Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

[4thskorpion]

Two letters (from dozens that I have) by Polish forced workers in Germany.

If Poland existed in the minds of these letter writers why use in the address "General Gouvernement" and not "Polska"?

GG_letter.jpg (209.74 KiB) Viewed 693 times

GG_letter2.jpg (226.62 KiB) Viewed 693 times

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Unilaterally declaring independence does not equate to being recognised as being independent.

In the sphere of facts unilaterally declaring independence is enough - if one really controls a territory.

BTW, even today there are states, the independence / existence of which is not recognized by many states. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... _of_Israel

Independence needs to be ratified by internationally recognised treaty

No, a simple diplomatic note or establishing diplomatic relations is enough. Recognition doesn't even have to be explicit - if diplomatic relations are established then it equals recognition (one can't establish diplomatic relations with something which doesn't exist).

The point is that newly created Poland declared its own independence but through aggressive force denied that same right of independence to its neighbours. Regardless of their size Poland thought it would be the decider on which of its neighbours should belong to Poland whether they liked it or not. The Allied Powers having returned Poland to the map of Europe quickly found that the Polish leaders set about trying to expand their borders through aggression in the dream of regaining the territories of the Polish Lithianian commonwealth.

What makes you think that the Belarusian Democratic Republic claimed for itself only ethnically Belarusian territories? The map you posted shows that it claimed sovereignity over huge areas, some of which were not ethnically Belarusian. Moreover - that particular Republic claimed sovereignity over a lot of such areas, in which it de facto did not exercise any kind of control. So it was a state which existed mainly just on paper - perhaps in some areas (such as the close vicinity of Minsk, which was its capital city), it existed also in reality. But most of the map that you posted shows areas which were claimed by that Republic, but in fact did not belong to it - were not under its control.

It was a bit like it's now with ISIS Caliphate, which claims areas from Iberia to India, but controls only parts of Syria and Iraq.

Also - what kind of international recognition did the Belarusian Democratic Republic enjoy? Was it stronger than Poland's?

Below Poland 1919 according to Allied Powers agreement...

Poland-1919.jpg

... how does this compare to to a map of Poland 1920-39 below?

Poland-1920-1939.jpg

Comparison of the two maps shows, that Lithuania annexed large parts of what was Poland according to Allied Powers.

According to 1919 Allied Powers agreement Mariampol, Wyłkowyszki, Władysławów, Sejny and half of Kowno belonged to Poland, while the map of Poland in 1920-39 shows that all of those cities belonged to Lithuania, and Kowno (Kaunas) was even Lithuania's capital.

Presumably this same International law considers the "recovered territories" a Polish occupation?

The Soviet Union officially recognized the new Polish-German border in 1945, East Germany (DDR) recognized it in 1950, West Germany recognized it in 1970 and then confirmed in 1990 after unification with DDR, so I'm not sure what "occupation" do you mean.

On the other hand, Poland in 1939-1945 did not recognize the territorial changes which occured in September 1939.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi 4thskorpion,

You asked, "If Poland existed in the minds of these letter writers why use in the address "General Gouvernement" and not "Polska"?"

Perhaps because they wanted the letters to actually arrive and not for themselves or the recipients to suffer for their temerity in writing "Polska"?

Sid

[wm]

The Polish borders issue was left to the Polish emigre government and the USSR to come to an agreement.

"Left" as in decided in Teheran without any Polish participation or without even a shred of authority to do so. And then forced on the Polish Government with the use of threats by Churchill himself.

Beck was simply freaking prophet speaking in 1939 about the meanness of the Soviet Russia, France and England.

I reiterated once again the indecency of the Soviets' discussing our affairs with France and England without turning to us.

the old Polish empire that was going til the Black Sea,and where a minority of Poles dominated a majority of non Poles .

The Kingdom of Poland was nationally blind. Random clicking on any of the Princely Houses of Poland shows that most of them had non-Polish origins.
There were no Polish exploiters of the non-Poles there. Using the the Marxian class-warfare terminology there were the nobles and their sidekicks the Jews exploiting peasant masses.

There was hatred between Poles and Ukrainians . Only hatred .

During the OUN ethnic cleansing of Volhynia my family was saved and helped on many occasions by Ukrainians from all strata of society, and maybe wouldn't survive without them.

[4thskorpion]

In the sphere of facts unilaterally declaring independence is enough - if one really controls a territory.

If independence as you imply is a fact based on control of a territory then...

Poland in 1939-1945 did not recognize the territorial changes which occured in September 1939.

...ceased to exist as an entity because the Polish government failed to control its territorial integrity.

In the sphere of facts Poland was controlled by both Germany and the USSR in 1939, by Germany alone from 1941 to 1944, by Germany and the USSR for a period in 1944 and then by USSR 1944-45.

These were the facts and Poland did not regain control of its (reconstituted) borders again until the end of the war in Europe...thanks to the Red Army and Polish 1st Army and not to the emigre government in London or Polish forces in the west.

The emigre Polish government in London didn't control any territory during the whole period that six million or so of its citizens were killed, and a million and more conscripted for labour in Germany, higher education for Poles all but ceased, Polish culture surpressed, Polish industry Germanised, the looting of cultural assets etc, etc.

[4thskorpion]

Hi 4thskorpion,

You asked, "If Poland existed in the minds of these letter writers why use in the address "General Gouvernement" and not "Polska"?"

Perhaps because they wanted the letters to actually arrive and not for themselves or the recipients to suffer for their temerity in writing "Polska"?

Sid

I think you are right, the letters would not have arrived...because Warsaw wasn't in Poland anymore it was in the General Government

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Provisions of the 1933 Montevideo Convention have been commonly accepted as principles of international law:

Article 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Article 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

Article 6

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

Article 7

The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.

Article 11

The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

The emigre Polish government in London really didn't control any territory during the whole period.

What about the Polish underground state, its military and its authorities, though? They always did control some territory.

[4thskorpion]

Provisions of the 1933 Montevideo Convention have been commonly accepted as principles of international law:

Article 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Article 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

Article 6

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

Article 7

The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.

Article 11

The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

The emigre Polish government in London really didn't control any territory during the whole period.

What about the Polish underground state, its military and its authorities, though? They always did control some territory.

International law is worthless when a government cannot defend the integrity of its borders nor defend its people as was the case in Poland on 1st September 1939. A treaty between Germany and the USSR in 1939 resolved the new borders between German controlled territory and Soviet controlled territory. You wrote earlier such declarations do not require international ratification to be in force and the map of Europe was redrawn and Poland was no more.

As to the underground state and its military authorities, what did it really control or achieve for that section people it was supposed to represent, for it did not represent all of its people. It certainly did not represent Polish Jews whom it did not save from extermination and almost extinction in Poland, it did not save the estimated 3 million non-Jews killed by the German occupiers, it did not stop the forced conscription of its men, women and children for labour in Germany. Despite supposedly having an underground army of some say 400,000 what did this underground army do to liberate the country during six years of occupation...it took the entry of the Red Army not the Polish underground army to end the German occupation. The NSZ for the most part was not subordinate to the underground state nor the emigre government in London whom it did not see as the legitimate voice of the homeland. Was this not so?

The emigre government governed nothing in reality and in fact it could not even govern itself especially after the death of Sikorski.

[wm]

You don't understand. The aim of the war was to protect the statehood not the people. The people including the Jews were expected to die if needed. The willingness of the people to die for their homeland was the only defence of small countries like Poland or the "no surrender order will ever be given" Switzerland.

The population was protected by international laws, laws that at that time had been regarded as worthy to upheld by each and every civilized nation for over a hundred years, laws enacted for the sole reason to protect the civilian population from exploitation or holding hostage by an occupation force.

Poland didn't lost any territory as long as the war was going on, as long as there were powers willing to contest the German aggression. The sole reason for that war was that redrawing borders by force was considered unlawful and danger to everyone.

[4thskorpion]

You don't understand. The aim of the war was to protect the statehood not the people. The people including the Jews were expected to die if needed. The willingness of the people to die for their homeland was the only defence of small countries like Poland or the "no surrender order will ever be given" Switzerland.

The population was protected by international laws, laws that at that time had been regarded as worthy to upheld by each and every civilized nation for over a hundred years, laws enacted for the sole reason to protect the civilian population from exploitation or holding hostage by an occupation force.

Poland didn't lost any territory as long as the war was going on, as long as there were powers willing to contest the German aggression. The sole reason for that war was that redrawing borders by force was considered unlawful and danger to everyone.

I do understand that International laws have never prevented wars or protected people from war.

Poland lost territory on the first day German forces entered Poland and tore down its boundary markers - despite Poland having in place the Franco-Polish alliance of 1921-40, the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1932, the Polish-German non-aggression pact of 1938 and the Anglo-Polish alliance of 1939.

As long as "this monstrous bastard of the Treaty of Versailles" existed Nazi Germany and or the USSR were going to end what was seen as an injustice. They were not alone in that view, see below from "God's playground" by Norman Davies:

Although the views expressed above Davies describes as being factually inaccurate, these are the views that shaped attitudes to Poland and the Poles and we know such views in certain sections of the British government came to the fore again when the Poles annexed Teschen in 1938 and with news reports of the Polish ultimation to Lithuania with threats of military force. Such views persisted as evidenced by HMG repeatedly informing the emigre Polish government from the outset that it would not support or defend Polish eastern boundary claims. As mentioned several times previously in this thread as early as November 1939 even Sikorski knew the "lost" polish eastern territories might not be recovered and Poland would have to seek compensation elsewhere - as recorded by an official of the British Foreign Office at the time.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

They were not alone in that view, see below from "God's playground" by Norman Davies

Indeed, a remarkable coincidence of Nazi German, Soviet Communist, and British Imperialist sentiments (he did not quote any other). The problem is that it was a specifically British Anti-Polish attitude. France and the USA did not share that view. Already since the end of WW1 Britain's attitude to Poland was less favourable than that of the rest of the Entente, also when it comes to drawing its borders:

See "The Curzon line as the eastern boundary of Poland. The origins and the political background":

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/7563.html

http://rcin.org.pl/igipz/Content/28362/ ... rhardt.pdf

such views in certain sections of the British government came to the fore again when the Poles annexed Teschen in 1938

Are we talking about the same British government which betrayed and sold Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement in 1938? The same British government which sympathized with Nazi Germany, with its racial ideology, and vigorously practiced Appeasement policies?

As long as "this monstrous bastard of the Treaty of Versailles" existed Nazi Germany and or the USSR were going to end what was seen as an injustice

The German Nazis and the Soviet Communists - always ready to determine what is injust and what is just:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DX2UTtOUgA

So it seems that rulers of the USSR were not such good students of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, after all:

http://lewicowo.pl/karol_marks_a_powstanie_styczniowe/

In English:

"(...) Marx and Engels considered Poland as a nation first of all indispensible (nécessaire), and secondly - revolutionary. The indispensibility of the Polish nation resulted from fact, that the whole power of the Reaction in Europe since 1815 (and maybe even since the French Revolution) was based on the "sacred aliance" of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, cemented together by the Partitions of Poland. Crushing the reactionaries, destroying the "sacred alliance", required the restoration of Poland. The revolutionary character of the Polish nation - according to Marx and Engels - resulted from fact that Poles had to be revolutional, if they did not want to die as a nation under the yoke of despotic monarchies. Aiming at destruction of the "sacred alliance" of three reactionary powers, the Poles therefore became leaders of revolutionary movements of the whole of Europe, against the patriarchal-feudal absolutism in Europe. During the hot days of "the Springtime of the Peoples" of 1848, Marx wrote: "the Poles are everywhere the generous (hochherzigen) generals of the Revolution. Glory, three times glory, to the Poles."[13] Morevoer Poles connected their struggle for national liberation with fight for enfranchisement of peasants and agrarian democracy, the only democracy possible at that time in Eastern Europe, and by doing so they affected in a revolutionary way the entire system of social relations among the nations neighbouring Poland. "The merit of the Poles" - wrote Engels - "is that they were the first ones who proclaimed the truth about the connection which occurs between independence [of a nation] from external factors and the land reform inside the country."[14] The politics of democratic movements in entire Europe at that time was concentrated on three main goals: liberation and unification of Italy; restoration of free and independent Poland; unification of Germany. Those three goals can be found in the act of the French National Assemply from 23 May 1848 and also in the headline of each number of "Tribune des Peuples" newspaper from Paris. Marx and Engels argued, that liberation and unification of Germany was not possible as long as Prussia and Austria were oppressing the Poles. They maintained, that the emergence of independent and democratic Poland was the first condition to the emergence of democratic Germany. Hence their two demands: that Germany should resign from Polish lands remaining under Prussian rule and to demand - with use of military force if necessary - the return of Polish lands occupied by Russia. Marx and Engels proclaimed a revolutionary war against Russia under the slogan of rebuilding independent Poland. They considered Russia to be the main pillar of the Reaction in Germany and as the ligament of the Reaction in entire Europe. "Between Russia and Germany - wrote Engels - there must be created not some sham of Poland, but a state capable of its own life: independent Poland must cover at least the same territory as before 1772, it must control not only the basins of its major rivers, but also their outlets, and it must posses a significant strip of coastline at least along the Baltic Sea [if not also along the Black Sea]. In the best interest of European democracy an independent Poland - a strong and territorially vast Poland - is absolutely necessary."[15] (...)

[13] "Neue Rheinische Zeitung”, Köln, No 135, 5 November 1848.
[14] "Neue Rheinische Zeitung", No 81, 20 August 1848.
[15] "Neue Rheinische Zeitung", No 81, 20 August 1848."

Polish neighbour told me the story of her mother who lived in a small town in Eastern Poland with an overwhelming Ukrainian population and where on 17 september the Ukrainians were going after the Poles and killed them .

Here is Roman Dmowski's opinion about Ukraine (also some of his opinions about Lithuania can be found):

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.o ... -part.html

Roman Dmowski on The Ukraine Question

In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson and the heads of the Allied powers listened to Roman Dmowski, founder of the Polish nation-state, speak on Eastern European affairs. Roman Dmowski’s speech led to the creation of the Second Polish Republic, and his speech was responsible for Poland gaining more territory than any military campaign in Poland’s twentieth-century history. Roman Dmowski believed that intelligent rhetoric and speech could achieve more for a nation than war and violent revolution. After all the failed Polish uprisings of the nineteenth century, Roman Dmowski proved the superiority of measured conservative political rhetoric to military power by making such an impression on his Western listeners. A friend to G.K. Chesterton, he was also awarded an honorary doctorate by Cambridge University after impressing leading British intellectuals in a series of lectures. (...)

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.o ... art-2.html

The Ukraine Question: A Prophetic Warning

Poland’s founder, Roman Dmowski, predicted the present war in Ukraine, even predicting that Donetsk would be the focal point of that war. Reading his words, written in 1930, we read the words of a prophet, and we understand why President Woodrow Wilson saw fit to trust Roman Dmowski’s assessment of European affairs. It is impossible for an honest person to read this essay and not feel a wave of shock. If it is true that Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf was a blue print for the Second World War, then it is all the more true that Roman Dmowski’s work was a prophetic warning to the entire world and an exact blueprint for the present war in Ukraine. (...)

The Polish minority in Lithuania and the Lithuanian minority in Poland:

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/9408.html

http://rcin.org.pl/igipz/Content/42381/ ... winski.pdf

[4thskorpion]

They were not alone in that view, see below from "God's playground" by Norman Davies

Indeed, a remarkable coincidence of Nazi German, Soviet Communist, and British Imperialist sentiments (he did not quote any other). The problem is that it was a specifically British Anti-Polish attitude. France and the USA did not share that view. Already since the end of WW1 Britain's attitude to Poland was less favourable than that of the rest of the Entente, also when it comes to delineating its borders:

I agree for a number of, IMO good, reasons there was certainly a British anti-Polish attitude over Polish aggression and territorial issues during the interbellum which again came to the fore during WWII when the emigre Polish government was camped in London.

Are we talking about the same British government which betrayed and sold Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement in 1938? The same British government which sympathized with Nazi Germany, with its racial ideology, and vigorously practiced Appeasement policies?

Indeed there were many in Britain that had no desire to go to war with Germany, and in fact were supportive of the Nazi regime. However Chamberlain was not a supporter of Hitler nor the Nazi regime, he was trying to prevent a large scale conflict with Germany, vainly as it turned out by pledging Britain would defend Poland in the case of German aggression. This was Chamberlain's greatest political mistake. We also have to remember if it were not for the Labour Party refusing to work under the Conservative Party's first nominee Halifax as Chamberlain's replacement but voting for Churchill (another Tory) instead, it is highly likely in 1940 Britain might have sought a peace accord with Germany. Halifax was on the appeasement side, Churchill was not.

As long as "this monstrous bastard of the Treaty of Versailles" existed Nazi Germany and or the USSR were going to end what was seen as an injustice

So it seems that rulers of the USSR were not good students of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, after all:

The rulers of the USSR were as they were.

[ljadw]

The British government did not betray and sell CZ and did not sympathize with the Third Reich,neither was Appeasement something wrong .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Peter K.,

You write, "Are we talking about the same British government which betrayed and sold Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement in 1938? The same British government which sympathized with Nazi Germany, with its racial ideology, and vigorously practiced Appeasement policies?"

Clearly we are not.

Britain had no contractual obligations to Czechoslovakia in 1938. Nor did it sympathize with Nazi Germany. (If anything, the reverse was true in that Hitler admired the example of the British Empire.) Appeasement was "vigorous"? It was more like culpable inertia!

Cheers,

Sid.

[4thskorpion]

Some sympathies with Hitler could be found within the Polish government officials also:

Polish Ambassador to Berlin, Józef Lipski, in talks with Hitler in 1938 regarding the deportation of Jews (to Madagascar or elsewhere), reported back to Warsaw and wrote:

"Regarding the point (the deportation of the Jews), I answered Hitler that we would erect a handsome statue to his honour in Warsaw, should he find a solution”

David Irving in his " Hitler’s War and The War Path" also mentions Lipski in this regard on page 139.