Rename allies fighter

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Tgufyru wrote:

      Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      None of what you're saying has anything to do with British defense of Poland (which never happened in any form.) You criticize the French as do-nothing cowards, but at least they committed the Saar offensive, even if they abandoned it. Britain didn't do anything until German offensives turned westward. Basically, Britain didn't do anything until they faced a very real, very physical threat.

      Just like the Soviet Union didn't do anything until they faced a very real, very physical threat.

      Just like the United States didn't do anything until it faced a very real, very physical threat -- except the U.S. was making hostile moves in the Atlantic against Germany since before it formally entered the war, in direct support of Britain. Which is more than the British did for the Poles.

      So, all I'm saying boils down to: Shut up with this 'America did nothing until it was directly threatened' whine. Britain was literally breaking treaties and dooming its allies to conquest and annexation by Germany to keep itself from getting involved. If you're going to criticize the United States for not becoming directly involved until it was immediately threatened, then the English need to fess up to the fact that they sold out the Poles. That their complete inaction and unwillingness to honor their treaties directly resulted in the massacres and years of wholesale slaughter that the Polish people endured under Nazi occupation.
      Britain sent 8 million pounds (the poles asked for 60 million) with 111 british and 100 french airplane in aid to poland. By the time , of the saar offensive poland was dead so the offensive achieved nothing due to german a counter-attack ( if france attacked earlier it might be successful as they had double the amount of units) The british sent 13 divs (max) to france but they were poorly equipped as majority of military spending went to the navy and airforce. Also, the war for poland was lost from the start , if they had pulled back from their initial line of defence to the second line of defence. They would have lasted longer but their hc didn’t want to abandon the western part of their country. Also, britain could do nothing to help poland except blockade them . The point is britain was not ready for war when the invasion of poland came( and was in no position to aid poland ). Their land units wasn’t properly equipped. Why the defence of britain was successful because they could use their aircraft and navy which they invested a lot into.
      None of what you said in your post excuses the United Kingdom from not only failing to honor the treaty that they agreed to with the Poles, but continuing to treat them like garbage even after Polish units fought under British command. You sign a treaty, you honor it. This is basic stuff, here. Unless you're trying to press this idea that Britain can do no wrong?

    • Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      Tgufyru wrote:

      Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      None of what you're saying has anything to do with British defense of Poland (which never happened in any form.) You criticize the French as do-nothing cowards, but at least they committed the Saar offensive, even if they abandoned it. Britain didn't do anything until German offensives turned westward. Basically, Britain didn't do anything until they faced a very real, very physical threat.

      Just like the Soviet Union didn't do anything until they faced a very real, very physical threat.

      Just like the United States didn't do anything until it faced a very real, very physical threat -- except the U.S. was making hostile moves in the Atlantic against Germany since before it formally entered the war, in direct support of Britain. Which is more than the British did for the Poles.

      So, all I'm saying boils down to: Shut up with this 'America did nothing until it was directly threatened' whine. Britain was literally breaking treaties and dooming its allies to conquest and annexation by Germany to keep itself from getting involved. If you're going to criticize the United States for not becoming directly involved until it was immediately threatened, then the English need to fess up to the fact that they sold out the Poles. That their complete inaction and unwillingness to honor their treaties directly resulted in the massacres and years of wholesale slaughter that the Polish people endured under Nazi occupation.
      Britain sent 8 million pounds (the poles asked for 60 million) with 111 british and 100 french airplane in aid to poland. By the time , of the saar offensive poland was dead so the offensive achieved nothing due to german a counter-attack ( if france attacked earlier it might be successful as they had double the amount of units) The british sent 13 divs (max) to france but they were poorly equipped as majority of military spending went to the navy and airforce. Also, the war for poland was lost from the start , if they had pulled back from their initial line of defence to the second line of defence. They would have lasted longer but their hc didn’t want to abandon the western part of their country. Also, britain could do nothing to help poland except blockade them . The point is britain was not ready for war when the invasion of poland came( and was in no position to aid poland ). Their land units wasn’t properly equipped. Why the defence of britain was successful because they could use their aircraft and navy which they invested a lot into.
      None of what you said in your post excuses the United Kingdom from not only failing to honor the treaty that they agreed to with the Poles, but continuing to treat them like garbage even after Polish units fought under British command. You sign a treaty, you honor it. This is basic stuff, here. Unless you're trying to press this idea that Britain can do no wrong?
      Poland broke treaties that it has signed with the eu, ussr broke it’s 10 years non-aggression pack with poland in the seventh year of the treaty. the treaty was broken yet you didn’t complain about the ussr. (Also, idk where u got the point that the british military treated polish troops like crap, it was the civilians that didn’t want to accept them. Due to higher job competition, if uk didn’t respect the polish troops, they wouldn’t have gave them citizenship or have them be in the elite forces. If you really wanted to say that polish troops were maltreated, look at black american troops in the pacific theatre. They were use as “labourers “ to dig highways and create fortifications. ) Britain, did honor a few parts of the treaty (ofc not all cuz nobody was expecting war , which was bad on the allies gov) They sent aid to poland as mentioned above, 211 aircraft and 8million pounds.

    • Some allied commanders doubted the abilities of the polish army after the rather quick collapse to germany. In the same year, Poland managed to sign treaties regarding polish troops able to use their own flags , under their own command but using british equipments. After these treaties, the polish troops performing magnificently in the battle of britain , impressed their british counterparts and silencing any doubts. Winsten Churchill remarked :(he had) “rarely seen a finer body of men”

    • I read up more about the pact, UK’s diplomat was id***s . The chief of staff and many other diplomats said that britain was not ready for war . Also, there are a lot of secret protocols that we don’t know of(not clear) . Some say the UK was to declare war and sent moneytary aid , some say britain had to “use all it’s power to defend poland” , etc etc . So, it depends which side your on and which person’s account you believed.