Polish Intelligence
pkmb
weekly.
When in 1995 the war time documents of British intelligence were published it
turned out that they were carefully cleaned of ANY activities of Polish
intelligence which was one of the closest ally of BI during the war and was
named by sir John Coleville (a secretary of Winston Churchill) as "the best
intelligence service of the ones taking part in World War II". The best known
breaking of the Enigma code by the three University of Poznan professors
(Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Rozycki and Henryk Zygalski) - which according to most
historians made the victory substantially more probable and quicker- is
virtually ignored by British documents. Even though on the Internet there are
several sites in English about the breaking of Enigma giving Poles the due
credit and in American faculties the "Three Poles method" is the basis for
teaching cryptology Encyclopedia Britannica brings a surprise idea that Enigma
was actually cracked by British cryptographs. In the British School of
Cryptography in the entry hall there is an Enigma machine displayed with no
info whatsoever that it was given to the English by the Poles in July of 1939
in Warsaw when Polish HQ due to the danger of an attack decided to share with
Poland's allies it's expertise about Enigma (including German codes for
Enigma).
Many British publications about V-1 and V-2 and the base at Peenemunde where
the mass production of these weapons was being prepared give no mention
whatsoever that it was the Polish Home Army intelligence which acquired the
plans of these weapons and what is even more extraordinary delivered parts of
a V-2 rocket to London (using the RAF Dakota). Even Polish involvement in the
BoB and in taking of Monte Cassino is played down. "There is mention that
Poles took part in assaults on the mountain but there is no mention that the
Poles DID capture it"- says bitterly Jan Nowak-Jezioranski.
In this kind of Orwellian story there is a big "contribution" of the known
revisionist David Irving who totally objects to giving Polish forces both in
the West and in Poland any credit in decisively helping the Allies to defeat
Hitler.
Polish contribution to the victory is systematically played down by our
British ally even though Poland directly contributed to the defeat of Hitler
in a manner totally disproportionate to a country occupied since 1939 and
forced to fight in very difficult circumstances (without access to it's home
land and it's recruitment base). Special recognition should be given to the
intelligence of the Home Army - says Jan Nowak-Jezioranski (who was a famous
courier to the Polish Commander in Chief who traveled from occupied Poland to
London).
Polish historian working abroad prof. Jan Ciechanowski writes that during the
war Polish intelligence operated in practically whole of Europe, in the Middle
and Far East, in South Africa and both Americas - 35 countries in total. In
1944 it had 1666 agents in the field and in France alone it's network counted
more than 1500 people. The Polish Oddzial II had given the SIS in total 32434
intelligence reports, 4097 counter intelligence reports and 35288 enemy radio
messages deciphered by Polish cryptographers. Polish intelligence also
cooperated with American and French intelligence services. British General
Staff classified 25% of them as "extremely important" having direct impact on
the outcome of the war, 60% as very important, 12% as important and only 3% as
being with little or no importance. However even the "extremely important"
were not utilized in many situation by the BI who could not or didn't want to
use them. For example the catastrophe in Narvik could have been prevented if
the BI would use the messages Poles encrypted from German enigma coded
messages.
Shortly after the ending of the war HMgovernment demanded that all documents
of the Polish intelligence should be handed over to it. Then more than 100.000
documents were according to the British destroyed. This fact was for many
years was kept secret. Prof. Ajnenkiel thinks that the reason for the
destruction (apart from the desire of the British Intelligence to steal other
people's contributions and give the credit to themselves) was the rivalry
between SIS and SOE which for long time during the war suspected that the SIS
was gathering information provided by Polish Intelligence and giving it to the
Soviets as being acquired by itself. It could have been also - adds Ajnenkiel-
the desire to hide from the responsibility for not believing the more horrific
Polish reports. Even at the end of 1943 two high rank officials, Roger Allen
from the Foreign Office and William Ceavendish-Bendick the chief of JIC
refused to believe the Home Army's reports about German death camps. "They
couldn't see an advantage of the gas chambers over a machine gun"- writes
Ciechanowski. Polish reports that the Germans were preparing to attack the SU
were also discounted.
First traces of the destruction of Polish archives were found in 1971 when
Polish journalist Michal Wojewodzki was looking for them preparing a book
about Wunderwaffen. Until 1989 Poland wasn't interested in this matter and
only recently diplomatic operation caused an answer of the HMGovernment that
Polish intelligence archives were destroyed BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY
LASTING WORTH!!!!!! Jan Ciechanowski can't believe it. He thinks that not
every document was destroyed "some documents are never destroyed" he says. If
the British say they were destroyed they have to answer a few questions. What
was destroyed, when and on who's order. According to professor Ajnenkiel the
total destruction of the documents was not possible. Every report should have
been sent to few separate institutions and it would have been hard to reach
all of the copies.
This matter is very important says Mr. Jerzy Buzek Polish Prime minister and
promises tough talks with the British. The first result of the diplomatic
action of our government is a letter of PM Blair to PM Buzek in which Blair
now says that documents of Polish intelligence are "scattered". Polish
Parliament is also pressuring the British to reveal the truth. There is hope
since in 1995 documents proving that the UK knew perfectly well who committed
the crime at Katyn from the very beginning were published and these documents
were initially reported as "destroyed in a fire" by the British.
Alfred Piechowiak who lived in England until 1990 is more skeptical. He was a
member of the underground in France and a sailor in the Royal Navy and learned
cryptography from Henryk Zygalski and says: The English will drag this for at
least 20 years and they still won't revile the truth.
The article was entitled "War for the truth" and every copyright imagined is
owned by "Wprost". I just tried using my limited expertise to translate the
main points of it into English as I felt it was important to the group. Any
deficiencies in the use of English are my fault. It was published around a
month ago but until today I had no time to take the task of translating and
posting it. I think of it as third party response to
the arguments of Louis who in one thread told me in effect that I'm paranoid
when saying that the West is systematically trying to take the credit for the
achievements of Poles during the war and in another said that if Poland joined
Hitler the loss of Polish intelligence would not be a serious blow to the
Allies.
My own opinion about the facts given in this article is as follows. I think it
is incomprehensible that the same country which took part in condemning Poland
to 50 years of Russian occupation is now low enough to try and steal Polish
contributions to the war. This is only proof of how vital was Poland to the
victory over Hitler. We will not rest until the truth will be told. No matter
what they will try to do.
Marcin B.
P.S. Next time I find a bit of time I'll try to post some facts about Polish
Air Forces in the West involvement and achievements in the BoB and later. For
example did you know that 25% of crews initially under Harris command were
Polish? I HIGHLY recommend a book by Adam Zamoyski entitled "The Forgotten Few
The Polish Air Force in the Second World War which was published in 1995 by
John Murray (Publishers) Ltd in London. It is in English of course.
--
Marcin Bugajski citizen of Poland. NATO member since March the 12th 1999.
This message cannot be used for commercial purposes without
the author's consent.
Louis Capdeboscq
(snip article)
> I think of it as third party response to
> the arguments of Louis who in one thread told me in effect that I'm
paranoid
> when saying that the West is systematically trying to take the credit for
the
> achievements of Poles during the war
I'm sorry, but my claim stands. I haven't looked up the Encyclopedia
Britannica on the subject, but I know that the very first source I ever
read
that mentioned Cassino DID mention the Poles. And I live in a country where
"official" interpretation is that it was the French Expeditionary Corps
that
breached the line, by bypassing Cassino etc. Even then, they acknowledge
that the Poles were the first to actually take that ground.
I can't speak of Anglo-Saxon historiography in general: most of the
English-language military history books that I own are not exactly "general
readership easy reading history", since I can find those cheaper in my own
language. On the other hand, I remember the first edition of Third Reich.
This was a grand-strategic wargame published in the late 1970's or early
1980's, in which one counter represented, roughly, a corps. Among the
British armored units, one of them (and the best one, too, IIRC) was the
Polish one. Errors were otherwise many, both due to scale and sometimes
less-than-stellar research. But this at least indicates that the Polish
contribution WAS widely-known.
> and in another said that if Poland joined
> Hitler the loss of Polish intelligence would not be a serious blow to the
> Allies.
Sorry, but I stand by this point. Among other things, I happen to believe
that if Poland joined Hitler there would be much less occupied Europe, and
therefore less need of intelligence networks.
About Enigma, the British started nearly from scratch, and were the only
ones to use "bombs", i.e. pre-computers, to help them. These "bombs" were a
crucial factor, at a stage when the "traditional" methods did result in
decyphering German codes, but not fast enough to have operational use.
Just as in the Battle of Britain, the technology itself (i.e. British radar
wasn't the best available, the Germans had a better one, etc) isn't
all-important. How you use it is just as important.
Other than that, I never questioned your claim of the British having
destroyed Polish archives. I wouldn't put it past them to do such a
thing...
> My own opinion about the facts given in this article is as follows. I
think it
> is incomprehensible that the same country which took part in condemning
Poland
> to 50 years of Russian occupation is now low enough to try and steal
Polish
> contributions to the war.
It is incomprehensible that the same country which went to war over Poland
would refuse to acknowledge the Polish contribution to that same war.
It is quite in character with other traits of administrative ineptitude in
military-related matters, something which sadly is no monopoly of the
British.
> This is only proof of how vital was Poland to the victory over Hitler.
It certainly isn't. Most of the British historians have no problem
acknowledging how vital the US contribution was. If the Polish one had been
"vital", too, why should they refuse to recognize it ?
And this is where I believe good points lapse in nationalistic paranoia. I
do believe that the Polish forces did ok. I do believe that Poland's
contribution to the war effort was disproportionately large compared to
Polish ressources. This is especially true of "Free Polish" forces,
compared
to others such as French, Belgians, etc.
However, I do NOT believe this makes Poland "vital" to the Allied war
effort, nor do I believe that the Western Allies "sold" them to Stalin.
> We will not rest until the truth will be told.
Good idea. There's been a story about the mother of a British trooper who
had been killed by friendly fire in the Falklands, and the British Ministry
of Defense only recently recognized it. So if you can spare the time, it
pays to persevere...
> P.S. Next time I find a bit of time I'll try to post some facts about
Polish
> Air Forces in the West involvement and achievements in the BoB and later.
Don't bother: lots of British BoB historians (e.g. Deighton) make it clear
that the Polish pilots were of enormous importance during that time.
> For
> example did you know that 25% of crews initially under Harris command were
> Polish?
It says much about their skill and bravery, but given what the current
historical record is about Bomber Command's status as a war-winning tool,
I'm not sure it will help your claims about how "vital" Polish forces
were...
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: Other than that, I never questioned your claim of the British having
: destroyed Polish archives. I wouldn't put it past them to do such a
: thing...
Now the British version is a little different - the main archive
has been destroied but some copies of some documents exist
in many archives. So I hope that some of the documents
will be published.
Jerzy Pankieiwcz
pkmb
> I'm sorry, but my claim stands.
<snip well researched article wrote in cooperation with well known history
professors is wrong cause I think differently>
I think that it is a bit odd to say that saying "most Western sources
don't give Poles due credit" is wrong because a person's first read on
the subject did mention that Poles captured Monte Cassino. I think good
professionals do have an idea what is "generally" written in western
books on the subject. I also have not read most of Western sources but
first of all I think that to discount thesis of such well respected
professionals one needs a bit more than "I read one book that did give
Poles credit" argument and secondly I watch the Discovery Channel and
Planete very often and have yet to see any program about the war even
mentioning Polish contribution to the victory. It is especially odd
when talking about the air war over Europe the so called respected
channels fail to acknowledge a country which put up 15 squadrons of
very very good and experienced pilots and crews while the other allies
combined (apart from the British) fielded 16 squadrons (not to mention
the scores o Polish pilots who fought in the British squadrons). These
two things led me to agree with this thesis of the article.
> > and in another said that if Poland joined
> > Hitler the loss of Polish intelligence would not be a serious blow to the
> > Allies.
>
> Sorry, but I stand by this point. Among other things, I happen to believe
> that if Poland joined Hitler there would be much less occupied Europe, and
> therefore less need of intelligence networks.
:)). Ok if Polish intelligence was classified as the best of the ones taking
part in the WWII not by a Pole but by a high rank British official who would
naturally promote the British services and when the British Staff classifies
25% of tens of thousands messages and reports of Polish intelligence as
"extremely important having the direct impact on the outcome of the war" and
60% as very important you still say that loosing this intelligence service
wouldn't be a serious blow to the Allies. I think that here you are just
playing stubborn but that's my personal opinion.
> About Enigma, the British started nearly from scratch, and were the only
> ones to use "bombs", i.e. pre-computers, to help them. These "bombs" were a
> crucial factor, at a stage when the "traditional" methods did result in
> decyphering German codes, but not fast enough to have operational use.
BombAs Louis, bombAs. Which is a Polish word. Get the point? The three Poles
method was used by Poles to get the first crack on Enigma but then the
pre-computers were build but they were VERY expensive and only a few were
made. The British built more of them and no doubt perfected them but the
credit is still Polish.
> It is incomprehensible that the same country which went to war over Poland
> would refuse to acknowledge the Polish contribution to that same war.
Went to war over Poland? You MUST be kidding me. And it is as the article
shows.
> > This is only proof of how vital was Poland to the victory over Hitler.
>
> It certainly isn't. Most of the British historians have no problem
> acknowledging how vital the US contribution was. If the Polish one had been
> "vital", too, why should they refuse to recognize it ?
Poland-enemy nation pops to mind first. Then the sell off in Yalta and the
urge to downplay the contribution of the sold party to make it seem less
unjust. I never said the Polish contribution was as big as the US's or British
or Soviet. However one has to remember that without Polish pilots and crews
the BoB could have been lost (many British commanders of that time admit that
winning this battle without Poles would be much less probable). Also the
Enigma deciphers came in handy as IIRC Luftwaffe was transmitting the general
plans of air assaults on Britain using Enigma (the Coventry incident pops to
mind). The more I learn about the specifics and statistics of the war the more
justified to me is the claim that Poland was the fourth most important ally
fighting Hitler. Especially since it fought in the first and very crucial
times of the war.
It is also worth remembering that Poles took part (and gallantly too) in many
key operations like sinking of the Bismarck, defense of Tobruk, closing the
sack at Falaise, Monte Cassino, acting as a rear guard in the battle of
El-Ghazala making a big impact in everyone of them. Polish input into the war
WAS vital. Poland did not just ok but astonishingly well considering the
circumstances in which it had to fight. Of course Poles fought very well in
the East too like for example breaking the heavy German defenses called "Wal
Pomorski" (The Pommeranian wall), stopping Shorner's advance in help of Berlin
and it is also forgotten that considerable amounts of Polish soldiers (in
units separate from the Soviets) assaulted Berlin with the Soviets. When
Berlin had fallen the Polish flag flew on the ruins of the center of the
Reich. As I said, the fact that the British try to take the credit for Polish
contributions for themselves serves as proof of how vital while
underrepresented these contributions were. Too bad that Poland lost that war
and shed it's blood for the unworthy.
> And this is where I believe good points lapse in nationalistic paranoia. I
> do believe that the Polish forces did ok.
I all the time try to understand why firstly you are accusing me of paranoia
when my views on the under representation are being proven and supported by
very serious sources and secondly why are you accusing me of nationalism when
I'm not a nationalist and many times had taken great care in expressing
respect for other nation's rights and alike. Care to explain?
> However, I do NOT believe this makes Poland "vital" to the Allied war
> effort, nor do I believe that the Western Allies "sold" them to Stalin.
You can also believe that the Earth is flat which doesn't change the reality.
> Don't bother: lots of British BoB historians (e.g. Deighton) make it clear
> that the Polish pilots were of enormous importance during that time.
Well I will anyways because after reading some facts about it even I was
surprised with the magnitude of Polish Air Forces contribution into the
defense of the UK and victory over Hitler.
Marcin B.
pkmb
>
> I'm sorry, but my claim stands.
<snip well researched article wrote in cooperation with well known history
professors is wrong cause I think differently>
I think that it is a bit odd to say that saying "most Western sources don't
give Poles due credit" is false because a person's first read on the
subject
did mention that Poles captured Monte Cassino. I also have not read most of
Western sources but first of all I think that to discount thesis of such
well
respected professionals one needs a bit more than "I read one book that did
give Poles credit" argument and secondly I watch the Discovery Channel and
Planete very often and have yet to see any program about the war even
mentioning Polish contribution to the victory. It is especially odd when
talking about the air war over Europe the so called respected channels fail
to
acknowledge a country which put up 15 squadrons of very very good and
experienced pilots and crews while the other allies combined (apart from
the
British) fielded 16 squadrons (not to mention the scores o Polish pilots
who
fought in the British squadrons). These two things led me to agree with
this
thesis of the article.
> > and in another said that if Poland joined
> > Hitler the loss of Polish intelligence would not be a serious blow to the
> > Allies.
>
> > This is only proof of how vital was Poland to the victory over Hitler.
>
Reich. As I said, the fact that the British try to take the credit for
Polish
contributions for themselves serves as proof of how vital while
underrepresented these contributions were. Too bad that Poland lost that
war
and shed it's blood for the unworthy.
> And this is where I believe good points lapse in nationalistic paranoia. I
> do believe that the Polish forces did ok.
I all the time try to understand why firstly you are accusing me of
paranoia
when my views on the under representation are being proven and supported by
very serious sources and secondly why are you accusing me of nationalism
when
I'm not a nationalist and many times had taken great care in expressing
respect for other nation's rights and alike. Care to explain?
> However, I do NOT believe this makes Poland "vital" to the Allied war
> effort, nor do I believe that the Western Allies "sold" them to Stalin.
You can also believe that the Earth is flat which doesn't change the
reality.
> Don't bother: lots of British BoB historians (e.g. Deighton) make it clear
> that the Polish pilots were of enormous importance during that time.
Well I will anyways because after reading some facts about it even I was
surprised with the magnitude of Polish Air Forces contribution into the
defense of the UK and victory over Hitler.
Marcin B.
Lawrence Dillard
the ENIGMA machine.
The British, it is recorded in several serious studies of WWII
codebreaking,
received an incredibly generous, timely and handsome handoff from the
Poles
in the area of ENIGMA cryptology.
Shortly before Poland was overwhelmed by attack from without, Polish intel
made a complete disclosure to both the French and the British intelligence
agencies of the efforts, successes and means of attack on Germany's ENIGMA
ciphering device as it then stood in development. Money and time had run
out
on the Poles, and they knew it. Hence an unprecedented transfer of ideas
and technology took place.
That is, not long before Poland was conquered, there arrived in Great
Britain shipments of intelligence materials which may well have been the
most valuable cargo ever to reach her shores (with apologies to James
Phinney Baxter III).
Contained therein were something called "perforated sheets", a
Polish-constructed ENIGMA machine analog, and a "bombe" of "bomba" .
Furthermore, it is admitted that the initial successful attack on ENIGMA
was
made by a team of three German-trained Polish mathematicians, who reduced
the ENIGMA to mathematical equations and who also generated the first
mathematical attack on the ENIGMA's system of rotor encipherment .
Welchman, who wrote about the British "Hut Six", recorded that he was
curious how the work in Britain had gotten started. According to Welchman,
Alan Turing replied, "Perhaps the Poles".
The "bomba" evolved into British "bombes", which in turn suggested more
complex devices considered to be precursors of some modern-day computers.
Thanks for te post.
ldl...@EnterAct.com
"Louis Capdeboscq" <Louis.Ca...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:38bedb3e...@news.curie.dialix.com.au...
> pkmb wrote
less need of intelligence networks.
>
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: effort, nor do I believe that the Western Allies "sold" them to Stalin.
A high US official informed Stalin that the US were
"selling' Poland. (There are Venona documents on it.)
I believe that he knew what was he writing about.
Eg. the Katyn crime was instrumentally used
after the war, when the SU became less important
for the USA. GB needed 30 or 40 years to
acknowledge the truth about the Katyn.
Selling the truth about Poland was for me
selling of Poland.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Louis.Ca...@wanadoo.fr (Louis Capdeboscq) wrote:
> About Enigma, the British started nearly from scratch,
Britain had valuable information from the Poles about the internal
structure of the military Enigma. However to speed results the Polish
decryption service relied on the fact that German communication
practise sent the same 3 letter group twice at the start of a message.
At the start of each day the operator set the day code and plugboard
and then selected 3 letters as a personal code which would be used for
any further traffic that day. These letters were sent twice in
succession. When Germany changed this practice in late 1939 decrypts
died out.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Louis Capdeboscq
> I think that it is a bit odd to say that saying "most Western sources don't
> give Poles due credit" is false because a person's first read on the
> subject did mention that Poles captured Monte Cassino.
My point was that I had ALWAYS read that the Poles had captured Monte
Cassino, and as that was the thesis that I had been reading (everywhere)
ever since the first time I read about it, I considered this really
uncontroversial.
But you are quite correct: my occasional light reading on the subject of
WWII doesn't make me an authority on the whole of Western litterature about
Polish participation in that conflict. As a matter of fact, I admitted as
much: I wrote that in my experience, no such discrimination as that you
mention was occuring.
> I also have not read most of
> Western sources but first of all I think that to discount thesis of such
> well respected professionals one needs a bit more than "I read one book that
Ok. Until I read a thesis that makes a detailed study about how Poland is
represented in Western WWII litterature, I'm not going to take your thesis
of "most Western sources don't give the Poles due credit" at face value. If
your "well respected professionals" have made a study that enable them to
talk about "most Western sources", I'll be happy to read it and change my
mind. If they talk about "most Western sources" with a footnote to the work
of someone who studied Poland's contribution as it is retraced in Western
sources, this is fine.
But just because a "well-respected professional" says "most Western sources"
doesn't mean it's true. I know a lot of well-respected professionals which
are wrong, especially when they make such sweeping statements.
> and secondly I watch the Discovery Channel and
> Planete very often and have yet to see any program about the war even
> mentioning Polish contribution to the victory.
This is no proof. What you are seeing is the fact that most of the programs
are sponsored by the US/UK, and therefore are about US/UK participation in
the conflict. It isn't "refusing to give the Poles their due", unless you
saw a program that said the Americans had taken Cassino.
> It is especially odd when
> talking about the air war over Europe the so called respected channels fail
> to
> acknowledge a country which put up 15 squadrons of very very good
Probably because the bulk of the squadrons were British squadrons ? And that
15 was a relatively small number ?
> > > and in another said that if Poland joined
> > > Hitler the loss of Polish intelligence would not be a serious blow to the
> > > Allies.
> >
> > Sorry, but I stand by this point. Among other things, I happen to believe
> > that if Poland joined Hitler there would be much less occupied Europe, and
> > therefore less need of intelligence networks.
>
> :)). Ok if Polish intelligence was classified as the best of the ones taking
> part in the WWII not by a Pole but by a high rank British official who
You miss the point again.
I didn't question the fact that the Poles had operated "the best WWII
intelligence network" if some British official said so.
What I questioned was your implication that this would have war-winning
consequences should Poland change sides. Obviously, if Poland joined the
Axis there wouldn't be much of an occupied Europe for the Polish underground
to operate in, so it wouldn't matter all that much.
> 25% of tens of thousands messages and reports of Polish intelligence as
> "extremely important having the direct impact on the outcome of the war"
Would you care to explain how 2,500 messages each could have a "direct
impact on the outcome of the war" ?
> and
> 60% as very important you still say that loosing this intelligence service
> wouldn't be a serious blow to the Allies. I think that here you are just
> playing stubborn but that's my personal opinion.
Let me put it differently, using another, non-Polish, example to
depassionate this debate.
In the Pacific, the Allies benefited from a very valuable intelligence
source, made of Australians who had remained in various islands that the
Japanese had overrun. These people transmitted extremely important and
timely information to the Allies, and their contribution was notable.
Now, if Australia had been allied with Japan, obviously the Allies would
have lost that network. Would this means that they would lose the war in the
Pacific ? Of course not, since they wouldn't have been fighting in the
Solomon, New Guinea etc.
Same thing with Poland. With Poland an Axis ally, there wouldn't have been
any V-weapons for the Polish intelligence to discover, therefore loss of
that intelligence would not be crippling.
> > > About Enigma, the British started nearly from scratch, and were the only
> > ones to use "bombs", i.e. pre-computers, to help them. These "bombs" were a
> > crucial factor, at a stage when the "traditional" methods did result in
> > decyphering German codes, but not fast enough to have operational use.
>
> BombAs Louis, bombAs. Which is a Polish word. Get the point?
No. I read it as "bombs" or "bombes" in English-language sources. I also
read that the British were the ones who did most of the development, and
that they started their own program from scratch, because of a "not invented
here" attitude.
If your question was "should they have used the services of the very good
Polish cryptographers who were only too willing to work for them ?" my
answer would be affirmative. Since your statement is that without the Poles
the British couldn't have cracked Enigma, I believe that it is unproven at
best.
> The three Poles
> method was used by Poles to get the first crack on Enigma but then the
> pre-computers were build but they were VERY expensive and only a few were
> made. The British built more of them and no doubt perfected them but the
> credit is still Polish.
The credit is Polish for something that the British built ?
> > It is incomprehensible that the same country which went to war over Poland
> > would refuse to acknowledge the Polish contribution to that same war.
>
> Went to war over Poland? You MUST be kidding me. And it is as the article
> shows.
Ok, since you don't like my choice of words, what do you call confusing my
word "incomprehensible" with "unbelievable" ?
I don't doubt that the article is correct about what the British did. I find
it hard to understand. There are numerous explanations that spring to mind,
so I don't want to jump to the "conspiracy" theory right away before more
evidence crops up.
> > > This is only proof of how vital was Poland to the victory over Hitler.
> >
> > It certainly isn't. Most of the British historians have no problem
> > acknowledging how vital the US contribution was. If the Polish one had been
> > "vital", too, why should they refuse to recognize it ?
>
> Poland-enemy nation pops to mind first.
Sorry, but in the one book about WWII that I ever read, the Polish
contribution was well recognized. A lot of these one-book's having been
written at a time when Poland was an "enemy" nation, obviously your
explanation needs more evidence to support it.
Basically, the way Poland was pictured it was pretty clear that the local
dictatorship wasn't something that the Polish people agreed with, which made
it hard to rank Poland as an enemy-nation, added to the fact that it wasn't
all that dangerous.
> Then the sell off in Yalta and the
> urge to downplay the contribution of the sold party to make it seem less
> unjust.
Yalta has been constantly criticized ever since I can remember, and usually
mentioned as "Roosevelt the senile old fool twisting Churchill's arm to let
Stalin have his way, and without realizing what a blunder he was doing".
You -and a few others- are the only ones that I've read who claimed that
Poland had been "sold" in Yalta. Of course, your failure to bring up any
evidence, such as the price of such sale, doesn't help...
> I never said the Polish contribution was as big as the US's or British
> or Soviet.
No, you just said it made a difference whether the war would be won or not.
> However one has to remember that without Polish pilots and crews
> the BoB could have been lost
As long as you say "could" and not "would", I agree...
The British were running out of trained crews, and the emigree forces
provided a lot. In particular, there were 4 Polish 2 Czech and 1 Canadian
squadrons, out of 65, in the battle of Britain (I'm only counting fighter
squadrons here, including night fighters).
> Also the
> Enigma deciphers came in handy as IIRC Luftwaffe was transmitting the general
> plans of air assaults on Britain using Enigma
Operational exploitation of Enigma wasn't realized yet. Enigma didn't help
for the Battle of Britain, except in providing clues to the change of German
strategical orientation.
Enigma's greatest contribution was to the Battle of the Atlantic.
> Polish input into the war WAS vital.
To me, something is vital if you die without it. In that meaning, I disagree
that Polish input was vital.
> Poland did not just ok but astonishingly well considering the
> circumstances in which it had to fight.
Yes. As I wrote, Poland's contribution compared to its ressources was
probably among the highest in WWII, if not the highest.
> As I said, the fact that the British try to take the credit for Polish
> contributions for themselves serves as proof of how vital while
> underrepresented these contributions were.
It certainly contributes to them being underrepresented, but it hardly
proves that they were vital.
> Too bad that Poland lost that war and shed it's blood for the unworthy.
You're too hard on your fellow countrymen who escaped genocide at the hands
of the Germans thanks in part to the contribution of Poland's fighting
forces. I wouldn't call the Poles "the unworthy" myself...
> > And this is where I believe good points lapse in nationalistic paranoia. I
> > do believe that the Polish forces did ok.
>
> I all the time try to understand why firstly you are accusing me of
> paranoia
Ok, find a better word and post it, I'll use that one. So far, "paranoia"
was the one I could think of that best described such attitude as "most of
the Western litterature underrepresents us", "you wrote "incomprehensible",
but if you don't believe it that's how it's written", to take but two
examples from this very post.
And besides I'm not accusing YOU specifically. You're far from the only one,
apparently lots of Poles share your views.
> when my views on the under representation are being proven and supported by
> very serious sources
Oh, so there has been a proof of this underrepresentation ? Why didn't you
start there... care to post that proof ?
> > However, I do NOT believe this makes Poland "vital" to the Allied war
> > effort, nor do I believe that the Western Allies "sold" them to Stalin.
>
> You can also believe that the Earth is flat which doesn't change the
> reality.
I have reasons to believe that the Earth is not flat, because I have seen
lots of evidence of what was vital in that conflict, as well as what
happened in the WSC-FDR-Stalin talks. If you want to challenge the existing
corpus of doctrine, you're the one who needs to provide evidence.
pkmb
> But just because a "well-respected professional" says "most Western sources"
> doesn't mean it's true. I know a lot of well-respected professionals which
> are wrong, especially when they make such sweeping statements.
Sure but words of well respected professionals have to be taken at face
value
at least until someone who is not such a pro and claims that the pros are
wrong can bring proof that they are wrong. In other words the burden of
proving them wrong is on you.
> This is no proof. What you are seeing is the fact that most of the programs
> are sponsored by the US/UK, and therefore are about US/UK participation in
> the conflict. It isn't "refusing to give the Poles their due", unless you
> saw a program that said the Americans had taken Cassino.
Nope. Forces of which Dowding and other RAF commanders said that they were
essential to the defense of the UK and that without them the BoB had much
less
probability of being won by the allies have to be acknowledged by programs
claiming to talk about BoB. The consultants of such programs have to know
about that. If they don't it means that Polish input is so underrepresented
that even professionals in the west have a hard time getting to it.
> > It is especially odd when
> > talking about the air war over Europe the so called respected channels fail
> > to
> > acknowledge a country which put up 15 squadrons of very very good
>
> Probably because the bulk of the squadrons were British squadrons ? And that
> 15 was a relatively small number ?
Hmm IIRC out of 400 pilots defending London in the Bob 50 to 100 where
Polish
(depending on the day) I will confirm that (because now I'm talking out of
memory) when I will be posting the big article about PAF in the UK based on
the book I recommended. Polish pilots fought in British squadrons too. On
one
day 46% of German losses were inflicted by Poles and such victories like
the
one of the 303 squadron which alone forced 150 (I repeat, 150) German
bombers
to drop their load on the fields and return to base are not represented in
statistics and this one wasn't the only such victory. What's important is
the
fact that Poland had given the UK many experienced (more than the RAF),
very
well trained, having superior tactics (which allowed them to destroy
bombing
raids like the one described above) pilots, ground crews and crews in the
time
that it needed them most. Polish squadrons broke many records of kills in
one
day and alike. The fact that the pilots were so good meant that many of
them
were given command of the British squadrons in the future. Numbers in the
BoB
don't give Poles the full credit especially to the bombers crews which at
one
time were one sixth of the whole bomber forces. When it comes to PAF the
ways
in which Poland contributed to the victory are very clear indeed.
Especially
since while giving high quality help the size of the contribution was also
very big. Like I said, one sixth of the bomber forces in 1941 (I think, I
will
have to check with the book), 25% of the initial Harris command and 15
squadrons plus many pilots in British ones while other allies combined
fielded
16.
> You miss the point again.
>
> I didn't question the fact that the Poles had operated "the best WWII
> intelligence network" if some British official said so.
>
> What I questioned was your implication that this would have war-winning
> consequences should Poland change sides. Obviously, if Poland joined the
> Axis there wouldn't be much of an occupied Europe for the Polish underground
> to operate in, so it wouldn't matter all that much.
Now we are talking about what actually happened not about what would happen
if
Poland changed sides. However the lack of PAF and Enigma would have been a
very serious if not decisive factor in the defeat of the British if they
would
be left _really_ alone in the face of Luftwaffe. Polish intelligence
wouldn't
have given the British the reports it did and until we know what was
actually
in them we can only speculate of how important lack of them would have been
to
the allies.
> Would you care to explain how 2,500 messages each could have a "direct
> impact on the outcome of the war" ?
Pardon? Have you seen the numbers posted in the article? 71819 reports and
decoded messages, 25% of them makes 17954 reports and messages classified
by
the British HQ as extremely important having a direct impact on the outcome
of
the war. About your question. Are you serious!? Even one intelligence
report
may decide the outcome of a war. I DON'T KNOW what was in the reports but
the
British HQ had no interest in playing the contribution of the Polish
Intelligence up and if it classified that number of messages as having the
direct impact on the outcome of the war it means they did have such an
impact.
It is also curious what criteria the British HQ had used to determine which
messages were "extremely important ...".
> Same thing with Poland. With Poland an Axis ally, there wouldn't have been
> any V-weapons for the Polish intelligence to discover, therefore loss of
> that intelligence would not be crippling.
Why? Do you think that UK would have surrendered before the V-1s would be
used
or do you think that the UK would have fallen by that time? Or maybe you
think
that the UK wouldn't had gone to war over France? If none of the above is
true
then the importance of Polish intelligence is still there. If you think
that
Hitler would not attack France when the central point of his policy was the
regain A&L and to avenge the "shame of Versailles" then you are living in a
fantasy world. If Poland would have joined Hitler he could have used his
troops against France even earlier and since the troops without the fight
with
Poland would have been significantly stronger France would have fallen even
faster. Or in six weeks like it actually did.
> > > > About Enigma, the British started nearly from scratch, and were the only
> > > ones to use "bombs", i.e. pre-computers, to help them. These "bombs" were a
> > > crucial factor, at a stage when the "traditional" methods did result in
> > > decyphering German codes, but not fast enough to have operational use.
> >
> > BombAs Louis, bombAs. Which is a Polish word. Get the point?
>
> No. I read it as "bombs" or "bombes" in English-language sources. I also
> read that the British were the ones who did most of the development, and
> that they started their own program from scratch, because of a "not invented
> here" attitude.
Well I repeat: Poles discovered a mathematical method of cracking Enigma
(the
three Poles method), Poles discovered and built first bombas, Poles shared
that knowledge with France and England which was a very generous act. The
British made more bombas and improved them. It is obvious that the credit
for
breaking Enigma is Polish. It is obvious that the credit for building first
pre-computers called bomby or bombs is Polish. During the course of the war
the British services reacted to new ways of encoding by the Reich, no doubt
thought up improved ways of breaking Enigma but the credit for giving the
allies the tools for doing so is Polish. If the books that you've read
didn't
say the above then they were a crying example of wide spread under
representation of the Polish efforts and vindicate my "paranoia" fully.
Another poster to this group had backed me on the bombas issue and since
he's
from the States (I think) ask him for the titles and authors in the English
language who do give Poland the due credit for Enigma.
> The credit is Polish for something that the British built ?
Is the credit for the computer revolution American or Asian (were most of
the
hardware is produced)?
> You -and a few others- are the only ones that I've read who claimed that
> Poland had been "sold" in Yalta. Of course, your failure to bring up any
> evidence, such as the price of such sale, doesn't help...
Well. In Poland there is UNIVERSAL agreement that Poland was sold in Yalta
and
Teheran. While many historians say that when Poland was left alone in 1939
it
was due to the fact that the allies didn't have the means to help it in any
big way the Yalta treason is not "clarified". Cynics talk about how it is
understandable that Roosevelt didn't care for anything but the national
interest of the US and that we shouldn't complain but just learn and treat
the
new alliance (NATO) as valid only to the point when it will be no longer
important for our interests but NO ONE denies that Poland was sold in
Yalta.
The fact that you haven't heard of it is because you haven't read Polish
books
on the subject. If it is news for you then I inform you that the a sold
party
of Yalta's market of nations is still feeling sold. I treat the discussions
about Yalta as being about "why Yalta happened" or "how it could have been
prevented" and not about denying the fact of
betrayal/treason/trechery/zdrada.
Manifestum non eget probatione. I don't want apologies from this group of
which you accused me. I want recognition that Poland deserves an apology
from
the governments of the US and the UK.
> > Polish input into the war WAS vital.
>
> To me, something is vital if you die without it. In that meaning, I disagree
> that Polish input was vital.
Nope. During this war your definition of vital can't be used. For example
if
the SU wouldn't go to war with Hitler the allies with America still could
have
won the war. If the US wouldn't go to war the SU still could have won the
war.
Using your definition neither state was vital to the victory over Hitler. I
disagree. For me in this war vital contribution means one which saved many
lives and/or which significantly increased the chances of winning it and/or
significantly shortened it. This three things while very much connected
have
to be looked at when judging whether one nation's contribution to the
victory
was vital. Poland covers all the three criteria. Polish fighter pilots and
sailors saved many many lives, so did Polish intelligence and Enigma.
Polish
intelligence plus the important operations I mentioned in my last post in
which Polish forces took important part significantly increased the chances
of
winning the war and undoubtedly PAF (especially bombers in this regard),
Polish Navy, Polish army, intelligence, Enigma and the underground made
the
victory faster. The allies COULD have won the war without Poland but it
would
have been a much bloodier, harder and slower affair. The same case is with
SU
and US but of course their overall impact is bigger and more vital than
Poland's.
> > Poland did not just ok but astonishingly well considering the
> > circumstances in which it had to fight.
>
> Yes. As I wrote, Poland's contribution compared to its ressources was
> probably among the highest in WWII, if not the highest.
Now we're starting to get somewhere.
> > As I said, the fact that the British try to take the credit for Polish
> > contributions for themselves serves as proof of how vital while
> > underrepresented these contributions were.
>
> It certainly contributes to them being underrepresented, but it hardly
> proves that they were vital.
Why would the British steal the credit for them, then?
> > Too bad that Poland lost that war and shed it's blood for the unworthy.
>
> You're too hard on your fellow countrymen who escaped genocide at the hands
> of the Germans thanks in part to the contribution of Poland's fighting
> forces. I wouldn't call the Poles "the unworthy" myself...
There is a saying in Poland: Britain always fights to the last drop of
blood
... of her allies. As you know I think Poland could have been spared it's
historical fate if it chose not to stick with those who were grateful for
Polish help when they faced defeat and when they won the war with Polish
help
they threw us away into the clutches of Stalin. Those who don't have the
heart
to be grateful, the morals not to betray their allies nor the honor to
accept
guilt and apologize were not worthy of the blood and suffering of Poland.
Poland regained it's freedom only 10 years ago. 250 years of hell had
ended.
I'm from one of the generations which which had to live under Russian
occupation like many generations before us. We had to learn Poland's true
history in secrecy, were indoctrinated at schools and just like most Poles
lived in what the west would consider poverty plus we lived without freedom
in
a totalitarian state. This was all because of Yalta and Teheran where the
whole sense of Poland's struggle against Hitler was shattered. Not by
Hitler
but by our "allies". I sincerely hope that we have learned something. After
all the British and the Americans were a great example of disregard to
morals,
cynicism and of watching only their self interest. They say that learning
by
example is the best way of doing it so I think we can follow in the great
footsteps of Roosevelt and Churchill in regarding every alliance as valid
only
when it suits OUR interests.
> And besides I'm not accusing YOU specifically. You're far from the only one,
> apparently lots of Poles share your views.
Do you always use ad hominem arguments in discussions? Poles don't like
Russia
more than they don't like Germany - you disagree - Aaah! They must be
irresponsible and mindless nationalists. They say that they were sold in
Yalta
and that their contribution to the victory is under represented in the west
-
you disagree - Aaah! They must all be paranoid.
And when it comes to proof for under representation you yourself provided
a
very nice one in your post. I have absolutely no reason to regard an
article
written by very good and well known professional historians published in a
serious and respectable magazine as being false. If you have proof of it
being
so then post it. Until then the article should be regarded as a valid
source
of information.
Andrew Clark
> Hmm IIRC out of 400 pilots defending London in the Bob 50 to 100 where
> Polish (depending on the day) I will confirm that (because now I'm talking
out of
> memory) when I will be posting the big article about PAF in the UK based
on
> the book I recommended.
The daily average number of pilots and aircraft available for operations (ie
actually flying) between July - October 1940 in the BoB was 608. The total
average number of pilots and aircraft in Fighter Command (not all available
for flying) in the same period was 726. The total trained fighter pilot
strength in the UK was about 1000. I have been unable to find a precise
figure for the number of Polish pilots, but there seems to have been about
35 flying with Fighter Command. That represents 6% of the fighting strength
or 3.5% of the total trained strength. I think it is important not to
overshadow the undoubted valour and skill of Polish pilots by overstating
their numerical importance.
> one sixth of the bomber forces in 1941 (I think, I
> will have to check with the book), 25% of the initial Harris command and
15
> squadrons plus many pilots in British ones while other allies combined
> fielded 16.
My understanding (which may be wrong) is that Polish men constituted about
5% of total BC operational aircrew in 1941-42.
> Well I repeat: Poles discovered a mathematical method of cracking Enigma
> (the three Poles method), It is obvious that the credit for
> breaking Enigma is Polish
Poland, Russia, Britain & France were all independently trying to break
Enigma-enciphered messages in 1938 & 1939. Britain & Poland both succeeded,
again independently of each other, using a similar method. Neither can claim
sole credit for the first break-ins.
The Polish & British method relied upon an inherent weakness in the Army and
LW Enigma machine plus German mistakes in radio procedure. I believe the key
used by the Polish was that German radio operators sent the call sign twice
(eg RTY RTY). The Polish also invented a system for speeding up deciphering
by using printed cards overlaid one one another, which was later used by the
British at Bletchley Park until replaced by the bombes.
> Poles discovered and built first bombas, Poles shared
> that knowledge with France and England which was a very generous act. The
> British made more bombas and improved them. It is obvious that the credit
for building first
> pre-computers called bomby or bombs is Polish.
From memory, the Poles designed and built a prototype mechanical calculator
to speed up the thousands of calculations needed to crack Enigma. These
designs and the prototype were shipped to France after the German invasion
of Poland and then to Britain after the German invasion of France. In
Britain, the bombe was finalised and considerably improved (the prototype
was not viable in key details), and a few dozen were built. Later, the US
built scores of bombes to the British design at their code-breaking centre.
> During the course of the war
> the British services reacted to new ways of encoding by the Reich, no
doubt
> thought up improved ways of breaking Enigma but the credit for giving the
> allies the tools for doing so is Polish.
This overstates the case considerably. The British had already independently
cracked Enigma before receiving any help from the Poles. The bombe was a
great Polish breakthrough, but it required considerable work by the British
before it was of practical help. Again, don't spoil Polish achievement,
which was very real, by overstating the case.
And the British can claim sole credit for breaking into the naval Enigma,
which was enciphered by a special 4-wheel machine. The British with some
assistance from the US also broke the different far more difficult coding
methods used by Hitler and the German high command, and the German Abwehr
and FO codes. For this, entirely new mathematical methods and the world's
first programmable GP computer, Colossus, were developed. And, of course,
the British built a global network of listening stations and communications
hubs to rapidly gather and transmit this most secret information to
battlefield commanders.
Louis Capdeboscq
> Louis Capdeboscq wrote:
>
> > But just because a "well-respected professional" says "most Western
sources"
> > doesn't mean it's true. I know a lot of well-respected professionals
which
> > are wrong, especially when they make such sweeping statements.
>
> Sure but words of well respected professionals have to be taken at face
No. Well-respected professionals are well-respected because they publish
sources in the first place. I'll be quite willing to believe that "most
Western sources" say something or another when I see some actual study done
about them, or references to such a study. Until I have that evidence, I
won't believe it.
> > It isn't "refusing to give the Poles their due", unless you
> > saw a program that said the Americans had taken Cassino.
>
> Nope. Forces of which Dowding and other RAF commanders said that they were
> essential to the defense of the UK and that without them the BoB had much
> less
> probability of being won by the allies have to be acknowledged by programs
> claiming to talk about BoB.
I can't tell about TV programs because I don't watch documentaries much,
because I generally don't find them all that good. It is quite normal, in my
opinion, for a British program to emphasize British contribution in the war
(e.g. key WWII events in British histories are Dunkirk, BoB, Bismarck,
Malta; El Alamein, Normandy, Arnhem, Burma), just as it is normal for the US
to do likewise (WWII will look like this: Pearl Harbor, Midway, Guadalcanal,
Might Eigth Over The Reich, D-Day, Ardennes, Okinawa, Hiroshima), for the
Soviets (Barbarossa, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration, Berlin), the
French (1940, Mers El-Kebir, Resistance, Deportation, Bir Hakeim, Tunisia,
Italy, 2eme DB liberating Paris, Southern France, taking Berchtesgaden and
being one of the signatories in the armistice), the Poles (1939, Enigma,
BoB, Bismarck, German occupation, Tobruk, Cassino, Falaise, Warsaw uprising,
Yalta, Berlin), and every other country that participated in the war.
You would only be justified in saying that the Poles are being slighted if a
Western program sad, e.g. that the British had cracked Enigma all by
themselves, or that they had taken Cassino and closed the Falaise pocket on
their own, etc. Other than that, it is a normal bias in every country to
emphasize national contribution. Look up the thread about people complaining
that "Saving Private Ryan", an American movie, is only about US troops...
(snip Polish contribution in the Battle of Britain)
Look, I already wrote numerous times that the Polish contribution in the
Battle of Britain had been very significant. If you want to write pages and
pages about it, create a new thread, but don't use that in our discussion. I
also said that the (mostly British) books that I read about the Battle of
Britain all acknowledged the crucial role played by non-British pilots,
foremost among which were the Poles. It doesn't make me conclude that 100%
of serious Western sources about the BoB give the Poles their due, but it's
enough to make me disbelieve that most Western sources underrepresent that
particular Polish input.
> > What I questioned was your implication that this would have war-winning
> > consequences should Poland change sides.
> Now we are talking about what actually happened not about what would
happen
> if Poland changed sides.
No. You wrote about what losing the input of Polish intelligence would mean
to the Allies. This is something that, as far as I know, didn't happen. And
this is the point that I was answering. I was not questioning the quality of
Polish intelligence.
> However the lack of PAF and Enigma would have been a
> very serious if not decisive factor in the defeat of the British if they
> would be left _really_ alone in the face of Luftwaffe.
1/ it's unproven that the British wouldn't have been able to crack Enigma
without the Polish input (even though the Poles undoubtedly helped)
2/ it's not obvious that the Battle of Britain would have been lost without
Polish pilots (although there's no doubt that the outcome would have been
more severe for the British)
3/ it is generally recognized that losing the Battle of Britain, i.e. being
forced to pull the bulk of the RAF out of Me-109 range would not lose
Britain the war.
So while I have no problem with claims that say the Polish contribution was
very valuable (and I posted that opinion numerous times, except you seem to
have overlooked those posts...), I disagree about the claim that "the lack
of [Polish participation] would have been a (...) decisive factor in the
defeat of the British".
> Polish intelligence wouldn't
> have given the British the reports it did and until we know what was
actually
> in them we can only speculate of how important lack of them would have
been
> to the allies.
Correct. So we can't conclude that they were vital, as you did. There's no
question that the British were better off with Polish help than without it,
but that's pretty much obvious...
> > Would you care to explain how 2,500 messages each could have a "direct
> > impact on the outcome of the war" ?
>
> Pardon? Have you seen the numbers posted in the article? 71819 reports and
> decoded messages, 25% of them makes 17954 reports and messages
Ok. My point was that I can't imagine how so many reports could have a
"direct impact on the outcome of the war", or the Axis must have been about
to win the war in at least 17954 occasions, which is many more than I was
aware of.
> I DON'T KNOW what was in the reports but the
> British HQ had no interest in playing the contribution of the Polish
> Intelligence up and if it classified that number of messages as having the
> direct impact on the outcome of the war it means they did have such an
> impact.
On the other hand, if the British were so keen on suppressing all traces of
Polish contribution, why did they make such a statement ?
> It is also curious what criteria the British HQ had used to determine
which
> messages were "extremely important ...".
Exactly. I have my doubts that anyone could have influenced the outcome of
the war thousands of times.
> > Same thing with Poland. With Poland an Axis ally, there wouldn't have
been
> > any V-weapons for the Polish intelligence to discover, therefore loss of
> > that intelligence would not be crippling.
>
> Why?
Because the only reason for Hitler to ally with Poland would be to stage an
early Barbarossa.
> Hitler would not attack France when the central point of his policy was
the
> regain A&L and to avenge the "shame of Versailles" then you are living in
a
> fantasy world.
The central point of Hitler's policy was to make the "Aryan race" survivable
in the neo-darwinian fantasy that was his vision of the world. I have read
Mein Kampf, as well as transcriptions of various Hitler speeches, and other
works about him. Avenging Versailles was desirable, but far from the central
point of his policy. The central point was to purge the German race of
Jewish influence, and gain lebensraum in the east.
Basically, Hitler's goals sum up as thus:
step 1: reunite all the Germanic peoples under the Greater Reich (this is
bad news for various neighbors, mostly Poland).
step 2: secure the Western border, and avenge Versailles (this is bad news
for France and the Low Countries)
step 3: gain living space in the East (this is bad news for the Soviet
Union)
step 4: achieve racial purity (this is extremely bad news for Jews, Slavs,
and lots of others).
Steps 3 and 4 were of course the most important ones. Given that Hitler
repeatedly wrote, and said, that Poland was to be eliminated, the only
conceivable reason why he would ally with the Poles is to launch Barbarossa
early. He doesn't need the Polish alliance to strike France (see historical
events).
> If Poland would have joined Hitler he could have used his
> troops against France even earlier and since the troops without the fight
> with
> Poland would have been significantly stronger France would have fallen
even
> faster. Or in six weeks like it actually did.
Actually, the Polish campaign was very useful in making the Wehrmacht more
efficient. It validated some tactical concepts, invalidated others, provided
valuable experience, emphasized the need for additional training, etc.
The German army was considerably more efficient as a result of Poland.
> Well I repeat: Poles discovered a mathematical method of cracking Enigma
> (the
> three Poles method), Poles discovered and built first bombas, Poles shared
> that knowledge with France and England which was a very generous act. The
> British made more bombas and improved them. It is obvious that the credit
> for breaking Enigma is Polish.
Yes, it was a very generous act. Yes, the credit for initially breaking
Enigma and proving that it was possible to crack it is Polish. No, this
doesn't prove that without the Poles the Allies don't crack Enigma.
> If the books that you've read didn't
> say the above then they were a crying example of wide spread under
> representation of the Polish efforts and vindicate my "paranoia" fully.
The books that I've read say that the Poles cracked Enigma, then the Germans
evolved, and the Poles were in the dark. The Poles shared all their data
with their allies, mostly the French because the British were less willing
to cooperate. The French research benefited tremendously from Polish input,
British research less so (but that contribution was still valuable).
As an aside, the intelligence war wasn't only about Enigma. There were lots
of codes around, some that were protected by Enigma and some that weren't.
If you want an analogy, the British started the work on the atomic bomb
project, and transferred all of it to the Americans. Yet, the credit for
building the atomic bomb goes to the Americans, since the consensus is that
Britain would probably have been unable to build one on its own, and the
United States could have caught up with the British research anyway. The
British just saved the Americans time.
> > You -and a few others- are the only ones that I've read who claimed that
> > Poland had been "sold" in Yalta. Of course, your failure to bring up any
> > evidence, such as the price of such sale, doesn't help...
>
> Well. In Poland there is UNIVERSAL agreement that Poland was sold in Yalta
> and Teheran.
Well, in France there is universal agreement that De Gaulle was a more
important figure in WWII than the whole Polish contribution put together. It
doesn't make it true...
So I'm asking again: what is the EVIDENCE that Poland was sold in Yalta.
> While many historians say that when Poland was left alone in 1939 it
> was due to the fact that the allies didn't have the means to help it in
any
> big way the Yalta treason is not "clarified".
1939 has been debated to death. You can blame the Allies for sacrificing the
Poles (because they did), but you can't blame them for failing to save
Poland (because they couldn't have).
> Cynics talk about how it is
> understandable that Roosevelt didn't care for anything but the national
> interest of the US and that we shouldn't complain but just learn and treat
> the
> new alliance (NATO) as valid only to the point when it will be no longer
> important for our interests
Well, as a matter of fact every country enters an alliance because it is
important for its interests, and remains in that alliance as long as it
still serves these interests, not any longer. About NATO, the Poles were the
ones who wanted to join in, and it's quite likely that they won't be
overeager to intervene if a NATO operation takes place around Iceland.
> The fact that you haven't heard of it is because you haven't read Polish
> books on the subject.
I have read plenty of books claiming that Eastern Europe was betrayed in
Yalta, particularly the Poles (as I wrote previously, there is a very strong
pro-Polish trend in French litterature). I just haven't read any evidence
that this was so. In other words, I haven't found evidence that the Allies
could have prevented Poland from falling in the Soviet sphere, which would
seem to be a prerequisite.
> If it is news for you then I inform you that the a sold party
> of Yalta's market of nations is still feeling sold.
This is not news to me, and that the Poles feel sold doesn't mean that
they're correct. Lots of Britons feel that Germany is still the same
hegemonistic power than it was 60 years ago, lots of Germans disagree with
that assessment. Obviously, one side (which means lots of people) is wrong,
so the fact that lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.
> I want recognition that Poland deserves an apology
> from the governments of the US and the UK.
What exactly should the US government apologize for ?
> > > Polish input into the war WAS vital.
> >
> > To me, something is vital if you die without it. In that meaning, I
disagree
> > that Polish input was vital.
>
> Nope. During this war your definition of vital can't be used.
Ok, so if by "vital" you mean "very important", and not "something without
which the war would have been lost", then I agree that Polish contribution
was "vital". Less so than US, UK and Soviet contribution, but still vital.
> For example if
> the SU wouldn't go to war with Hitler the allies with America still could
> have won the war.
Roosevelt wasn't all that sure about that, and neither am I. The United
States themselves couldn't have lost the war, but if Germany had defeated
the Soviet Union it's unlikely that the Western Allies could have won by
themselves.
> If the US wouldn't go to war the SU still could have won the war.
This is possible, but far from obvious.
> Using your definition neither state was vital to the victory over Hitler.
Actually, using my definition both states were vital to the victory over
Hitler... :-)
> > > Poland did not just ok but astonishingly well considering the
> > > circumstances in which it had to fight.
> >
> > Yes. As I wrote, Poland's contribution compared to its ressources was
> > probably among the highest in WWII, if not the highest.
>
> Now we're starting to get somewhere.
I'm not getting anywhere: I haven't changed my position one bit from the
first post in this thread that you've been replying to. Poland's
contribution was proportionately very high, certainly higher than any other
"Free XXX" force. Where I disagree is that it made such a vital difference.
I think we can both agree that the Poles did astonishingly well with the few
ressources that they had, and that is something that they can be justifiably
proud of. We can also agree that the Polish contribution was important. You
add more "much" and "vital" qualificatives than I would, but it's not all
that important.
> > It certainly contributes to them being underrepresented, but it hardly
> > proves that they were vital.
>
> Why would the British steal the credit for them, then?
Because the British "steal the credit" from the Canadians, Australians,
Neo-Zealanders, and every other ally that they can think of. This is normal.
The British view of Napoleonic wars is that Napoleon was defeated (true), at
Waterloo, which was a British victory. That this "steals the credit" of most
of the troops engaged in Waterloo, which were not British, and of the armies
that DID defeat Napoleon (Russia's Austria's and the Spanish campaign) isn't
something that most people find particularly offensive. The WWII Poles don't
have a special status in that matter.
> There is a saying in Poland: Britain always fights to the last drop of
> blood ... of her allies.
Yes, this phrase was coined by German propaganda during the Phony War
"Britain will fight to the last Frenchman".
> As you know I think Poland could have been spared it's
> historical fate
Yes, I know you think so. I even agree that Poland could have changed its
fate. I disagree that allying with Germany would have improved Poland's lot,
though.
> I'm from one of the generations which which had to live under Russian
> occupation like many generations before us. (...)
> This was all because of Yalta and Teheran where the
> whole sense of Poland's struggle against Hitler was shattered.
Something escapes you, obviously. You were BORN, after WWII. You had to LIVE
under Russian occupation. This seems to me a better fate than having to die
under German occupation.
> Do you always use ad hominem arguments in discussions? Poles don't like
> Russia
> more than they don't like Germany - you disagree - Aaah! They must be
> irresponsible and mindless nationalists.
What I know is that in 1939 the Poles feared Germany and the Soviet Union
about equally. It can be argued that they feared the Soviet Union more, but
at best the margin would be very thin. I am observing that the only scenario
that you come up with to improve Poland's fate is one where Poland allies
with a dictator that has sworn to eradicate it. I find this quite
interesting, and in some way revealing. I don't think you're a "mindless
nationalist" (where did I write that, by the way ?), that's your conclusion.
> They say that they were sold in Yalta
> and that their contribution to the victory is under represented in the
west
> -
> you disagree - Aaah! They must all be paranoid.
Nope. The part about paranoid is when I see claims that the British
voluntarily suppressed Polish contribution. That the Poles were singled out
for historical suppression. About Yalta, I'm just saying that you are making
unsupported statements.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: strength in the UK was about 1000. I have been unable to find a precise
: figure for the number of Polish pilots, but there seems to have been about
I'm not an expert but a Polish Internet Encyclopaedia says
that 302 and 303 Polish fighter divisions took part in the BoB.
203.5 sure shots, 35 probable, 36 damaged German planes.
32 Polish pilots died. The best Pole shot 17 planes.
The total number of destroied German planes was
1733. So the share of Poles is about 12%.
Czech pilots also took part in the BoB.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: 35 flying with Fighter Command. That represents 6% of the fighting strength
143 Polish pilots took part in the BoB. Examples -
A. Ostowicz - 145 RAF
A. Glowacki - 501 RAF - 5 shots during one day
Jerzy Pankiewicz
Louis Capdeboscq
> Louis Capdeboscq wrote:
>
> > No. Well-respected professionals are well-respected because they publish
> > sources in the first place. I'll be quite willing to believe that "most
> > Western sources" say something or another when I see some actual study
> Well I will believe them as long as someone can bring up a study which
> proves them wrong. These guys read a lot of Western books and sources so
> I believe in their general assessment of their content.
Good for you.
There are respected historians that I respect as people and as historians,
but whose main thesis I believe to be wrong. Just don't expect me to believe
a claim just because you say the person making it is respected and so is the
newspaper it's published in.
> <*snip* national bias is normal>
>
> That is true but the denial of Polish efforts is very consistent on
> those "reputable" channels.
Are the Polish efforts more underrepresented than, e.g. the Australian,
French, Canadian, Czech, etc ?
(snip Polish intelligence and Enigma)
> > 2/ it's not obvious that the Battle of Britain would have been lost
without
> > Polish pilots (although there's no doubt that the outcome would have
been
> > more severe for the British)
>
> I never said it was obvious. I said it was less probable to be won. What
> is obvious is the fact that the losses on the British side both civilian
> and military would have been far greater.
Let's say I disagree about the extent of the "far".
> > 3/ it is generally recognized that losing the Battle of Britain, i.e.
being
> > forced to pull the bulk of the RAF out of Me-109 range would not lose
> > Britain the war.
>
> That is unproved (*g*).
Yes. But most historians agree about that. This is why I wrote that it was
generally recognized to be such, instead of bluntly asserting that this was
what would happen, as other people, whom I won't name, do.
> If the Luftwaffe forces would have had a free
> ride over London the losses in civilian lives in the city and in other
> ones could have forced GB to ask for peace.
Given the fact that there isn't a single example when targetting civilians
worked to drive a country out of a war, you will understand that I disagree.
> > Ok. My point was that I can't imagine how so many reports could have a
> > "direct impact on the outcome of the war", or the Axis must have been
about
> > to win the war in at least 17954 occasions, which is many more than I
was
> > aware of.
>
> Ask the British :).
Why should I ? Some supposedly well-informed and respectable Polish sources
(i.e. those concerned) tell me that the British are unreliable at best, and
at worst systematically trying to occult the Polish role in WWII. The last
people that I should ask about this affair should be the British, right ?
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because the only reason for Hitler to ally with Poland would be to stage
an
> > early Barbarossa.
>
> Early probably yes. However more successful is more probable goal and
> early Barbarossa doesn't mean that he wouldn't have speared a month to
> get the "ancient German A&L" (they weren't but that was his opinion).
Except that it takes more than one month to move his whole army back and
forth from Germany to France and back to Poland, and he couldn't know that
defeating France would take but a month.
Incidentally, I believe that without the Polish campaign, the chances of
Germany decisively defeating France would diminish, but that's another
topic.
> > Basically, Hitler's goals sum up as thus:
> > step 1: reunite all the Germanic peoples under the Greater Reich (this
is
> > bad news for various neighbors, mostly Poland).
>
> But also A&L which were German in his opinion and propaganda.
Yes. Also Alsace and Lorraine. Various neighbors. France is a neighbor. I
didn't want to list them all. But I did write MOSTLY POLAND, because the
next provinces on his agenda, with the people he considered the more
"German", were in Poland.
Which is one reason, aside from the racial issues, why I don't believe in
the crackpot theories about Nazi Germany and Poland going to bed together.
> > step 2: secure the Western border, and avenge Versailles (this is bad
news
> > for France and the Low Countries)
>
> Secure is more like moving it a bit West and a bit North IMO.
Yes.
> I fail to see this as a valid argument that Hitler wouldn't have
> attacked France.
That is because you hit your "reply" button before reading the whole post.
This way, you lose the reasoning.
I wrote that Hitler's normal path would look very much like the historical
one: 1/ annex various German minorities, which includes destroying such
"Versailles artificial States" as Czechoslovakia and Poland, 2/ beat France
3/ Turn Eastward.
That's the normal path.
Now you're postulating that instead of doing 1/, and at the risk of
seriously jeopardizing 3/ (lebensraum in the east), Hitler allies with
Poland. Since as far as I know we are assuming that this is still the same
Hitler that wrote Mein Kampf, there must be a reason for this very unlikely
move.
What possible reasons can there be ?
First reason: eliminate a potential second front, and gain a better position
from which to attack France. The problem with that explanation is that
allying with Poland doesn't help Hitler. Poland was expected to be a
walkover (that it wasn't doesn't mean that the Germans knew it wouldn't be),
so Hitler isn't doing that to spare himself the casualties. Poland isn't
much of a second front anyway, because the Poles don't have a very modern
army, and if Hitler really wants to deal with it he is better off sharing
the place with the Soviets, or attacking it first, because it will eliminate
that front as well as not jeopardizing his ideological aims. Last
possibility: the real second front that Hitler wants to avoid is with the
Soviet Union, but then it's obvious that Poland on its own is not able to
stop the Red Army, so again Hitler is better off allying with Stalin than
with Poland if that's what he really wants to do. So this isn't a possible
motive.
Second reason: Hitler wants to take advantage of the fact that the Polish
border is closer to Moscow than Eastern Prussia, as well as to use the
Polish troops against the Red Army, which will hopefully attrit both down.
This is coherent with his ideology, and it makes sense. He's betting that
France will leave him alone in the meantime, which is pretty safe, and that
he can always defeat France after he's taken care of the Soviet Union, which
again is a reasonable assumption.
Third reason: Hitler falls in love with a Polish woman who makes him promise
never to hurt Poland, but instead restore Poland to its natural borders,
i.e. the Elbe, the Narva, the Volga, the Danube.
The most reasonable hypothesis that I can think of is the second one, so
this means that if Hitler allies with Poland he attacks the Soviet Union.
Yes, he plans to attack France in the future, too.
THAT was the reasoning. In a nutshell, Hitler has no reason to ally with
Poland if it's to immediately attack France thereafter.
> > The German army was considerably more efficient as a result of Poland.
>
> Yes and it had couple of hundreds warplanes less
...replaced by more modern ones...
> and around a thousand tanks and armoured cars too
Tank losses were around 100 in Poland and 300 in France. In both cases
that's low. A lot of the hardware lost in Poland was in fact scrapped as it
was going to be replaced anyway.
> (btw. an armoured car before WWII was a
> clearly defined class of battle vehicle. It wasn't "every car with armor
> on it" as you've said in one of your posts).
????? Where exactly did I write such a thing, and in what context ?
I know very well what an armored car was, thank you...
> Plus it had resources to
> allow it to fight for around two weeks after the Polish campaign which
> had proven much less of a walkover the Germans had anticipated.
Plus the Polish campaign validated the blitzkrieg concept, refined
air-ground cooperation, provided valuable training, gave Germany access to
new ressources for direct use in its war economy (instead of having them
used in the Polish war economy in your scenario), etc.
> > As an aside, the intelligence war wasn't only about Enigma. There were
lots
> > of codes around, some that were protected by Enigma and some that
weren't.
>
> Of course but Polish Intelligence as the date provided in the article
> shows wasn't only about Enigma.
My apologies, I meant the code wars.
> > So I'm asking again: what is the EVIDENCE that Poland was sold in Yalta.
>
> 50 years of post-war history?
I must have missed that.
> The fact that the world after WWII until
> the round table in Poland was called a postyaltan world?
In Poland, perhaps. Elsewhere, mostly not. Sometimes, it was called a
post-Yaltan Europe. Certainly not "world".
> For example I've watched an interview with an old man
> who worked in the Foreign Office during the war and was involved with
> Yalta. He said:
> "We of course knew what "democracy" Stalin had in mind but we couldn't
> have just drawn the principles of real democracy. He was our dear ally,
> we couldn't have told him what to do".
So if the British couldn't have told him what to do, it seems that they had
little choice in the matter, correct ? Then why are you insisting that they
sold the Poles ? And for what ?
> The fact that the SU was an Axis
> power turned ally when Hitler attacked it and that Poland was an ally of
> England earlier and had helped it very much wasn't a problem for
> Churchill.
It was very much a problem for Churchill, and Churchill pushed for whatever
guarantees he could get for Poland. That "whatever" wasn't very much, given
that Britain was but a minor partner in the coalition, and Stalin was
well-aware of it.
> After all, he got Greece from Stalin. Who would care for the
> Poles. They were after all not needed anymore.
Churchill definitely did not get Greece from Stalin. Stalin supported a
Communist guerilla movement that tried to take over Greece. What got Greece
was Western intervention and a very bloody civil war that ended in 1948, as
well as strong US words to the effect that the Soviets should back off from
the area.
If you're claiming that Churchill traded Poland for Greece, you're
completely wrong.
> > 1939 has been debated to death. You can blame the Allies for sacrificing
the
> > Poles (because they did), but you can't blame them for failing to save
> > Poland (because they couldn't have).
>
> The problem is IMO that they haven't really tried.
No they didn't. By the time they launched their attack, Poland was a goner
already.
I agree that they were willing to write off Poland anyway. I just disagree
that this was anything else than resigning themselves to the unavoidable.
> After the Polish
> campaign the Germans were almost out of fuel, ammo, spare parts.
They didn't need fuel, because their mechanized forces had to be transported
back by train. And they did have their prewar stocks, of course. They were
far from out of ammo, the situation in that respect was tense, but so it was
for everybody. They were short of spare parts, that's correct. So
reliability would be low, and what ?
> Their
> tanks were worn out and in need of repairs (some couldn't have been
> repaired anymore)
Yes, and they are counted in your casualties figures.
> and so were many warplanes.
Given the sorry state of the Allied air forces at the time, I don't think
that cutting the Luftwaffe by even 50% would prevent the Germans from
gaining air superiority over Germany.
> A real attack by the
> French could have gotten the very last remaining supplies of the
> Germans.
Why ? Were these "very last remaining supplies" located in Saarbrucken ?
> No need to go to Berlin.
Good of you to make it easier on the French.
> Only using other side while refusing to help it in winning
> the war is abuse of an alliance. Nowadays I'm for such abuse. Especially
> when it comes to Polish treaties with the Americans and the British.
Fine. You'll have ample time to explain that to the rest of the world when
you become foreign minister.
> > I have read plenty of books claiming that Eastern Europe was betrayed in
> > Yalta, particularly the Poles (as I wrote previously, there is a very
strong
> > pro-Polish trend in French litterature). I just haven't read any
evidence
> > that this was so.
>
> I just wonder what evidence you need to believe in facts.
Well, someone claiming "we were sold in Yalta", or "Eastern Europe was sold
in Yalta", or "The Poles were sold in Yalta" is not providing evidence. That
author is providing an opinion.
Evidence would be, for example, minutes of Yalta that would run like this:
Stalin: I want Poland
Allies: Why do you ask ?
Stalin: Because if you don't want me to have it, then I won't take it. So
can I have it ?
Allies, Oh, I dunno...
Stalin: come on, I'll give you XXXX if you let me have Poland, is that a
deal ?
Allies: oh, all right...
THAT would be evidence.
> > What exactly should the US government apologize for ?
>
> For Roosevelt and his stunts in Yalta and Teheran. For the idea of a new
> world order ridding Poland of independence and placing it under control
> of Stalin.
Roosevelt didn't place Poland under Stalin's control. Stalin did. In fact,
Roosevelt wrote a rather poignant letter to Stalin just before he died when
he realized that Uncle Joe was betraying his word.
> Exactly what I've said :). I would say vital=something without which the
> war could have been lost, cost much more lives, last much longer and be
> harder to win.
Ok, I won't argue with your "much", I just don't feel like it...
> > > If the US wouldn't go to war the SU still could have won the war.
> >
> > This is possible, but far from obvious.
>
> There is nothing obvious in alternative history :)
No, but there are lots of things that become obvious when you study actual
historical war economics. Obviously, US input was very large in keeping the
Soviet Union as a major fighting power. So it is far from obvious that the
Soviet Union could have won the war without the US.
> > Because the British "steal the credit" from the Canadians, Australians,
> > Neo-Zealanders, and every other ally that they can think of. This is
normal.
>
> Ok so you say that the British are generally kleptomaniacs with a touch
> of inferiority complex causing them to deny other nations' importance.
No, I'm saying that the British are emphasizing their own country's
contribution to the war effort, while being much less interested in
representing other countries' contributions, let alone giving their allies
their due. I'm saying that this is a trait that is shared by most countries,
and that Britain is far from alone in this.
The French have no trouble forgetting about the colonial troops, or emigree
contingents, in the French army. The Germans have no qualm blaming most of
what went wrong on their allies (e.g. Rommel with the Italians). The
Americans have no problem ignoring that a lot had been going on prior to
1942. The Soviets have no problem "forgetting" about a lot of little things
that helped them score their major victories. The Poles have no problem
hinting that they cracked Enigma, stormed Cassino, and sunk Bismarck. Etc.
> Maybe it wouldn't. What I know is that in 1939 alliance with Hitler was
> objectively the best way of acting to the Polish government especially
> since Hitler wanted such an alliance.
Wow... you "know" that this was "objectively" the best course of action ?
Please, do write a book about it and I'll be happy to read it. Don't forget
the footnotes, though...
> In the long run it might have been
> a mistake but whether the costs of it would have been as great as of the
> mistake of allying with unreliable western allies is debatable.
I can't think of more unreliable an ally as Hitler myself, but you're free
to disagree.
> After
> all, Poland lost 26% of it's prewar population, 30% of national assets
> (I think GB lost around 5%) and much territory populated mostly by
> Poles. Would the cost of allying with Hitler be less terrible?
Let's see, Poland would still experience German racial policies, would still
be devastated by the war, would not gain German ground after the war, and
still experience Soviet occupation (although probably annexed as an SSR
instead of being nominally independent).
My opinion is that the cost of allying with Hitler would be worse.
> I don't
> know but it could have been. It had the potential for being so.
Sure, you just have to read Mein Kampf and various Hitler speeches about
Poland to be convinced that Hitler wanted nothing but fat and happy Poles.
> What it would have done for sure was to make the situation of the
> British much worse than it was historically.
Quite possibly. Though how this would make it a better decision
"objectively" for Poland escapes me at the moment...
> > Something escapes you, obviously. You were BORN, after WWII. You had to
LIVE
> > under Russian occupation. This seems to me a better fate than having to
die
> > under German occupation.
>
> But I was born in a totalitarian and occupied state because of Roosevelt
> and Churchill who ceded Poland to Stalin.
Yes. The fact that you were born at all is largely thanks to Roosevelt and
Churchill.
I consider being born in a totalitarian state less irreversible than not
being born.
> > What I know is that in 1939 the Poles feared Germany and the Soviet
Union
> > about equally. It can be argued that they feared the Soviet Union more,
but
> > at best the margin would be very thin.
>
> I just wonder whether the only basis for your statements that "Poles
> feared Germany and Russia about the same" is the fact that Poland had a
> policy of balancing between two powers.
Well, yes. That's usually a visible consequence of fear.
> That doesn't say which country
> was more disliked and treated as a natural enemy.
No it doesn't. I know very well that the Poles would rather fight Russia
that Germany, everything else being equal.
In 1939, however, the Poles had reasons (and IMO good ones) to believe that
this particular brand of Germans was really bad news, which brought Nazi
Germany close to the Soviet Union in the "don't want" contest.
> It only says that
> Poland wanted to be independent of both of these states.
Yes.
> You are not a
> Pole and don't have adequate data about Polish feelings and ideas in
> this regard.
I am not a Pole, but I believe I have a very good idea what the Polish
feelings were in that regard. You are not the only Pole around to teach me
about Polishness, you know...
> You have to believe me then. Poles didn't and don't like
> Russia more than they didn't and don't like Germany (with exception to
> the period of the occupation of WWII and immediately after it).
I know that. My point is that in 1939, the Poles didn't trust the Soviet
Union at all, and the Poles didn't trust Nazi Germany at all. So an alliance
with either was about equally unlikely.
> How can
> you say with authority what are Polish ideas in this regard if you don't
> have the data? Especially that practically every Polish person who is on
> this group made statements contrary of your opinion of what Poles think
> of Russia.
Exactly two Poles have told me that the Poles hated the Russians more. Which
as a general statement I agree with. I just don't agree that it applies to
the 1939 situation, because I read (including from some Polish contributors
in this NG) that an alliance with Germany would be political suicide for any
Polish government of that period.
> > That the Poles were singled out
> > for historical suppression. About Yalta, I'm just saying that you are
making
> > unsupported statements.
>
> I didn't say that. The whole of Eastern and Central Eastern Europe was
> sold to Stalin.
Ok, so your unsupported statements cover the whole of Eastern and Central
Europe instead of just Poland. My apologies for misrepresenting you. As an
excuse, allow me to argue that I was actually picturing you as more reasonab
le than you now claim to be...
> argument of the British "Why should we go out of our way to ensure it's
> well being" is not very nice but understandable.
The argument of the British was "There is, unfortunately, nothing we can do
about it". Churchill asked for a study of the prospects in case of a war
with the Soviet Union, just in case. The conclusion of that study was that
the prospects didn't look good at all.
> Poland sacrificed it's well being,
No, the Germans sacrificed that.
> lives of it's people,
Poland sacrificed the lives of a lot of brave people, but unfortunately most
of the lives were sacrificed by the Germans.
> it's national assets and expertise to help the
> allies win the war with Hitler.
It wasn't sacrificed because there was no way that it was going to keep them
anyway.
> It was the only state in which a puppet government wasn't formed.
Are you sure ? I can think of some, but I'd have to look this up...
pkmb
> No. Well-respected professionals are well-respected because they publish
> sources in the first place. I'll be quite willing to believe that "most
> Western sources" say something or another when I see some actual study done
> about them, or references to such a study. Until I have that evidence, I
> won't believe it.
Well I will believe them as long as someone can bring up a study which
proves them wrong. These guys read a lot of Western books and sources so
I believe in their general assessment of their content.
<*snip* national bias is normal>
That is true but the denial of Polish efforts is very consistent on
those "reputable" channels. These people base their films on books in
English available to them. So IMO they are a reflection of what is
written in the books in a diluted sort of way. This IMO just brings up
circumstantial proof backing up the article in this regard.
> > Now we are talking about what actually happened not about what would
> happen
> > if Poland changed sides.
>
> No. You wrote about what losing the input of Polish intelligence would mean
> to the Allies. This is something that, as far as I know, didn't happen. And
> this is the point that I was answering. I was not questioning the quality of
> Polish intelligence.
I said that it was a big blow. The article proves that influence of
Polish intelligence was far greater territorially than Poland contrary
to your claims. Polish network was very developed in Germany and France
and in other countries of the world too.
> > However the lack of PAF and Enigma would have been a
> > very serious if not decisive factor in the defeat of the British if they
> > would be left _really_ alone in the face of Luftwaffe.
>
> 1/ it's unproven that the British wouldn't have been able to crack Enigma
> without the Polish input (even though the Poles undoubtedly helped)
They already given up when Poles gave them the codes, the "Three Poles
method" and the bombas. It doesn't constitute proof but you have to also
remember that when the naval Enigma was being cracked the British had no
success whatsoever until they captured the Enigma from an U-boat and the
two rotors which were not there were Poles were breaking the Enigma. It
also proves that the "Ultra' when it refused to allow Poles to work on
the Naval Enigma was very poor indeed in cracking it. It also serves as
circumstantial proof for saying that when the Brits say they "cracked
Enigma alone regardless" they are talking BS. They used Polish methods
and tools (bombas) to decipher Enigma and when it changed they couldn't
do it until they physically captured the new machine.
Try reading this site: http://members.aol.com/nbrass/1enigma.htm it was
written in cooperation with some Bletchley Park workers and it states
clearly that the British used Polish methods when "breaking" the army
Enigma but they probably haven't been told from whom the methods, the
codes and the bombas came. Thus the misconception that they've done it
independently.
> 2/ it's not obvious that the Battle of Britain would have been lost without
> Polish pilots (although there's no doubt that the outcome would have been
> more severe for the British)
I never said it was obvious. I said it was less probable to be won. What
is obvious is the fact that the losses on the British side both civilian
and military would have been far greater.
> 3/ it is generally recognized that losing the Battle of Britain, i.e. being
> forced to pull the bulk of the RAF out of Me-109 range would not lose
> Britain the war.
That is unproved (*g*). If the Luftwaffe forces would have had a free
ride over London the losses in civilian lives in the city and in other
ones could have forced GB to ask for peace.
> Correct. So we can't conclude that they were vital, as you did. There's no
> question that the British were better off with Polish help than without it,
> but that's pretty much obvious...
Nope. We can't conclude they were not vital if the British HQ classified
them as such. You can try to prove British HQ wrong of course :).
> Ok. My point was that I can't imagine how so many reports could have a
> "direct impact on the outcome of the war", or the Axis must have been about
> to win the war in at least 17954 occasions, which is many more than I was
> aware of.
Ask the British :). Personally I think that the vast majority of the
messages were extremely important and according to the British HQ had
the potential of directly effecting the outcome of the war and thus the
classifications. I think far less actually were utilized in a manner
which did make them effecting directly the outcome of the war.
> On the other hand, if the British were so keen on suppressing all traces of
> Polish contribution, why did they make such a statement ?
They've made it during or right after the war. The memories were still
fresh. Manipulation wasn't as easy as it was when the people who
actually remembered the secret parts of WWII started fading away.
> > Why?
>
> Because the only reason for Hitler to ally with Poland would be to stage an
> early Barbarossa.
Early probably yes. However more successful is more probable goal and
early Barbarossa doesn't mean that he wouldn't have speared a month to
get the "ancient German A&L" (they weren't but that was his opinion).
> Basically, Hitler's goals sum up as thus:
> step 1: reunite all the Germanic peoples under the Greater Reich (this is
> bad news for various neighbors, mostly Poland).
But also A&L which were German in his opinion and propaganda.
> step 2: secure the Western border, and avenge Versailles (this is bad news
> for France and the Low Countries)
Secure is more like moving it a bit West and a bit North IMO.
I fail to see this as a valid argument that Hitler wouldn't have
attacked France. You are even backing me on this. When Hitler invades
France to get A&L the only way France wouldn't have been in war with
Germany would be if it had given up A&L to Hitler without a fight. This
is unlikely. The only way for Britain to avoid the war would be not to
react to the German attack on France. Very unlikely because of the
"balance of power in Europe" idea which gave the reason for declaring
war on Germany when it attacked Poland. I don't think the peace offers
made by Hitler after he would have conquered France would be more or
less favorable to the British than the ones made historically to
Britain. The British would have rejected them and the outcome would have
been that they would have been _really_ left alone in the face of
Luftwaffe and without Enigma. Maybe they could have defended themselves.
It isn't however a very certain scenario.
> The German army was considerably more efficient as a result of Poland.
Yes and it had couple of hundreds warplanes less and around a thousand
tanks and armoured cars too (btw. an armoured car before WWII was a
clearly defined class of battle vehicle. It wasn't "every car with armor
on it" as you've said in one of your posts). Plus it had resources to
allow it to fight for around two weeks after the Polish campaign which
had proven much less of a walkover the Germans had anticipated.
> The books that I've read say that the Poles cracked Enigma, then the Germans
> evolved, and the Poles were in the dark.
THEN the Poles thought up bomby. Then they've given their expertise to
the British and so on.
> As an aside, the intelligence war wasn't only about Enigma. There were lots
> of codes around, some that were protected by Enigma and some that weren't.
Of course but Polish Intelligence as the date provided in the article
shows wasn't only about Enigma. Enigma was a very important contribution
but during the war most activities of the Polish Intelligence
concentrated elsewhere.
> So I'm asking again: what is the EVIDENCE that Poland was sold in Yalta.
50 years of post-war history? The fact that the world after WWII until
the round table in Poland was called a postyaltan world? MAnifestum non
eget probatione. For example I've watched an interview with an old man
who worked in the Foreign Office during the war and was involved with
Yalta. He said:
"We of course knew what "democracy" Stalin had in mind but we couldn't
have just drawn the principles of real democracy. He was our dear ally,
we couldn't have told him what to do". The fact that the SU was an Axis
power turned ally when Hitler attacked it and that Poland was an ally of
England earlier and had helped it very much wasn't a problem for
Churchill. After all, he got Greece from Stalin. Who would care for the
Poles. They were after all not needed anymore.
> 1939 has been debated to death. You can blame the Allies for sacrificing the
> Poles (because they did), but you can't blame them for failing to save
> Poland (because they couldn't have).
The problem is IMO that they haven't really tried. After the Polish
campaign the Germans were almost out of fuel, ammo, spare parts. Their
tanks were worn out and in need of repairs (some couldn't have been
repaired anymore) and so were many warplanes. A real attack by the
French could have gotten the very last remaining supplies of the
Germans. No need to go to Berlin. I was talking however about something
else. Polish historians {many of them at least) have changed their mind
about the September of 1939 and the French abilities then. They do study
Yalta and didn't generally have that change of heart. That is what I
meant.
> Well, as a matter of fact every country enters an alliance because it is
> important for its interests, and remains in that alliance as long as it
> still serves these interests, not any longer.
Not really. The idea of alliance is to stay in it until the goals of it
are achieved. Only using other side while refusing to help it in winning
the war is abuse of an alliance. Nowadays I'm for such abuse. Especially
when it comes to Polish treaties with the Americans and the British.
> I have read plenty of books claiming that Eastern Europe was betrayed in
> Yalta, particularly the Poles (as I wrote previously, there is a very strong
> pro-Polish trend in French litterature). I just haven't read any evidence
> that this was so.
I just wonder what evidence you need to believe in facts.
> What exactly should the US government apologize for ?
For Roosevelt and his stunts in Yalta and Teheran. For the idea of a new
world order ridding Poland of independence and placing it under control
of Stalin.
> > Nope. During this war your definition of vital can't be used.
>
> Ok, so if by "vital" you mean "very important", and not "something without
> which the war would have been lost", then I agree that Polish contribution
> was "vital". Less so than US, UK and Soviet contribution, but still vital.
Exactly what I've said :). I would say vital=something without which the
war could have been lost, cost much more lives, last much longer and be
harder to win.
> Roosevelt wasn't all that sure about that, and neither am I. The United
> States themselves couldn't have lost the war, but if Germany had defeated
> the Soviet Union it's unlikely that the Western Allies could have won by
> themselves.
Not very much. The only problem there is would be with American resolve.
If they wanted to win it they could have had won it. Not proven but not
that improbable IMO.
> > If the US wouldn't go to war the SU still could have won the war.
>
> This is possible, but far from obvious.
There is nothing obvious in alternative history :)
> Actually, using my definition both states were vital to the victory over
> Hitler... :-)
Hmm, nope :).
> I think we can both agree that the Poles did astonishingly well
Yes we can.
> Because the British "steal the credit" from the Canadians, Australians,
> Neo-Zealanders, and every other ally that they can think of. This is normal.
Ok so you say that the British are generally kleptomaniacs with a touch
of inferiority complex causing them to deny other nations' importance.
This may be true and it doesn't allow me to blame them for it. I just
wonder whether they agree with such assessment :). Well, that settles
the issue of why they try to lessen the importance of others.
> > There is a saying in Poland: Britain always fights to the last drop of
> > blood ... of her allies.
>
> Yes, this phrase was coined by German propaganda during the Phony War
> "Britain will fight to the last Frenchman".
It may be true. After all good propaganda has to have an element of
truth to be believable.
> Yes, I know you think so. I even agree that Poland could have changed its
> fate. I disagree that allying with Germany would have improved Poland's lot,
> though.
Maybe it wouldn't. What I know is that in 1939 alliance with Hitler was
objectively the best way of acting to the Polish government especially
since Hitler wanted such an alliance. In the long run it might have been
a mistake but whether the costs of it would have been as great as of the
mistake of allying with unreliable western allies is debatable. After
all, Poland lost 26% of it's prewar population, 30% of national assets
(I think GB lost around 5%) and much territory populated mostly by
Poles. Would the cost of allying with Hitler be less terrible? I don't
know but it could have been. It had the potential for being so.
What it would have done for sure was to make the situation of the
British much worse than it was historically. Likewise the situation of
the SU would have been worse if Poland would attack it along with
Hitler. Would this deterioration be enough to defeat SU and Britain? I
don't know but it could have been. This is the point I want to get
across.
> Something escapes you, obviously. You were BORN, after WWII. You had to LIVE
> under Russian occupation. This seems to me a better fate than having to die
> under German occupation.
But I was born in a totalitarian and occupied state because of Roosevelt
and Churchill who ceded Poland to Stalin. Like I've said. I don't think
Poland was betrayed by Stalin and the SU. After all Moskals were always
the biggest enemies of Poland and when allowed reigned here with brute
force and terror. Poland didn't expect better from Stalin. It was
justified in expecting more from the UK and the US. And they supported
Stalin in this regard.
> What I know is that in 1939 the Poles feared Germany and the Soviet Union
> about equally. It can be argued that they feared the Soviet Union more, but
> at best the margin would be very thin.
I just wonder whether the only basis for your statements that "Poles
feared Germany and Russia about the same" is the fact that Poland had a
policy of balancing between two powers. That doesn't say which country
was more disliked and treated as a natural enemy. It only says that
Poland wanted to be independent of both of these states. You are not a
Pole and don't have adequate data about Polish feelings and ideas in
this regard. You have to believe me then. Poles didn't and don't like
Russia more than they didn't and don't like Germany (with exception to
the period of the occupation of WWII and immediately after it). How can
you say with authority what are Polish ideas in this regard if you don't
have the data? Especially that practically every Polish person who is on
this group made statements contrary of your opinion of what Poles think
of Russia.
> Nope. The part about paranoid is when I see claims that the British
> voluntarily suppressed Polish contribution.
The British elites do. The British government did and does. I don't say
the common Brits do. btw who forces the British establishment to act
that way? A big international conspiracy no doubt? (*g*)
> That the Poles were singled out
> for historical suppression. About Yalta, I'm just saying that you are making
> unsupported statements.
I didn't say that. The whole of Eastern and Central Eastern Europe was
sold to Stalin. However it mostly consisted of states which were allies
of Hitler so what happened to them could be justified. Czechoslovakia
was not but it's contribution to the victory was rather small so the
argument of the British "Why should we go out of our way to ensure it's
well being" is not very nice but understandable. Poland's contribution
to the victory was however great. Poland sacrificed it's well being,
lives of it's people, it's national assets and expertise to help the
allies win the war with Hitler. It never was an ally of Hitler. It was
the only state in which a puppet government wasn't formed. It was vital
to the victory. So the argument "why we should we go out of our way to
ensure Poland's well being" can be adequately answered: "Because they
did go out of their way to help you. They paid a terrible price for it
and in a big way helped you in winning the war". Not only Poland was
sold in Yalta. However in case of Poland the deed is made much more vile
because of historical circumstances and because of Polish contribution
to the victory. I can safely say that it was the most unjust resolution
undertaken in Yalta and Teheran. This is what makes the case of Poland
special. I've never said that it was alone in it's plight.
Marcin B.
--
Marcin Bugajski citizen of Poland. NATO member since March the 12th 1999
Maciej Orzeszko
Andrew Clark <acl...@starcott.freeserve.co.uk> napisał(a) w artykule
<38c65839...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.CO.UK>...
> pkmb <pk...@catv.retsat1.com.pl> wrote
>
> > Hmm IIRC out of 400 pilots defending London in the Bob 50 to 100 where
> > Polish (depending on the day) I will confirm that (because now I'm
talking
> out of
> > memory) when I will be posting the big article about PAF in the UK
based
> on
> > the book I recommended.
>
> The daily average number of pilots and aircraft available for operations
(ie
> actually flying) between July - October 1940 in the BoB was 608. The
total
> average number of pilots and aircraft in Fighter Command (not all
available
> for flying) in the same period was 726. The total trained fighter pilot
> strength in the UK was about 1000. I have been unable to find a precise
> figure for the number of Polish pilots, but there seems to have been
about
> 35 flying with Fighter Command. That represents 6% of the fighting
strength
> or 3.5% of the total trained strength.
W.Krol, a pilot of 302nd Polish Fighter Squadron and a vet of the BoB in
his book "Wielka Brytania - 1940" ( "Great Britain - 1940 ) provides a
detailed list of 143 Polish fighter pilots, who took part in the BoB in
July-October 1940 in the first line. There were two Polish fighter
squadrons at that time : 302 ( operational since 20th August ) and 303 (
since 30th August ). During the BoB in 302nd served 29 Poles and 5 British
pilots. Their result until 31.10.1940 was 16 confirmed shots and 10
probable, 6 Poles and 1 British were KIA. In 303rd served 34 Poles, 1
Czech, 3 Britts. Result in BoB : 110 confirmed shots, 9 probable; 6 pilots
KIA, 1 killed by a bomb, 1 in accident.
80 other Polish pilots served in British squadrons ( i.e. 32, 54, 65,
74, 111, 145, 151, 257, 501, 607 ), some of them were later transfered to
one of the two mentioned Polish units. Their results : 77 confirmed shots
and 10 probable. 16 pilots were KIA, 2 other died in result of accidents.
The total number of Polish fighter pilots in the BoB was 143. Their
result was 206 confirmed shots ( 11.7 % of total number in the Battle ). 28
pilots were KIA. The ratio of victories to loses was then 6:1.
The same author claims, that the total number of British fighter pilots
in the BoB ( including night fighters ) was 1839 ( 338 KIA ), Poles - 143 (
28 ), New Zealanders - 94 (11), Canadians - 92 (19), Czechs and Slovaks -
87 (7), Belgians - 24 (6), South Africans 23 (9), Aussies - 21 (14), French
- 13 (0), Irishmen - 9 (0), Americans - 7 (1), Rodesians - 2 (0),
Newfounlanders - 1 (1), Palestinians - 1 (1).
Given that, the number of 50 to 100 Polish pilots available for
operations could be true in the last period of thr BoB. Regards
Maciej Stanislaw Orzeszko