It really is going to be a ‘tough sell’ (see previous anti-missile posts here).
Latest opinion polling data from CBOS:
Do you support or oppose the deployment of an anti-missile shield in Poland?
Support 28%
Oppose 55%
Not sure 17%
As Dirty Harry might say: "Some people don't know their limitations."
49 comments:
Beatroot,
You got the quote wrong - disastrously.
The real quote, from 'Magnum Force', is 'A man's got to know his limitations'...
Do you feel lucky?
For years, decades, I had imagined that it came from Dirty Harry.
Correcting that delusion has made doing this blog worth while alone.
beatroot,
You're still right, Dirty Harry was the big gun toting detective character in Magnum Force and in several other movies.
Thanks for sourcing the anti-missile stats. Since CBOS is a commercial enterprise and as such is paid for its 1000 + interviews of "adult" Poles, I am VERY curious to find out who came up with the $zwoty for this? Hmmm.
Ah...another conspiracy theory about Polosh opinion pollsters.
Fact is, stats like CBOS are all we got and much better than anecdotal stabs in the dark.
Do you think that this is from fear of Russia or Anti-Americanism? I personally would be very happy if this thing didn't happen. I think the last time something like this happened was in Cuba. And Bush, well, he's no JFK.
Also, the quote from Dirty Harry was basically "In all this excitement, I can't remember if I fired five shots or six. Do you feel lucky, punk!"
My point of view which comes from interacting daily with young educated Poles.
The current young educated demographic for the most part is not especially pro-American (not anti-American either, I'd say they're vaguely positive toward the US but not terribly interested).
They are far more pro EU and _very_ pro UK (that whole business about opening the labor market has a lot to do with that).
They also by and large don't think much of Bush and aren't really keen on furthering US defense interests for nothing in return and the whole F-16 has caused the US to take a hit in the trust department.
FWIW....
That just about sums up my experience with the Poles in general.
They have some of the slightly negative stereotypes (though nothing like what you get among ‘liberals’ in the UK) about Americans and American culture, but at the same time gorge themselves on that culture. We Europeans secretly admire the US hugely but are constantly amazed simultaneously at the pygmies that run its foreign policy.
But let us not forget that the Polish government has basically been under the American's heels since at least the early part of the decade. They were the only one's behind the American in the Iraq war, agreed to the secret prisons, etc. But Americans are absolutely not popular in Europe as you point out, I just read on another blog that Americans are being held back from entering Canada for mild legal infractions, And of course we know how Putin Lukashenka and Ahmadinejad feel. I wouldn't discount the theory.
I agree with michael farris. I may say that I am educated (but maybe not so young... 32 y.o just passed).
Most of people from my background are very sensitive in that topic. A lot of Poles still remember who sold Polad to Stalin after WW2. Of course it is also nothing to be proud of for UK.
Another case is that US gov. think they may have all for free here. We know the value of US promises (offset for F16 is the example). On the other hand the problem is that stupid Poles from our gov. let US to treat us as fools.
The result is shown by CBOS. And I think it is true.
There is also another problem. Putin, the old KGB member of the crew still think that Poland is somehow (or should be) dependent on Russia. Installation of the anti-missile system in Poland would be a chance to show 'fu.k you' to Putin.
Best regards,
Maciek
sp2qbn
^ Actually Poland is something for the UK to be proud of. The UK was repeatedly offered peace by the Nazis: all British territory and colonies would be untouched; all the Nazis wanted was land to the east of Germany. The UK honoured the treaty with Poland and refused all offers of peace.
It's also worth noting that the USA made exactly one drop of supplies to the Warsaw uprising despite their planes constantly flying over Poland to the US bases in Ukraine. Stalin refused to allow those bases to be used to supply the uprising, Churchill suggested sending supplies on one flight and seeing what happened, FDR refused to accept such a plan saying “I do not consider it advantageous to the long-range general war prospect for me to join you in the proposed message to Uncle Joe.” Then FDR refused to join Churchill in insisting on a high commission to supervise the Polish postwar election and establishment of a new Polish government.
It's even more interesting to note that the "England! Look what you've done!" line about Poland being taken over by the Nazis and then the Soviets is in fact the continuation of a line first put forth by Nazi propaganda.
Maciek wrote: a chance to show 'fu.k you' to Putin.
___
Shows more like Poland's ass is up in the air for the US to fu.k. Repeatedly. And for all time.
Harry said...”Actually Poland is something for the UK to be proud of”
History just doesn’t support this, yes they had their hearts in the right place but had no means of meeting their obligations to Poland (signed treaty). When England along with France gave Poland a security guarantee against German aggression, they knew full well they had no way to render assistance to Poland. The geopolitical situation in Europe shifted to make Germany the strongest power and in response neither England nor France prepared their armed forces to respond to the potential treat. The foreign policy of both nations pursued a path of shameful appeasement, which resulted in emboldening Hitler to pursue a policy of conquest. They in effect signed an agreement knowing full well that they could not meet their obligations.
During the approximately 30 days of conflict between Poland and Germany before Poland was occupied, was a handful of rifle ammunition fired off by either England or France?
Churchill had strictly enforced a policy of suppressing media reports of the Katyn massacre. Today nearly all records of that period have been made public, except the files on General Sikorski’s death those files remained sealed…. something to hide?
Churchill did work hard to get the best deal possible for Poland at the end of the war, but at the table with Stalin and without FDR’s support his position was hopeless.
I agree with you that the US was of little help to Poland in WW2, it actually betrayed Poland and all of the peoples of Eastern Europe in the most shameful way.
To elevate the ten missiles and their unproven technical capability as the real issue behind the Russia’s protests is a mistake. The Russians are fully aware these missiles do not neutralize their nuclear arsenal or even effect it’s destructive potential.
The missiles in Poland represent Poland’s complete rejection of any vestige of Russian influence upon Polish sovereignty. They establish Poland as a part of the western world.
Such a public rejection of Russia is painful reminder to the Russians of their loss of status as a super power and the failure of their (Putin’s) crude attempts to resuscitate the Soviet empire in some form.
I agree with comments made by people as to the wisdom of trusting the Americans too much, we have had many conflicts with our neighbours but only one country has ever betrayed us and that was the USA. The reality Poland finds itself in is that the US is the only counter to the Russian not a good choice just the only choice.
They establish Poland as a part of the western world....
NATO membership puts Poland in Russia's orbit? Going to fight in Iraq puts Poland in Russia's orbit?
Even if Poland didn't make such commitments, I kinda think Putin and the Russians still would have the idea Poles ain't that happy with their eastern neighbors.
And the US can be manipulated by Poland at least somewhat instead of just giving everything up for nothing -- NOTHING. Worse than nothing actually, because the rest of the world looks at Poles as complete and total American puppets and toadies.
WWII is over. The Cold War is over. Putin is just a mobster. Other mob bosses will arise. Let the shits kill each other.
geez said... “Putin is just a mobster”
In Western Europe and Poland there is no doubt Poland is part of the western world due to membership in Nato and the EU. The Russians have somehow failed to grasp the self-evident. The increased presences of American security assets in Poland will help the Russian understand things with greater clarity.
When Germany was a Nato front line state it merited the presence of a very large Nato forces mostly of Americans and British troops. Now that Poland is on the outer edge of Nato it seems to merit nothing except vague promises by incredibly unreliable European allies.
If Poland’s Nato allies had stationed some Nato troops and air bases on Polish soil the concerns over Russian behaviour would have been greatly reduced and given Poland an option to say no to the missiles currently under consideration.
Yes the WWII and the cold war is over, but the geopolitical power game is never over its just the players that change. It would be nice to say that Putin’s actions have no effect on Poland but this isn’t the case.
I agree with those who believe Poland should get something to directly enhance Poland’s security and in this case it is likely to mean weapons systems. If the government’s intention is only a rental fee for the bases then there is not enough merit in the idea.
I do not believe in any "effective deterrent" theories. If the missiles are coming it means lights out at the disco; not even Obewan Kenobi could stop em. This business is just like Cuba in 1961. Finger pointing at Putin or Bush is not the answer. Getting rid of nuclear arms in general is. I do not even want this fight at all.
jannovak57 said...
History just doesn’t support this, yes they had their hearts in the right place but had no means of meeting their obligations to Poland (signed treaty).
A treaty which was signed on August 25th because of the Polish foreign minister's objections to Anglo-French-Russian negotiations. This was the same foreign minister who had refused offer to join the anti-comintern pact (and so more than slightly annoyed the Germans) shortly after more than slightly annoying France and the UK.
When England along with France gave Poland a security guarantee against German aggression, they knew full well they had no way to render assistance to Poland. The geopolitical situation in Europe shifted to make Germany the strongest power and in response neither England nor France prepared their armed forces to respond to the potential treat.
Hitler was of no threat to the UK. Hitler did not want war with the UK. Why should the UK prepare for a threat which was not a threat to them?
The foreign policy of both nations pursued a path of shameful appeasement, which resulted in emboldening Hitler to pursue a policy of conquest. They in effect signed an agreement knowing full well that they could not meet their obligations.
During the approximately 30 days of conflict between Poland and Germany before Poland was occupied, was a handful of rifle ammunition fired off by either England or France?
Actually yes, more than a handful was fired off by both. The August 25th treaty with the UK called for the British to attack Germany as soon as the British expeditionary force arrived in France (it had been agreed by the British, French and Poles that British troops should not leave the UK for France or Poland until war started to avoid giving Hitler a pretext for starting the way). By the time they got there Poland was already over-run. It also called for British bombing of Germany, bombing which happened. It furthermore called for the British to send military supplies to Polish ports. Even if the ships carrying those supplies had been loaded and ready to go when the treat was signed, they wouldn't have got to Poland in time to dock at a Polish port.
The treaty with the French however called for them to make a full scale attack on Germany no later than 15 days after the start of the war. Despite having 90 divisions facing 25 German divisions, the French advanced 8km along a 24km front and then their High Command ordered the advance to be halted.
Poland signed defense treaties with most European nations (including the more powerful nations such as France, the UK, Romania, the USSR and Germany). Only one nation did everything that was asked of it in its treaty with Poland: the UK.
57 wrote: "If Poland’s Nato allies had stationed some Nato troops and air bases on Polish soil the concerns over Russian behaviour would have been greatly reduced and given Poland an option to say no to the missiles currently under consideration."
___
Twould be nice if the US or European countries had troops to spare (or cared about Poland). Last I looked, quite a few soldiers were committed to the middle east.
And I don't think the Putin and Russians are the least bit uncertain or unconvinced about Poland's loyalties and antipathies. They are simply not that dumb, sorry.
But we certainly agree as to: "If the government’s intention is only a rental fee for the (missile) bases then there is not enough merit in the idea."
But is there a "rental fee" involved? Gee, I would think a genuine friend of the US would provide them gratis!
And then you will get American troops -- who I betcha will like Polish women just fine!
Harry wrote: Poland signed defense treaties with most European nations (including the more powerful nations such as France, the UK, Romania, the USSR and Germany). Only one nation did everything that was asked of it in its treaty with Poland: the UK.
Poland did not sign 'defense' treaties with Romania, USSR, and Germany. Non-aggression treaties are not 'defense' treaties.
The French did penetrate the German territory in Sept. 1939, but it was just a symbolic, less than half-hearted and militarily insignificant gesture. The Brits 'bombed' Germany - only if dropping propaganda leaflets can be considered 'bombing'. As to the UK fulfilling its military obligations towards Poland... say it to any Pole's face and then watch them smirk. They will be just too polite to openly laugh at you. The Western Betrayal is still present in Poles' (and, even more so, Czechs') collective memory.
Beinghad said: “This business is just like Cuba in 1961”
How possibly can you equate the secret positioning of nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at population centres in the US with a non-nuclear interceptors. The missiles proposed for Poland are designed to do their job with no loss of live or property damage.
Your “logic “ demands further explanation.
Harry said... “the same foreign minister who had refused offer to join the anti-comintern pact (and so more than slightly annoyed the Germans)”
Before Germany changed it’s policy to the eradication of the Polish state it offered a chance of forming an alliance. The Poles did not find it very appealing to get into an alliance with a mad man.
Harry said... “Only one nation did everything that was asked of it in its treaty with Poland: the UK”
This is completely untrue; it would have required an independent Poland after WW2 not British agreement and acceptance of Soviet occupation.
Repeating your notion of the UK not betraying the people of Eastern Europe to Eastern Europeans will usually go over similarly to promoting holocaust denial in Tel Aviv.
Geez said: “I betcha will like Polish women just fine”
Foreign policy decisions cannot be evaluated on what private citizens may or may not do under the covers.
If the missiles are such a bad idea and we should not have Nato troops stationed in Poland what’s your solution? Not forgetting that Germany and France have neither resources nor political will to fill the security vacuum.
Is there a viable security option for Poland other than the Americans?
^ They are most welcome to smirk. Doing so simply shows their ignorance. Just as you do with your post above. The Polish-Rumanian Treaty of March 3 1921 was a treaty of mutual assistance with to defend their eastern frontiers against Russia. If the RAF conducted no bombing raids against Germany prior to Poland being over-run then perhaps you can explain why seven British bombers were shot down while bombing Kriegsmarine targets?
Feel free to talk about western betrayal but try not to include a country which fulfiled each and every single one of its commitments to Poland and endured six years of war only because it had committed to defend Polish indepence. Feel free to carry on repeating the myth first taught to Poles by the Nazis and then by the Soviets while ingoring the truth that the nation which really did nothing to help Poland and instead handed Poland over to an occupying force was Poland's best friend and hero: the USA. Feel free to carry on being stupid and to carry on doing your national impression of Charlie Brown trying to kick a football. Have you heard the latest about visa-free travel for Poles to the USA? Poles will no longer need visas to the USA! Just as soon as every single Pole has died.
^ Dear Jannovak,
Please read the text of the 1939 treaty: the UK guaranteed Polish independence. Not a word about borders. So your points about Soviet occupation are utterly irrelevent.
Then read about Yalta: you'll see that Churchill wanted an independant committee to supervise post-war elections in Poland. FDR and Stalin combined to stop that. The fact that there was no independant government in Poland after the war is thanks to the idol of the Poles: the USA
I would have no problem with NATO troops in Poland although I don't think they are necessary.
I don't think there is even so much as a miniscule threat of Russian invasion in the forseeable future.
I think talk or action of a missile base only encourages and ensures Russian antipathy vs. Poland.
And as anthenema as it is for any Pole to even consider, I think Poland might be better served if its leadership increased diplomatic relations with Putin and his mob even if only as a way to get more respect out of the Americans and the EU, instead of just being treated as a cheap whore (former)or backwards retarded idiot (latter).
jannovak57: "Repeating your notion of the UK not betraying the people of Eastern Europe to Eastern Europeans will usually go over similarly to promoting holocaust denial in Tel Aviv."
100% TRUE
Maciek
sp2qbn
Harry wrote: "Feel free to talk about western betrayal but try not to include a country which fulfiled each and every single one of its commitments to Poland and endured six years of war only because it had committed to defend Polish independence."
___
So WWII, as far as the UK was concerned, was really about Polish independence! And the UK endured six years of war just to stand up for Poland. Such unselfish altruism! And hey,, always and for all time blame everything on the U.S. Everybody else does and the harmony thus produced is just soooo charming.
harry: "(...) Churchill wanted an independant committee to supervise post-war elections in Poland."
Yes, he wanted BUT he did not sustain his will. The result is widely known and that is a fact of history.
Maciek
sp2qbn
Harry:
The Brits lost SEVEN bombers in September 1939!? Amazing! It shows their commitment - the Poles lost significantly more pilots defending the British skies in 1940 (at the time when Poland as a state was no more). I am not surprised both the British and the French believe a different version of the events that took place in 1938-9. Otherwise, they would find it a bit difficult to look in the mirror each morning. We stick with our version as it teaches as valuable lessons for the future. One more thing... If you could avoid personal journeys in your posts, it would be appreciated. If you cannot refrain from it, do not post anything.
geez said... “increased diplomatic relations with Putin and his mob”
There have been consistent attempts to do so involving the current and the previous government. We are not in the position to give them what they want. Their wish list for a restoration of harmony in the relationship is unacceptable.
They refuse to accept that Poland should be a member of Nato.
They do not accept the presence of any Nato forces or facilities in Poland.
They object to Poland’s actions in the Ukraine during the Orange revolution.
They object to Poland’s support of the Ukraine and Georgia in their efforts to some day gets into Nato and the EU.
They object to Poland’s support of pro-democracy forces in Belarus.
They object to Poland position on human rights abuses in Chechnya, not to mention accepting Chechen refugees.
They object to Poland’s position on energy security and efforts to minimize energy dependence on Russia.
They object to Poland opposing a phoney EU trade agreement with the Russians were they get access to the European market and the EU continues to accept a closed market place in Russia. Where there’s no legal protection for foreign investments.
They object to Poland raising the historical controversies such as the Katyn Massacre.
They object to Poland’s relationship with the US i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan.
Things turned sour with the Russians the minute Poland was accepted into Nato and have never recovered. Russia wishes to regain its influence in Poland but doesn’t know how. Unless Russia is prepared to treat Poland as a normal member of the EU and Nato it has no hope in achieving anything remotely like good relations.
I agree with you that the Russians aren’t going to invade Poland anytime soon or for that matter even wish to. But now lets get back to the question what concession or concessions would you be willing to give them in return for say “normalcy” in the relationship.
This is not about missiles it about power and influence and the perception of the same. The missiles in Poland confirm Russia’s loss of Poland and therefore their loss of status in the world. For a country like Russia with a history of being an imperial power (and yes even in Soviet times) it’s a bitter pill.
jannovak57 said...
The Brits lost SEVEN bombers in September 1939!? Amazing!
Can you make your mind up? One post back you claimed that Britain did not bomb Germany. Now when faced with unfortunate facts you make fun of the British airmen who died fighting a war which Hitler did not want and the Poles did want.
jannovak57 said...
It shows their commitment - the Poles lost significantly more pilots defending the British skies in 1940 (at the time when Poland as a state was no more).
Yes, let's talk about commitment. Germany wanted no war with the UK but the UK still declared war on Germany to protect Polish independence. No commitment there. Nice use of statistics by the way. But you seem to have forgotten that while 30 Poles did die defending British airspace, they did so in rather longer than seven days. Please give a seven-day period in which seven Polish planes were shot down while defending Poland. Or give a seven-day period in which seven Polish pilots were killed. Oh, I'm sorry, you can't, can you. My mistake. I should have remembered that without the help of Poland the UK would have been occupied by the Nazis.
jannovak57 said... I am not surprised both the British and the French believe a different version of the events that took place in 1938-9. Otherwise, they would find it a bit difficult to look in the mirror each morning. We stick with our version as it teaches as valuable lessons for the future.
You want to talk about it being difficult to look in the mirror because of the events of 1938 and 1939? Well, seeing as I wasn't even alive back then I can look in the mirror just fine. However as you seem to think that guilt should be handed down through the generations I suggest you look in the mirror and congratulate yourself on the massacres the Polish committed against German civilians in 1939 and 1944 to 1945, on Lithuanian civilians in 1944 and 1945 and on Jews in 1939 and 1940 and 1944 and 1945, oh and in 1946 as well. The rest of Europe had worked out that pogroms were, all things considered, probably not a good idea, but Poles thought that there would still be time for just one more of the good old days. As I said, you want British people to feel shame for what your Nazi/Soviet-taught view of history says was failure to support Poland, so would you please be so kind as to feel enough guilt over your genocidal actions to make you shut up.
Harry:
I do not know where your resentment and aggression stem from. Were you molested as a kid? Chill out, count to 10 (or maybe 20), and then start typing.
I am not going to change my mind regarding British/French actions in 1938/9 as these two nations turned out to be rather lousy allies up until 1945 (and beyond). If you truly believe that 7 aircraft losses suffered by the Brits in September 1939 demonstrate any sort of fulfillment of their obligations towards Poland you are either delusional, brainwashed, or have no idea about the scale of the Polish-German conflict. I have personally never heard of the seven aircraft you mention, but I am not going to check your claim as it is really beside the point. For the same reason, the Polish "genocide" against Germans is in this context completely irrelevant. I understand you are very touched by the plight of German civilians who were killed in early September 1939 in Bydgoszcz, right? Good for you, but I personally prefer to remember all the victims (boy scouts, priests, etc.) of the German retaliation that followed.
Harry said “jannovak57 said” “jannovak57 said” “jannovak57 said”
Harry! Look at your last comment you got me confused with someone else.
As genocidal as Harry makes out Poles to be, it seems miraculous they haven't gotten around to eliminating gays.
Sorry about that jannovak!
Nice debating skills there nemeczek. Can't argue with facts because you don't know them so instead you bring out the personal insults. Sadly your approach is typical of many Poles: when the facts of 1939 to 1945 are explained to them and it becomes clear that the UK entered and stayed in a war which the Nazis never wanted, and the UK gained nothing from, purely to defend the independence of Poland. And that the people who really did sell Poland to an invading army were the heroes of Poland: the USA. All of a sudden all of those 'facts' you learned from your Soviet approved history books look rather less than true and your idol-worship of the USA seems to be more than a little misplaced.
Harry, no serious historian, I'd even say no historian in his right mind, will argue as you have that:
"when the facts of 1939 to 1945 are explained to them and it becomes clear that the UK entered and stayed in a war which the Nazis never wanted, and the UK gained nothing from, purely to defend the independence of Poland."
Well, I suppose you're correct, though, in surmising the UK wasn't in it to save any Jews, which is clearly why the US was in it, no?
57: I certainly don't expect "normal" diplomacy from Putin and his mob.
And you may be right in your assessments of Russia's position on each of the issues you meticulously raised. I'm even going to admit that I'm not so well versed in Polish-Russian foreign policy matters as to deny whether basis of each and all your claims is factual. But I do have a feeling, yes I realize this is not at all scientific, that some of what you've claimed is based more so on your idea of Russia's positions than the actuality.
Certainly, if I was a political scientist of some serious sort, I would look into when, where, why and how such positions on the part of Putin and his gang were formulated and presented. And which Polish governments were involved, where and when the diplomatic face-to-face discussions took place and that sort of thing. My sense is that there really weren't too many such occasions. You seem to be very knowledgeable about such affairs and if you have the time to post the timeline of how many meetings took place between high level Polish and Russian officials since Poland was accepted into NATO, I'd at least appreciate it.
But I will stick to my guns (yikes) in that I still believe that an American missile base on Polish soil will only make matters much, much worse for Poland not only vis-a-vis the Russians but also in respect to the EU and even the wider world of nations.
I hope, too, that other folks, who seem to always oppose Poland's positions on just about every issue, might take the time respond to your specific points in more detail. Failing that, much of what I read on this here blog, will strike me as only so much more bigoted anti-Polonism.
Harry:
Read my post again s..l..o..w..l..y. No personal insults there. You claimed the Brits bombed Germany in September 1939. I voiced my objection, as the claim seemed nonsensical to me (propaganda leaflets were indeed dropped but, most likely, caused no significant damage, lol). To support your claim you then talked about seven UK aircraft lost during attacks on German ships. So far so good. Now, look at the map and locate Germany. Then locate the Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Baltic. Place those German ships that were attacked on the map. Did you place them in Germany? You realize that ships need some water to stay afloat, right? You have not provided details of Polish defensive pacts with Germany and USSR, either. Were we supposed to defend those countries when attacked?
As to the British commitment... On Sept. 1, 1939, the British government buried its collective head in the sand as they had no intention of declaring war against Germany (they bluffed, Hitler did not blink, so they folded, as simple as that). The only thing that pushed them to do so was the pressure from the lower house of Parliament. Even in western literature the period that followed is called the Phony War. Who was the phony? Germans? Poles? Russians? British/French? Take your pick. Every country has its own mythology, and Britain is no different. Somehow I prefer the Polish version.
Good debate, this one.
Well nemeczek, let's see, is asking somebody if they were molested as a kid a compliment? If you think it is then you must have been dropped on the head as a child.
So far you have claimed that the British made no bombing raids but now you claim that bombing German targets is not bombing Germany. Make your mind up. Or better yet learn something from a history book which was not written in Moscow. Learn about September raids on the German fleet in Wilhelmshaven and Brunsbüttel (note those place are in Germany), learn about how the loss rate in that raid was 37%, learn about the raid on German Fleet in Heligoland Bight (again part of Germany) and how the loss rate from that raid was 45%. Now explain why the RAF were dropping leaflets on the German fleet. Either accept that you were wrong because your history books are wrong or just admit that you were lying and thought you’d get away with it.
Non-aggression treaties are defensive treaties. If treaties contain a commitment to attack another nation, they are not defensive. Why not learn what the word defend means. And then you can learn how to explain your statement that the treaty with Rumania was a defensive treaty when it is actually a mutual assistance pact. Again, are you ignorant or lying?
Harry wrote:
"...but now you claim that bombing German targets is not bombing Germany."
Absolutely! If you do not drop bombs on Germany, you do not bomb Germany. It is really that simple. If you bomb the French fleet stationed in Senegal, you do not actually bomb France. All in all, there was NO allied bombardment of Germany proper in Sept. 1939.
The Brits lost 7 aircraft, right? The loss rates were 37% and 45%, respectively. So how many planes IN TOTAL took part in those raids. 10? In any case, less than a squadron. What damage did they do to the German fleet? Did they sink/damage any vessels? Were these raids (all two of them) a mere propaganda device, or a wholehearted attempt at destroying the German navy? (Actually, I think I know the answer to the last question). And the biggie is - what real difference did all this make to the plight of the Polish ally? A: none, B: none, C: none. A, B, or C? Choose carefully. Clearly, both the French and the British could have (and should have) done much more. They chose not to. And those ungrateful Poles
do not want to forget about it.
^ Let's leave aside the fact that naval vessels are, by international law, sovereign territory of the nation whose flag they fly. Let’s leave aside that fact that you use the word “allied” when I’m talking about the UK, not any of the other allies. Let’s leave aside the fact that you use the word “bombardment” when we are talking very specifically about bombing missions (although I would love to know precisely which artillery pieces you think the British could have used to shell Germany). Let’s look at your claim that the UK did not bomb Germany. Germany can be considered to be different things but all of them are German sovereign territory. Examples would be territorial waters, naval vessels or just plain old land. Seeing as how the raids were against German naval vessels and installations which were located within German territorial waters, we most certainly are talking about bombing raids on Germany. Note the word is raids, not raid. This is very different from your claim that there was no bombardment of Germany proper in September 1939. So are you lying or are you ignorant?
No the British did not lose seven aircraft in those raids. Why don’t you go and read a history book which was not written in Polish in Moscow? Alternatively just read my post. There were two separate raids: one against Wilhelmshaven and Brunsbüttel (you will note that both of those are ports, i.e in what even you would call Germany) and one against German Fleet in Heligoland Bight. Seeing as you can’t be bothered to learn about what you are complaining about let me educate you: 19 planes were involved in the raid on Wilhelmshaven and Brunsbüttel, 11 planes took part in the raid on Heligoland Bight. So very clearly more than two squadrons, i.e. more than double your lie, sorry, I mean ‘your claim’. Did they score any hits? Most certainly. One of those hits was, according to German sources, when one of Blenheims attacking Brunsbüttel crashed on the fo'c'sle' of the Emden, killing and injuring many of the cruiser's crew. Seven planes lost in a single day, five Blenheims and two Wellingtons, 27 crew in total. On the next raid another five Blenheims were lost, another 15 crew. Total of 42 crew killed. According to the data at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_Foreign_Contribution#Polish_contribution 30 Polish airmen were killed in Battle of Britain. You claimed that “the Poles lost significantly more pilots defending the British skies in 1940”. Would you care to explain how 30 is significantly more than 42 or will you admit that you were either ignorant or just lying?
The British could have done much more? Do explain what they could have done. Remember that the first British bomber was in the air forty-eight minutes after war was declared (by Britain, not by Germany). Remember that the French were responsible for the attack on western Germany and that the British Expeditionary force wasn’t even in France at the start of September. What would you have liked? An amphibious assault against Hamburg perhaps? Also remember that the Polish army stated it could hold out for six months against the Germans. It actually managed a month and six days. Perhaps Britain should have sent troops to Poland? Where exactly would you like them to have landed? Which port?
What Britain could have done was to declared war on Germany, ensure that the empire declared on Germany and refuse any peace offer which did not involve the restoring of Polish independence. That is precisely what was done, war was declared and offers of peace with the sole condition that Germany could do want it wished to the east were rejected, at the cost of six years of war and more than half a million dead troops. But apparently it was not enough for the Poles. Britain should have done more and Poles state that they are not grateful for what was done. Not that they actually know what was done, as you so wonderfully demonstrate.
Harry:
You are passionate although misguided. It was not me who stated that the Brits lost 7 aircraft - you yourself gave the number in one of your previous posts and I simply took it at face value (I trust you, you see). If now you want to contradict yourself, feel free to do so. You obviously believe the UK/France alliance did their utmost to help Poland at the outbreak of war. Now you blame it on the Poles who lasted only a month instead of six months as they had promised. OK, imagine early October 1939. Poland is defeated w/o any formal surrender. What does it actually mean? Did 35 million Poles become Germans, Russians, and Ukrainians overnight, so there was no Polish nation Brits and French could help? Or was Poland (just like Czechoslovakia the previous year) a bribe the UK/F were willing to pay (at no cost to them I might add) to appease the Germans. After the defeat of Poland, the UK/F duo focused ALL their efforts on pushing Germany towards a war with the USSR (in fairness, Stalin was sucking up to Hitler at this time as well) hoping that the two giants would bleed themselves to death. The Germans had none of that and a few months later it was them who decided to end the Phony War the UK/F were so vigorously engaged in. Do you see irony here? The UK/F declare war on Germany, but it is the Germans who attack them.
As to the Polish loses during the battle of Britain versus the British loses during the September raids. It is easy to get yourself killed in battle – even a fool can achieve this kind of glory. The British pilots were obviously not well trained if they suffered losses up to 45% (the lack of training and experience became obvious in 1940). The number of kills is a better indicator of success. Which squadron had the most kills in the Battle of Britain? Do you not find it ironic as well?
After the war, General Alfred Jodl commented that the Germans survived 1939 "only because approximately 110 French and English divisions in the West, which during the campaign on Poland were facing 25 German divisions, remained completely inactive."
^ Better to be thought of as passionate yet misguided than be known a lying git. It's good of you to address all of your lies in this thread.
Seven bombers in one raid. Five in another. Raids which you assured us did not take place.
Why do you constantly talk about UK/F? Were those Soviet history books so bad that the two countries were joined as one? You do actually know that the UK has no land border with Germany right? So from where do you expect the UK to launch an invasion of Germany? Your 950,000-man army didn't do too well against the Germans, but according to you the 158,000-man BEF should have invaded Germany in an amphibious assault because that would have made all the difference.
"A bribe the UK/F were willing to pay"? A bribe? The only payment that should be discussed is the one owed by Poland to the UK. The same day that the last Polish forces in Poland surrendered Hitler offered peace to the UK. The only condition was that Germany be allowed to do as it wished beyond its eastern border. The UK refused such a peace and continued to do so for six long years. But instead of even a word of thanks all Poles can say is "why didn't you do more". And then they queue up in the snow to apply for visas to the USA.
BTW: I know all about 303 squadron. Both my grandfathers worked with them. My paternal grandfather was supposed to be one of the first British servicemen who went into Poland but by the time he'd finished a two-week long language course (after the Poles said they could not guarantee him a translator at all times) there was no need for him to go: all the airfields had been captured or destroyed.
Oh, one more thing: The number of kills is a better indicator of success? So the Home Army must have been really successful against Lithuanian civilians in the other massacres that Poland never wants to talk about.
Harry:
You are all over the shop with your last post. If UK/F were so impotent militarily they should not have entered any alliances that obliged them to provide military assistance. Their bark was clearly worse than their bite. By not honoring their commitments, they misguided the naive Poles who based their defensive strategy on those (hollow as it turned out) alliances. The Romanian Bridgehead plan hinged solely on the assumption that the second front would be opened.
Poles never thanked (or paid, lol) the British and the French for their help during the September Campaign because no thanks were due - told you about the smirking before...
The US visas and killings in Lithuania are a bit off-topic, don't you think? Is it still snowing in Warsaw?
This is my last post on the topic, as I have a life to live. Take care.
^ Love how you now say that the UK should not have entered into a treaty when their bark was bigger than their bite. First you criticise the UK for doing too little and then when confronted with the real facts you criticise the UK for doing too much.
Nice to know that you don't think any thanks are due to the millions of British people who lost husbands, sons, fathers, daughters, wives, mothers solely because the UK would not accept a peace treaty which did not guarantee an independent Poland. What were you saying about ungrateful Poles?
On the plus side, although you are still totally ungrateful at least now you are not so ignorant. I hope that you will remember the fact that you have learned here which you did not learn in your Soviet written history of Poland.
Why is it that many Poles seem to carry the expectation that they will be helped and protected? And when they/you do not get what you expect, they/you are resentful for near all eternity?
Obviously, the UK, France, and the US could have done much more to assist Poland in 1939 and at the time of Yalta. They didn't. In 1939, they weren't ready although they should have been. At Yalta, they were war-weary and didn't want to risk more casulties in a war with the USSR. Why is this so surprising?
Then there are folks like Harry who want Poles to kiss their feet for doing what they did for Poland even though Poles did what they could to help the UK. Harry's repeated claims that the UK got into the war and stayed in it only to maintain Polish independence are absurd.
^ Kiss feet? Where have I ever said anything like that? And please note that I did bugger all for Poland in WWII.
Perhaps you would like to explain why the UK declared war on Germany? And why all German peace offers were rejected?
Maybe because the UK's leaders finally albeit much belatedly realized that they could not trust Nazi offers of peace and accommodation indefinitely? That somewhere, sooner rather than later, the line had to be drawn before Hitler got even more powerful?
And, no, you never make any specific mention of feet kissing. I used the term metaphorically.
Why do Poles need an anti-missile system?
Here is an answer (Pres. Kaczynski explains - in Polish only). Turn on your speakers and have a nice watch :)
http://www.joemonster.org/download.php?d_op=getit&lid=3382
Regards,
Maciek
sp2qbn
Post a Comment