Will you wear a poppy 2013?

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yep, that's right, because after six years of total war, Britain was in the perfect position to go to war against Russia.

They didn't declare war on them either in 1939, despite the fact that Russia did exactly the same thing as the Germans did.

bumper234

IrishProd wrote: »

And despite the sacrifices and contributions they made for the Allies they were still betrayed by the British under Churchill at the Yalta Conference, when he sold out and abandoned the Polish to Stalin.

Amazing how Churchill and the British get the blame for that, Why did you choose to overlook that the Americans were there as well and ratified the agreements?

Judgement Day

SoulandForm wrote: »

No its less than that for the Church of Ireland and I would imagine that it would be less again for the Methodists. However it may vary from region to region.

The Church of Ireland should have ripped out all the military stuff from its Churches decades ago- that is one thing I like about Catholic Chapels in general. There is an element in the Church of Ireland who treat it like an "Anglo-Irish" social club as opposed to a Church of Christ.

Would you like us to remove the graves of our family members who were in the British armed services too? As for being an 'Anglo-Irish' social club...it may be more of a social club than a Church of Christ but it's representative of its community and far less 'Anglo' these days. We haven't gone away you know and, yes, I'll be wearing a poppy bought in Enniscorthy.

Matt_Trakker

bumper234 wrote: »

Amazing how Churchill and the British get the blame for that, Why did you choose to overlook that the Americans were there as well and ratified the agreements?

Roosevelt ain't exactly loved in Poland either, nor the French for their typical lily-livered 'help'.
But yes, Churchill does get most of the blame and deservedly so.

The Yalta conference initiated the era of Soviet domination of Central and Eastern Europe, which lasted until the end of the Cold War in early 1990s and left bitter memories of Western betrayal and Soviet dominance in the collective memory of the region.[38] To many Polish Americans the Yalta conference "constituted a betrayal" of Poland and the Atlantic Charter.[39] "After World War II," remarked Strobe Talbott, "many countries in the (center and) east suffered half a century under the shadow of Yalta."[38] Territories which the Soviet Union had occupied during World War II in 1939 (with the exception of the Białystok area) were permanently annexed, and most of their Polish inhabitants expelled: today these territories are part of Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. The factual basis of this decision was the result of a forged referendum from November 1939 in which the "huge majority" of voters accepted the incorporation of these lands into Western Belarus and Western Ukraine. In compensation, Poland was given former German territory (the so-called Regained Territories): the southern half of East Prussia and all of Pomerania and Silesia, up to the Oder-Neisse Line. The German population of these territories was expelled and these territories were subsequently repopulated with Poles expelled from the Kresy regions. This, along with other similar migrations in Central and Eastern Europe, combined to form one of the largest human migrations in modern times. Stalin ordered Polish resistance fighters to be either incarcerated or deported to gulags in Siberia.


At the time of Yalta over 200,000 troops of the Polish Armed Forces in the West were serving under the high command of the British Army. Many of these men and women were originally from the Kresy region of eastern Poland including cities such as Lwów and Wilno. They had been deported from Kresy to the Soviet gulags when Hitler and Stalin occupied Poland in 1939 in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet Pact. When two years later Churchill and Stalin formed an alliance against Hitler, the Kresy Poles were released from the Gulags in Siberia, formed the Anders Army and marched to Persia to create the II Corps (Poland) under British high command.
These Polish troops were instrumental to the Allied defeat of the Germans in North Africa and Italy, and hoped to return to Kresy in an independent and democratic Poland at the end of the War. But at Yalta, Churchill agreed that Stalin should keep the Soviet gains Hitler agreed to in the Nazi-Soviet Pact, including Kresy, and carry out Polish population transfers.



Consequently, Churchill had agreed that tens of thousands of veteran Polish troops under British command should lose their Kresy homes to the Soviet Union.[40] In reaction, thirty officers and men from the II Corps committed suicide.[41]


Churchill defended his actions in a three-day Parliamentary debate starting 27 February 1945, which ended in a vote of confidence. During the debate, many MPs openly criticised Churchill and passionately voiced loyalty to Britain's Polish allies and expressed deep reservations about Yalta.[41] Moreover, 25 of these MPs risked their careers to draft an amendment protesting against Britain's tacit acceptance of Poland's domination by the Soviet Union. These members included: Arthur Greenwood; Sir Alec Douglas-Home; Commander Archibald Southby; the Earl of Ancaster and Victor Raikes.[41] After the failure of the amendment, Henry Strauss, the Member of Parliament for Norwich, resigned his seat in protest at the British treatment of Poland.[41]

More can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#1939

bumper234

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Roosevelt ain't exactly loved in Poland either, nor the French for their typical lily-livered 'help'.
But yes, Churchill does get most of the blame and deservedly so.



More can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#1939

Defenders of the actions taken by the Western allies maintain that Realpolitik made it impossible to do anything else, and that they were in no shape to start an utterly un-winnable war with the Soviet Union over the subjugation of Poland and other Central and Eastern European countries immediately after the end of World War II

The chief American negotiator at Yalta was Alger Hiss, later accused of being a Soviet spy and convicted of perjuring himself in his testimony to the House Committee on Unamerican Activities. His espionage was later confirmed by the Venona tapes.

However it was no secret to the Allies that before his death in July 1943 General Wladyslaw Sikorski, Prime Minister of Poland's London-based government in exile had been the originator, and not Stalin, of the concept of a westward shift of Poland's boundaries along an Oder-Neisse Line as compensation for relinquishing Poland's eastern territories as part of a Polish rapprochement with the USSR.

At the Tehran Conference, in November 1943, the Big Three agreed that Poland should receive territorial compensation in the West, at Germany's expense, for the land it was to lose to Russia in Central and Eastern Europe. This seemed like a fair bargain.

Matt_Trakker

bumper234 wrote: »

Defenders of the actions taken by the Western allies maintain that Realpolitik made it impossible to do anything else, and that they were in no shape to start an utterly un-winnable war with the Soviet Union over the subjugation of Poland and other Central and Eastern European countries immediately after the end of World War II

The chief American negotiator at Yalta was Alger Hiss, later accused of being a Soviet spy and convicted of perjuring himself in his testimony to the House Committee on Unamerican Activities. His espionage was later confirmed by the Venona tapes.

However it was no secret to the Allies that before his death in July 1943 General Wladyslaw Sikorski, Prime Minister of Poland's London-based government in exile had been the originator, and not Stalin, of the concept of a westward shift of Poland's boundaries along an Oder-Neisse Line as compensation for relinquishing Poland's eastern territories as part of a Polish rapprochement with the USSR.

At the Tehran Conference, in November 1943, the Big Three agreed that Poland should receive territorial compensation in the West, at Germany's expense, for the land it was to lose to Russia in Central and Eastern Europe. This seemed like a fair bargain.

Ah you type in bold, yea, that makes a huge difference. :rolleyes:

bumper234 wrote: »

This seemed like a fair bargain.

Since this thread started you've written some idiotic things. I think this is the winner. It just goes to further highlight your complete lack of understanding of history and your complete disregard to bother your swiss learning it.

bumper234

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Ah you type in bold, yea, that makes a huge difference. :rolleyes:


Since this thread started you've written some idiotic things. I think this is the winner. It just goes to further highlight your complete lack of understanding of history and your complete disregard to bother your swiss learning it.

I didn't type in bold i HIGHLIGHTED the relevant parts:rolleyes:

You just hate to see anything that refutes your obvious Brit bashing.

Matt_Trakker

bumper234 wrote: »

I didn't type in bold i HIGHLIGHTED the relevant parts:rolleyes:

You just hate to see anything that refutes your obvious Brit bashing.

I continue to use historical facts to show how lame your agruments are and yet all you can do it descend into mere name-calling and mud-slinging.
I have not "Brit-based" I have used historical facts in my posts.

The fact that you cannot accept that you are completely wrong on most of the subjects you prattle on about here just goes to further illustrate your character, or lack thereof.

None are so blind that cannot see. :rolleyes:
Open your eyes and your mind Bumper, you might even learn something.

SoulandForm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Would you like us to remove the graves of our family members who were in the British armed services too? As for being an 'Anglo-Irish' social club...it may be more of a social club than a Church of Christ but it's representative of its community and far less 'Anglo' these days. We haven't gone away you know and, yes, I'll be wearing a poppy bought in Enniscorthy.

Note that I said ELEMENT; I didnt say that it WAS.

Never the less the failure to ex-communicate a public defender of Paedophilia makes not a Church of Christ and a source of curses rather than blessing.

bumper234

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I continue to use historical facts to show how lame your agruments are and yet all you can do it descend into mere name-calling and mud-slinging.
I have not "Brit-based" I have used historical facts in my posts.

The fact that you cannot accept that you are completely wrong on most of the subjects you prattle on about here just goes to further illustrate your character, or lack thereof.

None are so blind that cannot see. :rolleyes:
Open your eyes and your mind Bumper, you might even learn something.

You point out that Churchill is responsible but fail to mention (conveniently) that the Americans also played a part in this and even the Polish prime minister agreed, i guess that wouldn't fit your agenda though;) Historical facts are only FACTS when all of the relevant information is posted, stop cherry picking:rolleyes:

T runner

bumper234 wrote: »

No they won't, there will be an investigation and if they are found guilty they will be receive dishonourable discharges and be eligible for nothing.

And what about the ones (the majority) who are not idiotic enough to post their racism on the internet?

Matt_Trakker

bumper234 wrote: »

You point out that Churchill is responsible but fail to mention (conveniently) that the Americans also played a part in this and even the Polish prime minister agreed, i guess that wouldn't fit your agenda though Historical facts are only FACTS when all of the relevant information is posted, stop cherry picking :rolleyes:

And again, just like yesterday, I must once again call into question your ability to read English.

In post #1265, which is 6 posts above this I said:

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Roosevelt ain't exactly loved in Poland either, nor the French for their typical lily-livered 'help'.

From my long quote it's quite clear than the Americans as well as the French are blamed for what happened to Poland. However, and historical facts and the vast amount of historical scholars agree that the majority of the blame lies with Churchill, because, as was similar to the Irish soldiers who fought so bravely in WWI, they fought for Churchill under the pretense that Britain would help Poland in her aims to become an independent, democratic country following the end of WWII.



If only some Irish person had been on hand, they could have told those brave Poles (you know the ones who kicked ass in your RAF & on the various battle fields they were sent to as cannon fodder) that the promises of a British politician during a period of war ain't worth a cow's fart.

T runner

timthumbni wrote: »

Has this thread even got anything to do with the poppy anymore?

Funny was chatting to a polish fella today in a play park. (Both dads btw before any smart comments) Asked me what the badge was on my top. (Wee metal poppy badge).I told him about the poppy. He said his grandfather was in a polish raf/flying squadron during the Battle of Britain. I took off the wee badge and told him to keep it.

The Polish were ferocious fighters against the nazis. I've a lot of respect for them.

My uncle was Polish. He had to walk out of Poland because the British abandoned it to the Russians after years of lies. He witnessed first hand the behaviuour of Russian and British soldiers. Lets just say he was equally unimpressed by either.

His father was in England describing himself as a prisoner there because as a Polish refugee, they would not give him citizenship nor let him leave. He left in a coffin and his first time in Ireland was to be buried there according to his wishes. Neither have/had ANY respect for the BRitish establishment or the BRitish army.

No doubt the Polish granddad in your tale thought he was fighting for Polish freedom. He was just being used.

annascott

I would happily wear one, but I never see them on sale here.

Fratton Fred

I love these threads.

Apparently Britain did nothing in wwii, it was the Russians and Americans that won it, but Stalin effectively annexing Poland is all Britain's fault.

bumper234

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I love these threads.

Apparently Britain did nothing in wwii, it was the Russians and Americans that won it, but Stalin effectively annexing Poland is all Britain's fault.

Well Matt_Trakker only posts historical FACTS so it must be true!:rolleyes:

Maybe he meant hysterical? It would make more sense.

Fratton Fred

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

If only some Irish person had been on hand, they could have told those brave Poles (you know the ones who kicked ass in your RAF & on the various battle fields they were sent to as cannon fodder) that the promises of a British politician during a period of war ain't worth a cow's fart.

Is that the same brave Irish people that were treated as traitors and pariahs when they got back to Ireland, yet men who collaborated with the Nazis are treated as heroes?

Matt_Trakker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I love these threads.

Apparently Britain did nothing in wwii, it was the Russians and Americans that won it, but Stalin effectively annexing Poland is all Britain's fault.

Common knowledge than Britain did feck all in WWII, small army really in the grand scheme of things. Sure, D-Day was only won thanks to the involvement of the Yanks. Germany would've walked into Britain had it not been for them losing heavily on their Eastern front. And if the Yanks hadn't come to Britain's aid....well....

I does beg the question as to why didn't the Germans invade neutral Ireland and surround Britain? I suppose the answer is the absolute arrogance of the Nazi war leaders who believed their men (and machines) would brush aside all enemies.

Also, Stalin didn't annex Poland, although his army did invade it even though a treaty previously signed with Britain & France said that Russia would not.

See the previous page regarding Yalta for how Poland was mistreated by the Allied forces during the closing stages of WWII.

bumper234

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Common knowledge than Britain did feck all in WWII, small army really in the grand scheme of things. Sure, D-Day was only won thanks to the involvement of the Yanks. Germany would've walked into Britain had it not been for them losing heavily on their Eastern front. And if the Yanks hadn't come to Britain's aid....well....

I does beg the question as to why didn't the Germans invade neutral Ireland and surround Britain? I suppose the answer is the absolute arrogance of the Nazi war leaders who believed their men (and machines) would brush aside all enemies.

Also, Stalin didn't annex Poland, although his army did invade it even though a treaty previously signed with Britain & France said that Russia would not.

See the previous page regarding Yalta for how Poland was mistreated by the Allied forces during the closing stages of WWII.

And this is the reason that YOU are the joke of this thread, your hatred of Great Britain oozes from every post.:rolleyes:

Matt_Trakker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is that the same brave Irish people that were treated as traitors and pariahs when they got back to Ireland, yet men who collaborated with the Nazis are treated as heroes?

Maybe by you there were treated that way?

I only know from my own personal history, but I've never seen, nor even heard of, Nazi collaborators as been treated as "heroes". Never heard an Irish member of the British army during WWI described as a "traitor" either.
Sure most of them did it under the pretense that it would help Ireland achieve Home Rule.
A false pretense as you may not be aware of.

Beefy78

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Common knowledge than Britain did feck all in WWII, small army really in the grand scheme of things.

And yet you expected this "small army", after six years of war, to stand up to the Soviet Union without the support of America?

Matt_Trakker

bumper234 wrote: »

And this is the reason that YOU are the joke of this thread, your hatred of Great Britain oozes from every post.:rolleyes:

No, as usual you are again wrong.
I don't hate Britain at all.
I've been there quite a few times, and I've liked it every time, especially Scotland and the cities of Liverpool and Manchester.

But, thb, I simply don't care about Britain.
I'm not from there and what happens in Britain or to Britain has zero impact on my daily life.

Matt_Trakker

Beefy78 wrote: »

And yet you expected this "small army", after six years of war, to stand up to the Soviet Union without the support of America?

If Churchill had done what he had promised to do in the first place, everything would've been dandy.

Beefy78

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

If Churchill had done what he had promised to do in the first place, everything would've been dandy.

Dandy until Britain had been battered in a brief war with the USSR anyway.

Matt_Trakker

Beefy78 wrote: »

Dandy until Britain had been battered in a brief war with the USSR anyway.

Postulating on what may have happened is quite pointless. There's simply no way of knowing that Churchill carrying out what he was supposed to do would have led to more fighting.

Beefy78

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Postulating on what may have happened is quite pointless. There's simply no way of knowing that Churchill carrying out what he was supposed to do would have led to more fighting.

It's hardly postulation. You yourself are saying that Britain was a non-factor in the war with a very small, weak army.

You quote historical fact after fact yet appear unable to put these facts into context or appreciate the realities of Realpolitik. Without which none of these facts really mean anything. One can only assume you're pushing an agenda.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the Mighty Soviet Army would have looked at the bankrupt and militarily smashed British State standing up to their demands and backed off. But in Churchill's position he could hardly risk it - at least without support from America.

Fratton Fred

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Postulating on what may have happened is quite pointless. There's simply no way of knowing that Churchill carrying out what he was supposed to do would have led to more fighting.

What was he supposed to do?

SoulandForm

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

If Churchill had done what he had promised to do in the first place, everything would've been dandy.

Given the real chance of Greece, Italy and maybe even France going Communist in this time period what you are saying is just simply crazy. Also the Poles you are talking about were fascists, anti-German fascists, but fascists all the same- so it was a toss between fascism and the relatively benign "People's Democracy" that left the Poles with a lot of freedom and fed, educated and clothed everyone.

HansHolzel

Anybody that types "Great" Britain on this thread is sad.

AEDIC

HansHolzel wrote: »

Anybody that types "Great" Britain on this thread is sad.

I may be mistaken, but you are the only person that has typed it that way :rolleyes: