I was doing a little reading about the history of Poland, and I came about this tidbit regarding WWII... Several things that surprised me... Poland held out far longer against the Germans than France, despite... 1. Having not mobilized much of her armie (France's army was mobilized before the Nazi's attempted to invade France. aka. Maginot line.) 2. Being attacked on two fronts (Russians and Germans). The French were only attacked by the Germans... Also note the heavy casualities they inflicted on the Germans, and their success against the Panzers. The French had superior artillery and tanks available to them, yet they still got kicked by the Nazis. Bloody amazing from a country like Poland. You'd think France, or even the Dutch would have done more damage than the Polish... My question is, where the hell was the aid promised to them???
The French had far too much faith in the Maginot Line and weren't really prepared for anything beyond an attack on it directly. They collapsed relatively quickly. But if you read more into the actual situation in France at the beginning of the Blitkreig, the British did in fact do rather well. The main of the British forces with some French were situated along the Dyle river, and weren't forced to retreat until the right flank collapsed after the German advance through the Ardennes. British fighter aircraft inflicted losses on the Germans at a rate of nearly 4 to 1 - more than during the Battle of Britain. Here, look at this - the BBC website is useful in showing the sequence of events. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/launch_ani_fall_france_campaign.shtml As to your question - considering that the only way to get help to Poland would have been via sea past Germany itself, it would have been rather difficult to do so. Poland collapsed in a couple of weeks. Not only would it have been extremely difficult to both organise a relief effort and get it past Germany to Poland, but sending men and equipment to a nation already doomed would have been a foolish waste of resources, promises or no. It is my belief that the battle for France, in particular Dunkirk and the air war (prior to the Battle of Britain), was where the seed of German defeat was planted. The British evacuation, saving the bulk of their land forces to defend Britiain, and the heavy toll among German aircrews during this time had dire effects upon later campaigns.
Why is it amazing? Poland's almost always kicked ass. They were a major military power and one of Europe's most powerful nations from the 1300s up until the late 1700s.
So was France, and they fell over in a heap didn't they? Italy had a military tradition going back to Rome, and they didn't fare all that well either. Being historically proficient militarily doesn't mean anything.
The Anglo-Franco alliance had no intention of aiding or abetting Poland against German aggression , remeber the Anglo-Franco alliance sold Czechoslovakis to the dogs .The object of Germany was well known to the Anglo-Franco alliance and that was an invasion of Communist Russia . Germany needed Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia , the Anglo-Franco alliance was content to allow Germany to invade thereby taking back the lucrative Russian market back into the hands of Wetern capital . At a given point during the German invasion of Russia the Anglo-Franco alliance hoped to take advantage of both sides , jump in and claim the prize .
The Dutch ? *tsk* geez... You think that's something ? Guess who cracked the "unbreakable" Enigma code ? The Enigma Code Breach Breaking the German Code - the Enigma Machine And those Goddam Commie Russians! Don't get me started ! They couldn't beat Poland alone, so they had to get the Goddam nazis to help them do their dirty work... The Polish-Russian War and the Fight for Polish Independence, 1918-1921 Russo-Polish War 1919-20 .
France had gone into decline, as had Italy, by then, however, yet the Polish Republic was in its prime, essentially, then, and that they stood up to that onslaught that long does not surprise me, as the Polish kick ass. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hapsburg: I'm just curious, but how powerful do you think the Kingdom of Poland was during the 13th to 17th century? Was it the equal of say... a country like France? Killjoy: Hey, I never knew about that! Thanks for pointing out yet another vital role the Polish played in kicking Nazi ass. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It just gives the following verse from Dąbrowski's Mazurka a whole lot more meaning:
Yes, France had passed its glory phase, but if that was Poland's prime then I would hardly say it was a civilisation to be overly concerned with. They didn't stand up to it. They heard the bell, danced out from their corner, boxed a little for twenty seconds and then wondered why they were suddenly lying on their backs on the canvas, while the crowd boo'ed the bikini clad girl who hit them from behind with a carefully-weakened chair. The Poles did not kick ass. They got invaded, they held out for roughly a couple of weeks against an overwhelmingly superior force (well, two overwhelming forces). They did so at least in part because they were fighting on home soil (which nearly any army is apt to do, with the possible exception of the French and Italians) and partly because the German war machine still wasn't entirely up to full speed, tactically speaking. Most invading armies will take more casualties than those they are invading, unless the defender is totally inept (I'm trying to refrain from mentioning the French again...). Basically, the Poles got their asses handed to them on a plate with garnish and soya beans. Them's the facts. This is the same sort of bullshit romanticism that has Australians and New Zealanders so entranced in the Gallipoli debacle that to this very day some of them believe they actually won that battle. Kicking an overwhelmingly superior forces' ass but inevitably losing is personified by the Finns in the Russo-Finnish war of 1939-1940. If you think about it, even the Germans put up a better fight. Took the combined weight of Soviet Russia, America, and England to cow them, and even then it took three or four years. Two weeks? The Polish David barely had time to get his sling out before he was clubbed into oblivian.
Marquis: Nobody here is denying that. And personally, I think Hapsburg is talking shit when he says that the Polish were at their prime in the 20th century (they were in their prime at the 16th, methinks). However, given the situation, the Polish held out pretty well. To belittle their defense of Poland is akin to belittling the Byzantines for their final valiant defense of Constantinople. "Oh, the 7,000 Byzantines got their asses handed to them by 100,000 Turks with giant cannons. LOL, what pussies!" 1.8 million German troops compared to 400,000 Polish troops (an estimate). 2600 tanks against the Polish 180. 2000 aircraft against the Polish 420. Only 1/3 of the Polish army was mobilized because the West said that mobilization might bait Germany into aggression (ROFL!). The Germans bombed defenceless towns and refugees, and then shelled the Polish continuously when they refused to surrender. It's not surprising that Germany had a superior war machine, since Hitler's dream was to conquer Europe, not to live peacefully alongside his Slav, French and Russian neigbours. It's pretty much a given that Poland would crumble, the German forces were FAR superior. Added to which the Russians invaded, and in fact inflicted far heavier losses on the Polish then the Germans did. Quite simply, Poland held out quite well (and inflicted more damage on the Nazis than the combined efforts of France and Britain in 1940), considering that the Nazis and Russians streamrolled over the rest of Europe. They took France without hardly any resistance, and 'Great' Britain fled across the English channel with her tail between her legs (which is why I resent people picking on the French. Why don't they make fun of Britain? The only reason it wasn't taken in 1940 was because it had a nice body of water between it and mainland Europe). Hell, even the Russians were frightened of Hitler. The fact that a country like Poland (which had only managed to gain independence a few decades back) actually even managed to last 4 weeks against a combined force of Russians and Nazis did impress me. Even the Western Allies (Britain and France) only expected the Polish to hold out for two weeks. And although they did hold out for that long, they didn't get the troops they were promised. Oh well... every country is out for itself, I guess. You mention the Finnish resistance of the Russians. And tell me, how many casualties did the Finnish inflict on the Russians? From memory, it was 50,000 (which is very impressive, from a country like Finland). Which is the same amount of casualities Poland inflicted on the Nazis (not including tanks and aircraft). The fact of the matter is that Poland kicked more ass than Britain and France COMBINED did in 1940. Poland outperformed two superpowers. I've never met an Australian or New Zealander who claimed that we 'won' the battle. However, it is a demonstration of true courage and determination, and also of how the British used us as cannon fodder. Australia was one of Britain's most recent colonies. Australia is where Britain sent its shit, its criminals, its Irish Nationalists, its grunts and misfits. We didn't fare too badly in WWI for a country which was established as a penal colony, eh? The ANZACS were an example of quality over quantity. And I think it's ridiculous how Gallipoli is used to demonstrate our kickass nature, when you can find plenty of ANZAC and Canadian victories in WWI and WWII if you know even a jot of history. The Germans 'put up a better fight' because Hitler had for years been constructing his war machine, intent on world domination. Also the fact that by the time Russia and America joined the fray, Germany had gained a lot of territory, so they had a huge buffer between Berlin and the enemy. In otherwords, they could do a lot of retreating, and delay the enemy. Where exactly could Poland or France retreat back to? What buffers did they have against the Nazis? Unlike the British, they didn't have the luxury of a fortress island in the middle of nowhere. Also note that Soviet Russia, America, and England weren't the only ones to bring the Germans down. I love how you neglect to mention the efforts of many other countries, including France, 'the surrender monkeys'. Yeah, France surrendered... which is a bloody smart thing to do, if the alternative is to have your civilians butchered, and your cities burnt to ashes. From memory, Germany did the same thing in WWI. They favoured surrender over the outright destruction of Germany. But then again, it's more fun to belittle the French for doing the 'cowardly' thing in WW2, than belittle the Germans for doing the 'right' thing in WWI. Or perhaps it's just racism from bigots and retards. Retards like the poster above seem to believe that France has had a pathetic military history, as if France hasn't kicked ass time and time again in the past. Then again, I guess the French soldiers who charged the German machine gunners with their bayonets in WW1 were cowards. As were the Free French who continued to fight on against overwhelming odds after France fell. Oh, never mind thinking about that, it's too complex, and conflicts with your uneducated views! Let's just call the French cowards! It's much easier to paint an entire nationality with a broad brush!
"And tell me, how many casualties did the Finnish inflict on the Russians? From memory, it was 50,000 (which is very impressive, from a country like Finland). Which is the same amount of casualities Poland inflicted on the Nazis" Russia lost about 200,000 men, 260,000 wounded + tanks and them (about 2000 tanks lost). Most sources cite finlands losses up to 22,830 dead and 43,557 wounded, though, some say losses were as much as 50k. Finland had a population of 3.5million, russia sent nearly a half a million troops, and gained next to shit in territory (karelia). Come 'ere finlander, i've some bread for ye... ..better you come 'ere, you ruskie bastard - i've some butter for your bread
Ok.. I checked a few sites and some of these statistics are pretty goddamned nutty: "Under the treaty, Russia received Finland's second largest city, Viipuri, the port of Petsamo on the Arctic Ocean, the Hanko area, all of Lake Ladoga’s shores and the entire Karelian Isthmus, the home of 12 per cent of Finland's population. Finland gave up a total of 22,000 square miles (current land 338.145 square km). One Russian general remarked, "We have won enough ground to bury our dead." Khrushchev wrote, "Even in these most favorable conditions it was only after great difficulty and enormous losses that we were finally able to win. A victory at such a cost was actually a moral defeat." According to Khrushchev, 1.5 million men were sent to Finland and one million of them were killed. 1000 aircraft, 2300 tanks and armored cars and an enormous amount of other war materials were lost." http://www.kaiku.com/winterwar.html Seems the losses that russia suffered are quite obscure. The winter offed 'em as well, the coldest winter since the 19th century (-40C weathers). Poor fellows in khakis, pffft.
Where to begin... Why, at the beginning, of course! They didn't hold out, but we won't go there again... "Pretty well" is a subjective judgement, based on rather little in terms of facts. A point I'll go into later. One. Your entire source of information seems to be one website - this one. http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/WW2.html No historian (or anyone wishing to discuss anything at all if it comes to that) should ever rely on one source of information, particularly when that one is the only one which seems to bear his own opinions out. I'm not going to into the discrepancies between your numbers and many other sources I've read - I'll leave the decision whether or not to do so to you. Note that the Polish casualties are commonly listed as "unknown" - suffice to say they lost a lot more than the Germans did. Now. I'll say it again - any army defending its home soil against an aggressor is likely to do far better than the odds would indicate. It's been proven historically time and again, and I mentioned it before. The Poles, by the standards of other "epic defences", didn't do anything remarkable. The choice of words by you and Hapsburg, "amazing", etc. do not fit here when you look at reality rather than romanticism. For every German soldier driven by fanaticism, there would have been at least 5 more wondering what the hell was going on. The tanks the Germans used at this stage of the war were very light, in many cases armed only with light machine guns and small calibre cannon. Do not make the mistake of thinking these were the Panzer IV's of later years, and the Tiger was only a dream. They were steel coffins, and not the type of armour to make the impact many think they did. Which is not to say they were not effective, because they were - but they were not indestructable juggernaughts, and were easy prey for anti-tank weapons, something the Poles did have. This was not the German war machine of a few months later. It had less experience, was using untried tactics, and didn't have the equipment it was later to have. Pertty much a given that the Finns would crumble too... against a numerically far larger army. But they didn't. Not really. A month, two weeks... the word "swat" comes to mind. Well, the Germans did anyway. That concept seems to be one of your favourites from that website, and yet it doesn't really hold water. I've already mentioned the losses sustained by the luftwaffe at the hands of the RAF over France, but you ignored it. The long term effects of such losses were of a far more dire nature than infantry losses. Winning wars or battles is not merely about the numbers of casualties inflicted. It is how, where, when, and what types of casualties. Many of the German pilots lost over France were those with experience gained in Spain, in Poland, and a few other places - gone forever. Such experience was not easily replaced, and the efforts of the German bomber crews over England showed their inexperience compared to the more experienced crews mauled by the RAF and lost over France. Long term effects. Now here is where you really lose the plot. I earlier mentioned that the British actually halted the Blitzkreig early in the battle of France, and even showed you a website which shows how it unfolded, pointing out where the British troops were stationed. You ignored it. Perhaps in order to score an ill-concieved point? The British were forced into retreat by the fact that they were shortly to be outflanked and carved up (due to the collapse of French forces) if they did not. Other than that, the German Blitzkreig was virtually halted on the Dyle River. Do not turn sound military judgement into cowardice just to make your views look better. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm simply disagreeing with it, and showing you why you're wrong. As an aside, the Germans didn't have an army at all a few years prior to WW2, other than the small one allowed by the treaty of Versaillles. Now rather than keep to your little moral high ground, why don't you ask yourself exactly how the British were to get reinforcements to Poland? Ask yourself how quickly it would have taken to organise such a relief effort in 1939. Ask yourself how they were to transport those troops... perhaps you're thinking they should have gotten them in through Danzig... through the German Navy, through the German airforce. Without losing the whole bloody lot in the process. Then, assuming you could think of a way in which they could do it, ask yourself why the British should throw away their soldiers in a lost cause. Now when you've finished coming up with all those answers, explain how all of this was to be accomplished in two weeks. If I was ever in a position where I needed to lose an army very quickly and to no tactical purpose, remind me to call on you. You could explain to me why throwing away a couple of hundred thousand soldiers is the morally correct thing to do. Quite a bit more than that. A lot more, in fact. That's a very generous estimation of German casualites. And I note how carefully you're avoiding noting the Polish figures. Wrong. The French capitulated, Britain did not. The French lost their outdated airforce... the British inflicted more casualties on the Germans with their airforce than anyone ever had until that point, more even than they did in the Battle of Britain. But you'll ignore that as well. I've met a few. I've met many more who know little about it other than what they've seen in war movies. And we have one on this very site - ask Vslayer. He thinks the ANZACS won it - all by themselves. Oh, that tired old saw. The British did not use Australians as "cannon fodder" any more than they used their own men. You've watched too many movies - I doubt I've seen a single one which did not contain the obligatory scene of the British General turning up his nose at the "colonials" and their antics, before making a pointed remark to his aide-de-camp over a cup of tea. The closest ANZAC forces came to being used as cannon fodder was in France, where Australian and Kwiw units were used as shock troops. This was because they had gained a reputation as being good soldiers, and any sensible general will use his best troops in order to try and break the enemy line (according to the doctrines of the time). There were more British at Gallipoli than ANZACS, and those British troops took as many casualties by proportion as the Australians and New Zealanders did. There were more French troops at Gallipoli than ANZACS, and they all made as many suicidal bayonet charges as the ANZACS did. To read most accounts of the battle, however, written from an Australian or New Zealand point of view, they were doing all the real work while the British sat around drinking cups of tea. The French are rarely mentioned at all. Actually I think it did us a favour, back then. The general Australian toughness of the time was probably a result of that to one degree or another. Added to that was the largely rural nature of the two countries at the time, compared to the metropolitan nature of Europe. I'd be surprised if the ANZAC forces weren't better "prepared" for battle than Europeans. Quality over quantity... even that was somewhat planned, you know. Do you realise that there were stringent height and chest requirements for the first elements of the AEF to leave for France? It is a large part of the tradition of "Tall, bronzed Aussies" in France. Height requirements, and months spent in Egypt. Most of them (even the city boys) knew how to shoot, and many to ride, before the war broke out. Of course they made better soldiers than their British counterparts - at least initally. Raw clay. Yes. But by 1944 that German war machine was tired, low on essential war materiel, low on fuel, and had many of its better generals put "out of the picture", and was in roughly the same tactical situation as your Poles were - fighting on two fronts. Not only that, but against more experienced, more annoyed, and better equipped armies than the Poles had to face. In spite of all that, they fought - hard. Read about the defence of Seelow heights. Now that is another epic of defence on home soil, by way of example. Glad you mentioned it, actually. If the Poles had had the tactical nous to retreat back over the rivers the initial situation might have been quite different. I am by no means saying that the eventual outcome would have changed, but who knows what the Soviet response might have been had the Germans been delayed longer? Even the attack on France would, in all likelihood, have had to be delayed. and that "epic defense" of yours might have been a little more deserving of the name. However, conjecture has ittle point in this case. While the short term effects of an early retreat by the Poles to better tactical positions might be worthwhile, long term is mere guesswork. A pointless jibe. The British hardly arranged things that way, it's simply how they were. Yet they sent the BEF to France anyway. Not to mention that that very same fortress was also a prison. Mostly I neglect to mention minor nations because their involvment in the european war exactly that - minor. Those three nations were the driving force behind the European allied effort. For you to say otherwise is simply foolish nit-picking. *Chuckles* now it's the "Racism" card being played. I'm not quite sure how labelling the French as a "race" factors into anything, but I can't say the ploy was wholly unexpected. And for the last time - I said nothing about the French surrender. Why bother arguing about a point I never made? I was belittling their preparedness and aptitude during WW2, not their surrender when they'd lost. Nor did I mention much about their performance in earlier times. You did. Actually, this particular "retard" didn't mention anything about the past of the French, let alone militarily, other than to note something in response to Hapsburg. In fact, I clearly remember saying that the military past of a nation had little bearing on its conduct in any later war. But of course - you're ignoring/have forgotten that too. Keep trying though. You're sure to score a point or two sooner or later, according to statistics and luck. I didn't call them cowards. I did say the French forces of WW2 were inept. I suggest you grab a dictionary and look up both words. Then try to comprehend the difference. Perhaps you should do this, and read a little more of what I've actually said rather than your emotional responses to it, before you post here again. It might help your case. If all else fails, you could always call me an uneducated mutherfucker. At least the second word would be far more difficult to disprove, even if the first was glaringly ridiculous, particularly coming from one whose whole argument seems to revolve around a single web page. You could have everyone staring at red herrings that way, and perhaps even get away from here with something approximating dignity if you muddy the water enough.
Wouldn't the anal, record keeping Nazis keep tabs on how much they lost in Poland? They did keep pretty tight record on how many Jews they turned into lampshades.
Somewhere between 40 and 50 thousand German dead and wounded, according to most sources. Polish casualties can only be guessed at. Between the intial blitzkreig and later systematic extermination under occupation, they were probably one of the hardest hit (both economically and casualty wise) of the european countries due to the effects of the war.
I meant the Polish Republic formed in 1919, its prime was in the year prior to the invasion, after they had beaten the Russians in the 20s, and built themselves up quite well in the 30s. The Kingdom of Poland (in union with Lithania) had its prime in the 16th century. That might be what you are thinking of.
Marquis: I find it strange that you would compare the Finnish resistance with the Polish resistance, for two reasons... 1. Poland was invaded by both the Germans and Russians, whereas Finland was only invaded by the Russians. The Russian army was far inferior to the German army. This was observed in the defence of Warsaw (1920), where the newly established Polish republic beat back a far larger force of Russians, or in Afghanistan, where the Russians fled from a bunch of natives with their tails between their legs. The only real advantage Russia had against other countries (including the Germans) were their massive numbers, and the fact that a Russian will do almost anything for victory, including shooting their own men in the back, gunning down soldiers who surrendered, and burning their cities down to the ground. 2. Russia invaded Finland during winter, and her troops were not prepared for the frigid weather. Hitler later learned this lesson in his invasion on Russia. Although his troops were far superior to the backwards Russians, the cold winter done them in, just like to did for Napoleon's troops. Climate is a huge factor in deciding whether an invasion is successful or not. Of course, I'm not attempting to belittle how well Finland kicked Russian ass (always good to hear the Russians getting knocked around in past history!). There is no doubt that Finnish soldiers were perhaps the bravest and most skillful in Europe, and they definitely kicked ass (despite having to eventually give large amounts of Finland to the Russians). However, attempting to compare the invasion of Finland with the invasion of Poland is fallicious, since the circumstances were not parallel. If Finland had have been invaded by the German's, with their military superiority and vicious battle tactics, in a temperate climate, I wonder how long they would have lasted? They lasted for a few months against the backwards Russians during winter... I wouldn't have high hopes of them lasting out too long against the Nazis during spring. Quite simply, if you want to have a rather reasonable estimate on how well the Polish held out against the Nazis, you need to compare how well other countries resisted the NAZIS. France crumbled almost instantly, as did the rest of Europe. British troops fought for a little while, held the Nazis to a standstill, and then fled across the English channel. BTW, I never claimed that this was an act of cowardice, I'm merely pointing out to anti-French bigots that if you make fun of the French for surrendering (which was the only RATIONAL choice, when the alternative was the destruction of France), then to remain consistent, you need to make fun of the British's 'cowardice' for fleeing the Germans. But then again, WE both know that it is only reasonable to surrender/flee from a far superior force when they have you by the balls. It's just a pity that people who laugh at the French for being 'surrender monkies' can't comprehend this. My apologies for being harsh with you, Marquis. It's quite obvious that you do have a clue regarding history, and I did jump to conclusions about you belittling the French. I suspected you were an American, who seem to have a nasty tendency of running down France's proud military history. The French bungle once... and it looks like they will never live it down. Personally, I don't like the French much, but I like to give credit where credit is due... One source is quite adequate when quoting a few statistics. And the statistics stand until you can refute them as unreliable. Posting multiple sources to confirm a figure is not only a waste of time, it's also nitpicking. If you feel that there are discrepencies with my sources, put forward your own evidence to show why they are unreliable.
