Talk:Western betrayal/Archive 1

message: I like it. Can't wait till it's ready. I've got one question:
Needless to say, Polish government was notifed of this decision and the Polish-British talks in London were continued.
It was or was not notified? Kpalion 23:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Was not.Halibutt
Don't forget to correct it then. Anyway, I suppose it would be also good to mention the public opinion in France and Britain before and at the beginning of the war. Especially the famous article by a French socialist Marcel Déat Mourir pour Dantzig ? (note the t in the French spelling) published on the first page of L'Oeuvre on May 4, 1939.
--Kpalion 12:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Two things you may want to add somewhere:
* Polish contribution to World War II, as a proof of what Poland did to help the Western Allies
* Polish government in exile, with special regard to the United States and the United Kingdom withdrew their recognition on 6 July 1945. The Polish armed forces in exile were disbanded in 1945 and most of their members, unable to return to Communist Poland, settled in other countries. The London Poles had to leave the embassy on Portland Place and were left only with the president's private residence at 43 Eaton Place. The government in exile then became largely symbolic, serving mainly to symbolise the continued resistance to foreign occupation of Poland, and retaining control of some important archives from pre-war Poland
----
I like it too!
The English language is better justified by a native speaker, I will not mess with your text.
I miss a few aspects (none of which I hold to be very important):
*The Russo-British talks (those obsoleted by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).
**How does this add to the main betrayal topic?Halibutt
*The actual posibility that France and Britain had promised more than they could live up to (alternatively, that a more fullblown attack in the West could have led to an even worse outcome of the World War).
**I'll add acounter-arguments tab at the end of the article in which all such concepts will be explainedHalibutt
*at least a hint at the Polish foreign policy, by many representatives for Westeuropean Public Opinion and governments, was considered too much of aggressive nationalist in all directions (Chechoslovakia, Russia, Germany), too much unaccommodating, and a tendency in many camps to see Hitler's demands not as attempts to provoke a war but to correct errors from the Versaille Peace.
**How does this add to the article? It's not about all of polish foreign policy in the interbellum.Halibutt
*a reference to the Randstaat-policy and to anti-Bolshevist tendencies (shared with many French and British)
**Never heard of. Could you elaborate?Halibutt
*a one-sentence (or a half-sentence) reference to similar feelings of betrayal in Finland (a country in much in a similar position as Poland prior to the war, minus the treaties).
**Tab added and question asked at Talk:History of Finland and Talk:Winter War. Hopefully someone will drop in.Halibutt
I think you've better knowledge than I have. It's a long time since I read about these matters.
--Ruhrjung 10:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early remarks 

message: I followed the link from the discussion of the History of Ukraine page, so you'll get the Ukrainian side... As for the Ukrainians, the case was more that none of the Allies took up their cause in the first place, so it wasn't much of a betrayal. Ethnic Ukrainian territory was split between the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire prior to WWI; attempts at independence in both regions lasted no more than a couple of years, as the Bolsheviks, the Russian White army, and the Poles were all against Ukrainian independence. Polish nationalism saw Lwów (Ukr: L'viv) and all of Galicia as a part of Poland, and refused to recognise Ukrainian nationalist aspirations. Neither did the Russians (both Reds and Whites). And it seems that none of the Allies actually gave much thought to the Ukrainians at all--the Ukrainians had no reason to feel betrayed by Allied policy, because they offered no hope in the first place. So Ukraine's case is very different from that of Poland or Czechoslovakia or all the other Central European states that the Allies recognised. This is important to see in order to understand why the Germans were initially welcomed as liberators in both Polish- and Soviet-ruled Ukraine, and why the Ukrainians were so radicalised as to commit bloody ethnic cleansing of Poles in Galicia during WWII. It's not a pretty history, and it does complicate the narrative of Poland as simply a victim in WWII. --Iceager 09:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine 

message: Should Baltics be included? I can provide the information. Andris 22:15, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
: I think it would be a good idea. If it doesn't fit the article we can always make a separate article about it later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Baltics