17 september 1939 - Page 11




 
--
 
May 31st, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naddođur
Because politics is a dirty game. Far dirtier than war.
And backstabbing is part of the game.
True but the point is that they did backstab Poland and ultimately betray it not that they werent ready though i still dont agree with that either.

Unwilling to make neccesary sacrifices when it seemed Hitler would confine himself to Poland is a more suiting term.
May 31st, 2010  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naddođur
I think that the problem is the Polish expectations and the exaggerated capabilities of the French and British.
The French mobilization was not complete until early October and In Britain only 1 in 40 men were mobilized (compared to 1 in 10 in France).

Also the French army was superior to the German in numbers only. It lacked the offensive doctrines, mobilization schemes, and offensive spirit necessary to attack Germany.

The presumption that "something could have been done but wasn't" overlooks the basic fact that France and Britain was ill-equipped to fight Germany even with the majority of German forces engaged in the east

In the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland.-London, August 25, 1939. ARTICLE I.it says:

Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power”.

That’s what the British had promised.
I would call it a “betrayal of necessity”.
and who would judge what was the "support and assistance in its power"? Yes,the British .
May 31st, 2010  
Naddođur
 
 
I think this is why Britain and France didn’t attack Germany

The lack of an offensive force. The BEF (and French equivalent) in the low countries and Northern France was no match for the German invasion as a defensive force so its hard to believe how those units could of been mobilised into an attacking force. The WW1 mindset of prolonged stand offs were still fresh in allied heads whilst the Germans had improvised to blitzkrieg. The Franco British force vastly outnumbered the Germans for a moment but even so to organise a fight takes time.

Political turmoil... Nobody knew what to do or how to respond to Germany. Not only did France, Poland and Britain disagree on how to go about fighting Germany there was also in-house fighting over what to do. The British government was a mess, the House of Commons a confusion of conflicting views that would lead to Chamberlain resigning. Until the war at home was sorted there would be little chance of any decisive action abroad.

Hitler was able to control it all as a dictator than in the more democratic countries where everything was put forth and debated. The allied response was a clear example of the worst decision being indecision, whilst Hitler was decisive.
--
May 31st, 2010  
mkenny
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Then why enter a pact if you're not ready? Why delay polish mobilisation if you're not ready?

Last i checked entering a pact and laying down specific promises means you're ready to fulfill them, not only that but the French lied to Poland outright claiming they're performing an all out assault.
But so far you have not provided anything like a
'specific promise'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Unwilling to make neccesary sacrifices when it seemed Hitler would confine himself to Poland is a more suiting term.
You are now ignoring reality. Britain and France made enormous sacrifices during the war. Your simplistic view seems to be they did not immediately invade Germany in September 1939 therefore they are liars and cheats.
The pact said they would declare war on GERMANY (specificaly declared to be Germany in a secret protocol) This they did. Not content with this you are inventing terms and conditions that were never given to Poland so you can castigate those that did not fulfill your imagined agreement. You might not like it but thats life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
and who would judge what was the "support and assistance in its power"? Yes,the British .
This was specificaly spelt out to the Polish Amabassador in the UK in September when he demanded action should be taken at once to engage Germany.
It was decided in the UK that the British objective was a military defeat of Germany in the long term and this would be of more help to Poland than hasty ill judged offensives. The problem with the pact given to Poland is the later Soviet-German Pact effectively nullified any hope of fullfilling it.
Once the Soviets helped dismember Poland then it was a whole new world.
May 31st, 2010  
FUNeral
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
But so far you have not provided anything like a
'specific promise'.



You are now ignoring reality. Britain and France made enormous sacrifices during the war. Your simplistic view seems to be they did not immediately invade Germany in September 1939 therefore they are liars and cheats.
The pact said they would declare war on GERMANY (specificaly declared to be Germany in a secret protocol) This they did. Not content with this you are inventing terms and conditions that were never given to Poland so you can castigate those that did not fulfill your imagined agreement. You might not like it but thats life.



This was specificaly spelt out to the Polish Amabassador in the UK in September when he demanded action should be taken at once to engage Germany.
It was decided in the UK that the British objective was a military defeat of Germany in the long term and this would be of more help to Poland than hasty ill judged offensives. The problem with the pact given to Poland is the later Soviet-German Pact effectively nullified any hope of fullfilling it.
Once the Soviets helped dismember Poland then it was a whole new world.
It was mistake on our part to enter agreement with Great Britian and France. We were treated like a pawn, and discarded like one. Not to protect Poland, but to protect GB & France. I also said they were not ready. I'd say they never planned to help in first place. It was signed the way so we will help them.

On May 4, a meeting was held in Paris at which it was decided that "the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland at the beginning." (sorry for pasting wiki, I really feel bad about it) Wich could be translated as: We won't help you, but we will take down that big bully, someday. Poland was only necessary, for allies to get better start in this war. They had chance to take down Germany, they didn't use it. They were not ready for war, politically and mentally.
Political will came when thier own asses were on fire. And remember that they betrayed Czechoslovakia before, basically selling them to the nazis for moment of peace. In case of Poland they actually declared the war.
But what I think is that even without these agreements, GB and France would eventually go to war with Germany. To secure thier infuence in Europe. And we would be much better off fighting alone (allies did everything they could to basically make Poland unable to defend itself).
We were hired scapegoat at most.
May 31st, 2010  
mkenny
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUNeral
It was mistake on our part to enter agreement with Great Britian and France. We were treated like a pawn, and discarded like one. Not to protect Poland, but to protect GB & France. I also said they were not ready. I'd say they never planned to help in first place. It was signed the way so we will help them.
There was no obligation to help Poland and yet one was given. If you expected it to be something instant then you were deluding yourself. In 1939 Poland was reaping what she had sown. When you are caught between to mortal enemies you do not antagonise them both!
Perhaps you have an idea of what other countries were going to offer you help?



Quote:
Originally Posted by FUNeral
They had chance to take down Germany, they didn't use it.
As did Poland but look how badly you fared?


Quote:
Originally Posted by FUNeral
Political will came when thier own asses were on fire. And remember that they betrayed Czechoslovakia before, basically selling them to the nazis for moment of peace. In case of Poland they actually declared the war.
Did you forgot that Poland helped herself to a bit of Czechoslovakia as well as Germany?
June 2nd, 2010  
Aleksander
 
@ Did you forgot that Poland helped herself to a bit of Czechoslovakia as well as Germany?

It is a bit complicated here. Czechoslovakia used our war with soviets in 1920 to enlarge their influences there. I'm seeing it as eye-for-an-eye action.
June 3rd, 2010  
mkenny
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksander

It is a bit complicated here. Czechoslovakia used our war with soviets in 1920 to enlarge their influences there. I'm seeing it as eye-for-an-eye action.
Well you said :
And remember that they betrayed Czechoslovakia before, basically selling them to the nazis for moment of peace.

So you are saying it is ok to be 'betrayed' as long as the Poles benefit by the betrayal?

If we take this bit of your reply:

Czechoslovakia used our war with soviets in 1920 to enlarge their influences there.

and apply it to Russia then their invasion of Poland in 1939 would be
eye-for-an-eye action.

Like a I said earlier it was a murky old world in central/eastern Europe in the 30's!
June 3rd, 2010  
fuser
 
 
Quote:
to quote some one:that's only parroting communist propaganda :the Su joined Germany in a third partition of Poland,occupied the Baltic states,attacked Finland .....
Yeah sure anything that west says is true and if you dare to say against it its propaganda... It would have been better if you have tried to deal in points or had countered mine rather than gibberish....
Speaking of propaganda first go and find out how many nazi officials worked for USA/UK including those who were working on campaigns like anti soviet propaganda since hitler and of course their work continued after hitler too...
The basic fact is that
The USSR did not invade Poland – and everybody knew it at the time

It was only during cold war that this lie was fabricated...
I wonder people who are so fond of commenting on molotov ribbentrop pact even bother to read it and the so called secret protocol or even the news articles of those times....
Here is little education :
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...9/m-rpact.html
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...partition.html

Now, let's interpret some of the events of that time which clearly suggest that USSR was not an aggressor against poland

1. The Polish government did not declare war on USSR. But it did declare war on Germany..


2.
The Polish Supreme Commander Rydz-Smigly ordered Polish soldiers not to fight the Soviets, though he ordered Polish forces to continue to fight the Germans.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...ont_fight.html

3. Rumania had a military treaty with Poland aimed against the USSR. Rumania did not declare war on the USSR.

4.
France did not declare war on the USSR, though it had a mutual defense treaty with Poland.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...9/m-rpact.html

5. England never demanded that the USSR withdraw its troops from Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine, the parts of the former Polish state occupied by the Red Army after September 17, 1939.
On the contrary, British government concluded that these territories should not be a part of a future Polish state. Even the Polish government in exile agreed.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...39_102739.html

6. The League of Nations did not determine the USSR had invaded a member state.
No country took any sanctions against the USSR. No country broke diplomatic relations with the USSR over this action.
However, when the USSR attacked Finland in 1939 the League did vote to expel the USSR, and several countries broke diplomatic relations with it

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/391214a.html

7. All countries accepted the USSR’s declaration of neutrality.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...eutrality.html



Quote:
If they were anti soviet,they had all reasons for it .
There's big difference between being anti and fanatically anti to something...
June 3rd, 2010  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuser
Yeah sure anything that west says is true and if you dare to say against it its propaganda... It would have been better if you have tried to deal in points or had countered mine rather than gibberish....
Speaking of propaganda first go and find out how many nazi officials worked for USA/UK including those who were working on campaigns like anti soviet propaganda since hitler and of course their work continued after hitler too...
The basic fact is that
The USSR did not invade Poland – and everybody knew it at the time

It was only during cold war that this lie was fabricated...
I wonder people who are so fond of commenting on molotov ribbentrop pact even bother to read it and the so called secret protocol or even the news articles of those times....
Here is little education :
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...9/m-rpact.html
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...partition.html

Now, let's interpret some of the events of that time which clearly suggest that USSR was not an aggressor against poland

1. The Polish government did not declare war on USSR. But it did declare war on Germany..


2. The Polish Supreme Commander Rydz-Smigly ordered Polish soldiers not to fight the Soviets, though he ordered Polish forces to continue to fight the Germans.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...ont_fight.html


3. Rumania had a military treaty with Poland aimed against the USSR. Rumania did not declare war on the USSR.

4. France did not declare war on the USSR, though it had a mutual defense treaty with Poland.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...9/m-rpact.html


5. England never demanded that the USSR withdraw its troops from Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine, the parts of the former Polish state occupied by the Red Army after September 17, 1939.
On the contrary, British government concluded that these territories should not be a part of a future Polish state. Even the Polish government in exile agreed.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...39_102739.html


6. The League of Nations did not determine the USSR had invaded a member state.No country took any sanctions against the USSR. No country broke diplomatic relations with the USSR over this action.
However, when the USSR attacked Finland in 1939 the League did vote to expel the USSR, and several countries broke diplomatic relations with it

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/391214a.html

7. All countries accepted the USSR’s declaration of neutrality.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...eutrality.html



There's big difference between being anti and fanatically anti to something...
The basic question is :what were they doing on Polish territory with a big army (btw:the Poles were FIGHTING against the Red army),maybe invading Poland ? Or,maybe they were only tourists ?
I like it,when one is making an own-goal :your first source is giving a map with the following text :the map shows the line of spheres of influence :thus,a part of Poland was a sphere of influence of the SU (YOUR source ):how could that be possible ? maybe because that part of Poland was occupied by the SU?
Btw:that part of Poland,with a lot of Soviet soldiers and GPU scum,was annexed by the SU and thiswas only possible ? maybe that part of Poland was invaded by the SU ?
Last point :if Poland was not invaded by the SU,from where did come all those Polish prisonners murdered at Katyn,by order of Stalin ?Even Putin has admitted that they were murdered by the GPU ?