HMG and forced expulsion (ethnic cleansing)

[caton]

HMG and forced expulsion (ethnic cleansing)


I've seen some comments recently regarding how britain 'defended' Poland.

The following are quotes to Sir Winston Spencer Churchill’s “The Second World War”, volume 5 “Closing the Ring”, book two “Teheran to Rome”, chapter 20 “Conversations and Conferences”.

QUOTE A: “I suggested that we should discuss the Polish question. He [Stalin] agreed and invited me to beguin (...) Personally I thought Poland might move westward, like soldiers taking two steps ‘left close’. If Poland strod in some German toes, that could not be helped, but there must be a strong Poland. (...)” [END OF QUOTE]

[including the issue in the agenda of the Conference] QUOTE B: “We agreed to look at the problem. Stalin asked wether it would be WITHOUT(*) Polish participation. I said ‘YES’(*), and that when this was all informally agreed between ourselves we could go to the Poles later. (...)”[END OF QUOTE]

QUOTE C: “I then demonstrated with the help of three matches MY(*) idea of Poland moving westwards. THIS PLEASED STALIN(*), and on this note our group parted for the moment” [END OF QUOTE]



The following are quotes to Sir Winston Spencer Churchill’s “The Second World War”, volume 6 “Triumph and Tragedy”, book 2, Chapter 22 “Russia and Poland: the Soviet Promise” and to Chapter 39: “Postdam: the Polish Frontiers”<br>

QUOTE D: “I then said it was my duty to state the position of His majesty’s government. I had repeatedly declared in Parliament and in public my resolution to support the claim of the U.S.S.R. to the Curzon line as interpreted by the Soviet Government. That meant including Lvov in the U.S.S.R.” [END OF QUOTE]

QUOTE E: “Russia had advanced her frotier to the Curzon Line. This meant, as Roosevelt and I had realised, that the three or four million Poles who lived on the wrong side of the line would have to be moved to the west” [END OF QUOTE]



That is a wonderfull example of respect for self determination (which as every Kelper knows, is paramount for HMG!)

Good old Sir Winstor (HM Prime Minister at the time) generously forwarded his nice ‘idea’ (1) of moving Poland westward. Of course, the FORCED DISPLACEMENT of SEVERAL MILLION Poles & Germans from their homes was just a triffle. Colonialist forum members will probably think that Germans had no rights because they were to be vinced – thus behaving exactly like the nazis and impulsing an ethnic cleansing.

What about the Poles? Oh, they were their most beloved allies. So much so that the Polish forces were been sent to the most desperate actions of the war, like in Monte Cassino and Arnhem. Again, as self determination was paramount, Sir Winston decided to discuss Polish new frontiers and the forced desplacement of MILLIONS of her citizens WITHOUT THEIR PARTICIPATION.

Well, if Britain (and good old Sir Winston, the ‘last Lion’) not only didn’t objected but proposed such a thing as shifting to the west of a whole nation, which implied (“as Roosevelt and I had realised...”) the forced displacement of “three or four million” civilians of his own ally (please note: three or four: a million more or less made no difference to HMG), I wonder he wouldn’t had objected to the displacement of the Diego Garcians.

By the way, how many are the Kelpers?




Regards – J




PS: HMG promoves the ethnic cleansing not only of enemies (Germans) but of allies (Poles) and peoples under their ‘protection (Diego Garcians) as well. NOBODY IS SAFE

(1) The british seem to fe full of nice ‘ideas’: Rhodes was another good example!
(2) Are you going to insist in the hypocrital argument that you refuse to negociate because “self determination comes first”?

(*) the capitals are mine for everybody to note the ‘detail’<br>

[Gabriel]

Hola Javier,

Just one observation regarding your comment about the poles serving in the most difficult missions. It was (and still is) common practice by just about everyone to use minorities first. The Russians certainly did it. Do not forget that many of the soldiers who liberated Nazi occupied zones were Jews, just because they were a minority. I am not saying this is OK, but only that there is no point in accusing England of doing something that was common practice at the time. By the way, Argentina did the same in the war with Paraguay, one fundamental reason for the absence of Blacks in our modern society. The US Army has a disproportionate number of minority personnel today, particularly in the lower ranks.

Saludos,

Gabriel

[Hutch]

Well Javier, perhaps you would like to tell us why Britain declared war on Germany then, if it wasnt to defend Poland? Hmmmm? Any ideas? Perhaps you'd like to respond by starting another thread on a different issue? Maybe you'd like to throw in some quotes by Queen Elizabeth I, Disraeli or General Havelock to support you? You seem to be an avid reader of British history and British people, further lending weight to the idea that you deeply admire the British but cant bring yourself to admit it. You do seem obsedded with Cecil Rhodes. More than Bolivar?

The British Empire was not in the least threatened by Germany marching into Poland. Indeed, it was the hope-and effective policy-of several nations/important people that Nazi Germany and the USSR would go to war as both nations were loathsome and could be a threat, and it was betetr if they just fought each other. For example such a war would take the German Fleet away from the North Sea and the USSRs attention away from India.And yet the British stepped in to try and stop this war.

How evil of them! How wrong! How wrong to honour an agreement and put your nation and its citizens lives in danger by deciding that fascism and brutal military expansion had to be stood up to! How wrong they were to risk the bombing of London! Unless it was all part of some evil Imperial Colonist plan of course.... Conspiracy theory to the rescue!

Well? Any ideas on why the British went to war which could show that it wasnt to defend Poland?

As for your selective quotes, you once again are living in a world free of context with 100% hind vision. By 1943 it was clear that Stalin would take and hold what he wanted where he could by the end of the war. What was better? To try and make a deal with him and allow the war effort to continue unhindered or cause disagreements on issues which may not arise for years and harm the cooperation neccessary? What was worse-Nazi Germany with the extermination camps or the USSR with the labour camps? Lesser of two evils to defeat the greater evil wins every time. Then defeat the lesser evil

You always seem to expect that a nation should behave the same at all times throughout its history. Which is so absurd as to be laughable and invite ridicule-its as if governments, attitudes, laws and so on didnt change but were static for all time. Yes, The British did not support self determination for all the Poles in 1946. But yes, she did for all the Poles in 1939, hence going to war. No, the British did not support self determination for India in 1847 but by 1947 the Worlds largest democracy was born with Britains help and without a long, bloody war as the French fought in Algeria/Indo China. Odd isnt it Javier? Odd how nations behave differently at different times and in different places. Argentina is just the same though.

As for the Polish fighting in dangerous areas-it was a war and most areas are dangerous. As their nation had been raped for years by the Germans many Poles were very eager to get to grips with the enemy and Polish units often requested postings to where they could fight the Nazis aside from the fact they were excellent soldiers with very high morale.

Forced displacement of millions? Unfortunate but a reality of the times. Germany had started the war and killed millions of Russians. Revenge was prime in the USSR's mind-it certainly wasnt going to risk being invaded again and would take all (what it thought were) neccessary precaustions to stop this. Hence annexation of land, puppet regimes, expulsion of undesirables, etc. The UK could have done nothing short of declare war on the USSR during or just after the war to stop that and that wasnt going to happen. The USSR absorbed most of the German forces from late 1941 onwards and it was more of an imperative to destroy Nazism than Soviet Communism.

And yet, sadly for you, a few years after the war ended the British were agitating for freedom for the Iron Curtain nations (Churchill himself coined that phrase), confronting Communists around the globe and seeking to end the Soviet dictatorship. They had been invaluable allies in the war, so great that it couldnt have been won without them, but that didnt mean that their actions would be ignored forever.

Despite the fact you decry such actions and attitudes, you actually support them Javier. Funny really. You post to show how aggressive and bad the British are and use this to justify why the Falklanders should pay for these crimes by suffering collectively.The British removed the soverignty of some peoples in the past and therefore the decendents of the British (and others) must lose their soverignty and be put under foreign rule.


Ah Javier. Once you begin to approach history with context you will make a lot more sense, find out a lot more and be worth paying attention to. Your scattergun approach to history reads like a textbook from Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany- based on facts and real events but so skewed as to be worthless.

Keep smiling and keep well. Good luck with yet more reading of British history. Theres an awful lot there.

Hutch

ps-how many nations has Argentina defended at the risk of her own existence/people? How many nations owe their freedom to Argentina? Not being confrontational, i'd just like to know.

[Gabriel]

Hi Hutch,

I hope you are using some type of hearing protection. You know, those fanfare horns are very loud. I hate to pop your balloon, but no nation got involved in WWII for the sole purpose of defending any other nation. Germany threatened your empire, and that's why your nation went to war. If England could benefit from the invasion of Poland or France, continental Europe would be speaking German today, with the blessing of London. I could fill pages with narratives from survivors of Polish concentration camps who could not be saved by near British forces, since Churchill (the liberator of the oppressed) did not consider the task a military objective! And I love your fabulous feat of saving India from anarchy. Too bad Gandhi, that terrorist bastard gave you so much trouble.
How many nations owe their freedom to Argentina you ask? Ask the Spanish. I am pretty sure they do not have any monuments to General Jose de San Martin.

Regards,

Gabriel

[Hutch]

Gabriel.

Please provide evidence of how Germany was a threat to the British Empire other than that they had a military. When did they threaten it? Where? How? Or is this more prejudging that we're seeing here in your personal attitude towards the UK?

Or evidence that the British entered WW2 for reasons other than to defend Poland under the terms of the Anglo-Polish treaty. After all, the UK was still suffering from the depression, was not ready for war, the population were dead against it, much of the media was against it, there were Nazi sympathisers in various positions throughout the land, Churchill was deemed a warmonger, industry was ill prepared, there was unrest in the Empire and other nations-USA, Japan, USSR et al- were more of a threat to the Empire. The British Empire would have benefitted from an invasion and occupation of Poland as it would have meant that the inevitable German-USSR war was closer. If those two went to war then the Far Eastern Empire would have been safe from the USSR and the British could have made a fortune selling guns to one or both sides. It would have kept Germany, USSR and probably Italy busy for many years and left the British to get on with what they wanted to do.

The Nazis were a continental European power with well known ambitions to the east, and Hitler did not want war with the British. He rather admired us and liked our 'racial stock'. They were no threat to the British Empire, asides the general fear that the Fleet could be challenged. The Japanese, French and Russians were more of a threat. The British like a balance of power on the Continent, not a single donimant power but still, Nazi Germany was contained within Germany almost exclusively.

Yes, camps were given lower priority than military targets. Thats just common sense, but liberated they were. Its a better idea to concentrate on winning the war than going for individual non vital targets as the shorter the war the more survive.

India wasnt saved from anarchy per se but it was spared a civil war because the British withdrew and handed power to the native population.

I shall look this general up and see what feats this Argentine performed.

Hutch

[caton]

Dear Hutch,


The ammount of ‘questions’ are so many that I’m afraid I cannot answer them all, at least properly in time. It has always been much easy to ask than to answer.

It took several hours to write the article with quotes to good old Sir Winston. I must always be carefull not to commit any mistake, because it wouldn’t be pardoned. What is all your reaction to the monstruous confession that it was his ‘idea’ to move Poland westward? Oh, nothing could be done, we fought for Poland’s freedom, etc. My friend, what you said is ‘popular knowledge’, that is, the ‘floating’ and vague idea the man in the street has (the fruit of propaganda) regarding what REALLY happened. What good old Sir Winston confession gives us a glimplse of the real thing: HOW THE MASS DEPORTATION OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE –FRIEND AND FOE- WAS PROPOSED BY HMG AND ACCEPTED BY THE SOVIET UNION (the same HMG that believes self determination is paramount in malvinas but not in Hong Kong or Diego Garcia).

Please note that is a British source! Other sources say much worse things!

Your comment regarding you entered the war to defend Poland’s freedom is nothing different that the ‘Official Story’. In order to search for truth, you must make yourself questions, you must have a critical attitude for any explanation. It doesn’t mean you must deny everything, it means you must annalyze it. You can give it credibility after it has resisted an analysis.

HMG claims to have eneterd the war for Polands’ freedom and to have fought the Opium War to defend the principle of ‘free trade’ and at Suez to assure the right of free navigation and so on. Don’t you see they are mere pretextes? They were fighting for empire, nothing more, nothing less.

Let’s suppose it was true that you declared war on Germany because you wanted to defend Poland’s freedom.
Poland was NOT attacked by Germany alone... Why didn’t you declare war on the Soviet Union too (they invaded Poland on 17th september 1939)? Any clue? The French Government proposed you to joint declaring war to the USSR too, you refused.That is a ‘taboo’, no talking about it.
Does a ‘principle’ applie for one country alone? Do you shift ‘principles’ according the circumstances? What kind of ‘principles’ are they?

The real reason (Hektor is right) was that you decided to fight Germany -no interest in fighting the USSR-. Besides, it would be to your advantage if Germany had a second front...

Let’s keep along with your pretext: to fight for the freedom of other country. You didn’t declare war on the USSR when invaded Finnland (30th November 1939) or Lithuiania, Latvia and Estonia. What about your principles, then?

Please note that Germany invaded Norway in the Royal Navy’s face, because YOUR INVASION forces had already departed for Norway. You were to do there exactly the same Germans did, only they outmanoeuver you for a couple of days.
You also invadeds Persia and established Shah Reza Pahlevi. Where’s the difference?

My freind, grow up! Please think by yourself. To go to your own authors to your own libraries would be a good beginning. To try foreign sources too would be the natural and healthy continuation.


Best - Javier

[caton]

Dear friends,


I quote your own good Churchill and then you pretend to attack me accusing me of admiring the British. Seting aside that is surely not a crime , wheter I admire them or not DOESN’T MODIFY THE DOCUMENTS I HAVE QUOTED!

Your assumption that I admire you seems to be based on the fact that I can quote your own people and that I have writen in this forum about your history.

Please note that is because it is related to the dispute. I have written much more regarding the islands, including technical issues of navigation at the age of discovery. Please remember also my “Cronology of Malvinas” series, the treaties I’ve quoted (nobody seem to have heard about the Nootka Sound treaty, the secret clause of the Anglo Spanish agreement, among others).

Fellows! It is not only about that I can have a history chat! I have in my shelves –among others- Tucydides (The Peloponessyan War, in English), Jenofonte (The Ten Thousand Men Expedition), Robin Lane Fox (Alexander the Great, in English), Suetonio (the 12 Caesars), Titus Livius (History of Rome), Mafio Maffi (Cicero and his Political Drama), Guglielmo Ferrero (Greatness and Decadence of Rome, six volumes), Julius Caesar (Commentaries to the War of Gaul), Thomas Hodgkin (The Barbarian Invasions of the Roman Empire, in 8 volumes, in English), Gibbon (The decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in English), Flavius Josephus (The Jew War), Plutarch (Paralel Lives), Edward Luttwak (The Great Strategy of the Roman Empire, in italian) and Theodor Mommsem (his monumental History of Rome and The Empire of Rome, in Italian). AND I'VE READ THEM ALL! The list of classical history is probably incomplete.

We could also discuss –say- the Crusades, or the trial of the Templars, or the House of Medici, or the Thirty Years War, etc, etc, etc.

There are of course many subjects where I cannot discuss because I have not studied them as –say- The French Revolution, the Mogul Empire, the Russo Japanese war, etc.


What is clear to me is that AS the info I forward is not good but EXCELLENT, I will always be accussed of something.

In the past, I was to blame because I HATED Britain.
Now, I am to blame because I ADMIRE Britain.

Like in Rabelais’ Gargantua & Pantagruel, I will be condemn either “to pay with my life” or “to pay with my death”...



Best regards - Javier


PS: Hey, Hutch! You say I ‘make you laugh’. You can laugh or cry. What YOU CANNOT DO is to PROVE MY HISTORICAL DATA TO BE WRONG.

[Hutch]

Well Javier, what do you want to do next? Will you continue to spend your time skim reading British history and making posts which seem to come almost entirely from the Marxist view of history? Nothing wrong in that per se but it is just as one sided as any other person with an axe to grind and access to the internet.

No one 'blamed' you or attacked you for admiring Britain, and neither did anyone say it altered the 'documents' we just thought it a little odd and funny. Your tactic of setting up straw men to attack is also funny as you sometimes have arguments with yourself almost. You say that i "...CANNOT...PROVE MY HISTORICAL DATA TO BE WRONG.". No one, certainly not me, was saying that i could. No one was saying that your data was wrong Javier, just your interpretation which, as i say, is as one sided, as devoid of the concept of context and as biased as anything else written to demonise a certain side. What you will 'always be accused of' is poor or biased interpretation of good research as you seek to use historical events/quotes as a weapon to attack with, not a tool of understanding. As i've said before though, what you are seeming to miss most of all is a sense of context.

I don't have the time to do it myself at the moment, but one could probably put together a good long post, featuring quotes from people and documents which could show that Argentina has been a nation plagued by coups, juntas, poor government, hypocracy, violence, self pity, economic mismanagement and waste of resources, but it would not achieve anything. Anybody can present history like that but its a waste of time outseide of propaganda.

The image of the martyr really doesent suit you either.

I happily wait for any sign that Britain entered WW2 for reasons of Empire. I just can not see how a land based European power moving eastwards to attack Poland was a threat to the Empire. Getting involved in a land war in Europe against Germany would not defend the Empire in any way, in fact it would be a dangerous distraction from the actual problems of the Empire.

And this brings us to your other 'approachs' to history-contradiction, straw men, an apparant lack of 'historical common sense' and avoidance. You seem to want us to fight all wars or no wars. To fight the entire world or no one-you yourself set up principles and then accuse of of breaking them. When we fought for Poland but not Finland, you point that out as if it meant something. As if a principle which had not been established had been broken. And then instead of addressing the Polish quesion you bring in Opium Wars and Suez-dodge the issue by confusing it.

You ask what about our principles? I reply what about treatys, common sense and the application of intelligence to historical events? And round in circles we go.

Remember that these decisions were taken in the course of a very dangerous war which cost tens of millions of lives and reshaped the world forever No ones saying they were perfect decisions and that one side was good and pure and the other bad and evil. Decisions were made which were monstrous on all sides but they were still made. You can easyily sit in a comfortable chair now, surrounded by books and the internet and preach what was right and wrong from the safety of South America. Argentina has never had to face such awful decisions as she has never been powerfull enough, important enough or close enough to the axis of history to have to. Britain has had to make such decisions and has casue to bitterly regret many of them but thats just how life goes for people as well as states. Perhaps Argentina would have behaved differently in the same situation? Perhaps she would have declared war on the USSR, Germany, Italy, Japan et al all at the same time or perhaps she would have done something else. You never had to take that decision so we'll never know and nind sight is perfect

But enough of this! Its going nowhere!

So i propose something else. Instead of you spending your time filling this board with-at best-lateral issues, why not develop the 'Killer Argument'? You've said that you have a chronology and such. What these things need is a home. So perhaps a thread could be created which would be sticky and locked. On this thread Argentina can make its case. Chronology, dates, events, witness statements and such can be created and stored there. Then people can come, see the proof which Argentinma presents and then make up their own mind about the situation. Or they may ask questions-stimulate real debate not this historical merry-go-round of unrelated events.

A problem i have had is that sometimes things are referred to or referenced and i only remember part of them. I cant say what i want to or ask what i want to because i dont have the data here in front of me, or easyily available. As far as i know there is no such English language effort on the net or possible anywhere. How can i discuss the Nootka sound treaty if i dont know or remember it? And if i was a casual passerby i would have even less idea.

Lets get to a real purpose here-let the Argentine point of view be laid out clearly and plainly and lets debate that. It can seem like such a mess somethimes-Spain did this, Argentina did this, the Vice Royalty did this and so on. Confusion and so we discuss other issues.

I think this would be a very welcome addition to the site as it would give us an excellent base for discussion.

What do others think?

Best to all,

Hutch

[Sea Eagle]

Hutch,

On the face of it this is an excellent idea, just how we action it I am not sure.

I have tried to make sense of the 'proofs' from the Argentine sources I have read but many of them are contradictory or even factually incorrect, even without the element of interpretation, which I agree is what causes most of the controversy. Many of the sources are also the subject of more 'spin' than Alistair Campbell could conjure up in two lifetimes.

I will give it some consideration and see if I can help with this.

www.falklands.info contains quite a lot of historical stuff but it is raw data mostly straight from the internet, especially in its chronolgy, and does not distinguish in that particular instance between probability, possibility and fact.

Regards,

Ernie

[Hutch]

Thanks Ernie.

I do find it a problem that events are referred to by all sides which it can be hard to dispute/agree with as one does not have the neccessary documents easily there and available. Where better place to put Argentians proofs than on a site like this?

I'm not trying to say that the site owner 'should' do something like this but i do think taht it would improve both the value of the site and the quality of the debate. Argentinas 'proofs' are often referred to yet I would like to see them clearly laid down 'once and for all'. Only then will i-and others-perhaps be able to understand Argentinas claim, without the contradictions that seem to spring up when it is presented in a fragmented way. Sometimes it seems as if the proof jumps from being Spanish, to Argentine, to British and back to Spanish again and i can find it hard to see how this is proof of Argentinas claim. Maybe thats my fault as i can't see the trail they are following. With it clearly laid out then the trail would be clear to all, to Argentinas benefit..

So yes, to chronology, yes to dates, yes to facts, yes to that which would help Argentina to make its case and no to nationalistic rhetoric. A long and tedious job? Perhaps. But if Argentinas ownership is so clear, so obvious, so backed up with facts and truth then surely it could be put together with relative ease? Javier alone has much material I am sure. As i said, take this, create new threads which are sticky and locked and then other new threads could begin to discuss points raised by what was posted. A basis for discussion which Argentines themselves would have as their case.

Hutch

[Sea Eagle]

Hutch,

I am assuming that you have accessed the 'Library' link at the top of the opening page? Hektor has put quite a lot of stuff from the Argentine perspective in there.

He seems to be taking the basics of the claim from 'El Malvinense' site and I would not disagree that this probably briefly defines the basic case from their side.

You have probably seen El Malvinense's postings on the new free side of the FM Forum where he disseminates some of his more crackpot ideas like the 'sinking' of HMS Invincible etc. etc. and shouts loudly at anyone who disagrees with the Argentine view as insulting postings to be deleted. Anyone who disagrees with him and his pals are accused of being an alias of David Glazier for some reason. Poor David not sure why he deserves that. Myself and Clare C--kwell (Amazing, this site will not accept Clares surname!) are exempt for some reason, but he simply will not discuss their case at all and just refers me to some other Argentine source.

I did agree to put some information in the 'Library' from the Falklands perspective then Hektor upped and vanished so I have never pursued access to do this and have also been otherwise occupied. Hektor's good efforts also came to an abrupt end. I guess he is busy with work or with his son but has been absent now since July mores the pity.

Regards,

Ernie