PDA

View Full Version : "Bloody Foreigners" in the Battle of Britian..



Xiolablu3
09-05-2010, 06:22 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a61_1277853853

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0f_1277855289&c=1

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1d_1277856793


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e2_1277858019

Hope some of you enjoy this as much as I did.

M_Gunz
09-05-2010, 09:16 AM
except for the end which I can't say I got any enjoyment out of

ytareh
09-05-2010, 11:19 AM
Yes the treatment of the Poles and Czecks (sp?) was pretty shameful after the war ...There were quite a few dirty deals done after the war as far as I know ...didnt an ethnic group like the Cossacks(POWs) get returned 'home' in their thousands to almost certain death too?

Xiolablu3
09-05-2010, 12:26 PM
Yes I agree, shamefull.

However britian was in no shape to stand up to Russia at that time. Only the USA could have done anything to influence Russia's hold over Poland at that time.

Britain had nothing to bargain with, she was completely bankrupt, with no bargaining chips. SH ecould not have defended herself against a Russian invasion, never mind Poland.

Leaving the Poles out of the victory parades was shameful on her part though.

Can you imagine Britian going to war with Russia in 1946 over Poland again while bankrupt? It was an impossible situation. She had already gone to war to try and save Poland and bankrupted herself. If she did it again she would have been defeated.

F0_Dark_P
09-05-2010, 01:22 PM
I enjoyed this very much!, thank you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

KRISTORF
09-05-2010, 03:24 PM
Wasn't the fate of the Poles decided at Casablanca, with the Cossacks having similar at Yalta?

Yes it is disgracefull what was done to several nations toward the end of WWII, and, as far as I recall, Churchill was not happy, but by this time he/we (Britain) were classed as 'minor' partners, with the USSR pounding Germany from the East and the USA doing the same to Japan.

As said, due to the state of the British Empire after 5 years of war Churchill had to bend to Stalins demands, even though his thoughts were well documented regarding the dark menace from the East.

M_Gunz
09-05-2010, 03:49 PM
Did they even explain why to the Polish in Britain or elsewhere? What manners when the message is "I expect you'll be leaving.". Something to say "we feel for you about this but what can we do?" to show it's not personal. Russia was not going to inavade over presence in a parade but perhaps in occupied Poland the pain would be dealt but from the comments nothing was said except "we don't want -you-", but perhaps politely mind you.

T_O_A_D
09-05-2010, 05:02 PM
Thanks for the links.

What a ride they had, for such a shameful ending.

WTE_Galway
09-05-2010, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by ytareh:
...didnt an ethnic group like the Cossacks(POWs) get returned 'home' in their thousands to almost certain death too?


http://www.rense.com/general47/butch.htm

The really controversial bit was the rounding up and return of Cossacks and their families that had escaped Russia as early as 1917 over 20 years earlier.

Many of those rounded up and handed over by Churchill for execution by Stalin had actually never stepped foot in Russia. They had been born in Europe or in many cases Britain and in some cases simply joined a Cossack regiment. Many of the younger children handed over actually had parents who were born outside Russia.

trashcanUK
09-05-2010, 07:11 PM
errr .. maybe we can have some perspective here?
"...rounded up and handed over by Churchill for execution by Stalin ..." does not even come close to the truth!!! and to assume a single example of one polish mans conversation with an englishman represents a whole country is just .... well I'll be polite and say silly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Please remember that at that time there were thousands of British and Commonwealth PoWs in Soviet hands so it is understandable that the priority of the UK government was to get them home safely. As Kristorf also said, Britain was economically crippled at this time and under huge anti-colonial and financial pressure from the USA.
I would also say that this program is typical TV nonsense as it tries to create the impression that they have discovered a huge secret of WW2 and the BoB by telling the story of the brave Polish pilots.
Next to Northolt airfield is the Polish War Memorial, opened in 1948 to honour those brave airmen from Poland.
Sensationalist journalism, that is all.

Art-J
09-06-2010, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by trashcanUK:
errr .. maybe we can have some perspective here?
"...rounded up and handed over by Churchill for execution by Stalin ..." does not even come close to the truth!!! and to assume a single example of one polish mans conversation with an englishman represents a whole country is just .... well I'll be polite and say silly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Please remember that at that time there were thousands of British and Commonwealth PoWs in Soviet hands so it is understandable that the priority of the UK government was to get them home safely. As Kristorf also said, Britain was economically crippled at this time and under huge anti-colonial and financial pressure from the USA.
I would also say that this program is typical TV nonsense as it tries to create the impression that they have discovered a huge secret of WW2 and the BoB by telling the story of the brave Polish pilots.
Next to Northolt airfield is the Polish War Memorial, opened in 1948 to honour those brave airmen from Poland.
Sensationalist journalism, that is all.

Gotta agree that this "Untold" story, "discovered" by jornalists in the particular show above sounds a bit silly. One has to ask though, why do they try to tell the story this way. Maybe nowadays, when less an less young people are interested in recent history at all, one has to repeat facts which seem to be known an obvious to us, long-term WWII-aviation enthusiasts, but not so well known for average Mr Smith. Otherwise, these events may easily be forgotten.

As far as this part is concerned: "to assume a single example of one polish mans conversation with an englishman represents a whole country is just [...] silly", as a non-native English speaker, I'm not sure what You meant by that, TrashcanUK and I'm sorry for that. Have to tell you though, that If you ever visit out counntry (ah, yes, forgot to mention I'm a Pole by the way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) and If you ask any average person about their opinion on the 1945 events, I'd say most of people will say we had been shafted in Yalta and Britons are friends with us only when they need cannon fodder or cheap labour force. I do understand however (and I'm sure some my fellow countrymen more interested in history, will agree), that politics is a big boys game and in 1945 (maybe even already in 1943 - Teheran conference), the UK was not the one handing out cards...

Cheers - Art

Xiolablu3
09-06-2010, 01:05 PM
Obviously the big evil in all this was really Stalin and his Cronies, and Churchill powerless to do anything about it.

Does anyone actually know if he knew what the fates of the returned Poles would be?

Poland was right on Russias doorstep and she could basically do as she pleased. Britian could barely look after herself at this point, never mind Poland.

However, I do find it a bit crazy that SOME Poles blame Britain for :-

1: Russia's policy towards Poland.

and

2: Not destroying herself by protecting Poland to the death in 1946.

We dont blame Poland for our awful losses at the battle of the Somme for example?

Britian tried, Britian went to war to defend Poland. Britian (along with others) defeated one of Polands enemies and got their country back for them. It is not Britians fault (nor anyone elses but Stalins) that the Poles had such bad luck and treatment from the Russian Bear.

Insuber
09-06-2010, 04:22 PM
Foreign policy has little to do with ethics; it is ruled by strength, both economic and military. It is difficult to learn nowadays the details of those far events, and pointless to condemn or justify the responsible. One of the facts to consider is that after 6 years of ruthless war, destruction and waste of lives, the concept of human rights was very far from our present standards.

Cheers,
Insuber

Xiolablu3
09-07-2010, 11:26 AM
Maybe I should learn how to type 'Britain' correctly., geez http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Woke_Up_Dead
09-07-2010, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Obviously the big evil in all this was really Stalin and his Cronies, and Churchill powerless to do anything about it.

Poland was right on Russias doorstep and she could basically do as she pleased. Britian could barely look after herself at this point, never mind Poland.

However, I do find it a bit crazy that SOME Poles blame Britain for :-

1: Russia's policy towards Poland.

and

2: Not destroying herself by protecting Poland to the death in 1946.

Britian tried, Britian went to war to defend Poland. Britian (along with others) defeated one of Polands enemies and got their country back for them. It is not Britians fault (nor anyone elses but Stalins) that the Poles had such bad luck and treatment from the Russian Bear.

I think you're making some faulty assumptions there Xiolablu. Standing up to Stalin during the war would not have required an additional war and more bloodshed, just more courage and foresight in political dealings.

Poles didn't expect Britain to "fight to the death" in 1946, they knew that the decision to give Poland to Stalin was made much earlier than that, in 1943 when Britain and the US still had a LOT to bargain with against the Soviet Union. Stalin made his territorial ambitions vis-a-vis Poland known even in 1942 when he was in absolutely no position to bargain, and yet he met no resistance. He also didn't hear anything out of Britain when he invaded Poland in 1939, even though the pact that Britain had with Poland was to declare war an any aggressors.

Basically Britain made the same mistake with Stalin as they did with Hitler: they appeased and looked the other way while he was weak and pushing the limits of what he could get away with, until all of a sudden he became strong and appeared at their doorstep. Had the Brits more foresight and courage at the bargaining table in their dealings with the Soviet Union starting in 1941, the Iron Curtain would have likely been drawn 1000km further east with several additional eager allies on the western side.

Xiolablu3
09-09-2010, 06:57 AM
Thanks for your thought, but maybe you too are making some faulty assumptions?

By 1943 and on Churchill could have a good debate with, and maybe influence Roosevelt, but in the end if the US totally disagreed, then the that was final.

I am sure that Churchill, who never trusted Stalin was itching to ensure teh safety of Poland and all of Europe, but Roosevelt and Truman were far more cautious and sacrificed some European countries in return for World stability.
Of course Churchill and Roosevelt would only have these discusions in private and what they decided was presented as a united front.

Churchill definitely thought about it enough to make a plane of invasion :-

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

But Britain on her own without the United States, bankrupt, with her own troubles, had no chance vs Soviet Russia at this point.

The report states exactly what the German invasion report states, if they dont succeed by Winter, the war will drag on and on.

As Britain could do nothing to stop Stalin, it introduced this :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...esettlement_Act_1947 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Resettlement_Act_1947)

PhantomKira
09-10-2010, 09:28 AM
Really good find, Xiolablu3.


By 1943 and on Churchill could have a good debate with, and maybe influence Roosevelt, but in the end if the US totally disagreed, then the that was final.

In part this had to do with a surprising (or maybe no so) fact. In April or May of 1942, Roosevelt asked Churchill for the use of several RN fleet units (carriers, BBs etc) to help defend Midway. Churchill flatout refused, stating that to pull the units would unduely weaken the Far East command.

Now here's your ally in a fight for their very survival, and you're more worried about a colony half a world away from you home? No wonder Roosevelt left Churchill in the dust during later stages.

redhornet07
09-10-2010, 09:43 AM
Great videos! Thanks for posting them, and yeah the Allies sold out the Poles to the Soviets in a very disgraceful way.

Did any of you go and try the game thingy mentioned at the very end? It's pretty neat:
http://www.channel4.com/play-win/303squadron/

WTE_Galway
09-11-2010, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
Really good find, Xiolablu3.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By 1943 and on Churchill could have a good debate with, and maybe influence Roosevelt, but in the end if the US totally disagreed, then the that was final.

In part this had to do with a surprising (or maybe no so) fact. In April or May of 1942, Roosevelt asked Churchill for the use of several RN fleet units (carriers, BBs etc) to help defend Midway. Churchill flatout refused, stating that to pull the units would unduely weaken the Far East command.

Now here's your ally in a fight for their very survival, and you're more worried about a colony half a world away from you home? No wonder Roosevelt left Churchill in the dust during later stages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchill had not endeared himself to the Australians either:

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/b...trays_Australia.html (http://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html)

Buzzsaw-
09-16-2010, 02:12 PM
Salute

To blame Churchill for the fate of the nations who fell behind the 'Iron Curtain' is a typical revisionist argument which falls apart under any serious scrutiny.

In fact the records clearly show Churchill argued more fiercely for the rights of East Europeans than any other Allied leader. He was overruled by Roosevelt, who sided with Stalin on this issue in the various Tripartite meetings which were held. (Tehran, Yalta)

Particularly by Yalta, Roosevelt was a sick man, not capable of the same sharp reasoning he had displayed earlier in the war, and he desperately wanted to believe Stalin was sincere in his promises of 'democratic' options for Poland, Hungary, Czechslovakia, etc.

Without US support, Britain was clearly not capable of forcing the Soviets to comply.

The failure also lies at the feet of Eisenhower, who persisted with his 'broad front' strategy, which slowed the overall movement of western Allied armies. In addition, in the spring of '45, when it was clear the Germans had collapsed on the West Front, but were still holding fiercely against the Soviets, Eisenhower missed the opportunity to push vigourously for Berlin instead of wasting troops and time liberating southern Germany, Bavaria and the mythical 'Alpine Redoubt'. Both Montgomery and Churchill argued for a focus on Berlin to no avail, Eisenhower wouldn't change his mind.

If the Allies had liberated Berlin, the face of postwar Europe would have been much different and the opportunities to support the Poles would have been far greater.

The best book written on the subject is "The Struggle for Europe" written in by Chester Wilmot, the award winning Australian and BBC reporter who was present and reported on all the major campaigns and conferences which led to the liberation of Europe. For example he landed in a glider with the British 6th Airborne at Normandy. He personally met and interviewd Eisenhower, Churchill, Mongomery, Roosevelt, etc.

M_Gunz
09-16-2010, 03:45 PM
I can't think of another British leader who could have gotten the country through 1941.

Kwiatos
09-17-2010, 09:23 AM
The truth is that Poland was fighting alone in september 1939 and was alone in 1945 when was overtaken by Soviets. Nothing could justify these facts. Also the truth is that Poland was sold much eariler then 1945 - with Tehran Conference in 1943. It is the big shame for Britian also that they didnt invited for The London Victory Celebrations of 1946 Polish soldiers who fought in the Polish Forces in the West were fighting one of the largest nations on the Allied forces. The only Polish organization fighting invited to participate in the parade were the pilots of Squadron 303, who however refused to take part in the parade after the other Polish troops were not invited to the parade. I know that during these parade some Polish Pilots from 303 were between crowd and were crying for such injustice. It was very humiliating for them.

I only really say that i give big Salute for these brave Polish pilots and im very disappointed as they had been treated after the war.
Im very proud of these men.

S!

303_Kwiatek form 303 Virtual Polish Squadron

Woke_Up_Dead
09-20-2010, 11:36 PM
When the "Big Three" met for the first time in November 1943, the western allies had still failed to mount a second front in Europe and were eager to make concessions. Churchill may have argued for the rights of East Europeans more than other Allied leaders, but at that meeting it was he who took the initiative in proposing that the Nazi-Soviet peace boundary of 1939 could stand as the basis for further discussions about the Soviet Union's post-war western frontier. That border was about 200km west of Poland's pre-war border.

And it wasn't as simple as just the three leaders and what they wanted, at least not in the case of the US and Britain. Churchill was facing strong pro-Russian and pro-Stalin feelings and press at home (George Orwell who was a critic of those sentiments wrote some interesting articles on the topic), while his Foreign Office and other ministries were infiltrated by Soviet spies. The pro-Soviet lobby in the US wasn't as strong and had more opposition, but it still managed to re-brand Stalin as "Uncle Joe" thanks in part to government-initiated propaganda like the movie "Mission to Moscow."

Mercanario
09-21-2010, 02:44 AM
Good book on the betrayal of 303 "Kosciuszko" Squadron;

For Your Freedon and Ours

Lyne Olson and Stanley Cloud

telsono
10-02-2010, 06:05 PM
I would add some other books as well:
"No Greater Ally: The Untold Story of Poland's Forces in World War II" by Kenneth K. Koskodan
"The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciusko and The Age of Revolution" by Alex Storozynski (to give you a background on the history of the animosity between Germany and Russia with Poland)
I would also recommend reading up on the 1919-21 War and the "Miracle of the Vistula" as some of the players were there as well. Stalin in fact may have some blame to the loss along the Vistula by pulling units away against orders. DeGaulle was a French Military observer during the campaign.
A lot of people don't realize that Poland's armed services was our 4th largest. Larger than France's. Its amazing how many of Poland's service men escaped in 1939, including the entire air cadet corps which was led by Urbanowitz into Romania. Later in the war Polish nationals who were drafted into the German army surrendered and were given new uniforms and returned to the front. This happened in both Italy and the Western Front. The opposite happened for the Soviet controlled troops who would leave when they could when the Soviet juggernaut entered the Polish borders. Soviet troops would arrest or abandon the AK Home Army) to the Germans as Soviet didn't want rivals in his sphere.

B.Mamba-DK
03-11-2011, 04:52 PM
Thank you for those links. Great stuff.

~S~

Rjel
03-12-2011, 01:27 AM
Histories errors always seem so obvious in hind sight.

nealn
04-13-2011, 02:02 PM
Great videos, thanks for posting!
Neal

Halfen
04-15-2011, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

To blame Churchill for the fate of the nations who fell behind the 'Iron Curtain' is a typical revisionist argument which falls apart under any serious scrutiny.

The failure also lies at the feet of Eisenhower, who persisted with his 'broad front' strategy, which slowed the overall movement of western Allied armies. In addition, in the spring of '45, when it was clear the Germans had collapsed on the West Front, but were still holding fiercely against the Soviets, Eisenhower missed the opportunity to push vigourously for Berlin instead of wasting troops and time liberating southern Germany, Bavaria and the mythical 'Alpine Redoubt'. Both Montgomery and Churchill argued for a focus on Berlin to no avail, Eisenhower wouldn't change his mind.

If the Allies had liberated Berlin, the face of postwar Europe would have been much different and the opportunities to support the Poles would have been far greater.

The best book written on the subject is "The Struggle for Europe" written in by Chester Wilmot, the award winning Australian and BBC reporter who was present and reported on all the major campaigns and conferences which led to the liberation of Europe. For example he landed in a glider with the British 6th Airborne at Normandy. He personally met and interviewd Eisenhower, Churchill, Mongomery, Roosevelt, etc.

Yes, it was Eisenhower who announced that he would not attack Berlin , knowing that it would be handed over to the Soviets after the war. Gen. Eisenhower did not see the point of fighting for land he could not keep. Post-war Europe had already been divided by 1944 anyway.
http://rhapsodyinbooks.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/sunday-salon-review-of-“armageddon”-by-max-hastings/

One must also take into account that the western allies were concerned about a seperate ceasefire bewteen Stalin and Hitler in 1941-'42,such as the one in 1917 with Lenin and the Kaiser.
Still, there was really no excuse for the Polish Forces not being in the victory parade.

Hoatee
04-22-2011, 01:12 PM
After an ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) - some 625 square miles with a population of 230 000.