Baltar
 
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 03:33 am


---------- Post added 10-23-2009 at 05:36 AM ----------

I didn't want to clutter the original post with these notes.

I was planning on writing an actual poem, with ten-line stanzas, perhaps twenty stanzas in total, concerning a Polish collaborator, until I decided to write a short story about it instead, and place this within the Warsaw Ghetto, and told by a Jewish collaborator. While his story is fictional, most of this is entirely historical. The priest did exist, there were heroic but hopeless cavalry charges by the long-gone Polish Cavalry, and stories of soup kitchen massacres and random beatings can be verified by survivors of the German occupation of Warsaw.

In September of 1939, Germany attacked Poland without warning. They did suffer substantial losses in taking Poland, but the Poles suffered far worse. The Germans began indiscriminately murdering Poles by the hundreds of thousands. The Soviets, in agreement with a secret Nazi-Soviet protocol dividing Poland between both nations, helped to bring about the downfall of independent Poland by early October, 1939. Before the war began, Britain had made it known it would help Poland in the event of war, and once war began, Britain and France declared war on Germany, however they did virtually nothing to help stop the storm of war.

The Jews in the areas around the former capitol of Poland, for tens of kilometers, were forcibly concentrated into Warsaw. While they represented 38% of the population of the former capitol, they were crowded into a walled section of the city comprising only 4% of the city. The Nazis employed Jews to be collaboratist police, and it was often commented by the Nazis themselves that the Jewish policemen were more brutal than themselves. Ghetto residents' daily rations amounted to 10% of the daily rations of gentile Poles, and less than 5% of the daily rations allotted to a German.

By middle 1944, the Warsaw Ghetto was in a state of open uprising. The Soviets, only miles from the city, were under orders not to assist and stood by as the uprising fought to survive. This was partly due to Soviet policies when they occupied Poland, such as their massacres of Poles themselves, and persecution of Poles which lasted even after the victory over Hitler. While the Allies provided piecemeal supply drops on the Ghetto (most of the drops landed outside of Resistance-controlled zones), the Jews were actually able to hold out for 63 days straight with virtually no outside assistance. Brutally crushed, the vast majority of the survivors were sent to camps like Auschwitz to be murdered.

In 1939 the population of Poland was 35 million, with a total of around 4 million Polish Jews. In 1946, the population of Poland was less than 25 million, with a total of a few thousand Jews.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,060 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 07:13 am
@Baltar,
Well as a Brit im a bit annoyed at your complaint of little british assistance. There was no allies as you call it. France and Britain was ill prepared to defend themselves, let alone help Poland in its time of need.

Many thousands of poles managed to get to Britain and they helped considerable in the fight against the Nazis. A close friend captured at Dunkirk told me first hand of the atrocities he witnessed the Germans inflict on the Poles. My brother in laws father fought with the polish resistance after escaping a prisoner of war camp. All the Poles i have met who came to the UK are grateful for our help.

I know i should be commentating on the content rather than the side notes but if you make these comments it becomes less clinical to examine.
Baltar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 08:03 am
@xris,
xris;99419 wrote:
Well as a Brit im a bit annoyed at your complaint of little british assistance. There was no allies as you call it. France and Britain was ill prepared to defend themselves, let alone help Poland in its time of need.


You're free to feel annoyed about the historical facts. France and Britain weren't as weak as someone unfamiliar with actual troop deployments would think. The reason France fell so quickly, relatively speaking, was due to horrendous misjudgments in strategy, namely leaving the Ardennes and the Belgian border largely undefended. Had the British and French not left such a weak spot exist in their defense perimeter, the war could've turned out differently. Germany was not an unstoppable juggernaut, and its economy was heavily reliant upon imports of resources Germany itself lacked. Pressure upon Sweden, a "neutral" country which actually supplied Germany with the iron ore it needed to keep its war economy going, could have been applied. While Germany was rampaging throughout Poland, its troop deployment on its western borders was actually weak. You don't need Napoleon to come back from the dead to point out the extreme advantage in that. France was not an undefended nation incapable of defense or offensive actions. Its strategies were flawed, and when the Germans came pouring into France, the French simply had no plan to adapt.

In hindsight, the Allies could have done more in those early days. Instead, they did so very little for Poland in particular, which is why such a complaint is a common complaint about early Allied conduct in the war, not to mention poor military management and missed opportunities.

xris;99419 wrote:
Many thousands of poles managed to get to Britain and they helped considerable in the fight against the Nazis. A close friend captured at Dunkirk told me first hand of the atrocities he witnessed the Germans inflict on the Poles. My brother in laws father fought with the polish resistance after escaping a prisoner of war camp. All the Poles i have met who came to the UK are grateful for our help.


An incredibly large number of Poles were not happy with the little help Poland ever received from the Western Allies. Some Poles had different experiences, and different views on the war. While I don't think the Allies deliberately signed Poland off, they squandered so many opportunities to act.

xris;99419 wrote:
I know i should be commentating on the content rather than the side notes but if you make these comments it becomes less clinical to examine.


When I posted a short story, I was hoping for comments on the short story instead of a gripe about an historical fact.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 10:33 am
@Baltar,
Then dont make political historic opinions if you want it to be judged on its own merits.

Have you read history or just invented a history to fit your views. Britain was profoundly beaten and had to retreat loosing most of its equipment and supplies. The regular army and the TA had no modern weapons, nothing that could beat the panzer's and had very little air support. So your idea that they could sweep across Europe and defend the Poles is an absolutely stupid concept. As for your view on the Polish opinions about our response, i think you should ask those Poles who stood alone with the British and faced the Nazis, when all others had capitulated or had made peace treaties.
Baltar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 08:18 pm
@xris,
xris;99465 wrote:
Then dont make political historic opinions if you want it to be judged on its own merits.


I didn't say I didn't mind someone taking issue with an historical fact, I said I was hoping for comments on the story itself, not a comment that bears extremely little relevance to the story I wrote.

xris;99465 wrote:
Have you read history or just invented a history to fit your views. Britain was profoundly beaten and had to retreat loosing most of its equipment and supplies. The regular army and the TA had no modern weapons, nothing that could beat the panzer's and had very little air support. So your idea that they could sweep across Europe and defend the Poles is an absolutely stupid concept. As for your view on the Polish opinions about our response, i think you should ask those Poles who stood alone with the British and faced the Nazis, when all others had capitulated or had made peace treaties.


As I said, Britain and France on the continent were defeated due to poor planning and strategic errors, as well as inept leaders who were unwilling to exploit German weakness on the emerging western front.

The RAF was strong by 1939, and more so by 1940. The French Army was not ill-equipped. The British on the continent were not ill-equipped. The French Army throughout the 1930s had major divisions designed to operate on the basis of offensive war in the event of hostilities with the Hitler regime. The French had almost 100 divisions, over 2,500 tanks deployed along the German border and neighboring regions, while the Germans had barely 40 divisions, over 30 of those being reserve divisions, and virtually no tanks. Don't believe me? Read a history book for yourself that goes in-depth on the years before and the year of the Battle of France.

Your statement that the Poles either fought with the British (directly or in tandem with support) or made peace is probably the most ignorant statement I've read on this forum so far in being here.

The Poles fought and died in Poland, in occupied Poland, by themselves without any support. The Poles who hadn't the training or ability to fight, and were deported en mass to death camp and to ghettos did so without any support. British involvement in the conflict in Poland was virtually non-existent.

-----------------------------------------

I would appreciate comments being directed to the actual story. If someone has an issue with an opinion, I'd prefer and rather have a thread created in a relevant history subforum because this thread has already gone off-topic far enough.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 03:29 am
@Baltar,
Baltar;99556 wrote:
I didn't say I didn't mind someone taking issue with an historical fact, I said I was hoping for comments on the story itself, not a comment that bears extremely little relevance to the story I wrote.



As I said, Britain and France on the continent were defeated due to poor planning and strategic errors, as well as inept leaders who were unwilling to exploit German weakness on the emerging western front.

The RAF was strong by 1939, and more so by 1940. The French Army was not ill-equipped. The British on the continent were not ill-equipped. The French Army throughout the 1930s had major divisions designed to operate on the basis of offensive war in the event of hostilities with the Hitler regime. The French had almost 100 divisions, over 2,500 tanks deployed along the German border and neighboring regions, while the Germans had barely 40 divisions, over 30 of those being reserve divisions, and virtually no tanks. Don't believe me? Read a history book for yourself that goes in-depth on the years before and the year of the Battle of France.

Your statement that the Poles either fought with the British (directly or in tandem with support) or made peace is probably the most ignorant statement I've read on this forum so far in being here.

The Poles fought and died in Poland, in occupied Poland, by themselves without any support. The Poles who hadn't the training or ability to fight, and were deported en mass to death camp and to ghettos did so without any support. British involvement in the conflict in Poland was virtually non-existent.

-----------------------------------------

I would appreciate comments being directed to the actual story. If someone has an issue with an opinion, I'd prefer and rather have a thread created in a relevant history subforum because this thread has already gone off-topic far enough.
Just do a bit of reading and find out how many Poles managed to reach British shores and fight along side the British before you make offensive remarks. They had more than one squadron of fighter planes and contributed greatly in the fight for Britain's survival. They had two battalions of parachute regiment, they may have lost Poland but not the will to defeat the Nazis and we assisted them in that endeavour.They where our comrades in arms.

Giving me a lesson on my own history of WW2, does not prove your claim that France and Britain had the ability to fight their way to Poland in 1939, to assist the poles. Such an idea belongs to comic book history and is an insult to my country.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 06:15 am
@xris,
Baltar wants to discuss the story, not the history. Let's keep the conversation on the prose, then.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 01:37 pm
@Baltar,
xris wrote:
Any work of fiction should be classified as fiction and not be referred to as facts.

You realize you're in the creative writing sub-forum, right? This isn't the place to debate historicity. You're just getting all worked up because his creative writing has something to do with your country. Stop.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 01:45 pm
xris;99903 wrote:
Yes, is that relevant to being allowed to make statements of fact and not be questioned. If thats so, im going to be very active in the creative writing section.


It's very relevant. Creative writing does not have to be historically accurate. If you wish to debate the historicity of a claim, do so elsewhere -you could easily make a new thread in the history sub-forum. The OP has noted explicitly he does not want to debate historicity here, he seems to want to discuss his prose for its literary (or other) qualities.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 02:09 pm
@Zetherin,
I find the script shallow and not very inventive, it assumes that the history is novel. The character changes from the subjective to the objective without any other reason than to simulate our interest. In all not really worthy of any critical debate.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 09:57 pm
@Baltar,
Baltar, not sure if you're planning on expanding on the story more, but there are some pretty dramatic autobiographies and accounts of people who took part in the uprising. My grandparents, who survived the Lodz ghetto in Poland, say that you could make a 2 hour movie out of every 2 hours they spent during the Holocaust. Real life is usually more stark and dramatic than fiction. Try not to make generic fictional characters when this historical event is already so full with rich and unforgettable real characters.

I'd caution you to make sure that you're completely accurate about the history if you're going to write a historical fiction piece about something that's still in living memory. For instance, you mention Auschwitz but the fact of the matter is that most of the Jews from Warsaw who died in death camps did not die in Auschwitz, they died in Treblinka.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What inspired you to write...discuss - Discussion by lostnsearching
It floated there..... - Discussion by Letty
Small Voices - Discussion by Endymion
Rockets Red Glare - Discussion by edgarblythe
Short Story: Wilkerson's Tank - Discussion by edgarblythe
The Virtual Storytellers Campfire - Discussion by cavfancier
1st Annual Able2Know Halloween Story Contest - Discussion by realjohnboy
Literary Agents (a resource for writers) - Discussion by Craven de Kere
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Poland Lives
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.3 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 09:40:33