Comments by "Sar Jim" (@sarjim4381) on "The Extraordinary Voyage of the Polish Submarine Orzeł" video.

And after all that, the Poles were stabbed in the back by later British, US, and Soviet actions.
168
@gordonlawrence4749 Really? No clue about what happened at Yalta then? No idea of what role Clement Attlee and the communists that infested the postwar labour government and trade unions did after WWII to Polish soldiers and their families? Poles that had fought to protect Britain in her darkest days and who were now being abandoned by British communists? Never heard of any of this? Read https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28979789.
27
@peterk3130 Since I linked the article, there's a good chance I read it. There are many more about this shameful time than this one. Atlee was about to do more than "suggest" the Poles return. There were active plans to force them to return to the waiting arms of the Polish communists and the troops of the USSR. There was more than one trade union harrasing the Polish troops, calling them fasciitis and threatening their families. It was only the uproar caused by the rest of the decent British people that stopped this plan and more less forced Labour into letting them resettle in Britain. The US and Britain had already decided by the time of Yalta to let the Stalin establish hegemony over Eastern Europe. It wasn't because "there was little that we could do". It's because communists and communist sympathizers in the US and British delegations had convinced Roosevelt and Churchill there was little we could do. The same crowd convinced Truman not to use the threat of the atomic bomb at Potsdam to bring Stalin into line over Poland. There was plenty we could have done. We just didn't do it.
7
@Richard J Roberts The Russians didn't have an atomic bomb until 1949. This was in 1946. How exactly would leveling Russia have started WWIII? It's a lot more likely that Stalin would have been less imperialistic if he knew Truman might use the bomb on him. Oh, yeah. They wouldn't have developed the bomb for at least five more years beyond 1949 if not for US and British communist and communist sympathizer spy rings passing atomic bomb information back to the Soviets.
4
@Nathan_Whaley-g8m I'm quite certain that not having eastern Europe endure 43 years of communist bondage would have been well worth throwing our atomic bomb weight around.
4
@BrianSmith-yn2zg Just quit while you're ahead. You have no understanding of the import of the Yalta Conference or history in general.
4
@BrianSmith-yn2zg Wow. It's not often I meet an actual moron on here, yet here you are. The Yalta Conference, when we gave away eastern Europe to Stalin, happened from 4 to 11 February 1945, two months before Roosevelt died. Pro tip - if you have no idea what you're talking about, Wikipedia won't help.
3
@Nathan_Whaley-g8m The utter lack of historical understanding and narcissism of your comment is breathtaking. Most breathtaking is your tradeoff of abandoning the 83 million people of the Eastern Bloc to two generations of tyranny and millions of deaths against some theoretical future threat of nuclear war that didn't even exist in 1945. Truman had the Big Stick of atomic weapons for four years that no one, not even our allies possesed. Rather than use at least the treat of our atomic power, the communist operatives in the State Department convinced him that we should just trust Stalin to do the right thing, knowing all the while that communist spy rings were busily passing our secrets to the Soviets, and we'd soon be at real risk of nuclear war. We lost a four year window when we could have forced Stalin to back out of eastern Europe and could have made the world a safer place. Instead, we did nothing, and thus began 40 years of the Cold War and MAD.
3
@Nathan_Whaley-g8m When it comes to history, we can start with the idea you think any of any of our allies had the bomb. The British didn't develop their first atomic bomb until 1952, and they were only able to it then with US help. It took France until 1960 going it alone. China, even with Soviet help, didn't test their first bomb until 1964. I know exactly what happened in eastern Europe from 1945 on. It's called history. What you believed would occur doesn't trump what actually did occur. We had four years to use diplomacy backed up by the biggest stick in history. Instead, we did nothing. The reason no nuclear war occured is we could each destroy each other so no one would win. How about if you had a WoT game where you had Pershing tanks and your opponent only had Bren gun carriers. Would you just park the Pershing's in fear of your opponent also someday developing a Pershing? Your narcissism is being willing to thrown 83 million people under the bus because of your fear of such a scenario.
2
@Nathan_Whaley-g8m While Britain aided in the development of the atomic bomb, the main effort was still by US and refugee German scientists. There is no doubt it was America's industrial capacity that allowed the bombs to be produced. Britain not only wouldn't have been able to build a bomb more quickly if they somehow would have felt threatened by the US, it would have taken them at least as long as France without US help. The problem all along in this discussion is you mulling things over from a position of historical ignorance. What you don't seem to understand seem to understand is how the communists and fellow travelers in Attlee's Labour government and our own State Department were the ones putting forth exactly your arguments. It would be bad form for us to use the bomb against a a former ally, we'd be setting the stage for future nuclear wars, ad infinitum. All they were doing was trying to delay a US response until the Soviets had the bomb and they could threaten us. I doubt you are are old enough to have lived for any significant time as an adult during the cold war. I was born in 1945. My entire life was living in fear I'd die tomorrow. There's no doubt in my mind that immediate action threatening the Soviets and Chinese Reds with an attack from which they couldn't respond in 1946, and clearing out the communist and fellow travelers spy rings in the US and Britain, would have positively changed the outcome for the entire world's population.
2
@BrianSmith-yn2zg Go read some books and you won't have as many haters.
1
@donsharpe5786 As long as your opponent doesn't know the real situation, it's not an empty threat. That's why gas stations get held up every day by crooks with realistic looking fake guns.
1
@donsharpe5786 They had inside information on construction details. The Soviets hadn't been able to penetrate the US military, especially the Army Air Force. They could only guess about how many bombs we already had and how fast we could build more. The information from Kremlin records after the Soviet Union went away was Stalin was convinced the US would have at least ten bombs by the end of 1946 and cold build at least 20 a year by 1948. That's one of the reasons for the high speed development of a Russian bomb. Truman, to his credit, refused to share any information with the Russians, even as the State Department communists were urging him to do so.
1
@BuzzLOLOL Define "a lot". Who said it needed to be "stabilized for a while"?
1
@BuzzLOLOL "Normal people"...that's the best you could come up with? There were way more people in Croatia that not only sided with Hitler, they went and fought on the Nazi side. How come none of your "normal people" wanted to stabilize Croatia?
1
@BuzzLOLOL Croatia declared independence in 1991. The USSR never set foot in Croatia. The Partisans killing about 100,000 Croatian Ustase while the Chetniks, Germans, and Italians killed another 50,000. The Yugoslav communists killed another 10,000 Croats after WWII and "stabilized" the country by brutal dictatorship and terror. Once independence was declared, Catholic/Serb violence broke out anew, only ending after a military victory by Croatia and the expulsion of at least 200,000 by 1995. Your beloved USSR was long gone by then. The Nazis and Hitler weren't Catholic or Christian or even religious. Hitler himself was violently anti-Catholic, and only used the German Protestant church when it suited his political goals. Saying Hitler was "Catholic Christian Religious Terrorist" only got one thing right.
1