Sikorski – accident or assassination?

#1
The Polacs have announced they are to exhume the remains of Gen Sikorski to see if it will yield clues as to what happened on 4th July, 1943. It is known and agreed his UK bound plane went down in the sea after take-off from Gib. However, the various evidence put forward and the style of investigation after provided a conspiracy theorist treasure trove ever since. :twisted:

Have to say, if anyone wants to go down the conspiracy route, this one is abundant in permutations – considerably richer than with say Diana? You can pick a particular villain, like Churchill or Stalin, or make it an ‘Orient Express’ scenario where ‘everybody’ did it.

The Polacs of course, have long been promoting an innocent and valiant little darlings image of themselves in WWII – conveniently omitting the in between wars facts – selective and massaged history at its finest. Perhaps Sikorski was more of a hindrance than an asset in the ‘big picture’? Perhaps he was just unlucky in this accident? Whatever, the gravy train rolls again. :roll:

David Irving has ridden it - http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Sikorski/Times040703.html – and, one of the investigation officers was none other than comrade Buster Crabb, later to generate his own gravy train. 8O :D

All aboard – await a handful of TV docs and newspaper ‘revelations’ and Polac ‘demands’. :D

”During the war the general was prime minister of the Polish government-in-exile in London.

In July 1943, the Liberator aircraft he was travelling on together with two British MPs, crashed into the sea just seconds after it took off from Gibraltar.

A British investigation at the time found the plane's controls had jammed. But a separate Polish investigation did not rule out he may been murdered.”


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7720293.stm

No.9
 
#2
First, how do you make a plane/car etc. crash? Second, how do you guarantee a certain passenger or group of passengers will die? These are the questions you have to ask when people bring up these kinds of conspiracy theories.
 
#3
Well, IF you’re going to make a plane crash, questionable if you do it at take-off for maximum effect unless you’re going to fire-ball it around take-off? Appreciated this may be when a plane is most vulnerable, but, banking on sufficient damage from a crash in the sea to kill your intended is fairly random, no? Better surely to deposit a banger on board with even a crude delay for when the plane is at altitude.

But, this presumes the crash immediately after take-off was plan A – suppose it was plan B, or the ‘longstop’, or improv, or, actually just ‘the cover’?
Cue Shadows playing ‘Man of Mystery’.


Why were there bodies not recovered – this was not an ocean trench scenario? Were they on board in the first place, were they on board at the time of crash, were one or more ‘unrecovered body/s’ actually very much alive agents??? 8O

No.9
 
#4
There were quite a few aircraft that just rolled off the end of the airstrip at Gibraltar. Don't know what it looks like now but there was just the one runway with sea at both ends. From higher up the Rock you could see outlines of these planes. One was very big and we were told that this was the Sikorsky craft. No facilities there at the time to get it out and the whole thing was deemed as a grave. I'm writing from what I was told back in 1952
 
#6
Don’t you mean Admiral Jean Darlan? Oh, sorry, he was topped by a French trainee British agent wasn’t he. Of course, Britain didn’t order him to, then they don’t appear to have ordered him not to? :roll:

Yes, De Gaulle was an upstart P in the A, but he wasn’t peeing off Stalin that much – Roosevelt yes, and Winston to a degree, but, if liquidated who would broadcast to the friendly Froggies for us? Perhaps ran a bit close at times though? :D

Still, De Gaulle did get a technical slapping from Uncle Sam at the end of the war – instigated by the Italians??? Quite right, the Aosta Incident. War ends in Italy, Germans leg it home if they can, Partisans sort fascists, Allied forces wait for orders. The Aosta region (NW Italy, French border) was denied in parts to the Germans by strong Partisan forces, many post-armistice regular soldiers turned Partisan. War over and the forces started to disperse. Suddenly an army of Free French roll over the border looking for a huge land grab on orders of De Gaulle.

Local Partisans and the few SOE officers who operated with them, face up to the French and a stand-off develops. SOE advise London and get a ‘sorry old boy, too busy elsewhere and no British in your area’ reply. Nearest Allied force were Americans, camped miles away detaining some surrendered Germans, drinking vino and catching a few rays. French continued to mass forces, rattle sabres and convince the SOE and Partisans their time was short – which they believed but still weren’t going to budge.

Uncle Sam did a deal with the Mafia over Sicily, but Aosta is not their territory. Enter the American-Italian Lobby – the good ‘ole boys whose families emigrated to America the previous century, some of whom were now pillars of American politics and industry, like Fiorello La Guardia. Harry Truman appears to have a sudden call of conscience, (or maybe gets an offer he can’t refuse?). Out of the blue a huge US column arrives, with all the toys, and deploys against the French.

Harry then advises De Gaulle, we have a problem with the aid and equipment we’re sending you while you have men in Italy. French forces withdraw. :wink:

No.9
 
#8
No.9 said:
The Polacs of course, have long been promoting an innocent and valiant little darlings image of themselves in WWII – conveniently omitting the in between wars facts – selective and massaged history at its finest.
Could you expand?
 
#9
PsyWar.Org said:
Interesting stuff No. 9. I hadn't heard of the Aosta Incident before, thanks for posting.
That's how I like my History lessons. Concise and to the point :lol:
 
#10
One piece of info that is not highlighted is that Kim Philby was head of SOE section V (Iberian pennisula),at the time.There was also last minute additions to the passenger list some of which have never been named.
My understanding of it is that after a Liberator initially got airborne as this one did they used to decend slightly to gain speed before climbing again this one did decend but failed to climb again,so the sabotarge was probably carried out on board during take-off.Russians for me.
 
#11
fatsplasher said:
One piece of info that is not highlighted is that Kim Philby was head of SOE section V (Iberian pennisula),at the time.There was also last minute additions to the passenger list some of which have never been named.
My understanding of it is that after a Liberator initially got airborne as this one did they used to decend slightly to gain speed before climbing again this one did decend but failed to climb again,so the sabotarge was probably carried out on board during take-off.Russians for me.
SIS Section V surely? :wink:
 
#12
fatsplasher said:
One piece of info that is not highlighted is that Kim Philby was head of SOE section V (Iberian pennisula),at the time.There was also last minute additions to the passenger list some of which have never been named.
My understanding of it is that after a Liberator initially got airborne as this one did they used to decend slightly to gain speed before climbing again this one did decend but failed to climb again,so the sabotarge was probably carried out on board during take-off.Russians for me.
That would be a suicide attack, which would be somewhat rare for Russians. Seems a little unlikely.
 
#13
Dilfor - "Could you expand?"

Expand on what exactly? Polac aggression and dictatorship before the war or proliferation of myth after the war - and any particular incident or thumbnail?

No.9
 
#14
No.9 said:
Dilfor - "Could you expand?"

Expand on what exactly? Polac aggression and dictatorship before the war or proliferation of myth after the war - and any particular incident or thumbnail?

No.9
All of the above. I am genuinely interested - not peddling a position.
 
#15
russian agents? Nonsense, it was the giant space ants who run the universe.
don't you lot have any clue at all about conspiracy theorism??
 
#16
Dilfor - "All of the above. I am genuinely interested - not peddling a position.”

Yeah sure, 10’000 word dissertation do? :D Seriously, I do take your point but it’s more practical to address a specific than ‘life, the universe and everything’ in a few paragraphs. Then again, from an emotive aspect it appears if the popular thumbnails are questioned, you must be demeaning and therefore anti-Polac?

Not the case, rather an interest in plain evaluation of events, AND, a rejection of what appears to be recent/current Polac teaching that Britain (above all) is to blame for Poland’s ills over the past 70 years.

Re recent history (a few hundred years), some key events:
1794 Mar to Sep Poland looses war of Independence
1795 Poland divided by Russia, Prussia and Austria and ceases to exist as a State
1797 ‘Irrevocable abrogation of the Kingdom of Poland’ by the above
The ‘no’ Poland period, @ 120 years
1914+ Józef Piłsudski forms ‘Polish’ Legions and fights with Austria. ‘Polish’ National Army
fights under the Germans.
1916 Granted autonomy by Germany and Austria-Hungary.
1917 Pitsudski withdraws support for the Central Powers and is arrested by the Germans.

Treaty of Versailles instates a ‘Poland’ which takes territory from other Nation’s primarily with WWI winner France as enforcer. Included are huge tracts of land where the indigenous people are NOT Polacs – Danzig (which new Poland ‘demanded’), was again in it’s history made a ‘Free Town’, a very important issue to Germany whose people account for 95%+ of its population. A problem being, between new Germany and Danzig was now new Poland – formerly Prussia/Pomerania/Teutonic land.

Post WWI Poland made much of the rights of sovereign States and self determination. However, there is no evidence it respected these values when voiced by its own constituents or its neighbours? A referendum on government was held in Upper Silesia and the majority clearly voted to be part of Germany. Poland wouldn’t accept this and threatened to wage war on Germany? Easy to talk big when your opponent has just had a severe kicking and the perpetrator is your ‘big brother’. The League of Nations tried to mediate but couldn’t get Poland to agree to anything less than a partition of the area with Germany. Poland still kicked-up until Germany was forced to cede its part to Poland in 1922. And yet, when the people of Vilna in Lithuania voted to be part of Poland in 1922, Poland felt that justified them taking the territory around it as well despite protests from tiny but independent Lithuania. When the Germans were there during the war, Einsatzgruppen
and ‘Lithuanian auxiliaries’ (wouldn’t be the Polacs would it, no must have imported them from the other end of the county) shot around 40’000 Jews.

1925 Post the Locarno Conference, France was unhappy with the lack of concern and support for French worries over an emergent Germany. France now sets-up new separate mutual assistance treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia in the event of a German attack on any of the signatories. Failing to solicit blanket British support, the French developed an extensive alliance system with Poland and the ‘Little Entente’ powers and began construction of the Maginot Line.

1926 Józef Piłsudski stages a coup and deposes the National Democrats, setting himself up as dictator.

1933 Poland and Germany start an agreement over Danzig, but, in 1934 Poland attempted to balance its French alliance with German friendship in an attempt to avoid involvement in foreign quarrels. This agreement represented the first breach in the French alliance system in Eastern Europe and the Polish government became the first friendly power to reach an understanding with the new nazi government in Germany - Hitler.

1935 Germany announces plans to re-arm. France sought to bring Poland, Germany, and Russia into an eastern pact which would serve to maintain some stability, but, both Germany and Poland avoided this plan.

1936 Germany marches into the Rhineland. France (and her Allies) do nothing, and Poland sees her ‘big brother’ as, militarily, a waste of time. ‘If France won’t act on her doorstep, why would or could she act to help Poland?’

1936 Mussolini moves troops to the Austrian border and prevents the German invasion of Austria. Nothing to do with Poland, but not many remember this so I just thought I’d throw it in.

1937 Peasant strikes spread across the country. Police kill around 50.

1938 With most of Europe preoccupied with the German absorption of Austria, the Polish government issued a series of demands to tiny Lithuania. Faced with the threat of war, the Lithuanian government immediately agreed to all of the Polish demands, including recognition of the status quo in eastern Europe. The Lithuanian capitulation prevented the crisis from escalating.

1938 Post Munich, instead of supporting their neighbour Czecho, the Polacs supported the German land grab and the Polish army occupied Teschen, gaining 400 square miles of territory and 240,000 new citizens, well under half actually Polish.

1938 The Czecho government provided Ruthenia with full autonomy and the region was renamed Carpatho-Ukraine. This region took on an important new role as the base for Ukrainian nationalist agitation, with the apparent support of the German government. The Polish government attempted to divide the new region between Poland, Hungary, and Romania, but the German government frustrated all attempts at annexation.

1938 As a result of the failure of the Hungarian and Czecho-Slovak governments to reach an agreement on the future of Slovakia, the German and Italian governments intervened and issued a joint decision. Hungary received a broad strip of Czecho-Slovak territory from southern Slovakia and Ruthenia, which included one million people and 5,000 square miles of land. The Germans and Italians rejected a Hungarian demand for a common frontier with Poland, a claim supported by the Polish government. As a result of dismemberment, Czecho-Slovakia lost a total of five million inhabitants and 16,000 square miles of territory to Germany, Poland, and Hungary.

The thumbnails, (as thrown at me over the years, mostly by Polacs)

#1 and in my book the most ignorant and ridiculous, and possibly taught in Polac schools as this often comes from students, is; ‘Britain ‘betrayed’ Poland in 1939’. Short answer – succinct though hardly academic – fcuking bollox! To think Britannia, Commonwealth and Empire would get out of their respective prams because a big bully had smacked a little bully on the far side of Europe, you’ve got to have one hell of a distorted and inflated sense of self importance. Britain’s problem was with Hitler and the rhetoric that had gone before. Austria, Czecho, Polacs – three strikes and you’re out. The fact the third strike happened to be the Polacs was academic. ”But Britain said………….?” What Britain said on 31st March, 1939, ’in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their National Forces, Great Britain would feel itself bound at once to lend Poland all the support in its power.’ If the Polacs want to translate that as something like; ’in the event you are attacked we guarantee beyond any shadow of a doubt that within 10 minutes of the first aggression we will materialise half a million men with arms and equipment at that location’, then they’re probably using the same Monty Python phrase book containing ’my Hovercraft is full of eels’.

#2 ‘Polacs captured Monte Cassino’. Polacs were the first to raise an Allied flag from the monastery – there’s a difference. The Germans, however, had withdrawn from the position because the Allies, spearheaded by the French, had broken through the Gustav Line (which ran coast to coast) in the mountains between the Liri Valley and the Med, and the Germans, as planned, fell back. And, the Polacs were where they were on the bones of the men who went before. Maybe it’s typical to photograph and celebrate the last man in a relay team who breaks the tape, but, he would/could never get there without the others who carried the baton for their stretch.

#3 ‘Polacs were not allowed to march in the London Victory Parade’. Very true, and why was that, nothing to do with being ignored, forgotten or undervalued, it was because of Stalin. They were actually scheduled to appear per the pre-printed programme for 8th June 1946, between Norway and Transjordan in the Allied Forces section.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2VictoryParade1.htm
However, Stalin had a problem with separate identity as he regarded part of Versailles Poland as Soviet in the first place, and the remainder as now part of the USSR. In view of the situation at the time, Churchill made the following announcement to MPs: ”Poland is denied all free expression of her national will. Her worst appetites of expansion are encouraged. At the same time, she is held in strict control by a Soviet-dominated government who do not dare have a free election under the observa-tion of representatives of the three or four Great Powers. The fate of Poland seems to be an unending tragedy, and we, who went to war, all ill-prepared, on her behalf, watch with sorrow the strange outcome of our endeavors. I deeply regret that none of the Polish troops — and I must say this — who fought with us on a score of battle-fields, who poured out their blood in the common cause, are to be allowed to march in the Victory Parade. They will be in our thoughts on that day.”
Should Britain have gone to war with Stalin over the parade? Yeah, sure, can’t wait, anything for the Polacs.

#4 ‘Polacs gave the west the Enigma code’. Err…..one of them, shame it wasn’t one used during the war. A lot of hype associated with this claim and far more truths not said than said – and of course, bollox. The Polacs broke the pre-war code, unfortunately not the revised one the Germans used at the invasion of Poland, which consequently they never knew the details of. But, by no means were they the only ones working on this. French Intelligence were approached in the summer of 1937 via their Embassy in Berne, Switzerland, by German Hans-Thilo Schmidt who advised; ”German technicians have developed a coding and decoding apparatus of a completely new type”, this was the Enigma the military was using. With plans, manuals and code sheets provided, the French built Enigmas using precision tooling at a Franco-American cash register factory outside Paris. ”The French had the capacity to read the German’s most secret ciphers – an intelligence coup of majestic importance. But they could do so only as long as ‘Source D’ [the German] continued to supply the keying changes [for the daily codes]” The French shared information with the Polacs on the understanding that they should pass back any results they achieved. They never did. The British too had an informant, a Jew who gave his name as Richard Lewinski, and was a mathematician and engineer at the Enigma factory in Germany before being expelled for being Jewish. He approached SIS in June of 1938 and was taken on board for £10’000, a British passport and a flat in Paris, where he built a working facsimile of the military Enigma. It wasn’t till just before the invasion, the Polacs met with British and French cryptographers and showed them for the first time what they had so far – by then redundant. In August they sent 2 mock-ups (of the machine they made), to France and Britain’s friend Gustav Bertrand (French Intelligence) and Tom Greene (British SIS) brought one over to London. The Poles themselves went to Bucharest where the British Embassy told them to clear off. They went to the French Embassy who got them to France and their code-breaker section. Britain and France worked closely together on the code till the fall of France where all work was transferred to and carried on at Bletchley. The Anglo-French cryptographers were joined later on by Americans, but the Polacs were never invited. The real key to reading Enigma encrypts was speed and flexibility rather than wait for code keys from informants like the French, or lengthy mathematical calculations like the Polacs. Britain built an electro mechanical calculator that could deliver the accuracy and performance needed by virtue of British genius.

#5 ‘The Polac Home Army resistance was the biggest partisan force in Europe’. If that reads like an overkill jumble it’s because it is. I’ve never seen this expressed exactly as above, though in discussion the constituents inevitably emerge along with the sentiment of ‘biggest’. The Home Army in reality was loosely, if at all, connected to partisans. It started in Warsaw as the Sluzba Zwyciestwu Polski to be absorbed by the Zwiazek Walki Zbrojnej when the ‘Underground State’ was in play as advocated by the Polac government in exile. With Germany later busy fighting Russia, the ZWZ became the Armia Krajowa (Home Army) but remained mostly in a resistance role. Conversely, partisan groups emerged in various places and were typically uncoordinated. Quite the opposite actually as bands ranged from Communist to fascist, and, were as likely to fight each other as their chosen enemy. I’m observing the distinction here between ‘resistance’ and ‘partisan’. In a broad sense, like cabbages and vegetables, all partisans are resistance but not all resistance are partisans. ‘Partisans’ are distinctly combatants in the field while an act of resistance may simply be mis-filing a document in an office. Equally Resistance operatives might be saboteurs or assassins. The figure the Polacs like to bandy about is 1M? However, while this is very hard, if not impossible, to verify, you can at least consider the main achievements. In the case of the Polacs, when this is done the claim falls apart dramatically. The SOE had a round 300 agents in Poland so two-way intelligence was of course problematic but quite good. The Home Army scores well on intelligence and sabotage right up to the disastrous Warsaw Uprising, after which it effectively ceased as an organisation. Accurate to state though, the SOE put most sabotage down to their agents? However, in the Warsaw Uprising of August ‘44, this distinct from the Jewish Ghetto Uprising of April ‘43, the consensus for number of insurgents puts the figure at about 37’000, of which only about @ 14% started out armed, much fighting being done with grenades and petrol bombs. Accepted many more would be engaged in intelligence than willing or able to fight out on the streets, but any realistic figure guestimated would still be woefully shy of 1M? Could partisans account for the shortfall? In a word, no. Not even sure about partisans plus displaced persons? As said, the partisans, such as they were, overall were uncoordinated and disparate. It appears many regulars, probably most, who wanted to carry on the fight chose to leave Poland rather than take to the hills – or in their case, take to the woods. A notable exception was probably Maj. Hubal who took his men off into the wilds to fight guerrilla actions, but was caught and killed in April 1940. Something else that suggests there was low transition of regulars is report assessments of the SOE that state only 10% in partisans groups were actually armed. There were large numbers of displaced persons seeking fellowship, men evading conscription, and fugitive Polish Jews. Something else not often mentioned is how anti-Semitic Poland was, very prevalent in the mid 30s. Most political parties supported and made issue of this sentiment which predictably reached new heights after the Germans invaded. Some thought all Jews were Communists because many Jews were found among Communist partisan groups. There was little political foundation in this, the reason was simply the Communists were usually indifferent to a fugitive being Jewish whereas the non Communist partisans were likely to be anti-Semitic. Some leading Jewish Home Army figures were assassinated from within, so no sanctuary there. There were some Jewish partisan groups as in what appears to have been the main area of activity, an 80 kilometre stretch between Vilna and the Pripet marshes. – not an area either the Germans or Soviets appear to have seen much strategic value in bothering to dominate totally? A further measure of partisan activity and effectiveness is the resources the enemy commits against them. I have found records of Germans making occasional sorties against partisans in approx. Coy strength, but no mention of any greater commitment? For comparison, German reports state at any one time in Italy at least 6 Divs. were committed against the Partisans, plus Units of RSI fascists and Wolfe’s SS. Another factor, locals should regard Partisans as a ‘people army’. However, there are many accounts of locals fearing Polac ‘partisans’ as much as the Germans as they might be mercilessly plundered by either, or worse.

I see no other conclusion than ‘1M’ is a gross romantic exaggeration. :wink:

No.9
 
#17
Course if you said n***er rather than the equally demeaning Polack, people might think you had some sort of prejudice.

Poland between the wars was highly Nationalistic and very right wing. The Poles did grab a chunk of Czechoslavkia and there is enough evidence to say that they baited Hitler. Poles were generally anti semitic and very anti Soviet. I believe that the grandfather of Mr Miliband was chased out of Poland for being a Marxist and a Jew (and not for siding with the Soviets when they attacked Poland).

The bravery of Polish troops was well recognised by those who fought with them. I know of one family who managed to avoid being executed by the Germans for being members of a resistence group by claiming that they were an anti communist group. Sadly one of their number shopped them to the Germans and all but one were shot in Belsen. The Nazi collaborator went on to have a very successful political career in post war Poland.
 
#18
No9 , can you actually provide authenticated references for your assertions. Quite apart from the unnecessary and offensive overuse of the term "Polac" in your lengthy piece, it reads like something Irving would put together.

Your 'answers' are based on statements 'as thrown at me over the years, mostly by Polacs' , but we only have your assertion these statements are verbatim.


and in my book the most ignorant and ridiculous, and possibly taught in Polac schools as this often comes from students, is; ‘Britain ‘betrayed’ Poland in 1939’
As taught to Poles of a certain age , in schools following the Russian occupation curriculum.

This goes in the same pile as "Churchill let down the Home Army in the uprising" "There was no airlift, any supplies were dropped by the valiant VVS "and "The Germans were responsible for Katyn"

It was only after 1991 , that the Poles could actually start to take an open pride in their history, and a lot of history could be re-visited.

I would like to see some hard references for a lot of your statements. I have never heard a figure of 1M Resistance personnel bandied about by any Pole, including a decorated Resistance group leader. 1M represents some 3% of the pre-war Polish population. Even the figure you are prepared to concede , some 37,000 is dramatically more than any other occupied territory, except perhaps Russia.

How many German-occupied territories had any sort of armed uprising?

Anti-Semetism? Absolutely. Historically prevalent in Poland, especially in the East , very much worse in the 30's in concert with their immediate neighbours to the West. However, this period also marked the rise of the Hard Right in Poland.

So, let's see some documented facts concerning your weighty tome.


and, one of the investigation officers was none other than comrade Buster Crabb, later to generate his own gravy train
Once again, what hard evidence do you base the use of the term 'Comrade' on?
 
#19
PartTimePongo said:
It was only after 1991 , that the Poles could actually start to take an open pride in their history, and a lot of history could be re-visited.
Poles always took an open pride in their history. Unfortunately, the nature of history curriculum is such that it's always revisited and politicised thus shifting accents of "pride".
 
#20
Is ‘Polac’ offensive? I don’t think so? I’ve always know and referred to them as Polacs just as Czechoslovakians as Czechos? There seems to be absolutely no problem with the world and his wife referring to me as a ‘Brit’, which actually I don’t care for in the least – but who gives a damn.

Anyway, the Polacs and I are both indigenous white Europeans, like the Frogs, Krauts, Wops and Diegos etc, all terms constantly in the public media and apparently OK because they’re all traditional and all white – correct?

If you think it reads like something Irving put together – which incidentally I find extremely offensive pal - then I can only conclude you are a victim of propaganda and haven’t bothered to research objective accurate history.

If the Polacs think they’re something special, fine. I you think they’re something special, also fine. I think they did their bit, in their way, but by people who may have been ‘something special’, I can’t see they were something special based on my research.

If you don’t know why Buster Crabb may be referred to as ‘Comrade’, you don’t know the events surrounding and following his disappearance do you? I may know a bit more than you about these, but I don’t know all the answers – and if I did I couldn’t and wouldn’t say. His file is under the 100 years rule so I suggest you check back later.

No.9
 

Latest Threads

Top