4 ms·

It was an attempt of the Polish resistance to avoid being "liberated" by the Soviets to just immediately become occupied by the communist red army. The idea bei

by spwa4 6mo ago

It was an attempt of the Polish resistance to avoid being "liberated" by the Soviets to just immediately become occupied by the communist red army. The idea being to liberate Warsaw and get US/UK assistance through the Polish government-in-exile in London to establish Polish military control before the Soviet army arrived. Getting US/UK support could have meant that Poland remained an independent state. Instead, Stalin not only betrayed them, but later actually convicted the surviving leaders of the uprising. "Crimes against communism". This is now politely referred to as a Soviet betrayal in service of "Stalin's post-war political goals for Poland".

expedition32 6mo ago
The West aren't entirely the good guys here. My own city was liberated by Polish troops. After WW2 they obviously couldn't go back to Poland. A lot of them ended up in relative poverty after the war. At least Canadians and Australians went back home and got a parade.
- 0rzech 6mo ago
  Yes, that was awful. Not to mention pushing Poland into Eastern Bloc and then putting embargoes on it.
  - spwa4 6mo ago
    It was definitely Soviets/Stalin that started conquering and this was a western reaction to it. The Yalta conference was an attempt to appease Stalin and give Russia the conquests it wanted (it's not like they appeased someone else 10 years before leading to the incredible disaster, arguably the biggest disaster in human history, or anything like that. But not giving up Eastern Europe would have likely meant war with the Soviets right then and there) It was a choice between giving up a lot, not just Poland, and continued war. Must have sucked pretty damn badly if you were one of the things given up to Stalin, but ...
    - 0rzech 6mo ago
      We can only guess if it would mean war or not, but it looks like Churchill assumed it would, given he tried to campaign for taking Poland from USSR by force. I know that not only Poland was sold. It was a horrible betrayal in both how it was done and in its outcomes. Embargoing those countries by the West, which the same West has sold to Stalin in the first place, was just a cherry on top.

by spwa4 6mo ago

expedition32 6mo ago

The West aren't entirely the good guys here. My own city was liberated by Polish troops. After WW2 they obviously couldn't go back to Poland. A lot of them ended up in relative poverty after the war. At least Canadians and Australians went back home and got a parade.

0rzech 6mo ago
Yes, that was awful. Not to mention pushing Poland into Eastern Bloc and then putting embargoes on it.
- spwa4 6mo ago
  It was definitely Soviets/Stalin that started conquering and this was a western reaction to it. The Yalta conference was an attempt to appease Stalin and give Russia the conquests it wanted (it's not like they appeased someone else 10 years before leading to the incredible disaster, arguably the biggest disaster in human history, or anything like that. But not giving up Eastern Europe would have likely meant war with the Soviets right then and there) It was a choice between giving up a lot, not just Poland, and continued war. Must have sucked pretty damn badly if you were one of the things given up to Stalin, but ...
  - 0rzech 6mo ago
    We can only guess if it would mean war or not, but it looks like Churchill assumed it would, given he tried to campaign for taking Poland from USSR by force. I know that not only Poland was sold. It was a horrible betrayal in both how it was done and in its outcomes. Embargoing those countries by the West, which the same West has sold to Stalin in the first place, was just a cherry on top.