2013 - April Theme Read - Poland in WW2

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

This was a touching story of one small action in Arnhem by the Poles, from page 170:

(view spoiler)[In one of the houses, the Poles were surprised to find the Kremer family and some neighbors still hiding in the cellar. Mrs Kremer spoke a little Polish, and she befriended some of the men. They vowed to make their final stand outside the stairwell so as not to endanger the lives of the civilians. In the morning they were found dead, outside the door to the stairway. (hide spoiler)]

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Fo those interested in some additional information on the Warsaw Uprising along with some great photographs (photograph gallery at bottom of page), check out this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_U...

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

One thing that I noticed about this book was the lack of anything other than a few lines on page 202 about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. There has been some suggestion that the majority of Poles were happy to let the Germans wipe out the Jewish Ghetto. For more information on the Ghetto Uprising check this link out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_G...

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I found this first-hand account of the aftermath of the Warsaw Uprising very interesting and not one that I had read about previously. From page 220, concerning the surrender of some AK members to German forces:

(view spoiler)[Czeslaw Korzycki recalled one rather surprising incident. As his men assembled, he noticed an SS officer approach another group of SS men and they began pointing fingers in the direction of Korzycki and Wigry Battalion. "I was thinking that I did not know which way to run. The Gestapo had been after me for years and I thought they were going to arrest me. Then they told us to move in that direction, and I heard a loud 'click'. I looked and they were saluting us." While the Allies had abandoned them and the Soviets had left them for dead, the elite fighting men of the Waffen SS recognized the Herculean efforts of their struggle, and in their darkest moment offered the Poles a sincere gesture of respect and dignity in surrender. (hide spoiler)]

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

What do others think about the authors comment in the post above about the Warsaw Uprising that; " ... While the Allies had abandoned them ..."?

Did the Allies really abandon them, what avenues were available to the Allies to assist the Poles in Warsaw once Stalin had refused their requests to land their aircraft after dropping supplies?

Was it a case of politics’ in not upsetting the Russians until Germany had been defeated or just plain logistics?

[Colin]

The reasons were simple. During both uprising (1943 Jewish and 1944 General) these events tied up two and three German divisions respectively. Bombing Warsaw would only have killed cvilians and Germans. The Soviets were, in 1944 were less then 100 km away, and could have driven into the area and attacked from the flank. Stalin decided to let the Germans root out the Poles, making any future gains and occupation easier. Also, by making the Poles a cause celebre by proxy, it galvanized the Free Polish Army fighting with the Western Allies.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

There have always been suggestions that the Poles started the uprising without letting the Russians into the details and that the Russians were caught unawares and at the end of a long logistical pipeline and as such couldn’t help. David Glantz states:

" ... the Red Army was simply unable to extend effective support to the uprising, which began too early, regardless of Stalin's political intentions. German military capabilities in August—early September were sufficient to halt any Soviet assistance to the Poles in Warsaw, were it intended. In addition, Glantz argued that Warsaw would be a costly city to clear of Germans and an unsuitable location as a start point for subsequent Red Army offensives." - Taken from The Soviet-German War 1941–1945: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay (2001)

Here is a link to his lecture on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27...

Although the author in this book makes a good argument that Stalin wanted the Poles crushed by the Germans to make it easier to enforce his regime upon Poland. I think it could be a case of a bit of both scenarios, what do other members think?

[Mike, Assisting Moderator US Forces]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "There have always been suggestions that the Poles started the uprising without letting the Russians into the details and that the Russians were caught unawares and at the end of a long logistical...David Glantz states:

" ... the Red Army was simply unable to extend effective support to the uprising, which began too early, regardless of Stalin's political intentions...In addition, Glantz argued that Warsaw would be a costly city to clear of Germans and an unsuitable location as a start point for subsequent Red Army offensives."

They could have surrounded Warsaw like other places and not spent forces clearing the city. On the other hand, the Soviets didn't seem to have a problem with the blood price of Berlin. My opinion is that Stalin was fighting a different war than the other Allies. His was a political struggle for victory while the west was fighting for a military victory. Stalin wanted a subjugated, communist-led buffer so the USSR would not border a future enemy. I'm sure he had no problem letting the Germans stamp out any courageous Pole that could give Stalin problems in the future. Your Glantz quote makes me think I won't miss reading his work.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Hi Mike, some good points and I think you are very much on the money in your statement: "His was a political struggle for victory while the west was fighting for a military victory."

I'm of the opinion that both factors; that is, Stalin was happy for the Polish fighters to be decimated for him and also logistical difficulties for the Red Army played into the decision in regards to Warsaw. I think the Soviets re-grouping and catching their breath made it a very easy decision for him to allow the Poles to fight alone.

[A.L.]

While we're talking about uprisings in Warsaw, here's an article about a diary written by someone in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04...

Mike and Rick, you've both made good points about the 1944 uprising. I haven't read a ton about it, but my thoughts were something along the lines of the Soviets saying "How convenient, our enemies are killing off our potential enemies. And we kind of need to regroup right now, so we'll just wait here and let them finish each other off..."

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I think that's about right A.L.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I have read previously about the shabby treatment handed out to the Polish veterans by the Allies at the end of WW2 including their forces not being invited to participate in the Victory parade in London in 1945 - how offensive that must have been to those brave Poles who gave so much to the Allied cause.

What I was not aware of until I read this book was the number of AK members killed by the Russians (from page 245 of No Greater Alley):

"In fact, following the war, some 150,000 AK fighters were sentenced to death by the Soviets."


"For your freedom and ours"

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

A.L. wrote: "While we're talking about uprisings in Warsaw, here's an article about a diary written by someone in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04......"

I'm with A.L on this. If one looks at the Russian tactics before and during there is power and force available to provide the uprising with various degrees of support. I accept Glantz is a author of great repute but for me I don't accept his whole reasoning; especially when the western Allies had the capability to support the uprising logistically in greater numbers than the RAF's night flights via UK/Italy but were refused any support from Russia to conduct this. A complex area and clearly still debated today by better minds than mine.

[Gerald]

A.L. wrote: "While we're talking about uprisings in Warsaw, here's an article about a diary written by someone in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04......"

I have read a couple of books that discuss the Soviet reaction to the Warsaw Uprising. I read Geoffrey Roberts's "Stalin's General." If I remember correctly, Roberts found evidence that Zhukov was actively considering how to "liberate" Warsaw. The Soviets crossed the Vistula north of the city and attempted to fight their way south, but German resistance and supply issues were insurmountable. Andrew Roberts says something similar in "The Storm of War." I do not think that the issue is as black and white as it was once thought to be. Certainly, the Germans did the Soviets a favor by killing people whom the Soviets would have felt obliged to kill. However, I think that the Soviets did attempt to enter Warsaw when the uprising began.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Thanks Gerald - I've yet to read Geoffrey's book:

by Geoffrey Roberts

He is a group member too so may be able to offer further insight.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I can't disagree with anything said above, a very complex and emotive subject for sure.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

How are you going with the book Geevee? I didn't want to rate it till everyone who is reading the same book has had a chance to finish it.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

I finished it tonight and (oops) rated it but haven't written my review yet.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I will look forward to you're review Geevee :)

I don't want to say anything else at the moment as I know A.L. is still rading the book.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Geevee wrote: "I finished it tonight and (oops) rated it but haven't written my review yet."

It looks like we are on the same page with this book in regards to rating!

[A.L.]

Rick and Geevee, don’t worry about waiting for me to finish. I’m reading at an abysmally slow rate so far this month (I think abysmally should be the word of the week for this group) and I don’t want to hold anyone up! Between the excerpts posted and my own reading, I’m of the opinion that the author is passionate about the subject, but not always objective. I’m not hating the book or anything—I’ve read some interesting things in it, but it’s not headed for my all time favorite list either.

Also, one of these days I really need to do some reading on the 1944 Warsaw uprising and the Soviet involvement (or lack of involvement). Thank you everyone, for your insights on that topic.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I think you have hit the nail on the head there A.L. I tend to agree that the author is very passionate about the subject and rightly so considering the injustice done to these brave men & women but I think his objectivity could be questioned in some instances. What’s your opinion Geevee?

I have enjoyed the book and learnt a few things along the way but it's not what I would classify as a great read.

[Bracken]

A.L. wrote: "Rick and Geevee, don’t worry about waiting for me to finish. I’m reading at an abysmally slow rate so far this month (I think abysmally should be the word of the week for this group) and I don’t wa..."

You know, this is a topic I come to frequently - especially in context of reading history. It's requisite for people to be passionate about something for them to fully comprehend it - yet that same passion also tends to make objectivity impossible; something that is rather necessary in copious amounts when writing about history.

A prime example would be of what I call the Stephen Ambrose movement in military history - Ambrose was not a historian - he was a biographer. Similar lessons might be learned from Glantz - who went from being so blandly objective to turning his research and writing into a sort of Russophile ideological crusade.

Yet another example would be Winston Churchill's WWII history. He's a great personality; but he uses dry lies so often it's hard to consider his works as history. The man could paint a lie more convincingly than he could a truth. He's a manipulative genius.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

I would add David Lloyd George to the list in the Churchill vein too.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I think you have hit the nail on the head there A.L. I tend to agree that the author is very passionate about the subject and rightly so considering the injustice done to these brave men & women bu..."

I think you both have summed up my views nicely - a 3-star book with some great information and some less well crafted arguments and views.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Good point Bracken and good examples in regards to Stephen Ambrose and David Glantz. You have to admire the research and effort Glantz's puts into his books but they are not a readers delight!

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Has anyone else picked up a book covering Poland during WW2? If so let us know what your reading and how it is going.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Polish Spitfire IX in Rimini, autumn 1944:

[Charles]

One I keep looking at in the bookshops but have never bought (may soon though) is Wojtek the Bear: Polish War Hero.

Wojtek was a bear cub who became a unit mascot in the Polish Army, serving as an ammunition carrier among other things!

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Glad you mentioned Wojtek, the Polish 'soldier' bear, here is a link that is quite interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_(...

Let us know if you do get a copy of this book and what it is like.

by Aileen Orr

I dare say it will be a very interesting account.

[A.L.]

So what does everyone think about post-war Poland? Was it inevitable, given the size of the Red Army? Or do you think diplomacy could have improved their situation if Churchill and Roosevelt were firm and united?

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

That's a very good question A.L. I think that Roosevelt really wasn't all that interested in post war Europe. Churchill saw the danger Stalin possed but didn't have the resources to stop him so made the best deal possible under the circumstances. I'm not sure that even if Roosevelt and Churchill both decided to act together and stop Stalin if their Chiefs of Staff would have agreed - trying to convince their men to take on a new enemy in Europe once that war was finished and still have the campaign against Japan to be completed might have been very hard but I suppose not impossible. What do others think?

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Good question A.L. I think it was inevitable as exhaustion/war weariness/rationing/debt/public opinion and elections all played their part. Certainly Britain was affected by all of the above and the US (and Britain) surely would not have had the public willingness to enter upon another war once Japan had been defeated.

I think too that whilst the allied public may not have fully grasped the numbers of divisions deployed and level of the casualties the Russians took the politicians certainly understood and what they would face if trying to wrest Poland from Stalin's grasp (and with communism in the ascendant in Europe, China, North Korea etc in the years immediately after 1945 making it potentially wider than war with Russia).

Finally the bomb? Again I can't see how Truman could have realistically - even if he had ever wanted to - drop the weapon on a former ally so soon after May 1945.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Very good answer Geevee, hit the nail on the head I dare say :)

[Charles]

Other factors to consider - the crippling financial debt that the UK found itself under post-war to the US may have made any decision to "Push on to Moscow" unpalatable to Whitehall if they wanted to push the point into the military realm. Would have looked pretty foolish too, given that they just defeated someone who tried that four years earlier.

Furthermore, the demographics issue. With a continued (and probably increasing if they had moved against Stalin) demand for skilled workers and strategic resources, there may not have been enough people around to both fight and provide. Where the West was able to outspend the Soviets in the 1980s, the Soviets would have been able to forty years earlier if the Allies had tried to stand on a principle and began to push for a military solution to Polish freedom.

IMHO, it wasn't right what happened to Poland, but an alternative military solution would not have been much of an option.

[Caroline]

Ireney wrote: "I especially recommend Rising '44: The Battle for Warsaw, superbly written by a British historian specializing in Polish history...."

Thanks for the recommendations Ireney. Norman Davies (no relation) was my tutor at university and his books are excellent.

[Caroline]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Has anyone else picked up a book covering Poland during WW2? If so let us know what you're reading and how it is going."

I've just made a start on No Greater Ally - it's compelling even though I did already know some of the background.

[Mike, Assisting Moderator US Forces]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Has anyone else picked up a book covering Poland during WW2? If so let us know what your reading and how it is going."

Finally started on my reread of .

Watching The Pianist got me motivated.

[A.L.]

Rick, Geevee, and Charles, thank you for your thoughtful replies. I've kind of thought the same thing. What happened to Poland (and the rest of Eastern Europe) was tragic, but a military attempt to make things better probably would have resulted in something just as horrible. Koskodan was hard enough on the western allies that I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Caroline and Mike, I'm looking forward to your comments on the books you're reading.

[Kevin]

I'm currently reading Poland Betrayed: The Nazi-Soviet Invasions of 1939 .

So far so good. Just got through all the Background info, as the author has been setting up the years and days just before Sept 1, 1939.

My favorite book about Poland to date has been No Greater Ally: The Untold Story of Poland's Forces in World War II . HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Hi Kevin, thanks very much for your comments on both books. I will be keen to hear your final views on the book Poland Betrayed as it might entice a few of us to grab a copy :)

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Hi Kevin likewise to Rick I'll enjoy hearing your views. I'm really pleased that this month's theme read is seeing a wide number of books being read by members. Hopefully we can do the same for May's Battle of the Bulge read.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Caroline wrote: "Ireney wrote: "I especially recommend Rising '44: The Battle for Warsaw, superbly written by a British historian specializing in Polish history...."

Thanks for the recommendations Ireney. Norman D..."

Caroline that must have been a very interesting period listening and learning from Mr Davies. Your post prompted me to read his wikipedia entry and it's interesting to see he studied under
A.J.P. Taylor

[Betty]

Mike wrote: "I would like to reread at some point but will continue to look for something new, maybe one of the 5 you ..."

I just finished it not long ago and it was GREAT! I love the authors style of writing! He has to cover so many people and so many experiences, but I never got confused while reading. It is a wonderful work!

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Glad to hear you enjoyed The Bravest Battle Betty. I have found it hard to obtain a good book that is easy to read on the subject, this book was one of the better titles.

[Betty]

It is very good! It is longer, but worth it. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did! I loved the maps. The author was a reporter and really did his homework. All the info in the book is based on firsthand interviews, letters, diaries, etc... all put together to make a story from start to finish. I love books like that. The real thing!

[Singleton]

I read a rather good one about the uprising about a year ago. I thought it was called just "Warsaw" but as it was a Dutch translation the English title doesn't have to be the same.

Have started reading
byRobert M. Kennedy
some days ago. It is a short but in depth and scholarly view of the September 1939 invasion. So far not much new information I haven't read elswhere but it is enjoyable.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Thanks for the details on that book Singleton, much appreciated.

[Mike, Assisting Moderator US Forces]

Betty wrote: "I just finished it not long ago and it was GREAT! I love the authors style of writing! He has to cover so many people and so many experiences, but I never got confused while reading. It is a wonderful work!..."

Started it in earnest today. Glad I decided to reread, it is a wonderful piece of writing. Tomorrow is the 70th anniversary of the start of the uprising. Thinking about the beautiful spring day they had back then and admiring the bravery.

[Betty]

I very much agree with you! Tommorrow is a special day in many respects.

1775 - The American Revolution began as fighting broke out at Lexington, MA
I love history! :D