Talk:Western betrayal/Archive 1

Early remarks
I like it. Can't wait till it's ready. I've got one question:

Needless to say, Polish government was notifed of this decision and the Polish-British talks in London were continued.

It was or was not notified? Kpalion 23:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Was not.Halibutt

Don't forget to correct it then. Anyway, I suppose it would be also good to mention the public opinion in France and Britain before and at the beginning of the war. Especially the famous article by a French socialist Marcel Déat Mourir pour Dantzig ? (note the t in the French spelling) published on the first page of L'Oeuvre on May 4, 1939. --Kpalion 12:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aye, a great and much-needed article. I will try to help you as much as I can - just let me know what you need! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Two things you may want to add somewhere:


 * Polish contribution to World War II, as a proof of what Poland did to help the Western Allies
 * Polish government in exile, with special regard to the United States and the United Kingdom withdrew their recognition on 6 July 1945. The Polish armed forces in exile were disbanded in 1945 and most of their members, unable to return to Communist Poland, settled in other countries. The London Poles had to leave the embassy on Portland Place and were left only with the president's private residence at 43 Eaton Place. The government in exile then became largely symbolic, serving mainly to symbolise the continued resistance to foreign occupation of Poland, and retaining control of some important archives from pre-war Poland

I like it too!

The English language is better justified by a native speaker, I will not mess with your text.

I miss a few aspects (none of which I hold to be very important): I think you've better knowledge than I have. It's a long time since I read about these matters. --Ruhrjung 10:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The Russo-British talks (those obsoleted by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).
 * How does this add to the main betrayal topic?Halibutt
 * The actual posibility that France and Britain had promised more than they could live up to (alternatively, that a more fullblown attack in the West could have led to an even worse outcome of the World War).
 * I'll add acounter-arguments tab at the end of the article in which all such concepts will be explainedHalibutt
 * at least a hint at the Polish foreign policy, by many representatives for Westeuropean Public Opinion and governments, was considered too much of aggressive nationalist in all directions (Chechoslovakia, Russia, Germany), too much unaccommodating, and a tendency in many camps to see Hitler's demands not as attempts to provoke a war but to correct errors from the Versaille Peace.
 * How does this add to the article? It's not about all of polish foreign policy in the interbellum.Halibutt
 * a reference to the Randstaat-policy and to anti-Bolshevist tendencies ( shared with many French and British)
 * Never heard of. Could you elaborate?Halibutt
 * a one-sentence (or a half-sentence) reference to similar feelings of betrayal in Finland (a country in much in a similar position as Poland prior to the war, minus the treaties).
 * ''Tab added and question asked at Talk:History of Finland and Talk:Winter War. Hopefully someone will drop in.Halibutt

I added my responses above.Halibutt 07:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You try hard, but apparently not hard enough because I still don't feel offended. I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to help you.
 * I did not write this article to prove anything. But if you go on repeating nonsense like that, no-one will be able to help you. Of course you are trying to prove something: that the Allies betrayed Poland - why else call your article that?
 * please be so kind as to tell me what's wrong with it. I already told you. It's not an encyclopaedia article, it's an argument that the Allies betrayed Poland.
 * if you feel some facts are disputable - say it! The problem is not really with your facts. The problem is that you use your facts like a lawyer trying to prove a case rather than like a historian. Historians put facts in context, and they put all the facts, not just those that suit a particular line of argument.
 * your comments so far seem a little.. I don't know, different from what I got used to. No doubt. This might be because I am a historian and I know the difference between history and polemic. Also I have had months of arguing with Polish editors here and I have got used to a brisk style of debate with them.

I am going to bed now. Tomorrow I might have a go at writing an alternative draft of this article. I doubt you will like it much. Adam 16:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam, it's very nice of you that you want to help me. The problem is that you focus on overall impression this article gives you while I'd like you to focus on the details. So far you quoted none.

As to the all the facts versus selection of facts issue - you might be right, I'm not yet a historian (still studying) so perhaps you're right. But please be so kind as to list the facts that should be added in order to give a balanced overview of the topic and at the same time not to repeat the World War II article. It's always better to improve what you think is wrong than to simply state that it's wrong. What's the missing context, what are the missing circumstances or deeds?

Finally, I know the difference too. That's exactly why I decided to put as many relevant facts as it is possible in order to make an encyclopedia entry rather than just a press-like article. Therefore please be so kind as to focus on the missing details. Add facts and we can prepare a common, compromise version. I'm sure that one can be prepared, even if you treat all Polish contributors as if we were one person and prefer collective responsibility over discussion.Halibutt 18:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine
I followed the link from the discussion of the History of Ukraine page, so you'll get the Ukrainian side... As for the Ukrainians, the case was more that none of the Allies took up their cause in the first place, so it wasn't much of a betrayal. Ethnic Ukrainian territory was split between the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire prior to WWI; attempts at independence in both regions lasted no more than a couple of years, as the Bolsheviks, the Russian White army, and the Poles were all against Ukrainian independence. Polish nationalism saw Lwów (Ukr: L'viv) and all of Galicia as a part of Poland, and refused to recognise Ukrainian nationalist aspirations. Neither did the Russians (both Reds and Whites). And it seems that none of the Allies actually gave much thought to the Ukrainians at all--the Ukrainians had no reason to feel betrayed by Allied policy, because they offered no hope in the first place. So Ukraine's case is very different from that of Poland or Czechoslovakia or all the other Central European states that the Allies recognised. This is important to see in order to understand why the Germans were initially welcomed as liberators in both Polish- and Soviet-ruled Ukraine, and why the Ukrainians were so radicalised as to commit bloody ethnic cleansing of Poles in Galicia during WWII. It's not a pretty history, and it does complicate the narrative of Poland as simply a victim in WWII. --Iceager 09:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion with Naryathegreat
I realize that it is not an easy issue, but I would hesitate to say the Allies had any obligation towards Poland. Any help they provided was merely goodwill, and nothing less. If the Allies had just let Hitler have Poland, would World War II have happened? It is difficult to say, but I think there would have been no war in the west. Hitler primarily disliked the slavs and wanted lebensraum in the east. I think he would have then attacked the Soviet Union (after first solidifying his hold on eastern europe). As for after the war, the Allies had no control over what the Soviets did in lands they occupied. At Yalta Stalin had promised to let the peoples of Eastern Europe choose their government for themselves. Your article should include both points of view if it is going to cover such a controversial topic. Also, do not use the word betrayal in your title, that does little to dispell any worries. While central europe might not work, can't we at least compromise on a neutral title? How about Polish feelings on World War II or Polish mindset on World War II or something of the like. I would be much more sympathetic then. And a description in the article about the betrayal would be good, with evidence backing up both sides. Isn't it important to maintain NPOV even on a pretty much POV topic? Also, what on earth does IMHO mean? I have figured out OTOH and IMO...nm, I just got it :) Please reconsider the title--naryathegreat 01:24, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * You say that you would hesitate to say the Allies had any obligation towards Poland. Any help they provided was merely goodwill, and nothing less. I have read both the 1921, 1925 and 1939 franco-polish alliance treaties and can't answer your objection. It all depends on what you think of international alliances and diplomacy at all. If we assume that the obligations agreed upon in international treaties are valid, then yes, France had obligations towards Poland. The same goes for the August 1939 Polish-British Common Defense Pact and protocols to the unilateral assistance treaty of March 1939. However, if we assume that international treaties are just a game for big boys and are never worth more than the paper they were written on -- then no, the West had no obligations towards Poland. If that is the case, then too bad Poland played the same game but with different rules.


 * If the Allies had just let Hitler have Poland, would World War II have happened? I don't know either. But had the Allies told Poland in 1939 that she was all alone, the history would look totally different. The Polish HQ would not dislocate its' forces on the borders and would defend the - much easier and shorter - Vistula line instead. There would be no need to fight for time for the French to mobilize. There would be no need to fight to the last man and defend the ground at all cost. Finally, there would be much less civilian losses since the Germans would seize more territory almost at once. And that was a direct, measurable price paid by Poland in order to gain time. A very high price, since it was not in pounds or francs or zlotys.


 * I thought of plenty of "what-if" scenarios such as yours. There is also a very interesting scenario based on a situation where it's France that is attacked as the first. And I bet that the stupid Polish government would DOW Germany and start an offensive - with little or no chances for success. But it's a mere science fiction.


 * As for after the war, the Allies had no control over what the Soviets did in lands they occupied. You are right here. However, the Allies had control over millions of tonns of supplies, tanks, amunition, oil, steel and guns sent to Russia every month. In 1943 the war was far from being concluded, there was a legitimate Polish government and there were still Polish armed forces fighting on most of theatres of war. The Allies could've supported the government of Poland or at least let it become a part in the negotiations with Stalin. Instead, they decided the fate of Poland over Poland's head. And the saddest thing of all is that they gained nothing instead. Would the Soviets sign a peace treaty with Germany if the Allies insisted on democratic elections in Poland after the war? No. Would Stalin go to war with the Allies if they didn't back down in Teheran? No. Would Stalin back down if the Allies threatened him with cutting the flow of war materiel? Most probably yes.


 * Similar situation happened in Yalta. Even in Potsdam it was not too late. The Allies insisted on return of the legitimate government of Czechoslovakia - and Czechoslovakia remained independent. Of course, the Soviets took the power there anyway, but it was much, much later. But there already were international organizations, there was the good'ol League of Nations and the United Nations that could've supervised the elections and return of democracy in Poland. There were Inter-Allied commissions and courts, all the infrastructure necessary to organize and supervise democratic elections. And the Polish government-in-exile asked for their help. However, the USA and the UK instead decided that Poland is totally in the Soviet sphere of influence and they have no interest in what happens in Central Europe. Another what-if scenario: what if the international community actually did something in 1945 to prevent the Soviet occupation of Poland? I don't know, but definitely there would be no Churchills Iron Curtain speech. But let's get back to reality.


 * Of course, the "other view" should be mentioned in the article. No article is ready until different views are expressed. That's what the Dispute tab is for. However, I hardly see any sensible arguments on the other side. Most of my discutants did not cross the "Allies could do nothing - dot" line. Hopefully someone will add more arguments in the future. I'll start proper sections with counterarguments as soon as the article will be ready for posting. However, I'd rather refrained myself from posting counter-arguments since I might be biased and some of my counter-arguments might be simply and plainly stupid.


 * As to the name of the article - I'd still vote for the name "Western betrayal". The phenomenon is called "Zdrada Zachodu" or "Zdrada aliantów" in Polish ("Western betrayal" or "Betrayal by the Allies") and in Czech it's "Munich betrayal" (Mnichovska zrada). The word betrayal is used, even in serious publications by really good historians. Some of them are widely translated onto other languages and some of them are not even nationals of the countries in question (read Rising '44 by Norman Davies...).


 * I agree that the very word betrayal might be seen as offensive or too much POV-flavoured. However, that's how the thing is called. Besides, I haven't seen a better name for it yet. "Allied policy towards Central Europe" is bad for the reasons I already wrote about. "Polish feelings on World War II" is also wrong since it's not about Polish feelings (much more countries and nations involved) and it's not about feelings on WWII since it's more about "Central European feelings on Allied policies towards the pacts signed with Central European states". And such a title would simply be too long. And, as you might presume, "Polish feelings on World War II" involve many, many more topics and are even more complex than the phenomenon of "Western betrayal". It's a very interesting topic as well, but I doubt it could be turned into an encyclopedia article. Especially that countless psychologists, sociologists, historians and politicians try to figure out for instance how the hell Poles tend to commemorate battles lost and forget about battles won. But that's a completely different story.


 * Anyway, we could name the article on Final solution "The German policies of extermination of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals and Jehova's Witnesses during the WWII" and that title would be actually much better. Firstly the term "Final solution" is an euphemism.


 * No it is not, it is a shortened name. It is a common expression used in Germany to this day for the "Agreed solution" for XYZ''. In German it does not have the connotations which it has acquired with the literal translation into English. Philip Baird Shearer

Secondly, it's a POV name since it was used only by one part of the conflict (namely Germany). However, it's bad since it's simply too long. Just look on the VfD debate you started - several people argue about Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies title being too long. Humus sapiens even asked how did a page with such a long title survived for so long...


 * Finally, I see that you were not involved much in English language discussion lists and fora since the IMHO abbreviation is quite popular there. IMHO is very similar to IMO and stands for In My Honest Opinion.

--Halibutt 04:19, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

I still think that "betrayal" automatically causes the reader to subconciously distrust the page. I also agree that perhaps the Allies could have done more, and should have if they agreed to do it, but I think that if France had what was considered the greatest army in the world at that time and was defeated in 4 weeks, nothing Poland did could have saved it. I'm sure you know that the Polish are known for having used horses in battle against the Germans. It seems unlikely they could provide prolonged resistance to the Nazis. And yes, final solution is a euphemism, but it is so widely known as such that any other title seems ludicrous. I doubt Poland's betrayal would be widely read under that title, I think it could attract more visitors under a title people would be more likely to click on, because links are the only way to direct flow to this site, it is extrememly unlikely to be typed in (and if a page receives no traffic, the effort seems wasted, I have heard said that we are not trying to be number 1 on the internet, at least to that effect, well then, why are we even doing this then if not to be seen by others and used in their work? Surely that is why Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia?) By the way, I am a he, named James, see my User Page for more info--naryathegreat 01:27, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nice to meet you, I'm Krzysiek (read Kzhee-shyekh) or just Chris for all the users of barbarian languages (other than Polish, of course ;)).


 * This article was intended not as a typical stand-alone piece of information but rather as an expansion of other articles, with information on a specific subject that is not identical to neither of the WWII-related articles. As such, the title is of rather small importance since I doubt anyone will type it in a search box; the majority of visitors would probably come here from links rather than from Google. It's similar in concept to any list on wikipedia, just check List of alternative country names or Expulsion of Germans after World War II for reference.


 * I don't know what would be the term with which the whole thing is called in English. I doubt there exist any English term at all. Two English-speaking authors I know have mentioned the "betrayal" used simply a translation of the terms used in Polish. That's why I thought it would be best to leave the title under Western betrayal. However, you are right that such a title might suggest a little too much and would sound strange as for an encyclopedia.


 * Perhaps the perfect solution would be to use the title used in Poland ("Western betrayal") and place a visible note/disclaimer with a full, understandable explanation that the article does not discuss whether the Allied policies were an act of betrayal or not. Perhaps such a disclaimer could be even put in a frame or table for greater readability. What do you think?


 * As per your remarks about history: first of all note that the cavalry charging tanks is a myth, created and used by German propaganda. And the usage of horses was extensive in all armies of the time, not only in Poland. Also, note that Germany had cavalry divisions even in 1945. This is a good example of double standarts in European history: Poland had cavalry = Polish army was outdated. Germany had cavalry = ...? The same goes for horse-drawn artillery and horse transport. Finally, note that the Polish cavalry was mounted infantry, not cavalry as such. The guys had normal carbines, machine guns and artillery, just like a typical infantry division. The only difference was that they were much, much faster. And the cavalry brigades used in 1939 were one of the most successful units against German infantry.


 * Whether Poland could've won in 1939 on her own or not is rather obvious - no way. However, if Polish army was dislocated along the Vistula line, the number of divisions per 100 kilometres would be more than tripled. There are also a number of other what-ifs. For instance: what would happen if only September 1939 wasn't the most dry and sunny September in Poland in more than 100 years? What if Germans had to redirect half of their forces to the West, to counter a French offensive? And so on, and so forth... Poland would not win, but the defence would most probably take longer and would certainly take less lives. Anyway, this is slightly OT. Halibutt 14:30, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Varia
-- [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:41, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1. When this article will be moved to main Wiki section?
 * 2. Btw, I am not editing your main article becouse it is on your private user pages and I don't know what you exactly wish to do. When you move it to public Wiki I'll be happy to help more, untill then I will just give you some suggestions on the talk.
 * 3. In recent discussion on Usenet I read that Poland did not conduct espionage service among Allies (UK, France), hence it didn't realize the attitudes of those countries and small weight of their guarantees. I don't have a better source for this, but if it is true it is an interesting piece for the puzzle.
 * 4. For Czechoslovakia, some interesting data may be found here: History_of_Czechoslovakia and in the below section. I think it is important to add that WA did nothing/little to prevent the communists from taking power in various Balkan/EE states and destroying the democratic elements in those countries.
 * 5. As for German 'allies' - Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria - I think they used to be in the France sphere of influence, and France inactivity and desire to placate the Germans with other countries sacrifices was an important factor in forcing them to ally themselves with Germany. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) - I'm still not sure. I'd like to finish this article ASAP (the Polish section is almost ready), but on the other hand I'm a bit anxious. Adam wrote that no matter what's inside this article If you post this article, it will be reverted and listed for deletion and all the usual stuff. I'm not sure if revert wars with anyone is what I want to do.
 * 2) Feel free to edit the article, be sure that I know how to revert your changes in case anything goes wrong :D
 * 3) It is a nice tale, but I don't find it credible. Poland did have an intelligence net in the West (most notably in France) that was later used after France signed the peace treaty with the Axis. However, it is a fact that the 2nd department was a bit anxious to spy on the Allies in order not to harass the relations with France.
 * 4) Yup, the Czechoslovak section needs improvement. Could you add some info from the article you mention?
 * 5) As to the minor axis - the matter is a bit tricky. Except perhaps for Romania, all the rest did not have alliances with France. I'm not sure if adding Hungary and Bulgaria to the list would add to the article. That would have to be based on assumptions rather than facts. Romania, however, is an interesting case.
 * 1. Don't worry about that. It is a topic bound to stir some controversy, but it survived to previous VoDs and this time the article will be much more POVed/toned down and with more facts. Truth can't lose... :D
 * 2,4,5 Ok, I will start editing soem stuff, but I'd prefer to do it on public Wiki....
 * 3 Still it is an interesting piece of info, if you have the source - or are sure of it - please add it. At least to me it looks important.

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting things
I am not entirely sure if this should go here as 'see also' or part of the article: Operation Keelhaul and Katyn_Massacre --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Except for the American promises like the Atlantic Charter and such, Poland did not have any alliance with the USA. Therefore, no alliance could be broken. I'd rather see the part of the Katyn massacre article expanded on the FDR influence than adding this kind of info here. Similarly, the Operation Keelhaul and other such operations do not really violate any treaties. However, in this case a link in the See also: section would not harm anyone, I hope. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Baltics
Should Baltics be included? I can provide the information. Andris 22:15, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea. If it doesn't fit the article we can always make a separate article about it later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)