Churchill turning his back on Poland

Two points are calling to be made:

1) War rarely solves problems - rather, it creates fresh ones. In September 1939 Germany had dominated Czechoslovakia and Poland. In May 1945 the USSR was beginning the domination of Czechoslovakia and Poland (and elsewhere).

2) Holding Winston Churchill personally responsible for the post-war settlement of Europe, and illustrating that concept with a photograph of the 'Big Three' at Yalta in February 1945 (without bothering to caption the image properly) is unfair. Although important preliminary discussions took place at Yalta, between Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Josef Stalin, the final settlement was not reached until July 1945 in the Potsdam Agreement between the new 'Big Three', Clement Attlee, Harry Truman and Josef Stalin. Churchill, having learned what the British really thought about him as a peacetime leader, refused Attlee;s invitation to return to Potsdam, after the break for the British election results, and took no part in the ultimate agreement.

 

Wars often do solve the original problem, the hitch is they can create new problems.

 

The UK said they would ensure the survival of a land called Poland. After WW2 Russia took back the land Poland took from them between the wars and Poland was compensated by a large chunk of Germany. Given the circumstances Poland got a good deal.

 

How can one betray a country that oppressed 40% of her own population and attacked a neighbour country - Czechoslovakia. For Churchill, the worth of Poland was just to instigate a conflict with both Russians and Germans, nothing else.

 

IMO the "betrayal" did happen, but it was more a matter if priorities and timing, if the western allies had pushed Stalin for renouncing the Ribbentrop Molotov pact borders in 1941 they probably would have gotten it, by 1945 it was too late and Churchill had a very weak hand to play,
Stalin was on his home ground at Yalta (recent events on who Crimea belongs to notwithstanding), the Allies had committed to "unconditional surrender" and that tied their hands, if they wanted the Red Army to do the bloody work of taking Berlin, and nothing short of that would bring unconditional surender, they had to go along with "Uncle Joe". I believe the battle cost the soviets as many casualties as the whole WW2 US losses, western troops would do better (less likely the Germans would fight to the death ad more manpower conserving tactics) but not by much,

 

Of course Britain and France would back anything to give a Germany a problem... But why would they do that treaty? If Britain and France were so reluctant to go to war with Germany?

The then Prime Minister Anthony Eden wanted appeasement before Churchill took over as War Time Prime Minister..

 

Eden ???
he was PM in the 50s.

You mean Chamberlain

 

... D'oh!


Yeah, that guy. Chamberlain.

 

kind of like me ..I'm always thinking 70s, 80s when it's the 2000s

 

In regards to my mess up with history there;There be dragons then okay; IDK... - Sorry. Though I probably should have known it was Chamberlain.

 

This is not correct appeasement ended on 3 september 1939,and on that day Chamberlain was PM,not Churchill . Besides, Churchill was initially not opposed to appeasement .Neither was Eden in 1936.

 

Chamberlain** Not Eden (idk what Eden was up to during WWII so, you might be right. But I meant Chamberlain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chamberlain-war-declaration.ogg


Or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtJ_zbz1NyY

 

Eden in Normandy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqhF9_3VZEg

 

Really, was Poland betrayed or Poland has betrayed both her minorities and the League of Nations? To answer that question we should study history of Poland in 20th century as entirety, not just carefully selected episodes of temporary setbacks.
Article 93 of the Treaty of Versailles stated that: "Poland accepts... provisions... to protect the interests of inhabitants of Poland who differ from the majority of the population in race, language, or religion". It is a notorious truth that Poland has treated her minorities meryclessly. Then, later, at Postdam Poles were handed over new territories, large parts of Germany with free hands to perform a ruthless, unprecedented ethnic cleansing - never seen before regarding both the size of expulsions as well as lack of compassion for former compatriots of different origin, language and religion. Poles are in fact the largest profiteers of two world wars. Poland has emerged as a pure national state as a result of destruction of many minorities.

Before the butchery has started, there were just 60% citizens of Poland of polish ethnicity. Really, who was betrayed and where these missing minorities are now?

 

Seriously? Just incredible. In need of a good slap?

How on Earth was Churchill conspiring this, when he had no minister role until after war was declared, then he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, and joined Chamberlain's small War Cabinet?

 

No need to slap, quite the contrary. There is nothing wrong in instigating a conflict among your enemies. And by the way, I consider Churchill the greatest leader of the second world war. We owe him and Britons a great deal for saving us from the Nazi vermin.

Now, lets get back to the subject: were the Poles betrayed or were the Poles the greatest profiteers of the ww2?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j96CXnfI38Q

 

??? If Poland had been independent perhaps but that was hardly the case was it?