Western Betrayal

It's always interesting to have a different point of view.
A few things have to be added though: firstly France and England did not just sit down when Poland was attacked. France even sent 9 divisions into Saarland, but did not push further because she was ill prepared. Both France eand England declared war on Germany as a token of solidarity to Poland. England paid a high price and France was occupied and received 22% of the bombs dropped in the west..
Stalin was the better gamster at Yalta. France wasn't around then, Roosevelt was weakend be his illness and Churchill was facing a strong Stalin . He did not have much choice, neither did Roosevelt. The Russians were on the field and dictated the Oder Neisse conditions. The allies were everything but happy to "give" all these lands to soviet rule, but what could they do? They recovered Austria and parts of Berlin and could do the "cleansing" in Greece which would grant them the Mediteranean, but in return Eastern Europe was left to the Soviet influence. in 1949 , the Russians had the bomb, so it was too late to get these countires back. Also the west did not know much about what was really going on behind the Iron Curtain. Besides if the Americans had not respected Yalta and liberated Prague, the Sudeten area would probably still be peopled with Germans, so this has to be taken into account too.

 

Nobody is required to post.

 

I am not sure how soon the US started taking their troops away from Europe to fight the Japanese but I recall that this was one of the reasons why continuing war was not possible in Europe.

There was at least Patton who wanted to continue to Moscow but I also believe many were tired of continuing war in 1945 so that was one of the things that made it "impossible" to continue.

Churchill was the one, I think , who promised Poland its independence, but he was out of the political picture July 1945 during the Potsdam conference which amazed even Stalin how big leaders in the west are thrown out after a victorious war. Attlee´s comment on Poland´s future I do not know.

Potsdam:

Potsdam Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poland:

A Provisional Government of National Unity recognized by all three powers should be created (known as the Lublin Poles). Recognition of the Soviet controlled government by the Western Powers effectively meant end of recognition for the existing Polish government in Exile (known as the London Poles).

Poles who were serving in the British Army should be free to return to Poland, with no security upon their return to the communist country guaranteed.

The provisional western border should be the Oder-Neisse line, defined by the Oder and Neisse rivers. Parts of East Prussia and the former Free City of Danzig should be under Polish administration. However the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement (which would take place at the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany in 1998)

The Soviet Union declared it will settle the reparation claims of Poland from its own share of reparations (it never did)

All other issues were to be answered by the final peace conference to be called as soon as possible

 

One thing the Poles did deserve the apology for (which they eventually got... 59 years late) was the disgraceful refusal to allow them to march in the London victory parade in 1946.
However it does underline just how delicate the geopolitical situation was at the time, despite a fantastic fighting record the fact the country now lay under the Soviet sphere of influence meant that even dealing out this gross injustice had to be swallowed by Churchill, Alanbrooke, and other British leaders who knew full well the fighting value of these men during the war.
The varying level of 'betrayal' or otherwise, I'm sure can be debated ad-nauseum, it can even be said that the failure of Pro & Anti communistic Poles themselves to come to some sort of consensus in '43 led to the final sealing of the country's postwar future, but as an Englishman, and one who wasn't even alive at the time, I genuinely feel ashamed about that victory parade business.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

I agree von Poop , unfortunately politics took the pace after 1945 and the Poles who were considered as heroes only days before were suddenly considered as "spies" and "communists". On certains walls one could read "Poles go home", whereas the poor men had little possibility to actually go "home" because they would be considered as "traitors" there. The Polish exiled governement sent a delegation to Warsaw only to have its members immediately arrested. The Czech veterans were granted their memorial in 1991 only... Just so that you know I have a deep respect for these men, I am helping a friend who is organising a memorial for a polish 300 Squadron crew in france in 2009. Five of the crew are buried near my hometown.

 

My 2 cents on the original post by Rommel25. I concur with many of the views and statements posted here by several other users.

-The Soviets had got Poland and the greater part of east Europe before the Western Allies could even get there.
-While Eisenhower was a major figure in World War II the post war-world political climate would ultimately be decided by Truman, Attlee, Stalin, and to a lesser extent Churchill. Eisenhower wasn't elected until 1953 and by then it was a bit late to save Poland from Soviet-Communism.
- 1939 saw the British Commonwealth and the French Empire declare war on Germany. While yes late 1939-early 1940 didn't see major events occur the fact that Britain/France/Colonies declared war with in 48 hours shows they did more than ''nothing.''
-The Allies needed the Soviets to defeat Japan as after Germany surrendered in May the war lasted 4 more months until September. And August storm coupled with the Atomic bombs is what sealed the Axis's fate and ended the war as a whole. Feuding and possible war with the Soviets was to dangerous on a global scale. It could have meant Communism globally.
-Stalin was a Jerk

Based on these facts I think you are wrong.

 

Well, I must say that I am from one of those countries that fell to Russians in the last months of WWII. My friend and I spoke about many possible scenarios of defeating Germany in 1939. There was not that much that could be done in 1944-45. Soviets had a overwhelming military power on the ground. Best tanks at that time and sorry to say they had a right to take everything. Real war was on the Eastern Front. In 1939 Great Britain had a very small land force so could not do much about Germany. I agree UK gave empty promises and failed its small and weak ally. On the other hand France had enough to go on its own and attack Germans. They failed because there was no will and French Staff lacked any form of initiative. They were mentally still in the trenches of the WWI. At this point this is the firm fact. Britain could not do much but France failed miserable.

What Poland could do was to ally with Czech Republic long before British sold Czechs to the Germans. Polish had manpower and will to carry on the war but lacked equipment. Czechs had that all, tanks, technology and border with Germany that could be secured with Polish help. Czechs failed Poland when we fought Soviet Union in 1920. Resentment of that time stayed for a long. Long enough to loose the war. This was wrong. Above all differences our both countries should have gone into alliance. That was the only solution I think. Great Britain had a weak government of illusionists and France just lacked of will to fight.

 

True. . But You would think that when one makes statements like this that they would be willing to back them up and defend them . Otherwise when making statements like these he is just trolling.

 

And there was I thinking he was politely raising an interesting and apparently widespread point of view in his home country. This one's nothing like 'Panzer Paul' and his recent blurt, that's trolling. This reflects what a world war, decades of cold war, 'folk myth', politics and national perceptions of reality can generate.
The facts can be gone over and assessed, but emotion and instinct understandably remain. Not everything is viewed from one's own perspective, or can be automatically expected to be.
I never grew up under a regime that I felt was imposed, I'm interested in the personal view of history that can engender.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

It boils down to one thing, a relationship gone bad. The Western allies needed for the USSR to stay alive and keep Hitler's armies tied up in the East and buy the Western allies time to build up an army.

The goal for everyone was to rid the world of Hitler. Could the Western allies accomplish this without the Soviets.....I don't believe so. Stalin played nice inorder to receive military assistance via lend lease but once it looked like he would survive without that assistance, he then became difficult during the conferences on postwar europe and made demands. Roosevelt was not interested in debating with him. Churchill was the only one who saw through Stalin and knew what was coming.

Politics muddied up the waters here. Eisenhower was adhereing to the agreed dividing line. I doubt the plan was for the Western forces to stay in Europe up to the present day. But the Soviets had to ruin it for everyone. I feel for the people in the Baltic, the Balkans and border countries but there really wasn't anything else the Western allies could do once the Soviets were in.

 

It is an interesting view. But one that should be backed up as many here obviously do not feel the same. How did Rommel25 come to feel this way? What facts and sources brought him to these conclusions? Is it too much to ask that he actually discuss this and what others here think about it? So far most who have responded have stated thier views and have backed them up.

 

Perfectly addressed. Surely their must have been some pro-communist sentiments in these countries.

And where is the thread starter?

 

I find this a fascinating discussion and believe the different views all have some validity. I can understand how the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, and Romanians feel about being under the thumb of the Russians, as my mother's family came from Lithuania (she was the first child in the family born in the US) and there are still close family members in that country. I do not, however, feel it is logical or right to blame the West (especially the US) for the tragedy that befell those countries.

It is interesting that so many under Soviet rule apparently looked to the US to rescue them and I wonder why that is. Why not the Brits, or the French, or the Swedes, or anybody but the US? Before WW II, most Americans didn't want the US to be heavily involved in international politics, they just wanted to be left alone. Then the war came and everyone seemed to want help from the US; the Soviets when they really needed America's help even payed lip service to the Atlantic Charter principles so that the Us would be more inclined to send aid. The British suddenly discovered an intense friendship for the US and the (Free) French didn't want American advice, but couldn't get enough US military material to suit them. As far as I know, Britain is the only country to have repaid the money that all that aid cost.

After the war was over, the European countries were certainly eager for the US to pay to rebuild Europe and defend them from the Russians, but they also didn't want the US to make any waves or cause any trouble with the Soviets and maybe start another war. That attitude alone kept the US from doing much of anything to help those European nations which were under Soviet domination.

Somehow, the feeling developed throughout the Free World that, every time there was a political or humanitarian crisis somewhere, or a war threatening, it was the duty and obligation of the United States to step in and make things right again. At the same time, if it did decide to take action, no one remembered that it was American blood and treasure being spent to fix things; it was simply the US throwing it's weight around and acting like a "bully" again. Is it any wonder that more and more Americans are becoming disinclined to worry about Europe and it's interests?
The seeming rise of militant islam may change that, but maybe not.

 

According to Richard Frank in "Downfall", the US began immediately pulling troops out of Europe once Germany capitulated. This was because the invasion of Kyushu was scheduled for November 1, 1945, and the units from Europe were a significant portion of those assigned to Operation Olympic. These units had to be reorganized, re-equipped, and retrained before they were considered battle-worthy. Six months would be barely enough time to accomplish this, and then ship the troops to the assembly areas in the Pacific. In addition to ground forces, many USAAF units formerly stationed in Britain and Europe had to be sent to the the US, draw new equipment, and be retrained, then sent to bases in the Pacific.

Aside from the troop draw down in Europe, the American public would have been reluctant to support another war so soon after the end of the campaign against the Nazi's and before the Japanese militarists had been disposed of. It would have been tough for the US government to explain why it was necessary to fight against a country which, until a few months previously, had been described as a "noble ally". Such is the cost of making an expedient deal with one devil in order to defeat another.

 

We paid the USSR our debt in the 1950´s for WW2 and after WW1....

The Country That Paid its Debts

 

Of course there were some pro-communist sentiments.But not the majority.There were under 15% of all of the population(i speak for Romania, because i speak of what i know).Still, with the help of the red army, all of the political figures of the interbelic years and the ww2 were either imprisoned and killed, either exiled (as was the case of our king).
Than, with all the intelectuals out of the political life, they put poor farm boys as leader...errr...puppets and whoooo a new communist state is born.

It's easy for you to blame us for accepting the communist doctrine, and it's easy for us to blame you for not doing anything.But blaming eachother won't lead anywhere.

If think the only thing best to do is to accept what happened, understand what happen, prevent it from happening again, blame the russians but most of all blame Stalin.

 

Well said , Maslin: I sure remember learning at school when I was a teenager that the Czechs resisited up to 1948 before getting a commie government. King Michel in Romania did not have much choice either and the The Soviets let the germans exterminate the Polish resistance before taking Warswaw in 1945. blaming the East block countries for allowing Soviet governements to take place is like blaming Fance for having undergone German occupation. All these countries were victims of the Nazi rule and the East block suffered from the Soviets on top of it. 40 years is nothing in history and soon the commie trauma will be forgotten for ever.

 

I was speaking of the war aid expenses prior to, and during WW II, but it's nice to know hat Finland honored it's obligations to repay these earlier loans. All too few European countries did so.

 

Masklin,

While the eastern bloc's fate was unfortunate, we must not forget that it was these very same countires which sided whith the Nazi Govt. and went to war with Russia. The eastern bloc, afterall had it purpose, to create a buffer zone out of the very same countries which have had a history of war with Russia.

 

Sloniksp,

While it is true that Romania fought against the Soviet Union, let us not forget that the Soviets attacked us first, when they annexed Moldavia in 1940, while we were neutral.What were we supposed to do?Let them take it without a response?And, after the retreat from Crimea, we switched sides following a coup on 23 august 1944.Even tought we were now allies with the the Soviets, they treated us like enemies untill september 1944.Our troops have recived the order to stop fighting against the red army, while the Soviets sloughtered us.That's not pretty fair, is it?
Don't blame us for joining the Nazis;because the Soviets attacked us first and then, after the end of the war, treated us like slaves who have to be punished for raising the tone against their masters (which is what the Russians considered themselves to be)...