Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 69

Another WWII thread.


Paulie 1 | 43  
21 Sep 2009 /  #1
Just out of interest, how would one translate POLAND - FIRST TO RUN AWAY?

I don't believe the Polish 'ran' anywhere. The first mass 'running away' of WW2 by anyone was surely the British at Dunkirk ?

As in, "....help us! help us! Please help us! We need to get back to England rather quick because the Bosch are coming"
Harry  
21 Sep 2009 /  #2
I don't believe the Polish 'ran' anywhere. The first mass 'running away' of WW2 by anyone was surely the British at Dunkirk ?

Are you for real? The Polish navy was in full retreat days before the first shots of the war were even fired! Read about the Pekin Plan and how the cream of the Polish navy bravely legged it to the safety of the nearest British base in August 1939. On their way there they went past British naval vessels going in the opposite direction with the aim of being ready to take on the Germans as soon as the war started!
Paulie 1 | 43  
21 Sep 2009 /  #3
On their way there they went past British naval vessels going in the opposite direction with the aim of being ready to take on the Germans as soon as the war started!

With the 'aim', but they didn't did they?

Anyway, the entire flotilla was soon needed to help the British army run-away, er sorry... I mean 'evacuate' at Dunkirk, minus all their kit, back to good ol' blightly. There's a good chap, what oh.
Ziemowit 13 | 4,086  
21 Sep 2009 /  #4
The war was declared ("started") by Britain on the 3rd of September 1939, so ...
Harry  
21 Sep 2009 /  #5
With the 'aim', but they didn't did they?

I see your knowledge of history is as good as your knowledge of meteorology.

Anyway, the entire flotilla was soon needed to help the British army run-away, er sorry... I mean 'evacuate' at Dunkirk, minus all their kit, back to good ol' blightly. There's a good chap, what oh.

The entire flotilla? Are you simply showing your ignorance or just plain old lying? The Royal Navy only sent 42 ships to Dunkirk (the vast majority of which were destroyers), the remaining vessels (more than 700 of them) were the 'little ships of Dunkirk'.

Although given that you are apparently too stupid to know the difference between a fighting withdrawal after a battle has been lost and running away before a single shot has been fired, you're probably just displaying your ignorance.
Paulie 1 | 43  
21 Sep 2009 /  #6
fighting withdrawal

Run along old chap, get Mummsie to make you a nice cup of tea, and have a lie down. What, oh?

you're probably just displaying your ignorance

I refer you to your earlier post #2, for a fine display of that.
Piorun - | 658  
21 Sep 2009 /  #7
apparently too stupid

That's how I would describe your tactical skills and reasoning ability.
Harry one of your ancestors must have been an adviser to the Americans. You see the storm or in this case war coming, so let's just keep our fleet at anchor (instead of saving it and strategic repositioning it so it can really be of some use later) so it can be destroyed just like at Pearl Harbour. Great reasoning there buddy. Your stupidity (or rather your hatred of Poland) never ceases to amaze me. As far as I remember Polish Navy served with honer and distinction for the remainder of the War.
Harry  
21 Sep 2009 /  #8
Run along old chap, get Mummsie to make you a nice cup of tea, and have a lie down. What, oh?

Fighting withdrawal = men dying every second as they hold up the attack long enough for the bulk of the forces to be withdrawn.

Operation Pekin = legging it before the first shot was fired.

See any difference there?

You see the storm or in this case war coming, so let's just keep our fleet at anchor.

Is there any factual error in the statement "The cream of the Polish navy bravely legged it to the safety of the nearest British base in August 1939"? No, there is not.

While we could argue about the validity of reasoning behind the move (although I'd entirely agree that running for the safety of the nearest British base was the correct move), the simple fact is that Poland was first to run away (and that it was second to fight).

But hey, you guys were at least first when it came to invading Czechoslovakia in 1938.
szczeciniak 4 | 92  
21 Sep 2009 /  #9
The British government on 24 August 1939, through Lieutenant-General Sir Adrian Carton De Wiart, head of the British Military mission made strong representations to Marshal Edward Śmigły-Rydz, Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Forces, to evacuate the most modern elements of the fleet from the Baltic. Although Śmigły-Rydz resisted the idea at first, he finally agreed.

why? Śmigły-Rydz's reason for doing so was the idea of a Romanian Bridgehead. It was hoped the Polish forces could hold out in the southeast of the country, near the common border with Romania, until relieved by a Franco-British offensive. Munitions and arms could be delivered from the west via Romanian ports and railways. The Polish Navy would then be able to escort the ships delivering the supplies to Romanian ports.

The Polish Navy, which had escaped intact, consisted of 60 vessels, including 2 cruisers, 9 destroyers and 5 submarines ( one of which was the famous "Orzel") which were involved in 665 actions at sea. The first German ship sunk in the war was sunk by Polish ships. The Navy also took part in the D-Day landings.

In reality Poland was only just beginning to modernise her armed forces and had been forced (by Britain and France) to delay mobilisation (which they claimed might be interpreted as aggressive behaviour)

its more clearer now? or it not?
Piorun - | 658  
21 Sep 2009 /  #10
Is there any factual error in the statement "The cream of the Polish navy bravely legged it to the safety of the nearest British base in August 1939"? No, there is not.

Yes there is, the proper term is strategic redeployment. If you like to think of it in the terms of business it would be Asset Redeployment. Something to do with overall strategy. Since Poland supposed to be engaged only in defensive posture it was wise decision to do so.
Harry  
21 Sep 2009 /  #11
its more clearer now? or it not?

I have read that wikipedia page thanks.

In reality Poland was only just beginning to modernise her armed forces and had been forced (by Britain and France) to delay mobilisation (which they claimed might be interpreted as aggressive behaviour)

Forced by Britain?! How did Britain do that? Threaten to invade Poland? Do you happen to have any sources which support the claim that Britain forced Poland to delay mobilisation? My grandfather used to tell us about how he learned the very little Polish he once spoke. He was supposed to go and check the Polish airbases to see which British planes could use which airfields but the Polish govt wouldn't allow RAF personnel to do that as they were concerned the Nazis may use it as an excuse example of Poland preparing to attack Germany. Then when war started the PAF said that they couldn't guarantee he'd always have a translator with him. So he got sent on a two week language course. By the time it finished there was no point sending him to Poland.

Yes there is, the proper term is strategic redeployment.

So how about "Poland - first to strategically redeploy its military assets far from the place where bullets and bombs would be at a later date"?
Piorun - | 658  
21 Sep 2009 /  #12
So how about "Poland - first to strategically redeploy its military assets far from the place where bullets and bombs would be at a later date"?

What's the point of defending a Lake like Baltic Sea when you're outnumbered and out gunned, be cut off from your allies and destroyed ?, Those assets are too valuable, one can always take it back at a later date. The Navy is not much of an use when it comes to defend Warsaw, the baulk of fighting would be on the ground anyway. If you managed your business like that you soon would be out of business.
Harry  
21 Sep 2009 /  #13
Interesting to see a Pole writing that. Normally Poles say things like "The Royal Navy should have sailed into the Baltic to support our forces in Gdynia!".
szczeciniak 4 | 92  
21 Sep 2009 /  #14
I have read that wikipedia page thanks

you welcome
now i know that wikipedia is you friend.

Forced by Britain?! How did Britain do that? Threaten to invade Poland? Do you happen to have any sources which support the claim that Britain forced Poland to delay mobilisation?

what is the problem? dont go google -ling deep search?
aw well sweetliberty is good reading to start, and may be you will find your answer?

tata now
as it is time to sleep on it( a little bit:-l )
Ziemowit 13 | 4,086  
21 Sep 2009 /  #15
Normally Poles say things like "The Royal Navy should have sailed into the Baltic to support our forces in Gdynia!".

From what you've been telling us, one could guess that British naval vessels had been sailing into the Baltic past Polish vessels going in the opposite direction. Does that mean the British made a U-turn having spotted the Polish navy retreating from the Baltic? [I don't know the history of the WWII so well, that's why I'm asking ...]
Piorun - | 658  
22 Sep 2009 /  #16
Interesting to see a Pole writing that. Normally Poles say things like "The Royal Navy should have sailed into the Baltic to support our forces in Gdynia!".

I don't believe that anyone here actually tolled you that, all they did is give you same examples as yourself to show you how ridiculous that statement actually was. What I hear here is that there's a difference between having a strategy and following it and cowardice, of which you accuse Polish Navy. Same could be said about the strategic fallback of our army, the escape of our pilots, evacuation of the government or Polish gold reserves. We are patriotic, ready to fight but we're not suicidal or stupid. When there's overwhelming force directed at you, you will simply move so you can live to fight another day. There's a fine line between bravery and stupidity. If the strategy was not followed and blind desire to fight the aggressor prevailed, great deal of our boys would not be able to fight on the western front be it in France or Britain. Although many of them were already convinced of the betrayal by our friends and allies none have lost courage and fought on. One thing you can never accuse those boys of is of cowardice, many armies would have and actually have simply given up seeing their nation run over by the enemy, their supposed allies not living up to their commitment, but those boys still found enough strength in them to stand firm in defence of those very same allies and even after the fall of France they did not give up, they still fought on. This is true of all branches of our military. None of them said; well for Poland at least all is lost so why should I fight for you?, you who let me down. If in your logic that's the act of a coward then I for one don't want to hear your definition of bravery.
Bzibzioh  
22 Sep 2009 /  #17
What I hear here is that there's a difference between having a strategy and following it and cowardice, of which you accuse Polish Navy.

Oh, don't try any logical arguments with Harry. When Britain declared war on Germany and then did nothing it was "we were not ready to fight and we were not suicidal" explanation but when Polish Navy withdrew is "Poles are cowards and first to run away". And bonus - there is always bonus - "But hey, you guys were at least first when it came to invading Czechoslovakia in 1938" and he was generously forgetting about 1968 and "backstabbing Ukraine".
Harry  
22 Sep 2009 /  #18
I don't believe that anyone here actually tolled you that, all they did is give you same examples as yourself to show you how ridiculous that statement actually was.

Wrong again!

Harry:
As is traditional at these times, I will ask the question that no Pole has ever answered, despite many being asked it: what would you like the UK to have done in September/October 1939 that it did not do?

Use its fleet to shell German harbors and attack both the merchant and military shipping on the baltic, establish a naval link with polish held harbors and naval bases and start offloading troops which is what it was supposed to do according to the treaty it signed.

polishforums.com/poland-politics-history-34/apologies-sikorskis-murder-32325/2/#msg619109

Could you go into detail about the way that Britain betrayed Poland in 1939 or 1940 or 1941 or 1942 or 1943 or 1944 or 1945? Could you perhaps state the ways in which Britain did not live up to the commitments which it gave Poland? Of course you cannot and will not, Poles never can or do, but that doesn't stop them from whining about betrayal.

Oh, don't try any logical arguments with Harry.

A woman who lives in Canada as a Canadian and denies her Polish nationality on a daily basis but claims that she's Polish is not exactly the best person to be talking about logic.

When Britain declared war on Germany and then did nothing

Did nothing? Thousands of British servicemen died in 1939 but to you that is nothing? Looks like you're just lying yet again.
Paulie 1 | 43  
22 Sep 2009 /  #19
Thousands of British servicemen died in 1939

Oh dear, oh dear, I see your knowledge of military history is on par with your knowledge of inclement weather.

Britain only had a very small professional army in 1939, called the BEF, You can read all about the Phoney War on Wikipedia, and how The RAF dropped leaflets on Germany to scare them.
Bzibzioh  
22 Sep 2009 /  #20
A woman who lives in Canada as a Canadian and denies her Polish nationality on a daily basis

Harry, I know your fascist tendencies of deciding for a person who they are but I'm still Polish, thank you very much. I know you are jealous cos no matter how long you'd live in Poland you'd never be a Pole, passport or not.

Could you go into detail about the way that Britain betrayed Poland in 1939 or 1940 or 1941 or 1942 or 1943 or 1944 or 1945?

Classic Harry! We are talking September 1939 and you extend nicely to 1945.

Britain only had a very small professional army in 1939, called the BEF, You can read all about the Phoney War on Wikipedia, and how The RAF dropped leaflets on Germany to scare them.

Oh, don't be ridiculous. Harry will explain about that heroic bombardments of German ports with those rusting junk planes in no time I'm sure.
gumishu 11 | 5,195  
22 Sep 2009 /  #21
Interesting to see a Pole writing that. Normally Poles say things like "The Royal Navy should have sailed into the Baltic to support our forces in Gdynia!".

sorry but you are a plain idiot in my eyes - and guess what - I never heard such Royal Navy bullshit from anybody Polish - only from you
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
22 Sep 2009 /  #22
Polonius3

Don't agree to that. By the end of 1944 most of Poland was liberated by the Red Army. Is this some kind of myth the Polish keep to glorify themselves once again?

M-G (needs a drink)
Harry  
22 Sep 2009 /  #23
Oh dear, oh dear, I see your knowledge of military history is on par with your knowledge of inclement weather.

I see that you know bugger all about both! The Royal Navy alone lost thousands dead in 1939. For example: Sept 17, German submarine U-29 torpedoes and sinks HMS Courageous in the Bristol Channel, with the loss of 518 men. Oct 14, HMS Royal Oak sunk by German submarine U-47, 833 men die. 1,251 dead from just two ships going down. More than 175 Allied ships were sunk in 1939!

The RAF dropped leaflets on Germany to scare them.

We've had this discussion before: bombs were also dropped.

I know you are jealous cos no matter how long you'd live in Poland you'd never be a Pole, passport or not.

Yes, I'd love to be able to do what you do: take citizenship, claim all the benefits that go with citizenship and then spit on the country which gave you citizenship.

Classic Harry! We are talking September 1939 and you extend nicely to 1945.

As you are clearly unable to go into detail about the way that Britain betrayed Poland in Spetember 1939, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to go into detail about the way that Britain betrayed Poland anytime from 1939 to 1945. Obviously you can't.

sorry but you are a plain idiot in my eyes - and guess what - I never heard such Royal Navy bullshit from anybody Polish - only from you

I guess you must be setting new standards in idiocy: you'll never hear me say that the RN should have entered the Baltic in Sept 1939 and in the post above I quote a Pole repeatedly saying that they should have done so, which kind of blows a hole in your claim that you've never heard that bullshit from a Pole.
Bzibzioh  
23 Sep 2009 /  #24
POLAND - FIRST TO FIGHT
[Britain] THEY CHOSE DISGRACE OVER WAR. NOW THEY'LL HAVE BOTH DISGRACE AND WAR.

Don't agree to that. By the end of 1944 most of Poland was liberated by the Red Army. Is this some kind of myth the Polish keep to glorify themselves once again?

Nobody gives a flying potato whether you agree or not. Especially if is coming from a guy who's country surrendered in one afternoon. Nothing wrong with receiving recognition when one is due.

Yes, I'd love to be able to do what you do: take citizenship, claim all the benefits that go with citizenship and then spit on the country which gave you citizenship.

No, you'd not. This citizenship comes with a hefty tax bill every year. No benefits whatsoever. Seeing your country of residence all positives and negatives doesn't equals to spiting on it. At least I'm not so hateful like you are about Poland.

As you are clearly unable to go into detail about the way that Britain betrayed Poland in Spetember 1939,

Oh, I'm clearly able plenty. Don't blame Poland for your pathetic war unpreparedness and don't ask us to thank you for declaring war against Germany. You were perfectly fine watching us bleed, happy that was us and not you. Bloody hypocrites.
TheOther 6 | 3,821  
23 Sep 2009 /  #25
and don't ask us to thank you for declaring war against Germany

But you are aware that the war most likely would've ended in 1940 if Britain wouldn't have declared war on Germany? And we wouldn't call it WW2 either nowadays, I guess.
Bzibzioh  
23 Sep 2009 /  #26
But you are aware that the war most likely would've ended in 1940 if Britain wouldn't have declared war on Germany?

Yeah, and those Adolf's allies (Italy and Japan) were very useful in Poland.
TheOther 6 | 3,821  
23 Sep 2009 /  #27
Bzibzioh
No Britain at war with Germany, no Poland - simple as that.
Bzibzioh  
23 Sep 2009 /  #28
Adolf was ambitious. He didn't need such a big army or allies to just take Poland and Russia. He would go west anyway.
Paulie 1 | 43  
23 Sep 2009 /  #29
No Britain at war with Germany, no Poland - simple as that.

Rubbish. Almost 9 out of every 10 Germans killed in WW2 were killed by the Red Army.
TheOther 6 | 3,821  
23 Sep 2009 /  #30
He would go west anyway.

Maybe he would have finished off France because of the Treaty of Versailles, but I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't have touched Britain. Hitler wasn't interested in a war with the UK.

Rubbish. Almost 9 out of every 10 Germans killed in WW2 were killed by the Red Army.

How can you be so certain that the attack on the USSR would have taken place? Maybe Hitler would have stopped after the occupation of Poland, who knows?

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / Another WWII thread.Archived