Нельсон Ашер о Польше

[cema]

[...] twenty years after regaining her independence, Poland was partitioned again between the Nazis and the Soviets. Since it is usually forgotten, it is good to stress that WW2 started when both Germany and the USSR, who were allies for two crucial years, invaded Poland.

For the next six years the Poles never gave up fighting. They fought in Poland and, with the British army, on many other fronts. They took part in the Battle of Britain, they fought in North Africa, Italy and elsewhere. There was, unlike what happened in most of conquered Europe, no Polish government collaborating with the Nazis. In continental Europe the Poles (with the Serbs) were Britain’s staunchest allies. When the war was over, instead of being given a seat in the UN Security Council, they were handed over to the Soviet Union.

Given a UN SC seat. I never used to think of it this way. Indeed, why France?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Even a somewhat unreliable standard poodle provides better security for its owner than a devoted selfless brave (for lack of a Polish dog breed) chihuahua.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Lots of security from France, sure. WWII, anyone? They had Resistance, true, so did the Poles. They had Vichy too, unlike the Poles, who, of course, were officially considered subhuman (so they did not have a chance to set up a Vichy-style government or to prove they would never).

Just a comparison.

[(Anonymous)]

Who cares what French did during WWII? Did Poles have nukes when the UN SC membership was decided? Do they now?

[cema.livejournal.com]

India does. Is it a member? Is Pakistan?

[(Anonymous)]

If the U.N. is thrown away and a new international organisation with a security council is formed, this will be a valid question. At the time the permanent seats of the UN SC were doled out, possession of the nuclear WMDs was pretty much a litmus test. In any case, your rhetorical questions are invalid as they attempt to subvert the discussion using a non-sequituur fallacy.

How does it follow from Poland not being a member of the SC, likely because it did not possess WMDs at the time (because if it did, it would have likely been considered) that India and Pakistan (possessing them now, so what?) must be members?

[cema.livejournal.com]

You are somehow reading in my text what I did not write. This happens.

I agree that a newly created pseudo UN would likely consider using posession of WMD as a criterion, but I expect it would largely reject it, or more precisely, use it as just one factor. Economics is more important, so is population, and I guess some intangible parameters might also be considered.

(A rather useless excercise, I should say. It won't happen.)