WW2: Britain Declares War on Germany to Save Poland

Senior Cat, I think we all agree that wroclaw may have been exagerating a shade....(ps,Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK ....)

Very impresive,but,individual kills are worthless in those types of air battle,what counts is coordinating between other Sqdrns to acheive combined aims,even the biggest supporter of the Poles in the BofB admit that many of these kills were gained at the expense of keeping formation/acting effectivly as an air barrier.
No right minded Briton thinks "we" won the war alone, we all know that ww2 was a combined effort.

Thankyou southern,he may listen to you,for some reason he cant believe that a Briton can be telling the truth in this matter.........

Yeah, exactly :)

He said England...



I know, but numbers like those certainly help. Eliminated that 12% of thousands of German aircraft and what do you get? More bombing of England. I was just merely pointing out that others were there and they made their presence known...



Every country has its trolls...

:]

Thanks again for your responses. I enjoyed reading them.



Yes, exactly. I surmise that Poland would have honoured the promise and done just that. I think that's a reasobnable assumption, going off histroical precedents.



Why is it distasteful? Because it causes discomfiture when the deeds and misdeeds are brought to account. My thoughts on that issue cannot in any way have precipitated your response in that paragraph. I set out to illustrate that the benefits accrued by Poles from the efforts and contributions they made were in no way commensurate.

I'm a bit disappointed at this but that's your prerogative.
WW3? Where did that come into it? The meaning of the sentence is quite clear. There was an alliance between GB and Poland (and others to to be fair). The Poles fulfilled their part of the contract and GB (and the allies) did not, ergo, there was no payment in kind.

As to the mine detectors, please dont resort to idiosyncratic contributions as suggestive of evidence that they were the only contributions made. It's poor form to receive help then question the helper as to the volume and method of delivery of that help.



I didnt mean it in that way at all. I explained the background to that hypothesis in the paragraph preceding it, and you know perfectly well what my argument was, so your tangential assessment of allied contributions is needless because it's known to any student of history. Smoke and mirrors may work well in the esteemed discussion circles and educated environs you frequent when not paying the Polish forum a visit, but please dont try it here ;-).

Regards, Dan

I would consider it a late payment, or a payment made in installments than no payment at all. Fact of the matter is, YES, France and England tried to save Poland, but came too late. Germany was too strong at first but eventually the war was won. My only problem with the whole thing is that how quickly Poland was given up to the Soviets.

Good men like Winston Chruchill regretted every doing it, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened. We are still allies today, and hopefully we'll be more honourable to each other in the future.

:]

Dan, dont matter who you word it, you are missing the point in almost everything you highlighted;

would they,really,Poland had a long standing strategic plan,of defense. If they had tried to strike hitler first,with an un mobilised army,just how long do you think Poland would have lasted?


Well dan, just how could GB have freed Poland at the end of the war,are you forgetting the little matter of the Red Army being in control of the entire area. Do you think Uncle Joe would have just said,"oh,ok you can have your country back"? Do you really? So ,to "fullfill its promise" ,(which,if you know,was to free Poland from the Nazis,which was done) GB would have had to go to war with the USSR,how long do you think that would have lasted,do you really think GB was obligated to go to war with the Soviets to "free" Poland( a Poland that had two competing govts,one there one here),and at the cost of how many lives? Do you really think the wartime Poles weere fighting for GB,if you do Im afraid you have been sadly mislead and dont seem to fully understand the nature of the wartime alliancess.

You were the one wanting a tally,not me. I gave one example out of many possibilities to show how futile any atempt to say "we did more than you" is as an argument,you try to turn this around,well,sorry chum,you got the wrong end of the stick.


Simply that in war,no one thought that way,everyone was fighting a commen enemy,so I say again,trying to "score points" for "your" team,is distastefull and disrespectfull. as Polson agrees;


and Mr Cat,

yep,sorry to give wrong impresion, all the guys that fought the Hun were valuable,all contributed something just by being there,even the American volunteers who didnt actualy have any "killls" during the battle were vital. Like I say,every British schoolboy has,at the very least,seen the old movie " Battle of Britain" and you can hardly say that classic bit of British flag waving ignores the Polish contribution.

In all fairness, WW2: Britain Declares War on Germany to Save Poland must be looked at by what took place between 1920 and WW2. To look at it and say it was "to save Poland" is like looking at WW1 didn't have unresolved issues. Carol

http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140

Still much much more than you did for us.

With respect Isthatu, I now feel that this is just silly games from you. I took issue with you on my last post for your misconceptions of my arguments and you come back with the same except directed to me. This smacks of evasion.



The longevity or effectiveness of the strike didnt calculate in my argument. I say that the Poles would have honoured the agreement regardless. Poles have a history of fighting against insuperable odds and a tradition of assisting their allies and friends.



No, I'm not forgetting this issue. There was the whole period of 39 to 45 wherein GB (and the other allies to be fair) had the chance to assist Poland to attempt to secure her own freedom, or clearly advise her that this wasn't coming. The Poles were simply strung along with grand speeches and promises by Churchill and Roosevelt that Poland would emerge from the war undiminished. Why would they say that? Because they feared losing some of their most able troops if they didn't.



They fought for GB with a view that their efforts would be repaid or honoured in kind. They were told this would be the case by the highest authority. Whether their motives were altruistic viz GB or selfish is immaterial. They were part of a team and shouldered their responsibilites admirably and in good faith. In many instances, as you know, Poles fought with a courage and tenacity that went beyond expectation. That is the nature of a wartime alliance. It appears that you have been sadly misled if you believe that a wartime alliance is representing to an ally that they wouldnt be let down, accept their contributions and then, when it's too late, say sorry, we can't really do anything for you but thanks for your efforts.



It's no argument, it's a fact. A particularised list per se of contributions is not needed. It is common knowledge. The argument I make is that the contributions made byu Poland were not commensurate to the gain received. The reason the gain or benefit was not commensurate was because the alliance or team let Poland down. Saying "we couldnt have done more" or "we did what we could" or "how could we have fought the Russians" is immaterial in the present day, because those sentiments should have been clearly, concisely and swiftly conveyed to the Poles in the early 40's when it became apparent that aid wasn't coming and it wasn't foreseeable.

To do otherwise, which in fact did occur, is pure, unadulterated fraud and misrepresentation. Had the Poles been advised of the allies position viz aid/assistance/fulfilling their contractual obligations/their attitude of slavish appeasement toward Stalin, the Poles would have had a choice to keep fighting as emigres or direct their efforts toward fighting their way back to Poland and face whatever fate awaited them. My unashamed and patriotic view - the Poles would have fulfilled their immediate obligations to their international comrades, deeply thanked them for the unfirom and gun provided, marched, flown, crawled or driven to Poland, annihilating any enemy in their way, arrive in Poland, put the fear of God into Stalin.... who knows? They werent given the chance. The outcome would than have been squarely on their shoulders and we wouldnt be having these kinds of arguments today.

As an aside, it's strange how the Polish para brigade wasn't released despite Boor's pleading during the Rising. I think that's a good example of the line of thought dispalyed in this paragraph. I won't riposte with a witty pun as you saw fit to deliver and miss, because your words have received the response they so richly deserve.

Regards, Dan

Dan,

Thank you for your response. May the real truth be heard.




Even when they knew they were betrayed, "a man is only as good as his name", the Polish gave their all.

Carol

And what a great decision that was, a master craftsman I would say.

lesson learnt after the (not so well) first attempt at dunkirque, maybe... ?

Ah,the famous historical argument.......


why is this strange, who wold have flown them there? What transports were available at this time? Only those set aside for operation comet. How do you fly an entire airborne brigade,mostly made up of slow moving gliders all the way to Warsaw? You dont,they would have been destroyed before they got as far as Berlin........
If your happy seeing yourselves as poor wretched victims,let down by big bad GB,well, frankly,boo hoo. sorry Dan,but your answers,though beutifully worded(almost like a kevin smith script) are very nieve to say the least. You talk about unarmed poles not being given the chance to take on the Red Army in 1945.......and do what,cause Stalin to just say,"screw it,lets just get rid of all these poles"..........

or the truth that fits some victim mentality............
The only country that did F all for your grandparents generation and this is the attitude now....disgracfull, you may as well spit on the war graves from here to cairo.....unlike your vision of wartime poles,wartime british troops were dying for half of europe,acording to your logic polands forces were only fighting to free poland....well,I know which of those two I say carries more honour and selfless sacrife,but thats only from your description,I know the truth was very different.


and a classic G one liner...

Quoting: isthatu
oops,no you didnt,you had two boats somewhere off the coast


Still much much more than you did for us.

muppet,they were ex RN ships given to the PL navy........

Poland was there for you after they had to fight alone. Can you say the same? I don't think so. In the end did you have a country? Poland did not. Since you love my use of historical links.

MILITARY OPERATIONS

In the early morning hours of Sept. 1, 1939, the German armies marched into Poland. On September 3 the British and French surprised Hitler by declaring war on Germany, but they had no plans for rendering active assistance to the Poles.

http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140

You may not want to read the whole artical it it is the truth. I don't know why you continue to disaggree, I am American as well as Polish, I can admit USA screwed us in WW2. I am not saying British didn't fight, I am saying they did not declare war to help Poland. They were covering there own bu*ts before Poland was even attacked. Also see message 278 above. Carol

I think that the main mistake of Poles is to view their situation as unique as something extraordinary.Let's clear for example:
1.English gave guarantees of independance to many countries without being able to keep their promise.
2.Germans had plans for every single land in Europe whether or not they managed to apply them.
3.Soviets used massive deportations as a tool for internal stability and security.
It was not that the english,the germans and the soviets were anti-poles.Everybody had his plans for Europe and Poland was a part of the international conflict.

So in other words while talking about history we should talk only about tragedies of Jews, Gypsies, etc but not polish people and everything will be OK?

I do not mean that.But you have to put it in the right context to make it believable.Otherwise everybody will say the same,for example,you Poles had half a million dead,we Germans had 4 millions due to Nazis,or americans had 350000 dead etc.You fail to cause sympathy.
The Jews managed to gain sympathy through exploiting holocaust as something unique that happened to them only,so if anybody tries to do the same the others will view him in disbelief.

Where did you get those numbers????? A quarter of the population was gone after WW2. Did you mean because of concentration camps?

isthatu, I remeber your post about historians and that they shuld be objective, etc... I'm afraid that you lost your objectivness somewhere in this topic. Why are you being so defensive? Well than again, "the Polish side" could have used less emotionally charged stance...

If anybody is interested in a real debate about history without this whole "our pilots saved your country" or "this is your victim mentality" give me a call. :)

What's your number?

:]

so mass murdering of Poles and Jews during ww2 was "nothing personal"? ...

Again you fail to understand.Number of dead does not play any role now.The Soviets had 20 million deads.Poles lost half a million only in eastern Poland due to ukrainian nationalist actions and NKVD authorities.There is no point to compare losses.
You should center on what you can demand.For example the Germans destroyed Warsaw by plan.There is the written document to do that signed by german legitimate government.They did not destroy Paris or Rome.So since Germany is now united,you may claim compensations.It is estimated to be 50 billion euros by Kaczynski's comitee.
Really you have the legal rights to get this amount.
If you insist on english role,comparison of number of deads etc,you will gain nothing.Because the Germans will claim that they are not responsible for Nazis' actions and they also suffered from Nazi administration.You play the game anti-nazi,anti-communist,that is proposed to you.They will tell you,ask uncle Putin for compensations or use you simply as a means to press Putin to get some less expensive oil.Do not let them tool you and ask the Germans for compensations.

But it's all true! Well except the figures. :)

Every nation that participated in WWII loss something so in a sense Poland’s fate wasn’t a unique one, but still I think that I have every right to talk about it without being accused of trying to be the centre of the world.

I was just wondering what those numbers were from...I'm not trying to downplay any country here. Take out one single country from the alliance and the war would have been much different. Each country played a role, small or big.

All I wanted to know is what those numbers stood for; dead in concentration camps, casualties of war, etc.

:]

Poland was a special case.It was special because it suffered severe damages and it did not win despite it was faithful ally to the winners.Take for example Italy.They were heavily engaged in axis,yet at the end of war they were almost considered winners due to italian diplomacy.Take France.They were defeated shamefully,yet at the end they paraded as winners although their resistance and general attitude could not compare to polish.The Czechs never fought,so in part they were responsible for their fate.The Hungarians,the Bulgarians,the Croats,the Romanians,all were axis allies,so their punishment was in part justified.
On the other hand all the nations which became western allies,the Greeks,the Serbs,the Norwegians,the Dutch,the Belgians,all gained their independance and a lot of financial support.
So you really have reasons to complain.But it should be in that context.

As a whole. There were a number of Czechs that helped the Allies.



I wish most of us wouldn't though. It's like playing a trump card in an arguement. I hate it when people bring up past events for arguements.



Agreed.

lol, Ditto.... :)


Well,as far as Im concerned Im still staying objective, It just happens to be the country I live in Im "defending" so to speak,if the topic had been " France declares war for Poland" instead of Britain I rather imagine my arguments would be pretty similar,and answers to the charges levelled by overly patriotic Poles would be about the same. Ie,the whole world was falling apart,no one in 1939 could have forseen the situation in europe as it was to be in 1945 so most arguments are moot,especially the old hoary chestnut of " britain didnt keep its promisises..." ,plain and simply,it did,it was one of the nations,that part of an alliance, crushed Nazi Germany,thereby freeing (not just Poland,but the rest of) Europe from nazi oppresion. There was absoloutly nothing in GBs decleration of war in 1939 about then going on and freeing anyone from the USSR.

Eh? This is wrong in so many ways. They fought alone,for 28 or so days,then capitulated,as has been done to death,what could have been done in that short space of time...........? And sorry to disappoint you but,as far as the world was concerned Poland did exist as a country after the war,it didnt just drop off the face of the earth it had a government and everything...........

Well why the buggery else did they do it? For a spot of caravaning,a nice holiday around the med?Or maybe as a form of population control,you know,declare war because Poland was invaded just so we could have the pleasure of the lufftwaffe bombing our towns and cities for the next 5 years???????
Im sorry,you are so wrong.Britain would have been far better siting on the sidelines.Hitler loved the English,had no desire for war with Britain and would have been quite happy leaving us(and probably france) out of his euro tour,as it was peace feelers were being sent out by abwher and probably even Hess right untill late 1941 as Germany didnt want to fight GB, not coz we were big n 'ard,simply our Empire was a more valuable trading partner to him than anything he could have gained with defeating britain,remember,if,and this is highly unlikely as he never planned for it,hitler had conquered GB our Govt would have carried on from Canada so he knew he was onto a loser. So, and ONE LAST TIME
Britain declared war because hitler didnt pull out of Poland, no other reason,so stop whining about "truth " this and " betrayl" that,it simply isnt becoming.........

Under Heindrich the Czechs were so satisfied by their life under nazism,that GB had to send two people to kill him in order to revive some kind of resistance.Their wages had become better during german occupation.Generally Czechs do not tend to resist a lot.(opposite to Poles,see their attitude towards Austrohungary,Napoleon wars,WW1,now etc).Generally I like Czechs a lot,they simply try to adjust,they do not like to fight wars.

oh by golly they did,and so did many other countries,nationalities that lost their way of life/prefered form of government after ww11.
I sometimes get the impresion that many Poles think they were the only other allied country in the war other than GB US and UUSR.........or the only country to lose out in the aftermath.
And one thing you all seem to forget,it was a world war, if,as many claim ,the Poles were so altruistic and fighting for Britain,well,where the heck were you in the fight against Japan? You know,that big war in jungles etc......