...) The guarantee of Poland's independence, provided by England, was not a guarantee at all. On the contrary, it was a speculation, whose purpose was the fastest possible liquidation of the Polish state. England wanted Poland to fight Germany first, and to lose that war as quickly as possible, so that Germany would finally face Russia.

    It is so much preening poppycock, the author should be bitch-slapped back to preschool.

    1) The defence of Poland must primarily be an issue for Poland, not Britain. Loans need to be repaid. Britain's treasury was still almost bare after the first war... Poland wanted "gimmes"; well, tough. I don't hear Brits bitching about what they had to give up for US LL. Everyone needed to do their utmost. Apparently, Poland was expecting a Divine Interention led by the UK, complete with angels and mana.

    2) If the object was to get the Soviets and Germans to fight, why did Britain ignore Soviet diplomatic attempts for 1938-39, with that express purpose (allow Soviet troops passage through Poland to fight Germany), for them finally to give up, and get the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
     
    Ben Dover likes this.
  15. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,995
    Likes Received:
    235
    Britain kept her word : the promise was to help Poland with all means available; Britain helped Poland with everything that was available .

    Thus : QED
     
  16. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,995
    Likes Received:
    235
    And of course, you don't know who is Beltran : a charlatan working for Larouche .
     
  17. Ben Dover

    Ben Dover Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    The London borough of Croydon, GB
  18. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    2,646
    Likes Received:
    198
    Location:
    New England
    I am very confused by this. Correct me if I'm wrong, and with all due respect, didn't Britain and her Allies go to war with Germany and the Axis for 6 years. What about that is turning your back on Poland? There was nothing they could do immediately to help Poland but in the long run, the sacrifices speak for themselves. I am not saying this is revisionist history, but some historians like to drum of conversations and jot down their ideas in books off of unsound foundations.
     
  19. toki2

    toki2 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    115
    I knew a few Polish families when I was young. The fathers were all Polish servicemen who were stranded in UK after the war. They settled here and married local women. They were grateful for the chance to stay here and they had their own clubs and churches that had services in Polish. I am sure they missed their families in Poland and hated that it was now part of the Soviet Union but such are the tragedies of war.
    It is never mentioned, but the British endured prolonged rationing up to the early fifties because it was feeding refugees ,German citizens and POW's.
     
    Skipper likes this.
  20. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,869
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    Roosevelt was sick and De Gaulle no invited. So Churchill stood alone v Staline. Staline had orchestred everything, from the place of the meeting, the timings, the rest places etc...

    What happened to the Poles is a shame, but rahther than blame Churchill , one could blame Staline for it.
     

Share This Page