Churchill turning his back on Poland

What are you talking about????

Churchill's statement has absolutely squat to do with Stalin's demands for more supplies, but is related to Stalin's demand for the opening of a second front.

Churchill's statement was an expression of his irritation at Eisenhower's expected July invasion date for Sicily. The Western Allies had expected the German defense in Tunisia to collapse in March, 1943, thus their armies would be idle from April through June. Ol' Winston was clamoring for moving up the Sicily invasion date to June, and was becoming quite irritated with Eisenhower's resistance.

Fortunately, the Germans knocked the Americans on their butts a few days later at Kasserine, and made the whole idea of a June invasion of Sicily moot.

 

The information was from The American People in World War II, Part Two by David M. Kennedy. So he has a different opinion, or his narration is compressed too much.

But it doesn't matter because the point is the statements mentioned here:

"Future relations with the Soviet Union presented the most baffling problem. "The Russians are today killing more Germans and destroying more equipment than you and I put together," Roosevelt reminded Churchill in April, 1942. "I think it is an awful thing," Churchill himself noted to Harry Hopkins in February, 1943, "that in April, May and June not a single American or British soldier will be killing a single German or Italian soldier while the Russians are chasing 185 divisions around."

don't support this:

" The correspondence makes clear how, in a time when the Russians were doing most of the fighting, the fear of a separate Soviet-German peace prevented Churchill and Roosevelt from taking the hard line against Stalin that armchair strategists urge on them in retrospect."

because by the time of the Tehran Conference both problems were solved, and never mentioned during that conference. Additionally Churchill himself didn't mention them at all, which means he didn't regard them as important.

BTW attached files have to be open to read, thumbnails are just thumbnails.

 

An example of what Stalin was saying to his own people. This speech made on May 1, 1943 was transmitted live in the USSR and then disseminated worldwide. Here Stalin praises the allies, denies any possibility of a separate peace, promises fight to the end. It's obvious that such thunderous pronouncements were meant to be treated seriously.

--------------------------
The winter campaign demonstrated that the offensive power of the Red Army has grown. Our troops not only hurled the Germans out of territory which the enemy had seized in the summer of 1942, but occupied a number of towns and districts which had been in the enemy’s hands for about a year and a half. It proved beyond German strength to avert the Red Army’s offensive.[...]

Simultaneously, the victorious troops of our Allies routed the Italo-German troops in the area of Libya and Tripolitania, cleared these areas of the enemy, and now continue to batter them in the area of Tunisia, while the valiant Anglo-American air forces strike shattering blows at the military and industrial centres of Germany and Italy, foreshadowing the formation of the second front in Europe against the Italo-German fascists.
Thus, for the first time since the beginning of the war, the blow at the enemy from the East, dealt by the Red Army, merged with a blow from the West, dealt by the troops of our Allies, into one joint blow.[...]

Secondly, the crisis in the fascist camp finds expression in that the fascists begin to speak more frequently about peace. To judge by reports in the foreign Press, one can conclude that the Germans would like to obtain peace with Britain and the U.S.A. on condition that they draw away from the Soviet Union, or, on the contrary, that they would like to obtain peace with the Soviet Union on condition that it draws away from Britain and the U.S.A. Themselves treacherous to the marrow, the German imperialists have the nerve to apply their own yardstick to the Allies, expecting some one of the Allies to swallow the bait. Obviously, it is not on account of good living that the Germans babble about peace. The babble about peace in the fascist camp only indicates that they are going through a grave crisis. But of what kind of peace can one talk with imperialist bandits from the German-fascist camp, who have flooded Europe with blood and covered it with gallows? Is it not clear that only the utter routing of the Hitlerite armies and the unconditional surrender of Hitlerite Germany can bring peace to Europe? Is it not because the German-fascists sense the coming catastrophe that they babble about peace?

The enemy has already felt the weight of the shattering blows of our troops. The time is approaching when the Red Army, together with the armies of our Allies, will break the backbone of the fascist beast.
[...]
Long live our glorious Motherland!
Long live our valiant Red Army!
Long live our valiant Navy!
Long live our gallant men and women guerillas!
Death to the German invaders!

 

Politicians' words, once uttered, are Eternal and set in stone, as we all well know.














Some, such as Stalin's, are just more Eternal than others.

The purpose of the speech could just as easily be a message to the Germans telling them to sweeten the proposed deal...

However, I note you elect to believe that speech that Stalin made, but not his declared intent to Churchill & FDR wrt Poland?

"There was dissatisfaction, he [Stalin] continued, because the Polish government was not elected. It would naturally be better to have a Government based on free elections, but the war had so far prevented that. But the days was near when elections could be held. Until then we must deal with the Provisional Government, as we had dealt, for instance, the General De Gaulle's [q.v.] Government in France, which was also not elected." (Statement at Yalta Conference February 1945)

 

This conversation seems to be a bit too Stalinist.

 

But he didn't break any agreement by signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, he didn't switch sides. He hadn't been friends with the Allies before, he wouldn't be friends with the Germans after. It was just business, and the Germans offered a better deal.
According to the communist ideology all those countries were enemies, there were no difference between Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill - all they wanted to destroy communism, it was in their genes, it was in their best class interests.

There wasn't any deal better possible than the unconditional surrender, reparations, the superpower status offered by the Allies for free.
And the Soviet people were still people - they wouldn't accept any deal.

Stalin kept his word, there were free elections in Poland after the war, they falsified the results later.
In communist countries people were free to vote anyway - for approved by the communists candidates. This was actually their definition of "free elections", more free than in the bourgeois countries where people were oppressed by the system.
So Stalin didn't even have to lie, according to his ideology the election were free.

 

Thusly, there was no betrayal by Churchill.

 

Maybe Churchill believed it would be ok, maybe he deceived himself, or simply didn't care - who knows. Stalin certainly exploited ambiguities in the agreement.
The difference was Churchill and his merry men non-ambiguously promised the Poles (on paper) that such an agreement with Stalin wouldn't happen.

 

As to the "who expelled the Germans" question:

-----------------------------
The Future of Poland, a speech to the House of Commons by Winston Churchill
December 15, 1944.
Thus I have set before the House what is, in outline the offer which the Russians [...] make to the Polish people. I cannot believe that such an offer should be rejected by Poland. It would, of course, have to be accompanied by the disentanglement of populations [...]
The transference of several millions of people would have to be affected from the East to the West or North, as well the expulsion of the Germans: the total expulsion of the Germans - from the are to be acquired by Poland in the West and the North. For expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble [...] A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions than they ever were before.

 

Unless starting a war, there was nothing Churchill could do to help Poland in 1945 : to go to Berlin, the Red Army had to traverse Warsaw,and after 30 years, it was back .

 

JC on a broomstick.

Learn to read and understand context.

 

That will never happen, because if he does that the whole "betrayal" argument falls apart.

 

Of course, there was nothing Churchill could do help Poland in 1945.
But he didn't do nothing. He did a lot. He joined the aggressor, legitimized his illegal demands, defended them as something good and noble, destroyed the Polish Government so Stalin could implement his plan undisturbed.
And then just a year later, when people started to notice that the Allies delivered from bondage some countries and then promptly handed them over for more bondage, he declared the cold war - Stalin wronged him, it was a mistake.
But in fact he wronged himself - it was all his work.

In 1941 the Soviets expected another Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, this time with the Allies.
They wanted a declaration that the Allies wouldn't stand in the way of their designs in Eastern Europe. That they would look the other way as they were annexing the Baltic States and parts of Poland.
To their delight the Allies did much more, they helped the Soviets to do it as smoothly as possible.

 

It was not all his work : it was the work of Hitler : it was because of Hitler that the Red army was in Warsaw,this was not the fault of Churchill . Churchill did not destroy the Polish government : the Polish government had lost all power in Poland after the insurrection of Warsaw was crushed by the Germans . Churchill could do nothing else when Stalin annexed the Baltic States,or the Eastern parts of Poland who till 1920 belonged to Russia . Besides, it was not a question of illegal demands, but a question of facts : US did not recognize the annexation of the Baltic States ,because, as usual, the hypocrites of State preferred to remain in their tower of ivory, and it changed NOTHING : the Baltics remained a part of the SU till 1991 .

Last point : the allies did not hand over some countries for more bondage .

 

Who would have known, so it was possible to act decently, to say no, we will not cooperate, Stalin you are on your own in this.
This was all the Polish Government was asking for, nothing more.

But what does the Warsaw Uprising have to do with it? That the Government had a few partisans and its disposal, that was able to stage an uprising (which survived more than a few days because the Germans had much more pressing problems at hand to attend) meant nothing. The Germans fully controlled the country and nobody else.
The Polish Government lost control in 1939 and as the others, Czechoslovak or Norwegian existed because other governments believed in its existence, nothing else mattered.

 

To act "decently " would change nothing .

The future of Poland depended on the SU, on the SU only . The Western Allies were powerless .

Norway existed because it was not occupied/liberated by the Soviets .And we know what was the fate of CZ;here also the Western Allies could do nothing . A declaration of war on the SU was out of the question .
As the Polish government lost control over poland in 1939, there was no reason to take into account the Polish government ;it was the same for the governments of the Baltics . Britain had promised Poland to help her if it was attacked by Germany (not by the SU ) ;Britain kept her promise .

 

Not sure if that's correct. They certainly can't stand the active resistance of the majority or even a large minority. May come down to what/how you define "support" though.

 

So this gave the British the right to plot against Poland? It wasn't the nineteenth century anymore - dogs eating dogs, might makes right. Or was it? Because there are a few agreements they actually broke.

--------------------
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
--------------------
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill
[...]
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;
--------------------
His Majesty's Government do not propose to conclude any agreement affecting or compromising the territorial status of the Polish Republic, and it is their intention, in any agreement which may be concluded to safeguard the assurance given to you on the occasion of the Polish-Soviet Agreement last July.
--------------------
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
--------------------

If that war was just another dog-eat-dog war, they shouldn't have bothered fighting it, Hitler wasn't going to harm them, and wouldn't be able anyway.
The US was a bigger threat with their idea of rapid decolonization, mainly at the expense of the British.

 

Let's examine this repeated nonsense.


--------------------
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
--------------------
Western Allies didn't break this "agreement." As far as I know, they never went to war with Poland over this. But perhaps you can provide an example?

--------------------
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;
--------------------

Western Allies didn't break this "ageement" either. Quite the opposite, indeed.


--------------------
His Majesty's Government do not propose to conclude any agreement affecting or compromising the territorial status of the Polish Republic, and it is their intention, in any agreement which may be concluded to safeguard the assurance given to you on the occasion of the Polish-Soviet Agreement last July.
--------------------

They didn't propose, at the time this was written either. Intending to safeguard an assurance, is far from being able to enforce the intent. But as someone incapable of reading what is actually written and placing it in context, why should we be surprised that you assume guilt. Your bias, and inability to admit Polish errors have been repeatedly laid bare for all.

--------------------
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
--------------------

The "League" was well and truly defunct by the start of the war, and it is rather pointless to bring up text from defunct treaties and organisations.

 

Well, I could point out that the League was dissolved after the WW2 so their rules were in force to that very day, and anyway "undertake to respect and preserve against external aggression" is something everyone agrees is a good thing.
That the "any agreement affecting or compromising the territorial status of the Polish Republic" was extensively consulted as to it's meaning, and the meaning was that at least "Britain wouldn't compromise the territorial status of the Polish Republic by allying against Poland with a foreign power".
That Britain imposed on Poland a puppet government to further their own political goals.

The point is you can't enter a military agreement, an agreement which has to be uphold by millions of deaths and then use lawyers dirty tricks straight from the O. J. Simpson trial to weasel out of its commitments. Especially that international agreements need some measure of good will, trust to be worthwhile, to be even possible.

Your post neatly illustrate the old phrases: "Perfidious Albion", the British fight to the last Pole, the British fight to the last Russian (this last widely believed to be true in the occupied territories during the WW2). When a nation loses 6 million people (even in my family several were murdered, and forty of their neighbors burned to death, alive) - the last thing it wants to be exposed to is creative, perfidious diplomacy of its "ally".

As George Orwell wrote on the British attitudes towards the Poles in 1944:
Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Don’t imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the Soviet regime, or any other regime, and then suddenly turn to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore.