Comments by "TheVilla Aston" (@thevillaaston7811) on "Britain's Worst Airborne Disaster: Battle of Arnhem | Animated History" video.

  1. 5
  2. 4
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. Its a definite no. Britain (and France), went to war on behalf of Poland, in spite of multiple offers of a peace deal by Hitler. The treaty with Poland only covered an attack on Poland by Germany, not an attack by any other country. The British Government went into this undertaking in 1939 despite being aware that the country could not be ready for a general war until 1941. 2,936 Fighter Command pilots took part in the Battle of Britain, 145 of them were Polish. The Polish squadrons only took part in the second half of the battle. The idea that Polish saved our ‘butts’ in the Battle of Britain is absurd. The governments of Britain and the USA were no position to be able to condemn the massacre of Polish soldiers at Katyn by the Russians, when he news came out in 1943. Such a condemnation would have meant agreeing with the Nazis at a time when Russia was bearing the brunt of the war on land. There is no evidence that Władysław Sikorski was murdered. Why would anyone risk trying to murder him in a plane crash? He was not important enough to warrant such treatment. General Sosabowski was not blamed for the failure at Arnhem. Rightly or wrongly he was criticized from his performance, and the performance of his troops at Arnhem. But that is quite a different matter from blame for overall operation. Churchill tried repeatedly to get help from Russia and the USA for assistance in airlifting supplies to the Polish Home Army during the Warsaw up-rising, without success until the very end. Poland was not betrayed at the Yalta conference. By the time of the conference, Poland was almost wholly in Russian hands, and Britain and the USA had zero leverage on Russian actions. The omission of a Polish squadron from the 1946 victory parade in London, while other Polish military units were invited to take part was a regrettable mis-judgement on the part of the government of the day, but this was more than made up for the 1947 Polish Resettlement Act. Britain fed, clothed, and housed many thousands of Polish people during the war. It is surely not unreasonable that those Poles that were able should have joined in with the fighting where they could. WINSTON S CHURCHILL. THE SECOND WORLD WAR. CASSELL & CO LTD VOLUME VI TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY 1954. P563 The burden lay on British shoulders. When their homeland had been overrun and they had been driven from France many Poles had sheltered upon our shores. There was no worth-while property belonging to the Polish Government in London. I said I believed there was about .£20,000,000 in gold in London and Canada. This had been frozen by us, since it was an asset of the Central Bank of Poland. Unfreezing and moving it to a Central Polish Bank must follow the normal channels for such transfers. It was not the property of the Polish Government in London and they had no power to draw upon it. There was of course the Polish Embassy in London, which was open and available for a Polish Ambassador as soon as the new Polish Government cared to send one—and the sooner the better. In view of this one might well ask how the Polish Government had been financed during its five and a half years in the United Kingdom. The answer was that it had been supported by the British Government; we had paid the Poles about .£120,000,000 to finance their Army and diplomatic service, and to enable them to look after Poles who had sought refuge on our shores from the German scourge. When we had disavowed the Polish Government in London and recognised the new Provisional Polish Government it was arranged that three months' salary should be paid to all employees and that they should then be dismissed. It would have been improper to have dismissed them without this payment, and the expense had fallen upon Great Britain. All clear now?..
    2
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17.  @bessarion1771  'Literally in the letter you posted he said " this brigade performed very badly here and the men showed no keenness to fight if it meant risking their own lives (.) " Which was a bold faced lie and Montgomery KNEW it was a lie. What a filthy gutless way to assault the allies.' Your words. Literally, what Montgomery stated may have been a lie, it may have been the truth. Wh can know? I don't. It was definately an opinion. He was entitled to his opinion, especially in a private letter to a colleague. Montgomery's opinion would seem to be in line with one Geoffrey Powell, who, in his memoir of Arnhem stated of Polish troops put under his command in the Oosterbeek perimeter: MEN AT ARNHEM GEOFFREY POWELL Pen and Sword Books 2004 P164 'At irregular intervals from the late evening onwards, clusters of mortar bombs had fallen among and around us, harming no one but preventing sleep, at least for me. Others, between spells of sentry duty, had collapsed exhausted into oblivion. Four times enemy patrols had roused them from their stupor as the night exploded into noise and light, with red tracer whipping the trees and white flares blossoming overhead. No one had been hit, but losses there had been. On stand-to rounds I had found the Polish trenches empty except for Peter, their corporal, crouched grimly behind his Bren. The rest of the party had vanished in the early hours, sensing perhaps that they had attached themselves to an unlucky unit. Peter explained nothing, but his embarrassment was clear; it was both unfair and pointless to press him for details when either pride or sense of duty had kept him there to fight on among strangers. The thought of what would have happened if the enemy had attacked from this direction against a position held by the one solitary man was chilling. It was a mistake to trust strangers. I had learned yet another lesson: rely only on those you knew.'
    1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1