British National Party – Spitfire c*ck-up!

Thats the trouble with war, it never solves anything, but is still necessary.

A lot of good men died going to war to fullfill our obligation to protect Poland, and those that survived, watched on, as it happened all over again.

Hindsights a wonderfull thing, but I do wonder if it wouldn’t have been better to let Germany and Russia slug it out on their own, it couldn’t have been any worse for Poland, and the victor (whomever), would have been seriously weakened.

BNP

It would be interesting to see how many BNP members belong to “White Eagle “clubs,thats the polish expats clubs that where started after WW2 by Poles who remained behind to work in the UK rather than return home.We had quite a few as neighbors back in the 50s and they are nice people.I realise that things are different today but are they not in the EU and entitled to work here?

The book ‘A Question of Honour – The Kosciuszko Squadron’ will surely be the definitive read on the topic, and I quote – “stunning betrayal by the United States and England at the end of WWII.”, “craven deference to Stalin” etc.

After all he’s just written a book, having spent several years researching it. What’s that compared to your well founded posts on a web forum…

Stuart, of course you’re right about Britains rather poor condition, economically and otherwise, in 1945. I don’t think anyone can reasonably blame Britain for Stalins deeds at war’s end.

Excuse me…..haven’t you rather changed you opinion there? :confused:

Instead of blaming Britain for Stalin’s paranoid psychopathy, how about the other allies, all charged with maintaining boundarys and order; where was the US? they came out of the war no longer in recession,with Britain owing them more money than you can shake a stick at, strategic bases in Britain, Germany, west indies, and most of the captured “Nazi” technology and scientists.

Stuart, of course you’re right about Britains rather poor condition, economically and otherwise, in 1945. I don’t think anyone can reasonably blame Britain for Stalins deeds at war’s end. (My personal opinion is that in many respects Britain was much worse-off in 1945 than Poland, compared to their respective 1939 positions.)
The point is, however, that British politics did not start in 1945 or even in 1941. In 1939 Britain willingly declared her support for Poland should this country be attacked by Germany (as did France). Germany duly attacked Poland, Britain (and France) declared war on the invaders and then simply and completely failed to fulfil those self-assumed obligations. That’s where it all started. And my opinion is that back in 1939 Britain and France had quite serious chances of beating Germany when Hitler was very busy in Poland, just like they had those chances when Hitler incorporated the Czech Republic, or Austria before, or when he reintroduced German armed forces to Rheinland… What they lacked was not as much military power as the will to use it.

I’d be interested to read his opinion about how Poland could have been freed in 1945…..but I doubt that they’re in the book.

You’ll never know that until you try to read it.

…I’m an old-fashioned man who thinks it might be useful to read a book before you call it nonsense.

I’m not saying his book is nonsense…..I’m just commenting on the quote about the ‘betrayal’ of Poland.

I’d be interested to read his opinion about how Poland could have been freed in 1945…..but I doubt that they’re in the book.

Instead of blaming Britain for Stalin’s paranoid psychopathy, how about the other allies, all charged with maintaining boundarys and order; where was the US? they came out of the war no longer in recession,with Britain owing them more money than you can shake a stick at, strategic bases in Britain, Germany, west indies, and most of the captured “Nazi” technology and scientists.

Wasn’t the original boundaries and territory of Poland (set up after the treaty of versailles) jointly policed /enforced by Britain, France, and the US, and didn’t the US pull out of occupation, ending their responsibility?

So, when Soviet influence ended Poland willingly returned the former German territory…
…or are Polish grievances only about the territory they lost due to ‘betrayal’ and Soviet oppression?

IIRC there was some connection between ‘the territory lost due to Soviet oppression’ and ‘the former German territory’.

Dashing the RAF against the Ruhr in 1939 would only have speeded the (later) collapse of France, could have led to the loss of the BEF and even cost us the Battle of Britain…..depending on what forces were committed.

In theory anything ‘could have led to’ anything. In fact I doubt your reasoning.

since your’re taking his side…

I’m not taking anyone’s side but my own. But I’m an old-fashioned man who thinks it might be useful to read a book before you call it nonsense.

Probably he’s not. After all he’s just written a book, having spent several years researching it. What’s that compared to your well founded posts on a web forum…

As I said just my personal opinion…..but since your’re taking his side…

…how would you have wrested Poland from the Soviets? :p

And remember you’re a coward if you can’t! :diablo:

Yes, all of Eastern and Central Europe ows a lot to the Soviet Union for changing borders and uprooting millions of people. They made sure that Poland’s, Germany’s, Hungary’s, Rumania’s, Finland’s, etc., etc. territories are going to be ‘changing’ and/or ‘disputed’ for many, many years to come..

So, when Soviet influence ended Poland willingly returned the former German territory…

…or are Polish grievances only about the territory they lost due to ‘betrayal’ and Soviet oppression?

Well, the main difference is that in those 1939 weeks vast majority of the German army was in Poland, not facing France.

And the whole of the British Army was in Britain…they’d have been lucky to get to France before Poland fell.

Dashing the RAF against the Ruhr in 1939 would only have speeded the (later) collapse of France, could have led to the loss of the BEF and even cost us the Battle of Britain…..depending on what forces were committed.

It’s nice to think that things would have gone Britain’s way but look at Norway, how well did we do there? I’d say there was far more chance of victory in Norway due to the size of German forces and the geography of the situation.

that’s just utter nonsense…
Is the American author (Stanley Cloud) serious?

Probably he’s not. After all he’s just written a book, having spent several years researching it. What’s that compared to your well founded posts on a web forum…

The book ‘A Question of Honour – The Kosciuszko Squadron’ will surely be the definitive read on the topic, and I quote – “stunning betrayal by the United States and England at the end of WWII.”, “craven deference to Stalin” etc.

Assuming Stalin wouldn’t have relinquished control of Poland after a strongly worded letter, that’s just utter nonsense…

…in my humble opinion of course!

How…..how…..was Poland to be freed…..military force? If you can’t answer this question Poland was not betrayed!

Craven? Cowardly? Is the American author (Stanley Cloud) serious?

(…and England? Were Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland neutral then…..or just not guilty of betrayal? :rolleyes:)

ironically current day Poland actually contains much territory that was German in 1939 (thanks to the Soviet Union).

Yes, all of Eastern and Central Europe ows a lot to the Soviet Union for changing borders and uprooting millions of people. They made sure that Poland’s, Germany’s, Hungary’s, Rumania’s, Finland’s, etc., etc. territories are going to be ‘changing’ and/or ‘disputed’ for many, many years to come.

Treaties […] are a bluff.

Was that a general policy of HM Government at the time?

and the RAF would have suffered many losses.

Well, the RAF did suffer a lot of losses anyway. My opinion is that it may have made more sense to suffer those over the Ruhr in 1939 than in retreat from France in 1940.

The BEF was swept aside, along with the armies of France (the biggest in the world), by Germany in May 1940 after a long period of preparation (the Phoney War). In my mind it is inconceivable that the British army could have effectively intervened in the six weeks it took Germany to conquer Poland, and again at what cost.

Well, the main difference is that in those 1939 weeks vast majority of the German army was in Poland, not facing France.

Lets not forget also that the merchant navy had an equally rough deal, they wern’t allowed to march, even until recently, no campaign medal etc, and on shore leave many were spat at or beaten up, because not wearing a uniform, the were considered conscription dodgers; and lets not forget that these people were in the main British, and were equally responsible for saving our bacon, as any other service.

Unlike the Czechs, who returned to Prague in August 1945 with their Spitfires for formal celebrations, the Poles were denied such a flypast in Warsaw…and they were justifiably bitter.

The book ‘A Question of Honour – The Kosciuszko Squadron’ will surely be the definitive read on the topic, and I quote – “stunning betrayal by the United States and England at the end of WWII.”, “craven deference to Stalin” etc.

It was an honour to be in Warsaw in June last year, when the BBMF flew in AB910 in Jan Zumbach’s markings. Spitfire veteran Jerzy Glowczewski finally got to make that flypast down the River Vistula through Warsaw …albeit in a Tiger Moth.

Mark

That’s a funny kind of logic…..[the] decision to prevent a Polish contingent marching behind a Polish flag (which they had, IMHO, every right to do) would have been corrected by a selection of Poles marching in the RAF contingent?

I hadn’t actually realised that the victory parade didn’t take place until June 1946. I suppose the Poles actual concern was that Poland had fallen under Soviet control and their refusal to take any part in the parade was a protest to highlight this issue (a pretty effective protest if we’re talking about it today).

The lack of a representative invitation to the Poles by the parade organisers (whoever they were) was a disgrace, on the face of it, but perhaps we are forgetting the bigger picture and looking at this from the safety of 2009.

Tension between the west and the Soviet Union were high, the Berlin airlift was only two years away, NATO didn’t exist, Britain was exhausted and bankrupt, the empire was dissolving and it is unlikely that our overseas allies would be thrilled at the prospect of more European conflict. Was including Poland in the parade really more important than maintaining an uneasy peace with the Soviets? And what of the Poles who fought alongside the Russians? There were whole divisions of Poles fighting on the eastern front, under Russian control…..so it is not really a black-and-white issue as some have seen it.

The Poles clearly felt betrayed but I still maintain that Britain couldn’t free Poland in 1945…..I know people see that as a betrayal but these people haven’t been able to say how it should have been achieved.

Roger,

I would Czech that out.

Mark

Never was very good at geography :confused:

Roger Smith.

I’m not sure that you can blame Churchill for the victory parade fiasco James. He had been out of office for almost a year by the time it took place. He did, however, withdraw support for the Polish government-in-exile before leaving office. This was a bigger act of betrayal. in my eyes, than only allowing a token presence at the victory parade.

Fair comment Steve.

That’s a funny kind of logic. Churchill’s decision to prevent a Polish contingent marching behind a Polish flag (which they had, IMHO, every right to do) would have been corrected by a selection of Poles marching in the RAF contingent? Not Churchill’s finest hour, and the withdrawal of participation by some Poles left in as a sop is hardly surprising.

I’m not sure that you can blame Churchill for the victory parade fiasco James. He had been out of office for almost a year by the time it took place. He did, however, withdraw support for the Polish government-in-exile before leaving office. This was a bigger act of betrayal. in my eyes, than only allowing a token presence at the victory parade.

Best wishes
Steve P

According to these statements made by Rudolf Falkowski some Poles, Battle of Britain pilots, were invited to take part in the victory parade and it was their choice not to attend, effectively exclude any Pole from taking part.

That’s a funny kind of logic. Churchill’s decision to prevent a Polish contingent marching behind a Polish flag (which they had, IMHO, every right to do) would have been corrected by a selection of Poles marching in the RAF contingent? Not Churchill’s finest hour, and the withdrawal of participation by some Poles left in as a sop is hardly surprising.

91regal – it is about aviation history, IMHO, just not the ‘all jolly heroes together’ balls.

Are you sure about that?

Very sure.

Best wishes
Steve P