A person’s expertise does not transfer from one field to another. If I were to undergo brain surgery and had a choice of people to perform the job, I would certainly not choose Roger Federer to do the work because of his expertise in tennis, where he is one of the all-time greats, nor for that matter would I ask Professor Davies to conduct the surgery because of his expertise on Polish history.

If I am not mistaken, Norman Davies labelled the Kaczynski opposition obstructionist and destructive of Poland’s economic well-being. He labelled Radio Maria in similar terms. Rather than a ranting attack I would have been happy to hear argument and examples backing up his political viewpoint. It didn’t happen. If time does not permit him to do so in his lecture I think it would be better if he did not engage in name calling. In a country with political liberty, people are better served by hearing more political opinions rather than attempts at silencing opponents by way of pejorative labels instead of counter arguments.

I would also take issue with one of the Professor’s answers to a question from the audience. He stated that it was Roosevelt who was mainly responsible for betraying Poland and Churchill was more a Poland defender rather than betrayer. Professor Davies backed up his point by referring to Churchill’s support for the flights from Southern Italy to supply the Poles fighting in the Warsaw Rising. Sadly, Professor Davies seems to be back pedalling with regard to his assessment of Churchill.

In an article he wrote about Britain and the Warsaw Rising that was published by the London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association he stated that:

In the course of a dramatic meeting with Molotov, it was revealed that a year earlier at Teheran, Churchill had secretly proposed the Curzon Line as a basis of the future Polish-Soviet frontier. In other words, all the territorial plans and negotiations throughout 1944, which had poisoned relations with Stalin, and had minimised the chances of his co-operation during the Rising, had been conducted on false assumptions. Churchill, shame-facedly admitted his fault, but later turned his rage on the Polish premier whom he had so inexcusably misled. This must be one of the most discreditable episodes of Churchill’s career.

source: warsawuprising.com

He expressed similar views just as clearly and strongly when he was interviewed for the CNN documentary on the Warsaw Rising titled The Warsaw Rising: The Forgotten Soldiers of World War 2.

Professor Davies former assessment regarding the extent of Churchill’s responsibility for betraying Poland is much closer to the mark when the evidence is considered. There is not only the damning point made by Professor Davies himself in the article mentioned above. The earliest reference on this matter I have come across appears on P 233 of Lynne Olsen and Stanly Cloud’s book about the Kosciuszko Squadron which in different countries has a different title, but in the US publication I possess it is titled ‘A Question of Honour’. The pertinent section on Churchill, dated March 7, 1942 reads:

‘Churchill, in a somewhat disjointed, rambling cable, informed Roosevelt “The increasing gravity of the war has led me to feel that the principles of the Atlantic Charter ought not be construed so as to deny Russia the frontiers she occupied when Germany attacked her”. Two days later, the prime minister cabled Stalin “I have sent a message to President Roosevelt urging him to approve our signing agreements with you about the frontiers of Russia at the end of the war”

For anyone unaware, the Atlantic Charter was signed by both the USA and Churchill’s British government. The Charter guaranteed that at the end of WWII for all countries of the world there would be:

 no territorial aggrandizement;
 no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people;
 restoration of self-government to those deprived of it;

Thus as early as March 7th, 1942, Churchill was leading the way in the betrayal of Poland and this was occurring as early as 7th March 1942! Much earlier than what many Polish people attribute at the Yalta Conference. So, Churchill was ready to unilaterally decide without Cabinet approval, the breaking of a Charter his government had signed.

Churchill betrayed his anti-Polish and pro-Soviet attitude when the controversy over Katyn exploded in 1943. Francis Kajencki notes:

Churchill also was clearly annoyed by the deep Polish anger over the Katyn Massacre. He silenced the Polish press in England, and told Stalin so, and also forbade Sikorski to make any further inquiries about Katyn. (Kajencki, Francis Casimir, American Betrayal. South West Polonia Press, 2007, El Paso, Texas, p. 41)

There are many other examples of Churchill leading the charge in the betrayal of Poland that reinforce Professor Davies earlier assessment rather than his current perspective voiced in his answer to the question from a member of the audience.

Felix Molski