De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[gebhk]

Hi Ijadw

The title was : Pilsudski ''plots'' to be Polish king .

and the significance of the quotation marks has clearly escaped you.

Hi WM

He means (in a hazy way) that Rydz-Śmigły returned (from the safety of his internment) to occupied Poland and it made the Government in Exile nervous.

I get that totally and do not disagree. However, alas, it does not answer my questions. Since Ijadw has consistently failed to provide the evidence that

Rydz-Smigly was forbidden by Sikorski (head of the Polish government in exile ) to return to Poland to command the Army Craiova

I can only assume he made that up. This is all the more likely, because Armia Krajowa (which is what I can only assume he means by his invented name 'Army Craiova') did not come into being until approx 2 months after marsz Rydz-Smigly's death. In any event since it was in gen Sikorski's and only gen Sikorski's gift to appoint the head of the Armia Krajowa and not R-Ss', no such forbidding was necessary.

I have to confess to some puckishness on the subject of the invented name 'Army Craiova' but I am sure our British colleagues would be similarly mildly irked if someone referred to the British Army as the Vrytiś Armia..... It speaks to the reliability of the author as a source of accurate information too, I'm afraid.

[ljadw]

About my statement that in March Poland felt safe and was convinced/convinced itself that Hitler was bluffing, A.J.P. Taylor said the same in ''English History 1914-1945 '' on P 541 of my Penguin Book copy =
''though they ( the Poles )were negotiating secretly over Danzig (the Free City created in 1919 ) they believed that they could hold their own in these negotiations without outside assistance .''
Note the words ''negotiations '' and ''outside assistance ''.
Negotiations means : no war, no threat of war.
Outside assistance means that they did not need the help of B + F in these negotiations .
And, on the same page, one can read the following :
''On 31 March Chamberlain wrote an assurance to the Poles with his own hands :if their independence was threatened,''HMG and the French Government would at once lend them all the support in their power .''
Of course the French Government was not consulted before the assurance was written .
If their independence was threatened, did not mean :in case of war,but : if Hitler threatened you with war .
Poland did not ask for this assurance,as Poland did not need it :before 31 March Poland said no to Hitler's demands ,without the guarantee,and Hitler did not attack . Thus,there was no objective reason at all for the guarantee against a non existent danger .
The real ,but hidden reason ,was not to lose too many marginal constituencies in the elections which were planned for the Autumn .

[Gorque]

But the fact remains that Applebaum ,a left winger ( she worked for the Washington Post ) criticized Duranty and the NYT for their lies about the famine .

Strange, Ms Applebaum was, for a short while, a member of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

Who you work for does not determine your political leanings, e.g. George F Will writes for the Washington Post as does Hugh Hewitt.

Who you work for does not determine your political leanings, but your political leanings determine who you work for . If she was a right winger she would not work for the Wapo,
And why did Applebaum leave the American Enterprise Institute ? Because it was pro Brexit .
Applebaum is hostile to Putin , Trump, Johnson, Brexit, the PIS, nationalism : that makes her a left winger .

Ah yes. I've noticed you've conveniently neglected George Will and Hugh Hewitt. Definite Left-wingers.

So Putinism is good. Good to know about your feelings about Soviet revanchism.

And about Will : in 2016 he said that Hillary was better than Trump and in 2020 he said that he would vote for Biden .
Will a conservative ????
He works for the Wapo .
The Wapo conservative ??? It is anti Israel,thus anti Semitic.Thus conservative ???

Once again, who you work for does not equate to your political leanings. Will is an old fashioned conservative and not a Trump Republican.

And Hewitt : he lives in the past thinking it is the duty of the US to intervene everywhere on this planet to impose by force its values, at the cost of the American taxpayer .

And that makes Hewitt a...?

[Gorque]

"BTW: I posted the NY Times article from 1926 that you referred to earlier; kindly show us the Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Leftist/(have I forgotten one?) tilt in the article."

So...I'm still waiting. Where is your rebuttal?

I am waiting to see the proof that I said that the article from 1926 was Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Leftist .
I have used this article as a proof that the NYT operated as a tabloid .

Well here you go again.

About the NYT : would the present Polish PM give an interview to the Guardian or the Independent, two left wing anti Poland newspapers ?
Why did Rydz give an interview to a pro communist US journalist from a pro communist US tabloid ( the NYT )?
The NYT was pro communist ,as it did hide intentionally the news about the famine in the USSR (the famine was not limited to Ukraine ) and the news was generally known : my father knew it from one of his teachers .
The NYT was nothing more than a tabloid :
examples
In October 1926 it claimed, without proofs,that Pilsudski was plotting to become king of Poland ..
In September 1941 (US were still neutral ) it claimed that Germany had lost in the Polish campaign 90000 dead and 200000 wounded (Polish propaganda figures ) although every one knows that only German figures can be used for German KIA and WIA and Polish figures for Polish KIA and WIA , etc .
About Rydz : after the defeat he blamed Pilsudski and was forbidden by Sikorski (head of the Polish government in exile ) to return to Poland to command the Army Craiova.

From post # 392 of this thread

[Gorque]

Is it to troll to say that the positions from Churchill and De Gaulle before the war,made what they said,totally irrelevant ?
De Gaulle was a discredited colonel of the French Army (you know how many colonels there were in France in 1939 ? )and I see that you have no notion of the opinions of the political parties about Churchill :
for the Tories he was a traitor and an intriguer:they had not forgotten what he had done between 1929 and 1931
for Labour he was only a disguised fascist ( he had supported Mussolini ) and had ordered the police to shoot on strikers
for the Liberals he was an old fashioned racist imperialist
for the intellectuals he was a warmonger
the public opinion had not forgotten his role in the abdication crisis.

Considering Churchill's past posts held and his current posting as a long-term MP, calling his opinion "irrelevant" borders upon ignorance. As far as De Gaulle is concerned, he was a forward thinking staff officer in the 30's who was also promoting, much like Guderian, the use of tanks and mechanization for the French Army. Once again, to render his opinions within the defense establishment "irrelevant," borders on ignorance.

Is it to troll to say that Mary Heaton Vorse was an ultra left American journalist whose writings about the situation in Europe were determined by her political opinions ?

Yes it is. What does her political leanings have to do she quoted Rydzs Smygly?? She was INTERVIEWING Rydzs Smygly and quoted what he SAID. Think about this. Did the New York Times retract her story because she misquoted Rydzs Smygly? The only person whose judgement is clouded by their political beliefs and preconceived notions is you.

Is it to troll to say that Vansittart was fired at the demand of Eden ?
And what was the opinion of Eden about his POSS ?
Eden said : "he is not balanced and in such a continual state of nerves that he will end up making would-be aggressors think the more of us as a potential victim. '' (source is Rhodes James )

There you go again Ludo, moving the goal posts again.

You stated "he did not represent HMG and was fired by Eden in 1938 and what he said were only assumptions,without any proof"

For your information, after his dismissal, Vansitarrt was given a newly created position of "Chief Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty's Government" in which he served until 1941. Did you conveniently forget the bolded first part of your statement???

About Vansittart: on 9 October 1937,Chamberlain wrote in his letter to his sister Hilda that Vansittart was a man whose '' instincts were all against my policy ''
The source is John Charmley :Chamberlain and the Lost Peace P 34 and Note 11 on P 216.
The obvious conclusion is that after he was fired, Vansittart did not represent the views of the British Government and that his newly created position represented nothing .Unless you think that the British PM would use as his representant someone whose instincts were all against the policy of the PM.
There is even no proof that when Eden became again Foreign Secretary, he listened to/asked the opinions of Vansittart .

A nice quote, but how does it disprove the fact that Vansitartt and Drax were entrusted not only with negotiating with the Soviets in the summer of 1939, but also that he held the position of "Chief Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty's Government"?

[Gorque]

And, from Spartacus-Educational (Title :Robert Vansittart )
''In January 1938,Vansittart was ''kicked upstairs''assuming the high-sounding,but politically meaningless,title of chief diplomatic adviser to the government .''

It might be meaningless, but he was still in the employ of H.M. government nor does it explain away his being entrusted with negotiating with the Soviets in the summer of 1939.

[wm]

Rydz-Smigly was forbidden by Sikorski (head of the Polish government in exile ) to return to Poland to command the Army Craiova

I can only assume he made that up. This is all the more likely, because Armia Krajowa (which is what I can only assume he means by his invented name 'Army Craiova') did not come into being until approx 2 months after marsz Rydz-Smigly's death. In any event since it was in gen Sikorski's and only gen Sikorski's gift to appoint the head of the Armia Krajowa and not R-Ss', no such forbidding was necessary.

The truth is Armia Krajowa and the earlier ZWZ were run by Rydz-Śmigly's political enemies.
There was no place there for him, a disgraced leader, even as a foot soldier.
Rydz-Śmigly, an intelligent man, knew that and intended to support an independent group based on the disgraced too, Sanacja.

Sikorski merely advised Rydz-Śmigly that he should have left occupied Poland for political reasons - certainly didn't forbid him anything.

[wm]

Using an article from 1928 to debunk an article from 1926 will not convince people .
The FACT is that on October 26 1926 the NYT titled : Pilsudski ''plots '' to be Polish king .
And there was no proof on October 1926 for this claim .

Polish monarchists existed in 1928 and 1926, and they exist even today.

The story is that the Piłsudski's meeting with Prince Radziwiłł (to court his favors) - a former hard-core socialist (his brother took part in a plot to assassinate the Tsar with a brother of Lenin) with a representative of aristocracy sent political shockwaves through Poland.
People didn't know what to think about it.
That's why the Times wrote, "hundreds of Poles in Warsaw tonight expressed the belief."

It's a well-known story, and nothing fake in the article - as seen by contemporary observers.

[ljadw]

"BTW: I posted the NY Times article from 1926 that you referred to earlier; kindly show us the Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Leftist/(have I forgotten one?) tilt in the article."

So...I'm still waiting. Where is your rebuttal?

I am waiting to see the proof that I said that the article from 1926 was Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Leftist .
I have used this article as a proof that the NYT operated as a tabloid .

Well here you go again.

About the NYT : would the present Polish PM give an interview to the Guardian or the Independent, two left wing anti Poland newspapers ?
Why did Rydz give an interview to a pro communist US journalist from a pro communist US tabloid ( the NYT )?
The NYT was pro communist ,as it did hide intentionally the news about the famine in the USSR (the famine was not limited to Ukraine ) and the news was generally known : my father knew it from one of his teachers .
The NYT was nothing more than a tabloid :
examples
In October 1926 it claimed, without proofs,that Pilsudski was plotting to become king of Poland ..
In September 1941 (US were still neutral ) it claimed that Germany had lost in the Polish campaign 90000 dead and 200000 wounded (Polish propaganda figures ) although every one knows that only German figures can be used for German KIA and WIA and Polish figures for Polish KIA and WIA , etc .
About Rydz : after the defeat he blamed Pilsudski and was forbidden by Sikorski (head of the Polish government in exile ) to return to Poland to command the Army Craiova.

From post # 392 of this thread

I am pleased that you agree with what I said : I said that the article from October 1926 was on the level of a tabloid,I did not say that this article proved the communist sympathies from the NYT .
The pro communist sympathies from the NYT are proved by the articles from Duranty who intentionally did hide the fact that there was a famine in Russia .
That it was also a tabloid is proved by the Article of October 1926 .
Two different things in two different articles (series of articles ) .
Be more careful in the future .

[wm]

Is that true that the NY Times did hide the fact that there was a famine in Russia?
No.

Screen Shot 2022-01-15 at 19.16.54.png

Screen Shot 2022-01-15 at 19.18.02.png

Screen Shot 2022-01-15 at 19.15.45.png

Screen Shot 2022-01-15 at 19.21.45.png

[ljadw]

Is it to troll to say that the positions from Churchill and De Gaulle before the war,made what they said,totally irrelevant ?
De Gaulle was a discredited colonel of the French Army (you know how many colonels there were in France in 1939 ? )and I see that you have no notion of the opinions of the political parties about Churchill :
for the Tories he was a traitor and an intriguer:they had not forgotten what he had done between 1929 and 1931
for Labour he was only a disguised fascist ( he had supported Mussolini ) and had ordered the police to shoot on strikers
for the Liberals he was an old fashioned racist imperialist
for the intellectuals he was a warmonger
the public opinion had not forgotten his role in the abdication crisis.

Considering Churchill's past posts held and his current posting as a long-term MP, calling his opinion "irrelevant" borders upon ignorance. As far as De Gaulle is concerned, he was a forward thinking staff officer in the 30's who was also promoting, much like Guderian, the use of tanks and mechanization for the French Army. Once again, to render his opinions within the defense establishment "irrelevant," borders on ignorance.

Is it to troll to say that Mary Heaton Vorse was an ultra left American journalist whose writings about the situation in Europe were determined by her political opinions ?

Yes it is. What does her political leanings have to do she quoted Rydzs Smygly?? She was INTERVIEWING Rydzs Smygly and quoted what he SAID. Think about this. Did the New York Times retract her story because she misquoted Rydzs Smygly? The only person whose judgement is clouded by their political beliefs and preconceived notions is you.

Is it to troll to say that Vansittart was fired at the demand of Eden ?
And what was the opinion of Eden about his POSS ?
Eden said : "he is not balanced and in such a continual state of nerves that he will end up making would-be aggressors think the more of us as a potential victim. '' (source is Rhodes James )

There you go again Ludo, moving the goal posts again.

You stated "he did not represent HMG and was fired by Eden in 1938 and what he said were only assumptions,without any proof"

For your information, after his dismissal, Vansitarrt was given a newly created position of "Chief Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty's Government" in which he served until 1941. Did you conveniently forget the bolded first part of your statement???

About Vansittart: on 9 October 1937,Chamberlain wrote in his letter to his sister Hilda that Vansittart was a man whose '' instincts were all against my policy ''
The source is John Charmley :Chamberlain and the Lost Peace P 34 and Note 11 on P 216.
The obvious conclusion is that after he was fired, Vansittart did not represent the views of the British Government and that his newly created position represented nothing .Unless you think that the British PM would use as his representant someone whose instincts were all against the policy of the PM.
There is even no proof that when Eden became again Foreign Secretary, he listened to/asked the opinions of Vansittart .

A nice quote, but how does it disprove the fact that Vansitartt and Drax were entrusted not only with negotiating with the Soviets in the summer of 1939, but also that he held the position of "Chief Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty's Government"?

1 Vansittart and Drax were not going to Moscow to negotiate with the Soviets,as HMG knew very well that the Soviets could not and would not help .Not to prevent a war.Not to help Poland if there was a war .They could not do it even if they wanted and they would not want to do it even if they could .There were no negotiations between B+ F and the Soviets .
It was all keeping up appearances .
They went to Moscow ,wasting their time, only for political domestic reasons ,which were that Lloyd George ( who hated Chamberlain ) and Churchill demanded in the Commons that the government should send a mission to Moscow to have Russia (= the Red Army ) on its side when war broke out .If there was a possibility that this could happen, Halifax would go to Moscow . But he knew that it was only a wast of time.
2 The title from Vansittart does not mean that he had any political influence :the title was only hollow words .
Chamberlain knew very well what the opinion was of Vansittart .See his letter to his sister and it was out of the question that the Chief Diplomatic Adviser to his Majesty's Government would play a role .No one took any notion of Vansittart .
Other point : if the opposite had occurred = 1 September attack by the Soviets,17 September intervention by Hitler to prevent the Soviets from taking Danzig and West Prussia,would the situation have been different ?
NO ,of course: Drax, Vansittart and Doumenc would go to Berlin . Poland would refuse any German help and Hitler would ask what would be his reward if he intervened .
And the wokes who blamed Stalin and Chamberlain,would now blame Hitler and Chamberlain .
Already in 1938,Churchill was talking ,bombastly as usual,about the Great Alliance (B+ F and the USSR )
and Chamberlain wrote to his sister: ''the Plan of the Grand Alliance,as Winston calls it,is a very attractive idea,till you examine its practicability.From that moment its attraction vanishes .''
Source : Churchill The Greatest Briton unmasked (Nigel Knight ) P 80 Note 15 .
And, was the situation of Poland better in 1939 ? Of course not .
There was nothing Britain and France could do to prevent Hitler from attacking Poland .And there was nothing they could do to prevent Hitler from defeating Poland .

[ljadw]

And, from Spartacus-Educational (Title :Robert Vansittart )
''In January 1938,Vansittart was ''kicked upstairs''assuming the high-sounding,but politically meaningless,title of chief diplomatic adviser to the government .''

It might be meaningless, but he was still in the employ of H.M. government nor does it explain away his being entrusted with negotiating with the Soviets in the summer of 1939.

There would be no negotiations with the Soviets, only blah blah as every one knew that the Soviets could and would do nothing to help Poland .

[henryk]

Is that true that the NY Times did hide the fact that there was a famine in Russia?
No.

Screen Shot 2022-01-15 at 19.16.54.pngScreen Shot 2022-01-15 at 19.18.02.pngScreen Shot 2022-01-15 at 19.15.45.pngScreen Shot 2022-01-15 at 19.21.45.png

Yes, they did!
My post #3 6 Feb 2019

https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/24/ne ... est-1930s/
How The New York Times Contributed To Ukraine’s ‘Bitter Harvest’ In The 1930s

Joseph Stalin received great publicity, the New York Times published exclusive interviews with Stalin, and Walter Duranty could live glamorously. Everyone benefitted but starving Ukranians.

By Eugene Veklerov March 24, 2017

Canadian filmmakers have just released a movie titled “Bitter Harvest” that recreates a tragic chapter in Ukrainian history. Ukraine suffered a devastating famine in the early 1930s that left millions of people dead. The movie portrays a story of two lovers struggling to survive during that dark period.

But this article is not a film review. Rather, it is a peek into how the American mainstream media covered these events some 85 years ago.

There is no consensus among historians as to the extent and causes of the famine. The estimates vary widely between 2.5 and 10 million people. In 2006, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law recognizing the famine as an intentional act of genocide by the Communist regime against the Ukrainian people. The current Russian government argues Communist Joseph Stalin’s disastrous economic policies caused the famine, but rejects the argument that it was a genocide specifically targeting ethnic Ukrainians.

Regardless of that dispute, the famine was definitely a tragedy of enormous proportions. Now, imagine that you live in the United States in the early 1930s and get your news from The New York Times (NYT). What do you know about this tragedy? The short answer is nothing.

The New York Times, Apologist for Communist Murder

The head of the NYT’s Moscow bureau at that time was Walter Duranty, an apologist for Bolshevism. American left-wing intellectuals enthusiastically greeted his dispatches from the Soviet Union. In 1931, Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles in the NYT that covered up Stalinism’s atrocities.

He vociferously denied the existence of the famine in Ukraine, claiming people were “hungry but not starving” and “there is no famine or actual starvation.” Some other Western journalists covering the USSR honestly reported on the famine. One of them was the Manchester Guardian’s Moscow correspondent Gareth Jones, but Duranty tried to discredit Jones’ reports, calling him a liar.

Other Western intellectuals denied the famine in Ukraine in the 1930s, including notably George Bernard Shaw. Some were duped—perhaps willingly—by their KGB handlers who showed them Potemkin’s villages. Duranty’s case had more sinister twists, because we know he was aware of the famine. According to his biography, titled “Stalin’s Apologist,” by Sally J. Taylor, Duranty admitted this when he visited the British embassy in Moscow in June 1932. An embassy official duly recorded his conversation with Duranty to that effect and dispatched his report to the British Foreign Office in London.

Money Hides a Lot of Other People’s Woes

We do not know what drove his desire to spread the fake news, but it may be related to his lifestyle in Russia. Taylor describes it as follows. He was a flamboyant lady’s man enjoying a life of luxury by both Russian and Western standards of that time. He had a researcher, a secretary, a chauffeur, a maid, and a cook.

A surreal aspect of Duranty’s life in Russia was his fondness for fine dining. Here is an excerpt from his description of meals available in a restaurant near his hotel: “caviar; … grilled salmon and roast partridge; … fine Russian cheese, hot-house grapes, old port and older cognac.” The NYT was willing to pay for all these amenities because Duranty managed to get exclusive interviews with Stalin. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement for all parties involved: Stalin received a good publicity in the West, the NYT published exclusive interviews with Stalin, which helped its circulation, while Duranty could lead his glamorous and lavish lifestyle.

It was mutually beneficial for all parties—that is, except for the millions of Ukrainian peasants.

The ending of this saga is rather cynical. In 2003, Ukrainian organizations petitioned the Pulitzer Board to posthumously revoke Duranty’s prize. After deliberation, the board extended its “sympathy to Ukrainians … who still mourn the suffering and deaths brought on by Josef Stalin,” but rejected the symbolic petition, claiming that it could not find “clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception.”

Duranty and his employer simply spread fake news while millions of people were dying. Their role was akin to that of a musical band that knows people in the next room are tortured and murdered, so they play loud music to drown out their screams, thus preventing outsiders from trying to help the victims.

Eugene Veklerov was born in Russia and moved to the US in 1976. He has worked in a University of California research laboratory in the area of applied mathematics. Concurrently, he has taught several classes in computer science. Additionally, he is interested in modern history and connecting it to current events.

[wm]

Eugene Veklerov? That right-wing propagandist?

By Walter Duranty.wireless To the New York Times.

Screen Shot 2022-01-15 at 21.34.44.png

I didn't say Duranty didn't write nonsense.
The point is The Times published many reports from various correspondents and sources. Duranty was just one of them.
If you wanted to know you would know the truth.
And it didn't matter if millions of Ukrainian peasants died or not. The articles were small and not front-page news.
Nobody cared about it and even naked truth wouldn't change it.

Everybody interviewed Stalin or met with him. From Churchill to Wendell Willkie.
It's absurd to hold against Duranty he did it too.

[gebhk]

Seeing a lot of evidence for the proposition that NYT was reporting the Hlodomor while all we have in favour of the opposite is 'blah'. Just sayin....