Any apologies about Sikorski's 'murder'?

I love your line about not a single ship moving. Would that be how you explain 518 British sailors being killed on 14 September 1939 alone? And your claim does somewhat fly in the face of the order issued by the Admiralty on 24 August 1939.

No doubt a keen military brain such as yours knows what happens when surface ships face land-based bomber aircraft. If not, read up on what happened to HMS Prince of Wales. Now explain why it would have been such a good idea for the British navy to have sailed into confines of the Baltic and its long coastline filled with German airbases.

Poles like you tend to make me think that Britain’s mistake was not entering WWII but the side on which she entered.

I am fed up with Polish blaming everyone one else and taking no responsibility themselves, when in fact they are their own worst enemy.
Put the past to bed, and look to a brighter future and don't expect everyone to give Poland preferential treatment just because they think they deserve it.

the facts are irrefutable, despite having massive resources and capacity to help, despite being bound by a treaty that stated any and all aid available will be given England did not fire a shot, that is called betrayal.

It's funny how Britain's 'betrayal' seems to rank higher on the list of Polish grievances than Nazi and Soviet occupation.

You took Stalin's hand actually.

No it didn't. Not even the Polish government made such a stupid claim. Here is what they defined as the majority for each district in Poland on the basis of the 1931 census:

Polesia, Polissya, or Polesie is one of the largest European swampy areas, located in the south-western part of the Eastern-European Lowland, mainly within Belarus and Ukraine but also partly within Poland and Russia.

Proof please ?

What land based bomber aircraft ? The ones busy in Poland ?
Please quote a source stating that all Nazi bombers were involved in the attack on Poland. Particular attention to the anti-shipping capacity of the Luftwafe.

[quote=Sokrates]I know you're a neo nazi Harry its not a shame ... wait it is :)

Well if we look on map you present us here we can notice that actualy Most of major cities were Polish. When you look on line where Belarusians and Ukrainians met each other on this map ... it is swamp. So Poles were in majority there.

So you mean that in most of the areas which Poland annexed in 1921, Poles were not in the majority. Only in some of the major cities. Glad we've got that agreed.

And if you want to see betrayal, look what you Poles did to Ukraine in the 1920s. What goes around comes around, as Poland learned to her cost.

In Genral Poles were in majority there. :) How can you separate the city form surounding grounds. Or take Swamp ...

Harry: And if you want to see betrayal, look what you Poles did to Ukraine in the 1920s. What goes around comes around, as Poland learned to her cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lwów_Eaglets


Lwów Eaglets (Polish: Orlęta Lwowskie) is a term of affection applied to the Polish child soldiers who defended the city of Lwów during the Polish-Ukrainian War (1918-1919).

Yes we have discussed this already. Funny how you don't mention that Polish historians call the Polish-Ukrainian war "the last civilised conflict". But then you've got very little to say about how the Poles stabbed their ally in the back and nicked half the country.

Do explain how it is racist to point out that not all Poles are wonderfully nice people.

I love your racist bullshit, polish territory won back from Ukraine, good argument there you anti-polish trash :)

Do you really think that you will fool anybody here with these primitive tricks ? You are making things up and then claim that they are justification of your hateful and intellectually poor input...

We still have plenty of reasons to be proud of our history and a psychologically challnged person like you can't change that even If you start smearing shit on your walls, which in your state of mind will probably happen soon.

The funniest thing is that you claim to spread that extreme Polonophobia to somehow prove wrong "Polish myths" and in the same time you are serious with things like for example making the "uprising" of yours look at least like the 2nd Stalingrad, when in fact there were a few kids hiding in the basements for most of time and in the end they were sold out by their own... not really surprising...

And don't think that you are anonymous on the internet, you aren't.

You also have plenty of things in your history which you need to face up to and deal with.

The backstab of Ukraine is just one of those things but Poles will do nothing to face up to it.

Good to see you're back on the 'you must be Jewish because you say things like that' kick.

Really shows you for the bigot that you are.

Not at all. My name is Harry and I live in Warsaw. There are very few Harrys in Warsaw so I'm not at all hard to find. So if you'd like to carry out your pathetic threats, feel free.

He sold Poland down the river and couldn't face up to Stalin. Doesn't seem very strong to me.

the US and UK would make consessions in order to keep USSR in the war and an ally?

Where is the evidence to suggest that the USSR would NOT have stayed in the war WITHOUYT concessions

David Kennedy's Freedom From Fear states: "Even larger anxieties proliferated about Soviet intentions. In midsummer 1943 Stalin had withdrawn his ambassadors from both London and Washington. In September came rumors that the Germans had extended a peace feeler to Moscow through Japan stimulating anew the fear of a separate settlement in eastern Europe before a second front had even opened in the west. One observer detected "an atmosphere alarmingly reminiscent of that which had preceded the Molotov Ribbentrop pact of August 1939." See footnotes in Foreign Relations of the United States (1943) and Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins (734).

Maybe this provides an answer:

speculation on Soviet intent vis a vis an accord with Germany?

If the atomic bomb hadn't worked who can say the Red Army wouldn't have be needed to end WWII?

I can't understand all this talk of Soviets being needed to end WW2 as though they were tottering on the verge of pulling out and didn't have a vested interest in continuing the fight.

This type of thinking is, to me, strange, and it just seems to be accepted because that's what the history books say.

I think you should have said that both Churchill and Roosevelt could not face up to Stalin...

Stalin bluffed them, outsmarted them, tricked them, you pick the verb.

Stalin bluffed them, outsmarted them, tricked them, you pick the verb.

I can't understand all this talk of Soviets being needed to end WW2 as though they were tottering on the verge of pulling out and didn't have a vested interest in continuing the fight.

I think both Churchill and Roosevelt would not face up to Stalin...

If you have reached the limits of your understanding such is life ;-)

I was surprised and disappointed at these comments, particularly from someone such as yourself. It seems I was mistaken and misunderstood your intent and capacity to engage in discussion and critical analysis.