Ok firstly let me apologize if ANYONE finds this offensive. Believe me that is not my intent. I was involved in a debate about World War 2 not too long ago and this student from Holland had thier own... rather radical view that seems to be shared by many Europeans. Well given that we've had such great discussions about WW2 here in the past, I'd like to get everyone's reaction to the following statement:
"So funny Americans always start with 'if my grandfather blah blah blah' Well let me tell you, watch A bridge too far' and then think again. YOUR grandfathers probably took that wrong bridge also. In the mean time Poland and the British and Canadians freed us. NOT the Americans. "
I think you have to take this statement in context. Modern Europe is very, very strongly anti-American. I don't want to get into the discussion of why this is the case - it's a weird and unfortunate state where Europeans blame everyone but themselves for their own mistakes. But, regardless of the causes, you have to take this onboard any time you discuss WWII with Europeans - even those who have a good knowledge of WWII history may try to disparage America's involvement, while those whose knowledge is weaker will not even realise that they're disparaging America's involvement - they'll think they're simply stating the truth.
In this particular case, you also have to add the fact that this person you were talking to seemed totally unaware of the existence of a world outside of the Netherlands. Presumably, for him/her, German troops were something that one day appeared out of nowhere - and then, five years later, just as suddenly, the liberating armies appeared out of nowhere and killed all the Germans. The fact that it took five years of war to reach the point where German troops could be kicked out of the Netherlands - that's obviously beyond them. The fact that, even if it was British, Canadian and Polish troops that directly liberated them, it was American troops and equipment that let them reach this point - that's obviously beyond them too.
(of course, I seem to recall that American troops did indeed play a significant role in liberating the Netherlands, so this person was totally wrong in any case - but all things considered, that's a small detail
)
Poland?! Seriously? What a laugh. I know they had a resistance movement and all, but last I checked they were gobbled up by the Soviets straight away. Out of the pot and into the fire isn't the situation I'd call liberation. I'll make a graceful assumption here and guess she meant France.
It's just proof that idiots that don't know what they're talking about come from every nation. Smile, nod, and move along.
Well, you do seem to confirm the validity of that second paragraph
. So, I'll smile, nod - but I won't move along without explaining a few things.
What this person meant, evidently, was who actually liberated the Netherlands - not who won the war, but who marched into the Netherlands. Poland did indeed contribute significantly to this operation - not only were there Polish paratroopers involved in Operation Marketgarden, but also, the next year, Polish ground troops were involved in the subsequent operations.
Now, I'll certainly agree with you that the Polish contribution to the Allied war effort wasn't quite in the top league. It was the British, Americans, Russians, Canadians and Australians (more or less in that order) most of all - but I think a very strong case could be made that Poland's contribution to victory was greater than, say, France. We had a resistance movement that, at its peak, had around a million active troops, who played a significant role in disrupting supplies on the eastern front, delivering intel information to the Allies, and so on. At all times throughout the war, the Germans had to keep about half a million troops in Poland - these were troops that could have made quite a difference elsewhere. Heck, in August 1944, during the Warsaw Uprising, for a few weeks the German casualties in Warsaw alone were
higher than the total casualties from the entire western front. Apart from that, we had our army in the west (as has been mentioned, about a quarter of a million troops), with its own tank divisions, its own small fleet (destroyers, submarines, even a light cruiser), and its own air force (the top-scoring squadron during the Battle of Britain, No. 303, was Polish - this one squadron accounted for about 5% of all kills during the battle, and it certainly wasn't the only Polish fighter squadron). Polish ground troops fought in France, Africa, Italy, then France again, and finally in Germany. Then there was the Polish army under communist control, on the eastern front - I believe there was at least half a million Polish troops there, possibly up to a million. And yes, they also were not Russian soldiers - they too, fought under their own flag, even if (obviously) under tight Soviet control. The Polish army in the east, it goes without saying, also had its own tanks and air force - no navy, though. All in all, I think
this photo of the Polish flag on the ruins of Berlin says all there is to say about Poland's supposed lack of contribution to victory in WWII
.
