Normandy 1944 and now.

[Beorn]

http://www.funnywebplanet.com/slike/Normandy_1944_Then_and_Now/43.jpg
http://www.funnywebplanet.com/slike/Normandy_1944_Then_and_Now/44.jpg


More can be viewed here. (http://www.allpics4u.com/places/normandy-1944-then-and-now.html)

I still can't help but be overwhelmed by the history of places and what was fought and died for in order to regain freedom in Europe.

Enjoy. :)

[Liffrea]

Watching Band of Brothers makes you think…….many of those men were younger than we are now in June 44 I can’t even begin to imagine what it felt like to jump out of a plane over Normandy on a dark night or to run down the ramp early morning onto those beaches. Makes me wonder how they coped with the fear, I think a lot of people talk shit about war, my cousin went to Afghanistan a loud mouth chav type, came back mentally and physically scarred. I’ve never seen war, I’m smart enough to hope I never have to, it's not just the death it's taking another man's life.

I have cause to go into the local Legion most weeks and I always stop and exchange a few words with the old blokes sitting down (usually on their own) or at the bar, makes you feel inadequate a bit, a lot, worst I have had is a couple of drunken scraps outside pubs, my old man is 70some of the stories he tells about when he was a lad, queuing up for coal, open fires, cold water taps only, might as well be Victorian times for all I can appreciate it!

Makes me feel sad when you see what the country they fought for, and lost friends for, has become.

[Creeping Death]

I still can't help but be overwhelmed by the history of places and what was fought and died for in order to regain freedom in Europe.
Regain Freedom! This is insane, Britain and France provoked and started the War against Germany, Germany attempted to save Europe from Communism, Europe ends up divided under Soviet/Semitic Communism and American/Semitic Capitalism.

[Beorn]

Britain and France provoked and started the War against Germany

Germany started the war by invading a British ally.


Germany attempted to save Europe from Communism

By replacing it with Nazism.


Europe ends up divided under Soviet/Semitic Communism and American/Semitic Capitalism.

Unfortunate, but at least the British were free. That's all that counted.

[Creeping Death]

Germany started the war by invading a British ally. Poland was not an Ally of Britain.
Polish International Relations 1921-1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_%281918%E2%80%931939%29#Internat ional_relations)

By replacing it with Nazism.
A successful economic system.

Unfortunate, but at least the British were free. That's all that counted.
Free????
The Nazis in Paris
From 1941 to the end of WWII, French photographer André Zucca shot photos of Paris under German occupation — many as propaganda for the Nazi magazine Signal to show prosperous, happy Parisians under Third Reich rule. (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1735595,00.html)
Amazing the truth cannot be hidden.

[The Lawspeaker]

Poland was not an Ally of Britain.
Free????
The Nazis in Paris
From 1941 to the end of WWII, French photographer André Zucca shot photos of Paris under German occupation — many as propaganda for the Nazi magazine Signal to show prosperous, happy Parisians under Third Reich rule. (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1735595,00.html)
Amazing the truth cannot be hidden.
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg

Signal.....
You might just as well read Pravda if you want to know more about life in the U.S.S.R.

[Creeping Death]

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg

Signal.....
You might just as well read Pravda if you want to know more about life in the U.S.S.R.Some were used in Signal most he took as a freelance photographer, it was those photos which showed France in a different light. German soldiers freely walking around Paris without weapons well fed and happy Parisians, what dont speak dont Lie.

[Beorn]

Poland was not an Ally of Britain.

O RLY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance :)


A successful economic system.

If you were a German, and a particular German at that. No thanks. I'd rather have fought and lost everything than bow down under that oppression.


Amazing the truth cannot be hidden.

(Read before posting): I said, "at least the British were free".

[Creeping Death]

"for mutual assistance in case of military invasion by a third party"
:coffee:

[The Lawspeaker]

"for mutual assistance in case of military invasion by a third party"
:coffee:
Which proved to be Germany. Poland got invaded on September 1, 1939. The British and French responded with an ultimatum and after the deadline ended on, for Britain, 11 o' clock on September 3, 1939 Britain declared war (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtrOJnpmz6s) on Germany with France following at 14.30 Paris Time (if I remember correctly).
They didn't declare war for no reason did they ?

[Beorn]

"for mutual assistance in case of military invasion by a third party"


That's it...come on!....you can get there, Brian....one more step..."dey must ave been an alliance, just as dat good man What sed"

Well done, Brian. Aaaannd relax. :hug_002:

[Germanicus]

Regain Freedom! This is insane, Britain and France provoked and started the War against Germany, Germany attempted to save Europe from Communism, Europe ends up divided under Soviet/Semitic Communism and American/Semitic Capitalism.

Typical Foley? yet again talking rubbish with his know all attitude.
Why reply to the idiot?

[Germanicus]

Typical Foley? yet again talking rubbish with his know all attitude.
Why reply to the idiot?

Definition of an idiot...........Life.......... is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Poltergeist]

Regain Freedom! This is insane, Britain and France provoked and started the War against Germany, Germany attempted to save Europe from Communism, Europe ends up divided under Soviet/Semitic Communism and American/Semitic Capitalism.

Yeah.

Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Sieg heil!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVjWEwMIoSo&feature=related

[Jarl]

Poland was not an Ally of Britain.
Polish International Relations 1921-1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_%281918%E2%80%931939%29#Internat ional_relations)

Anglo-Polish military alliance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact

Franco-Polish Military Alliance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_alliance

German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

[Treffie]

Definition of an idiot...........Life.......... is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Brian is always grinding his anti-British axe on something blunt. :D

[Jäger]

They didn't declare war for no reason did they ?
The reason of hatred against anything German, and fear of German strength.
How long did it take until the English put their words into actions and actually attacked Germany?
I see they were really concerned about the Poles, since they immediately rushed to their protection :D
Not to mention that the Soviets, became their buddies after taking half of Poland :thumb001:

One of Hitler's biggest mistake was to hope for an English reconciliation. A mistake not to be made again.
Luckily, everything went well and we now have a dying Europe, exactly what the British ever wished for ...

[Luern]

Le Havre (all in the name of Freedom)

http://imagesduhavre.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/lehavre.jpg

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=206801


By replacing it with Nazism.

Nazism in Europe was replaced with Ameriacan hegemony and they lived happily ever after.

[The Lawspeaker]

Rotterdam- before our German "friends" paid our country a visit:

a0Ime58HLDs

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/2851744808_a2c6b731d6.jpg?v=0

http://www.dekunder.com/i_nl/Zuid-Holland/Rotterdam/Steiger/foto3.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2962893364_12682a28ea.jpg?v=0

http://www.engelfriet.net/Alie/Hans/blaak1885.jpg


http://www.rotterdam010.nl/080-Foto-2001-2003/Coolsingel-toennu-01.jpg

http://www.engelfriet.net/Alie/Hans/kleurcoolsingelbloemenmarkt.jpg


Now- after the war:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3333107275_cf3f4e202f.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Rotterdam_lijnbaan.jpg

http://www.rotterdam010.nl/080-Foto-2001-2003/Coolsingel-toennu-02.jpg

http://www.eigenstart.nl/dochters/eigenstart.nl/crazy-snof/images/31052007518.jpg


A symbolic picture- the statue The Destroyed City (also known as City Without A Heart) (by Zadkine):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Zadkine_II_rb.jpg



Ultimately Jäger, there is only one country to blame for it all. And that is your country. It is your country that marched into Poland, causing World War II.
The atrocities, the firebombings etc. Only one country is responsible because it initiated it. Germany.


That doesn't cover the Expulsion of the Germans though. That happened after the war. But Dresden, Coventry, Rotterdam, Oradour sur Glane, Putten, Babi Jar. It all leads to one country- one way or the other. Your country.
So as to blame it all on the British, Jäger, is weak. They didn't march into Poland. Germany did.
And immediately after you arrived on this forum you began to talk about the Poles and the Italians. Lebensraum. We have heard it all before- and thank God your compatriots here (we have some great Germans here on this forum too) would not agree with you.

[Beorn]

Nazism in Europe was replaced with Ameriacan hegemony and they lived happily ever after.

I didn't say it was perfect. Just a better option. If 'better' could be described as such.

[Jarl]

I see they were really concerned about the Poles, since they immediately rushed to their protection :D
Not to mention that the Soviets, became their buddies after taking half of Poland :thumb001:

They physically could not do anything. All that could have been done was a French counter at the German border along Siegfried line. However, France was not prepared for a military offensive. Noone was prepared for war and noone was expecting German threats would result in unexpected invasion and blitzkrieg.

No. The Soviets were German buddies... to the extent that Stalin, day before invasion, could not believe in Barbarossa operation. A German soldier who crossed the border to warn the Soviets was shot for being a provocateur.

1. Treaty of Rapallo - 1922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rapallo,_1922

2. Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - 1939

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

3. German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Boundary_and_Friendship_Trea ty

4. German–Soviet Commercial Agreement - 1940

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

5. German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement - 1941

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Border_and_Commercial_Agreem ent



Soviets, so much feared and hated by Lloyd George and Churchill, became buddies with the English after German invasion of Soviet Union. Their "friendship" was forced by the circumstances and evaporated immediately after WWII.

[Jäger]

It is your country that marched into Poland, causing World War II.
And the Afghanistan War, Gulf War I & II, Korea, and Vietnam!


So as to blame it all on the British, Jäger, is weak.
Huh? Where did I do that? Liar.


They didn't march into Poland. Germany did.
They marched into America, which ultimately lead to every war on earth thereafter ;) :D


And immediately after you arrived on this forum you began to talk about the Poles and the Italians. Lebensraum.
Lebensraum was brought up by some Pole, I see they are still a little touchy there :D
All I said was that I like Poles and Italians :p


We have heard it all before- and thank God your compatriots here (we have some great Germans here on this forum too) would not agree with you.
Luckily I am not on a quest for agreement here :thumbs up


Noone was prepared for war and noone was expecting German threats would result in unexpected invasion and blitzkrieg.
I see, that's why they agreed to military aid, because they didn't think it would actually become reality :D


No. The Soviets were German buddies
Which makes sense, since both attacked Poland, what doesn't make sense is that the English ally with with an aggressive force that did the same thing the Germans did which drew them into the conflict to begin with.
Well, it does make sense, if the goal was the destruction of Germany, and not the concern about Polish people.

[Jarl]

Which makes sense, since both attacked Poland, what doesn't make sense is that the English ally with with an aggressive force that did the same thing the Germans did which drew them into the conflict to begin with.
Well, it does make sense, if the goal was the destruction of Germany, and not the concern about Polish people.

No. Actually it does not make any sense. Could you re-write it please? :)

[Poltergeist]

And the Afghanistan War, Gulf War I & II, Korea, and Vietnam!

As if one misdeed were justifiable with another misdeed someone else did. Don't be ridiculous.

[The Lawspeaker]

And the Afghanistan War, Gulf War I & II, Korea, and Vietnam!
Has nothing to do with WW2.



Huh? Where did I do that? Liar.

Hmm- where was it again ? Ooh here:


How long did it take until the English put their words into actions and actually attacked Germany?

Luckily, everything went well and we now have a dying Europe, exactly what the British ever wished for ...
:coffee:



Lebensraum was brought up by some Pole, I see they are still a little touchy there :D
All I said was that I like Poles and Italians :p
No you spoke of taking over their lands and how hard it was to Germanize them.
That's what you said. So don't call me a liar.



Luckily I am not on a quest for agreement here :thumbs up
No - you are just another troll.




I see, that's why they agreed to military aid, because they didn't think it would actually become reality :D
Yes like in 1914 when the Germans attacked neutral Belgium. Which caused Britain to activate the 1839 Treaty of London and declare war on you lot.
Andenne, Leuven (EDIT: glad to see that the British are finally using the Dutch rather then the French name).. the list of German atrocities in Belgium alone is staggering.



Which makes sense, since both attacked Poland, what doesn't make sense is that the English ally with with an aggressive force that did the same thing the Germans did which drew them into the conflict to begin with.
Well, it does make sense, if the goal was the destruction of Germany, and not the concern about Polish people.
And you didn't blame it all on the British ?

[Jäger]

As if one misdeed were justifiable with another misdeed someone else did. Don't be ridiculous.

Has nothing to do with WW2.
That was not my line of thought, but without WW2 it is highly unlikely that these wars would have happened, do you agree?
Then of course we must be responsible for these too, right?


Hmm- where was it again ? Ooh here:
No, not there, that the British wished for it, doesn't mean they can take all the credit for it ;)


No you spoke of taking over their lands and how hard it was to Germanize them.
The pole cited them from Skadi, I didn't bring them up. I said, I didn't bring it up, and this was correct. Dum Dum. :bow00001:


And you didn't blame it all on the British ?
Contrary to you, I am aware that mono-causality is non existent in reality. :nod

[Groenewolf]

Which proved to be Germany. Poland got invaded on September 1, 1939. The British and French responded with an ultimatum and after the deadline ended on, for Britain, 11 o' clock on September 3, 1939 Britain declared war (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtrOJnpmz6s) on Germany with France following at 14.30 Paris Time (if I remember correctly).
They didn't declare war for no reason did they ?

They did not declare war on the USSR however who also atacked Poland at the same time. Besides they could not keep those commitments. Camberlain did not used the time bought at Munich to build up the Britisch military might and the French where practicly locked up in the Montreforte-line. the Polish fought bravely no doubt, but they where left under the tender mercies of uncle Stalin and his succesors.

[The Lawspeaker]

They did not declare war on the USSR however who also atacked Poland at the same time. Besides they could not keep those commitments. Camberlain did not used the time bought at Munich to build up the Britisch military might and the French where practicly locked up in the Montreforte-line. the Polish fought bravely no doubt, but they where left under the tender mercies of uncle Stalin and his succesors.
Yes - and that was a political mistake (or hypocrisy) from the part of the 1939 Allies. The French were just barricaded along the Maginotline and the British were in Northern France- and they were surprised and outclassed by the Germans in 1940.
The rest is history.

[Creeping Death]

That's it...come on!....you can get there, Brian....one more step..."dey must ave been an alliance, just as dat good man What sed"
Well done, Brian. Aaaannd relax. :hug_002:


Anglo-Polish military alliance:
Franco-Polish Military Alliance:


The British War Bluebook
Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between the United Kingdom and Poland.-London, August 25, 1939. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp)
ARTICLE I.

Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power. That is not a guarantee for military intervention.
Followed by a classic sellout:

On May 4, a meeting was held in Paris at which it was decided that (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact) "the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland at the beginning."
You see the above, that was the result of that treaty.

Yeah.Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Sieg heil!
Konichiwa my little Mongol spotted Magyar.

The reason of hatred against anything German, and fear of German strength.Precisely that is why Britain and France came together because they feared German Strength. Germany had legitimate concerns of Polish attacks on the German inhabitants stranded there because of Versaille. Polish attempts at Ethnic cleansing is what brought about the German invasion.
Luckily, everything went well and we now have a dying Europe, exactly what the British ever wished for ...Thanks to the former inhabitants of Britain and Frances Junglebunny Empires flooding Europe. German rule was a missed opportunity for Europe.
Ultimately Jäger, there is only one country to blame for it all. And that is your country. It is your country that marched into Poland, causing World War II.If Germany had of been treated correctly after WWI and not dispossessed of territory, extorted of gold reserves, Industrial equipment confiscated and to pay enormous war reparations bankrupting its economy for a war that Germany was innocently dragged into, WWII would never of happened. It all happened because Britain and France wanted to destroy Germany and weaken it by keeping the German people broken up in small states.

[Beorn]

That is not a guarantee for military intervention.

I'm feeling dizzy. I'm sure there is a song about drawing circles. In sand I think.


http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9564/roundincircles.gif


Wat Tyler said: Germany started the war by invading a British ally.
Brian Foley said: Poland was not an Ally of Britain.
Wat Tyler said: O RLY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance

Original debate concluded. Time to come home boys, Good job done.

[Germanicus]

Wat Tyler said: Germany started the war by invading a British ally.
Brian Foley said: Poland was not an Ally of Britain.
Wat Tyler said: O RLY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-P...itary_alliance

Seems a water tight case Wat, case proven m'lord........send Foley down.

[Creeping Death]

Wat Tyler said: O RLY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance
The Wikipedia article is mis-named the agreement reached was called:

"The Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between the United Kingdom and Poland"

It was not a military alliance, got it.........

[Poltergeist]

Konichiwa my little Mongol spotted Magyar.

Yeah, and proudly so. At any rate, much better than drunken Aussie trash like you.

[Beorn]

You fail where even failure fails to fail. I'll just leave this up here again and see how long it takes for you to get it. :)

Wat Tyler said: Germany started the war by invading a British ally.
Brian Foley said: Poland was not an Ally of Britain.
Wat Tyler said: O RLY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-P...itary_alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance)

I'll be right here when clarity parts those clouds of stupidity and ordains divine wisdom upon you.

[Creeping Death]

I'll be right here when clarity parts those clouds of stupidity and ordains divine wisdom upon you.
1) What was the name of the agreement signed between Poland and the U.K.
2) Show which clause enabled a military alliance between Poland and the U.K.

Ill be waiting for your immediate answers.

[Beorn]

Oh dear, Brian. :(

Wat Tyler said: Germany started the war by invading a British ally.
Brian Foley said: Poland was not an Ally of Britain.
Wat Tyler said: O RLY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-P...itary_alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance)

[Creeping Death]

Dear anonymous Reader.

Could you please explain to Worzel Gummidge that an 'Agreement of Mutual Assistance' does not constitute an alliance. Then could you view Worzels wikipedia link then view my Legal documents link and confirm that Worzel's wikipedia link is indeed mis-named.

Thank You and much Love Brian

[Rudy]

WWII seems like a big price to pay over Danzig, and the partitioning of Czechoslovakia. The article says that Hitler did not intend to conquer the world.

Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization. Patrick J. Buchanan
http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

[Jarl]

The article says that Hitler did not intend to conquer the world.

http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

Then why did he attack and invade the Soviet Union, if he already had half of Europe? And why did he declare war on the USA?

[Troll's Puzzle]

Europe ends up divided under Soviet/Semitic Communism and American/Semitic Capitalism.

Yes and what's happened to the part that was 'saved' by the Americans is why forums like this exist!
and this is the 'freedom' the genius wants to praise in a thread on a forum that is against the consequence of that freedom.

The other half wasn't free but today communism is gone and what's left behind isn't faced with imminent extinction at least.

I await Wat Tyler to rebuke this with his adult, mature debating method of finely reasoned points.:thumbs up

Oh, and if the frogs hadn't declared war on Germany to begin with, they wouldn't have had to be 'freed' to begin with. But then, they never would have won the 1998 world cup. So, there's a good reason to celebrate the liberation after all, I suppose :)

[Jarl]

1) What was the name of the agreement signed between Poland and the U.K.
2) Show which clause enabled a military alliance between Poland and the U.K.

Ill be waiting for your immediate answers.




No. 19.

Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland.-London, August 25, 1939.

THE Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government:

Desiring to place on a permanent basis the collaboration between their respective countries resulting from the assurances of mutual assistance of a defensive character which they have already exchanged:

Have resolved to conclude an Agreement for that purpose and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

The Rt. Hon. Viscount Halifax, K.G., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs;

The Polish Government:

His Excellency Count Edward Raczynski, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Polish Republic in London;

Who, having exchanged their Full Powers, found in good and due form, have agreed following provisions:-

ARTICLE I.
Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

ARTICLE 2.
(1) The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.

(2) Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that Contracting Party, the provisions of Article I will apply, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State concerned.

ARTICLE 3.
Should a European Power attempt to undermine the independence of one of the Contracting Parties by processes of economic penetration or in any other way, the Contracting Parties will support each other in resistance to such attempts. Should the European Power concerned thereupon embark on hostilities against one of the Contracting Parties, the provisions of Article I will apply.

ARTICLE 4.
The methods of applying the undertakings of mutual assistance provided for by the present Agreement are established between the competent naval, military and air authorities of the Contracting Parties.

ARTICLE 5.
Without prejudice to the foregoing undertakings of the Contracting Parties to give each other mutual support and assistance immediately on the outbreak of hostilities, they will exchange complete and speedy information concerning any development which might threaten their independence and, in particular, concerning any development which threatened to call the said undertakings into operation.

ARTICLE 6.
(1) The Contracting Parties will communicate to each other the terms of any undertakings of assistance against aggression which they have already given or may in future give to other States.

(2) Should either of the Contracting Parties intend to give such an undertaking after the coming into force of the present Agreement, the other Contracting Party shall, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the Agreement, be informed thereof.

(3) Any new undertaking which the Contracting Parties may enter into in future shall neither limit their obligations under the present Agreement nor indirectly create new obligations between the Contracting Party not participating in these undertakings and the third State concerned.

ARTICLE 7.
Should the Contracting Parties be engaged in hostilities in consequence of the application of the present Agreement, they will not conclude an armistice or treaty of peace except by mutual agreement.

ARTICLE 8.
(1) The present Agreement shall remain in force for a period of five years.

(2) Unless denounced six months before the expiry of this period it shall continue in force, each Contracting Party having thereafter the right to denounce it at any time by giving six months' notice to that effect.

(3) The present Agreement shall come into force on signature.

In faith whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Agreement and have affixed thereto their seals.

Done in English in duplicate, at London, the 15th August, 1939. A Polish text shall subsequently be agreed upon between the Contracting Parties and both texts will then be authentic.

(L.S.) HALIFAX.
(L.S.) EDWARD RACZYNSKI.

[Jarl]

Germany had legitimate concerns of Polish attacks on the German inhabitants stranded there because of Versaille. Polish attempts at Ethnic cleansing is what brought about the German invasion.

Why were they legitimate? What attacks on German inhabitants? What ethnic cleansing? There was no "ethnic cleansing" in Poland prior to September 1939.

[Creeping Death]

Yes and what's happened to the part that was 'saved' by the Americans is why forums like this exist!
Ahhh this forum would exist under a Nazi system, most of what this forum stands for is compatible with Nazi doctrine.

I await Wat Tyler to rebuke this with his adult, mature debating method of finely reasoned points.:thumbs up
Yep, just goes to show 12 years of scholling just aint enough.

Oh, and if the frogs hadn't declared war on Germany to begin with, they wouldn't have had to be 'freed' to begin with. But then, they never would have won the 1998 world cup. So, there's a good reason to celebrate the liberation after all, I suppose :)
Fuck... this guy is stoned, whatever you are smoking either stop it or pass it around.

[Brynhild]

I thought this thread was about Normandy, testament to all the brave people who fought and died, regardless of which side of the fence they fought on, and irrespective of their reasons for being involved in such a costly war. Any other line of argument in this thread simply taints their memory.

Lest we forget.

[Troll's Puzzle]

I thought this thread was about Normandy, testament to all the brave people who fought and died, regardless of which side of the fence they fought on, and irrespective of their reasons for being involved in such a costly war.

You musn't have read the original post, which clearly states '...in order to regain freedom in Europe.'

Which is BS, if the fight was for freedom in europe they would have attacked the USSR which controlled half of europe when the war was over (some wanted to do so, Patton for instance). & the USSR was less 'free' to its citizens, and killed more people thatn the NSDAP ever intended to or did.

The OP could have made this thread apolitical but it didn't wish to do so (it has its own political motivations).


Ahhh this forum would exist under a Nazi system, most of what this forum stands for is compatible with Nazi doctrine.

There might be 'nazi' fora under a nazi system, but this is a 'preservationist' one, and the problems it addresses (there is a subfora called 'the racial tradgedy') caused by this are the reason for its being.

Besides, although Loki once said the holocaust was a 'great achievement', his views are always shifting and he doesn't seem to be very Nazi at the moment :wink


Then why did he attack and invade the Soviet Union, if he already had half of Europe? And why did he declare war on the USA?

He always intended to invade the USSR. He never intended war with France and especially England, and wasn't interested in the rest of europe other than the east. He even tried to sign an alliance with Poland (!!) against the USSR, but the Polish dictatorship spurned him and signed with Britain/France. The allience with the USSR was then out of convinence, and also to try and avoid war with the west, since he thought they wouldn't declare war on him if Poland couldn't be saved and if the USSR was joining in. They did anyway, so that's why half of europe came to be conquered first before the invasion of USSR.
about USA... no idea, but he'd completely lost the plot by then anyway. (but it's not like it came from nothing, the USA was aiding the UK). Anyway, he didn't plan to and had no idea how to conquer the USA.

Are you the 'Jarl sigvald' of Biodiversity posting ? ;)

[Jarl]

He always intended to invade the USSR. He never intended war with France and especially England, and wasn't interested in the rest of europe other than the east. He even tried to sign an alliance with Poland (!!) against the USSR, but the Polish dictatorship spurned him and signed with Britain/France.

I don't think that "he never intended" war with France. I think he was perfectly aware that restoring German supremacy in Europe would mean war with France and England. If he did not intend it why did he invade France?


The allience with the USSR was then out of convinence, and also to try and avoid war with the west, since he thought they wouldn't declare war on him if Poland couldn't be saved and if the USSR was joining in. They did anyway, so that's why half of europe came to be conquered first before the invasion of USSR.

I cannot see how the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and subsequent pacts in 1940 and 1941 were meant "to avoid war with the West"? It was precisely the opposite. The alliance with USSR gave Hitler a free hand in the West. He could then safely invade half of Europe without worrying about the Soviets.


about USA... no idea, but he'd completely lost the plot by then anyway. (but it's not like it came from nothing, the USA was aiding the UK). Anyway, he didn't plan to and had no idea how to conquer the USA.

I got no idea why either... but I think "lost the plot" is the most naive explanation one could come up with. You seem to be implying Hitler never planned any war. They all happened by accident! Against all odds. Well how unfortunate! Poor Hitler must have been a very clumsy dictator. He never planned the war with Britain, he never planned war with France and he never planned war with USA.... yet they all happened! Either he was a retard and an extremely incompetent politican, or he did plan it.



Besides, lets quit with magical thinking "Hitler this"... "Hitler that"... Adolf Hitler did not rule and carry out the Reich's policy on his own. He had a perfectly disciplined and organised party apparatus, a staff of experienced. competent men around him - officers, politicians, professors, specialists from every discipline. There was no place for political and military slip-ups. Neither in Rheinland, nor in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, nor in any other case. This was a perfectly planned policy, opportunistically adjusted to circumstances, yet suprisingly constant in its main foundations.



P.S.

Why are you calling the "Sanacja" government a dictatorship? Who was the dictator?

[Creeping Death]

ARTICLE I.
Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.
That does not guarantee military assistance any fool can read that.

ARTICLE 4.
The methods of applying the undertakings of mutual assistance provided for by the present Agreement are established between the competent naval, military and air authorities of the Contracting Parties.
Again clearly states mutual assistance and mutual assistance can mean anything, where in that agreement does it state that Britain is obligated to provide military assistance and intervention regarding Poland on the commencement of hostilities?

So lets see it where did Britain promise in an alliance pact military intervention?

[Brynhild]

You musn't have read the original post, which clearly states '...in order to regain freedom in Europe.'

Apparently, I would understand the nature of the thread far better than you would give me credit for, which is why I said - and I quote:


testament to all the brave people who fought and died, regardless of which side of the fence they fought on, and irrespective of their reasons for being involved in such a costly war.

Noticed the bold font?

Of course the Europeans were fighting for freedom! There weren't too many fans of NS and, as history has shown, it isn't difficult to see why. What hasn't been mention in this thread is that while the bully boys up the top of the heap played their silly games that determined the outcome of the war, the average Joe Bloggs was simply fighting to stay alive, fighting for their homes and loved ones. Don't tell me that I haven't read anything in this post.

[Jäger]

Then why did he attack and invade the Soviet Union, if he already had half of Europe? And why did he declare war on the USA?
The Soviet Union to counter their pending attack. The US because they already engaged in war activities against Germany, this was just formal (and of course, because they attacked Germany's ally. ;))


Of course the Europeans were fighting for freedom!
This is correct, they just had different ideas of freedom.
Freedom for Germany means NS rule :)

[Poltergeist]

This is correct, they just had different ideas of freedom.
Freedom for Germany means NS rule :)

Freedom? Like that of millions of robotlike individuals bowing before Fuehrer and willing to comply with every order emanating from this (for them) quasi-divine character. Even if Germans had chosen such kind of "freedom", why sould the rest of Europe accept it?

[Luern]

You musn't have read the original post, which clearly states '...in order to regain freedom in Europe.'

The Apricity Forum: Cultural & Ethnic European Preservation > Regional > The Apricity Regional > France > Normandy 1944 and now.


I didn't say it was perfect. Just a better option. If 'better' could be described as such.

I stand corrected, anything is justified in the name of Freedom.

[Jäger]

Freedom?
Freedom is a fight word, nothing more. E.g. the correct term for the western idea of it is "Jester's License".


Even if Germans had chosen such kind of "freedom", why sould the rest of Europe accept it?
No one wanted them to accept it :shrug:.
A. Hitler said: "NS is not for export."

[Beorn]

Dear anonymous Reader.

Could you please explain to Worzel Gummidge that an 'Agreement of Mutual Assistance' does not constitute an alliance. Then could you view Worzels wikipedia link then view my Legal documents link and confirm that Worzel's wikipedia link is indeed mis-named.

Thank You and much Love Brian


Dear Brian Foley,

Thank you for your letter. I'm glad that you wrote as I really was starting to worry that you may have actually started to use your grey matter and stop typing...but it seems you are simply compelled to continue writing in order to confirm to the forum that you are indeed an absolute idiot.

So, where to start, well in the build up to the outbreak of the second world war, the British saw it prudent to sign an agreement with the Polish. This agreement I'm sure you are well aware as to its name, Brian? It was the Polish-British Common Defence Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact), or, as I like to prefer to call it, the Anglo-Polish military alliance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact)

This agreement, or as I prefer to call it, the alliance, made assurances that in the event of Nazi Germany attacking the nations signed up to the agreement, or as I like to call it, the alliance, military assistance would be forthcoming.
The fact that in the actual event of Nazi Germany attacking Poland did not materialise the agreements of the treaty on the part of the British is not for me to discuss here. Firstly because I couldn't care less and secondly because the issue is not what happened after, but teaching you a little bit about history I learnt in school, or as you have so correctly spelt it: 'scholling'.

Many regards,

Wat Tyler.

P.S. I'm glad you have finally mastered the use of the iron, the burns I hear were only superficial and will not scar. Is this correct?

[Beorn]

Yes and what's happened to the part that was 'saved' by the Americans is why forums like this exist!
and this is the 'freedom' the genius wants to praise in a thread on a forum that is against the consequence of that freedom.

Just admit it you love Americans.


I await Wat Tyler to rebuke this with his adult, mature debating method of finely reasoned points.:thumbs up

Fat chance. :thumb001:

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Brynhild
I thought this thread was about Normandy, testament to all the brave people who fought and died, regardless of which side of the fence they fought on, and irrespective of their reasons for being involved in such a costly war. Any other line of argument in this thread simply taints their memory.

Yep.

Arguing over a war seventy years gone is pretty stupid, it’s done, finished, over, millions of young men, and let’s not forget women and children, died for a few sabre rattling bastards on both sides, that’s all you need to know.

Personally I couldn’t give a damn for the memory of men like Churchill or his heirs like Blair sitting there with their smug self centred attitudes, playing games with the live of men. Blair’s off sunning his arsehole in the Med whilst British lads are bleeding to death in Afghanistan for wars people like him start, folks want something to get all angry about that’s a good place to start in my book.

[Troll's Puzzle]

I don't think that "he never intended" war with France. I think he was perfectly aware that restoring German supremacy in Europe would mean war with France and England. If he did not intend it why did he invade France?

He invaded France because France declared war on Germany. Shouldn't that be obvious? ;)
Germany built a defensive line against France, spending a lot of money. They didn't in the east, because they always thinked to attack that way, not west.
In the past he was careful to avoid confrontation with France, eg. when reannexing the Rhineland the troops were ordered not to resist and give up if the French mobilised.
At the start of WWII, Hitler told his army not to attack west, but act defensively only at outbreak of war - 'responsibility should lie with the allies for opening hostilities'.. Germany didn't move west until 9 months after the start of the war. If it had been his goal always, it would have been planned from the start. Oh, and he made a peace offer to Britain and France after the conquer of Poland (which was turned down). Plus other peace offers to Britain after France was beat. (which was turned down).

Also; he never built a navy to invade britain; there are pages documenting his 'love' of the british empire and wish to avoid war with it. I doubt that, he would have planned war on France, if he didn't want war on Britain.
and some people do consider him a 'clumsy dictator' for that, certainly his own staff couldn't understand his attitude toward Britain etc. ;)
So much, there is a hilarious conspiracy theory - 'Was Hitler a British Agent? (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4101)' :P


I cannot see how the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and subsequent pacts in 1940 and 1941 were meant "to avoid war with the West"? It was precisely the opposite. The alliance with USSR gave Hitler a free hand in the West. He could then safely invade half of Europe without worrying about the Soviets.

Because he thought Gb/Fr would give up if USSR invaded Poland as well.
After the Mutual assistance pact to poland came instead from london/paris, he postponed plans to invade poland.
"On August 25, Hitler told the British ambassador to Berlin that the pact with the Soviets prevented Germany from facing a two front war, changing the strategic situation from that in World War I, and that Britain should accept his demands regarding Poland.[118] Surprising Hitler, Britain signed a mutual-assistance treaty with Poland that day, causing Hitler to delay the planned August 26 invasion of western Poland.[118]" - source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93German_relations_before_1941#cite_r ef-nekrich123_117-0)
Yes, it gave him a free Hand, but he thought that would make Britain give up, not that it would actually continue.
Then, he made a peace offer after it was beat (as above). Rather than attack.
It's known he always hated communism and made many speeches against USSR, I already said he always planned war with russia... and this pact made that war harder, because Russia's border is now with Germany, and there are many more russian territory between Germany and Moscow now.


I got no idea why either... but I think "lost the plot" is the most naive explanation one could come up with. You seem to be implying Hitler never planned any war. They all happened by accident! Against all odds. Well how unfortunate! Poor Hitler must have been a very clumsy dictator. He never planned the war with Britain, he never planned war with France and he never planned war with USA.... yet they all happened! Either he was a retard and an extremely incompetent politican, or he did plan it.

It didn't happen by accident, and I didn't try to imply he never planned any war, only that he didn't try for war with the west. which is true. ;)
It could have happened earlier, but he gambled and won on those occasions, (austria, rhineland), which encoraged further brinksmanship. Maybe he was a 'retard' for thinking war wouldn't happen with GB and FR, but it hadn't in the past, so...

anyway, find proof he did want to inavde GB and FR from the start, you will see there is not much to say so :wink


Besides, lets quit with magical thinking "Hitler this"... "Hitler that"... Adolf Hitler did not rule and carry out the Reich's policy on his own. He had a perfectly disciplined and organised party apparatus, a staff of experienced. competent men around him - officers, politicians, professors, specialists from every discipline. There was no place for political and military slip-ups. Neither in Rheinland, nor in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, nor in any other case. This was a perfectly planned policy, opportunistically adjusted to circumstances, yet suprisingly constant in its main foundations.

He certainly managed to overrule and carry out important commands over those 'competent men' a lot though, doing some of the worst mistakes of the war, even when they begged him to stop ;)


Why are you calling the "Sanacja" government a dictatorship? Who was the dictator?

OK, maybe dictator isn't the right, but 'military authoritarian rule' ... you know :P

[Jarl]

That does not guarantee military assistance any fool can read that.

:) Well it appears certain fools can't read...


Again clearly states mutual assistance and mutual assistance can mean anything, where in that agreement does it state that Britain is obligated to provide military assistance and intervention regarding Poland on the commencement of hostilities?

So lets see it where did Britain promise in an alliance pact military intervention?

Mutual assistance alone does not imply millitary assistance. Article 4 clarifies this. Read it:


"The methods of applying the undertakings of mutual assistance provided for by the present Agreement are established between the competent naval, military and air authorities of the Contracting Parties."

[Creeping Death]

Polish-British Common Defence Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact), or, as I like to prefer to call it, the Anglo-Polish military alliance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact) .This is the official legal original document signed between Poland and Britain it is called.
The Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between the United Kingdom and Poland ( http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp)
Is that the correct title of the agreement signed between Poland and Britain. Yes or No.

This agreement, or as I prefer to call it, the alliance, made assurances that in the event of Nazi Germany attacking the nations signed up to the agreement, or as I like to call it, the alliance, military assistance would be forthcoming.
View the agreement and show me what clause specifically state that Britain is required under the agreement military intervention or assistance, not mutual assistance but military, there is no clause, even your link says that.

Interestingly, neither document pledged to protect Poland's territorial integrity; this was quite deliberate, since it was believed that Germany could be appeased by a cessation of the Polish Corridor and the port of Danzig. This was indeed Germany's frequent outward demand to the Polish government, a demand which Poland refused to meet. Because of this careful wording and other factors,
Got it, whence why Poland said they were sold out.


Read it:"The methods of applying the undertakings of mutual assistance provided for by the present Agreement are established between the competent naval, military and air authorities of the Contracting Parties."
What is the mutual assistance written of? What form does it take? Is the above clause a communication requirement between the 2 parties?

[Beorn]

I'd love to know what you are smoking. It's either that or the alcohol has finally taken over all your attempts to be coherent and intelligent.

I'd love to go reeeaal in depth with you, Brian, but I feel that doing so would really make me drag the barrel with you....so, all I'll ask of you is this:



ARTICLE I.

Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.Q: What would the contracted parties offer in support or assistance at the full extent of its power?

Would it be?

A) A crate of cuddly toys?
B) A football signed by the England football team of 1986?
C) A plate of cold peas?
D) Military assistance?

(There is a bonus point if you can mention the winner of the golden boot of the World Cup of 1986 :thumbs up)


Got itI got mine when I was born and luckily had mine developed by regularly attending school. I somehow think yours is still in the post.

[Creeping Death]

I'd love to know what you are smoking. It's either that or the alcohol has finally taken over all your attempts to be coherent and intelligent.

I'd love to go reeeaal in depth with you, Brian, but I feel that doing so would really make me drag the barrel with you....so, all I'll ask of you is this:Conveniently avoiding answering my 2 questions to him.


Q: What would the contracted parties offer in support or assistance at the full extent of its power?
Im dealing with an absolute idiot, your source that YOU provided itself states:

"Interestingly, neither document pledged to protect Poland's territorial integrity; this was quite deliberate, since it was believed that Germany could be appeased by a cessation of the Polish Corridor and the port of Danzig. This was indeed Germany's frequent outward demand to the Polish government, a demand which Poland refused to meet. Because of this careful wording and other factors"

[Beorn]

ARTICLE I.

Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

Q: What would the contracted parties offer in support or assistance at the full extent of its power?

Would it be?

A) A crate of cuddly toys?
B) A football signed by the England football team of 1986?
C) A plate of cold peas?
D) Military assistance?

[Creeping Death]

I won this one, no sweat, game over yokel.

[Beorn]

Giving up, Brian? Shame. Run away then.


(The dishwasher is coming your way for correctly answering the question, Lawspeaker :D)

[The Lawspeaker]

I won this one, no sweat, game over yokel.
Nope you didn't. You didn't answer the question. Game over- no dishwasher for you.


Ah.. and I can finally forget about those dishes ^^

[Creeping Death]

This is the official legal original document signed between Poland and Britain it is called.
The Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between the United Kingdom and Poland ( http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp)
Is that the correct title of the agreement signed between Poland and Britain. Yes or No.
You haven't answered this

Q: What would the contracted parties offer in support or assistance at the full extent of its power?

Would it be?

A) A crate of cuddly toys?
B) A football signed by the England football team of 1986?
C) A plate of cold peas?
D) Military assistance?
For Fucks sake it could be anything and it could be nothing that Britain would offer, the agreement was mutual, get it through your head.

Does the agreement specifically state military assistance?

[Beorn]

It doesn't take the brain of a rocket scientist to figure it out. It suggests quite clearly in the links you have provided to the pact, it has been told to you by others and it has been taught to millions of children up and down Britain and the rest of Europe for decades. It seems the only person with the opposite of this accepted fact is yourself.

As I stated in the rep point to you, Brian, the answer to your question lies in the answer to mine. Answer that and you have my answer to your question. Understand? Got it? Kapeechy?

[Creeping Death]

An example of a military alliance pact concerning an armed attack and its responses.

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Very clear and precise in its interpretation and application.

When you get around to answering my questions Wat, I will have more respect for you if you just concede on the point so we can move the debate further.

[Beorn]

When you get around to answering my questions Wat, I will have more respect for you if you just concede on the point so we can move the debate further.

I couldn't give a monkeys bottom for gaining your respect, Brian, but please do have my apologies for the recent treatment by myself concerning the subject we have been discussing. I seriously thought you were being pedantic and arrogant just to be a pain and prolong the petty arguments. It seems you are just ill educated and inherently stupid. :)

Right! Where to start? Firstly you can take down your reference to another military pact as this is clearly out of topic and potentially an obstacle which could distract you from fully understanding the British-polish pact of the Second World War.

The two alliances were drawn up and ratified within two completely different scenarios. One was a continued attempt at maintaining peace throughout Europe and appeasing an aggressive power, whilst the other was drawn up and ratified in peacetime and with no ulterior motives of maintaining and pacifying aggressive nations and averting another long drawn out war just recently fought.

I hope that goes some way to stopping you from holding onto the assumption that one example negates another example in the attempt to win an argument. Please do not attempt this again, Brian.


ARTICLE I.

Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.


Away from those confusing legal technical terms and in plain English, Brian, this opening article basically informs both parties of each others primary objective (more so Britain's) to maintain under this alliance a guarantee of military support, whether it be by actual troops and artillery on the ground or logistical. The opening article ensured that both parties were clear in what would happen if the appeasement of Germany failed and Hitler had invaded Poland to gain the port of Danzig and the much highly prized Polish corridor.


ARTICLE 2.

(1) The provisions of Article I (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp#art1) will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.


Article 2 is a simple one to understand, Brian, the confusing legal jargon aside, the paragraph has strictly mentioned that the members of the alliance, complying with article 1, should only engage the treaty if the aggrieved party was under attack and deemed it worthy to deploy troops to defend itself.

(It's interesting to note that the whole betrayal of Poland by the British centres around this article)

Let's skip a few articles as they simply cover the various different legal angles with which to cover themselves, but ultimately all conclude in the same course of action if and when required.

It is the next several articles which clearly state the case against your ill formed opinion. Where on Earth you have got it into your head after reading this pact (and I'm using the very same link you provided to be even fairer) that Britain was not bound to offer military assistance. The next article alone out of the many states:


ARTICLE 5.

Without prejudice to the foregoing undertakings of the Contracting Parties to give each other mutual support and assistance immediately on the outbreak of hostilities, they will exchange complete and speedy information concerning any development which might threaten their independence and, in particular, concerning any development which threatened to call the said undertakings into operation.


In plain English and no legal jargon to confuse you, Brian, the article is saying that on the outbreak of hostilities (in this case the Nazis actions), the partner nation will give without prejudice the support and assistance to the aggrieved (In this case Poland).


In summation of this treaty, Brian, it should be added that the British had entered this agreement in the hope of both displaying to Hitler the resolve that previous offerings of the port of Danzig and the Polish corridor as bait to then ulitmately preserve Polish independence, was now off the table and a clear military alliance had been formed to prevent any further hopes to the valued properties.

It sent out the message that any military hostilities by the Nazis upon the Polish would bring about the military support of Britain on the side of Poland in the forms such as air raids against the German industry centres and with time the landing of a British expeditionary corps to provide ground support to the Polish, and by further alliances, to the French also.

[Creeping Death]

Right! Where to start?
There is nowhere to start it’s over, nowhere in the terms of the Agreement did it specifically expect British military intervention on the commencement of hostilities , nowhere in the terms of the Agreement did it specifically state Britain had to declare hostilities if Poland was attacked. If Britain decided that sending to Poland 1 million cases of baked beans was 'all the support and assistance in its power', then that’s Britain’s mutual obligation fulfilled under the terms of the Agreement, because nowhere does the Agreement specifically state what constituted 'support and assistance' be it material, military or diplomatic it was left to each parties interpretation.

[Beorn]

nowhere in the terms of the Agreement did it specifically expect British military intervention on the commencement of hostilities

*sigh*

ARTICLE 5.

Without prejudice to the foregoing undertakings of the Contracting Parties to give each other mutual support and assistance immediately on the outbreak of hostilities, they will exchange complete and speedy information concerning any development which might threaten their independence and, in particular, concerning any development which threatened to call the said undertakings into operation.


If Britain decided that sending to Poland 1 million cases of baked beans was 'all the support and assistance in its power', then that’s Britain’s mutual obligation fulfilled under the terms of the Agreement,Tell me then, Alan Clark, when Germany did invade Poland what did the British do? Did Poland get the one million cases of baked beans alright? :)

[Creeping Death]

to give each other mutual support and assistance immediately on the outbreak of hostilities
Nowhere in the terms of the Agreement did it specifically state what mutual support indicated it was up to the interpretation of the British as to their assessment of events in communication with their Polish counterparts.

Tell me then, Alan Clark, when Germany did invade Poland what did the British do? Did Poland get the one million cases of baked beans alright? :)
We are not discussing that, we are discussing whether there was a military alliance between Britain and poland.

That's it...come on!....you can get there, Brian....one more step..."dey must ave been an alliance, just as dat good man What sed"

Well done, Brian. Aaaannd relax. :hug_002:

Worzel show me where in the document the pledge to protect Poland's territorial integrity.

[Beorn]

Nowhere in the terms of the Agreement did it specifically state what mutual support indicated.

Why do you think the two agreed a pact in the first place, Brian? Are you that naive?

In the very first article it clearly states: "Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power".

What do you think is meant by the term 'hostilities'?


We are not discussing that, we are discussing whether there was a military alliance between Britain and poland.

Exactly! So when Germany did invade, what did the British do, Brian?


Worzel show me where in the document the pledge to protect Poland's territorial integrity.

Do you not know the wording of the very pact we are discussing, Brian? :confused:

Two examples:

ARTICLE 2.

(1) The provisions of Article I (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp#art1) will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces

ARTICLE 3.

Should a European Power attempt to undermine the independence of one of the Contracting Parties by processes of economic penetration or in any other way, the Contracting Parties will support each other in resistance to such attempts. Should the European Power concerned thereupon embark on hostilities against one of the Contracting Parties, the provisions of Article I (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp#art1) will apply.

[Creeping Death]

Why do you think the two agreed a pact in the first place, Brian? Are you that naive? Concede on this point that this agreement was not a military alliance, and I will tell you why Britain entered into a pact, so we can get this debate moving along to where I can show you where Britain and France started this war.

What do you think is meant by the term 'hostilities'?
It means war.

Exactly! So when Germany did invade, what did the British do, Brian?Britain declared war, and when Russia invaded Poland 17 days later what did Britain do.....

The reaction of France and Britain to Poland's plight was muted, since neither wanted a confrontation with the Soviet Union at that stage.Under the terms of the Anglo-Polish Agreement of 25 August 1939, the British had promised Poland assistance if attacked by a European power; but when Polish Ambassador Edward Raczyński reminded Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax of the pact, he was bluntly told that it was Britain's business whether to declare war on the Soviet Union.
Soviet invasion of Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland#Allied_reaction)
Now do you understand the agreement there was no condition nor requirement that Britain declare war it was entirely up to Britain as to how she would react.

Do you not know the wording of the very pact we are discussing, Brian? :confused:
1) What is Territorial integrity.
2) There is no clause in the agreement recognizing Poland's Territorial integrity Yes or No.

[Jäger]

Another question, can we say that the English broke their agreement by not declaring war against the SU?


ARTICLE I.
Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

[Beorn]

It means war.

Correct. So when treaties are signed between two nations declaring that they will upon the outbreak of war "give each other mutual support and assistance immediately on the outbreak of hostilities" what do you possibly imagine that could mean, Brian?


Britain declared warHooray! Now we're getting somewhere. Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and as part of the alliance between Britain and Poland signed not that long before, the the British and the French declared war upon Germany.


Now do you understand the agreement there was no condition nor requirement that Britain declare war it was entirely up to Britain as to how she would react.
You're a fucking idiot.


1) What is Territorial integrity.
Territory: the geographical area under the jurisdiction of a sovereign state

Integrity: an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality with nothing wanting

Do I need to explain this all to you?


2) There is no clause in the agreement recognizing Poland's Territorial integrity Yes or No.(Hopefully the last time of saying this)

Two examples:

ARTICLE 2.

(1) The provisions of Article I (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp#art1) will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces

ARTICLE 3.

Should a European Power attempt to undermine the independence of one of the Contracting Parties by processes of economic penetration or in any other way, the Contracting Parties will support each other in resistance to such attempts. Should the European Power concerned thereupon embark on hostilities against one of the Contracting Parties, the provisions of Article I (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp#art1) will apply.

[Beorn]

Another question, can we say that the English broke their agreement by not declaring war against the SU?

The English didn't do anything. It was the British. But to answer your question, yes, the British broke their agreement with Poland by not declaring war upon the Soviet Union.

The British clearly were never going to hold to their word by the Polish, and I think the pact was only set up in order to excuse the British the opportunity to enter aggressive contact with Nazi Germany and set foot legally upon continental European soil.
It's made quite clear to British children growing up in schools that the British knew the Germans and the Soviets had made pacts to divide Poland up between them, and although the wording of the British-Polish military pact had heavily specified any European power, it was clear at the time that that 'European power' was no other than Germany.

[Jarl]

The English didn't do anything. It was the British. But to answer your question, yes, the British broke their agreement with Poland by not declaring war upon the Soviet Union.

The British clearly were never going to hold to their word by the Polish, and I think the pact was only set up in order to excuse the British the opportunity to enter aggressive contact with Nazi Germany and set foot legally upon continental European soil.
It's made quite clear to British children growing up in schools that the British knew the Germans and the Soviets had made pacts to divide Poland up between them, and although the wording of the British-Polish military pact had heavily specified any European power, it was clear at the time that that 'European power' was no other than Germany.

Precisly so. First of all, the agreement from 25th of August was a development of two previous agreements from 31st of March and 6th of April, 1939.

Secondly, the text from wikipedia is not a full version of the treaty. It is the general text. In addition to it, there was also a secret protocol, which clarified the context of the pact and specified that the alliance was directed specifically and exclusively against Nazi Germany. The alliance was a military one - which can be easily inferred not only from the secret protocol, but also from the text itslef.



What is the mutual assistance written of? What form does it take? Is the above clause a communication requirement between the 2 parties?

It meant military assistance in case of invasion agreed by the competent military authorities - just like the article states. Just read "Article 4" and stop being a stubborn ignorant. Besides its like Wat Tyler said... if for the past 70 years in modern historiography all historians have been calling it a military alliance, then it has to mean something. Read some literature on the subject. Or search for sources with the full text of the treaty (including the protocol).

[Creeping Death]

what do you possibly imagine that could mean, Brian? I have already answered that 3 times, it could be anything, it could be military or food aid, it could also absolutely nothing!

Hooray! Now we're getting somewhere. Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and as part of the alliance between Britain and Poland signed not that long before, the the British and the French declared war upon Germany. Your not getting anywhere your stalling, I see you deliberately ignored the British response to the Soviet Invasion.

Under the terms of the Anglo-Polish Agreement of 25 August 1939, the British had promised Poland assistance if attacked by a European power; but when Polish Ambassador Edward Raczyński reminded Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax of the pact, he was bluntly told that it was Britain's business whether to declare war on the Soviet Union. And that is correct because under the Mutual Agreement Britain was not obligated to declare war on any party is that correct. Yes or No
So if Britain decided not to declare war on Germany would that be a violation of the agreement. Yes or No.

You're a fucking idiot. You are being a deliberate Arsehole on this, you know I am correct and rather just be mature and concede you have chosen to be difficult.

Do I need to explain this all to you?
I asked you a question yesterday.
2) There is no clause in the agreement recognizing Poland's Territorial integrity. Yes or No.
An answer would be appreciated.

It meant military assistance in case of invasion agreed by the competent military authorities - just like the article states. Read the Agreement it does not state what form of the assistance was to take. It could be Military or Food Aid, maybe Financial assistance or no assistance as well. Whence the neglecting to address Polands Territorial sovereignty in the agreement, that was Britains get out of jail free card, Poland was hoodwinked.

Just read "Article 4" and stop being a stubborn ignorant. Im not being stubborn nor ignorant, I am clearly correct. All Article 4 states is the evaluation of mutual assistance from Britain,

Besides its like Wat Tyler said... if for the past 70 years in modern historiography all historians have been calling it a military alliance, then it has to mean something. Read some literature on the subject. Or search for sources with the full text of the treaty (including the protocol). that’s absolute Bullshit, Len Deighton did not refer to it as a military alliance, William Shire did not refer to it as a military alliance and Captain Liddel Hart did not refer to it as a military alliance, if these military historians did not refer to the agreement as such who did.

[Brynhild]

I'm only surprised this thread hasn't been closed! Oh well, since it's still open, I may as well sit down with a bowl of this:


http://www.homelyscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/popcorn.jpg

Anyone else care to join?

[Beorn]

I have already answered that 3 times, it could be anything, it could be military or food aid, it could also absolutely nothing!

You're clearly an idiot.


Your not getting anywhere your stalling, I see you deliberately ignored the British response to the Soviet Invasion.

I have responded. Check what I wrote to Jager.


And that is correct because under the Mutual Agreement Britain was not obligated to declare war on any party is that correct. Yes or No

:confused: I am amazed a man such as yourself can even get out of bed and dress himself, let alone turn a PC on, read and form reasoned opinions.

"Polish Ambassador Edward Raczyński reminded Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax of the pact, he was bluntly told that it was Britain's business whether to declare war on the Soviet Union."

In words I sincerely hope you can comprehend, the Polish Foreign Secretary reminded the British that they had signed a pact to declare war upon any aggressors to the signed parties, to which the British returned that they had only signed a pact to declare war upon the Germans and it was up to their discretion as to who they declared war upon.

The Western Betrayal.


You are being a deliberate Arsehole on this, you know I am correct and rather just be mature and concede you have chosen to be difficult.

No Brian. I enjoy arguing. I enjoy it more so when I am correct. In this case I am correct (and you have even had others confirm this) and you are wrong. You are an idiot and I am an idiot for continually beating the dead horse.


2) There is no clause in the agreement recognizing Poland's Territorial integrity. Yes or No.
An answer would be appreciated.


And for the third(?) time I will answer.

Two examples:

ARTICLE 2.

(1) The provisions of Article I (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp#art1) will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces

ARTICLE 3.

Should a European Power attempt to undermine the independence of one of the Contracting Parties by processes of economic penetration or in any other way, the Contracting Parties will support each other in resistance to such attempts. Should the European Power concerned thereupon embark on hostilities against one of the Contracting Parties, the provisions of Article I (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp#art1) will apply.

[Jarl]

Read the Agreement it does not state what form of the assistance was to take. It could be Military or Food Aid, maybe Financial assistance

Article 4 specifies that the form of assisance was to be agreed by military bodies - plainly it was not food aid. And even if it was just food aid - it would still be delivered by armed forces. So de facto the agreement meant military cooperation.


or no assistance as well.

No. Read:

ARTICLE I.


Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.


Im not being stubborn nor ignorant, I am clearly correct. All Article 4 states is the evaluation of mutual assistance from Britain, Whence the neglecting to address Polands Territorial sovereignty in the agreement, that was Britains get out of jail free card, Poland was hoodwinked. Im not being stubborn nor ignorant, I am clearly correct. All Article 4 states is the evaluation of mutual assistance from Britain,

No. Article 4 defines the nature of the assistance. It specifies that the exact character of assistance will be specified by the competent military, air and naval authorities. So ex definitione it was a military agreement.

[Creeping Death]

It is fairly obvious I am wasting time here, your a coward Tyler you had an opportunity to simply concede on the point, you didnt thereby stalling this debate. I ask you not to send me anymore neg rep points with messages I want no contact with a coward.

[Beorn]

LOL!

[Germanicus]

It is fairly obvious I am wasting time here, your a coward Tyler you had an opportunity to simply concede on the point, you didnt thereby stalling this debate. I ask you not to send me anymore neg rep points with messages I want no contact with a coward.

Get a life you nutter!

[Creeping Death]

Article 4 specifies that the form of assisance was to be agreed by military bodies - plainly it was not food aid. And even if it was just food aid - it would still be delivered by armed forces. So de facto the agreement meant military cooperation. Article 4 does not state what form aid should be whether it is Military or Humanity as either aid during hostilities is administered by the military, and you cannot say “plainly it was not food aid”. From the Polish point of view they wished military assistance, rightfully so, the Agreement of Mutual Assistance was signed as an appendage or attachment to the Franco/Polish Kasprzycki-Gamelin Convention, whence the Polish expectations.

The British authored Agreement of Mutual assistance was in effect not a military alliance, as it was titled and by the fact it included clauses open for interpretation . The Agreement of Mutual assistance was deliberately evasive in not defining what mutual assistance consisted of to Poland. Poland’s request to Britain for military aid was turned down on the excuse of Article 4, as on assessment of Polands situation by its military advisors it was believed the best result was to let Poland fall and defeat Germany in a longer protracted war. Within the Agreement of Mutual assistance Polish Territorial Integrity of their borders with Germany and Russia was not deliberately included. Both Germany and Russia had border issues with Poland, recognizing Polands Territorial integrity would of meant British liability to declare war on Russia. This is evidenced by the British Government informing the Polish ambassador that they were not liable under the Agreement of Mutual Assistance to declare war on the Soviet Union.

I am not being anti-Pole as 2 of history’s most heroic battles were the Battle of Warsaw and the battle of Vienna where the Poles saved Europe from the Turks.

However we can now move on if you wish and we will discuss further Poland's situation.

[Beorn]

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4230/gifbinkeyboardcat.gif

[Treffie]

It is fairly obvious I am wasting time here, your a coward Tyler you had an opportunity to simply concede on the point, you didnt thereby stalling this debate. I ask you not to send me anymore neg rep points with messages I want no contact with a coward.


The answer is simple, Brian - talking sense = no neg reps :thumb001:

[Creeping Death]

The answer is simple, Brian - talking sense = no neg reps :thumb001:
LOL, Jesus Christ what the Fuck is this, haha, he can give me all the neg reps he wants, I just dont want him communicating with me in those reps on this forum and on stirpes or on the Irish Nationalist forum. He had a chance here to admit I was correct, no big deal, however he chose to play a silly bugger and stall around, no guts. And besides what business is it to you?

[Beorn]

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4230/gifbinkeyboardcat.gif