Poland-Russia: never-ending story?

Lets see Pres. Putin did not break down his hero, maybe his history books will tell he killed his own and Russian also slaved and died for his Utopia. Time Magazine reports that "New state textbooks (in Russia) hail Stalin as 'the most successful Russian leader ever'." Soviet atrocities against the Polish nation, only admitted by the Soviets in

the Gorbachev era, are once again at risk of being denied, minimized or stricken from the record.


LOL my rights open,Isthatu.


That's like saying my father is Ukrainian because it's now Ukraine,no, he's born of Polish reguardless, correct? After all it was Poland was he was born.

Still, it is not related to Stalin as a "great leader of Russia discussion" above :-\

You know who you are :) and Russians have such ideas, when they are stronger they tell oher nations that they are Russians and invade them. Nothning new.

I find a leader accoutable for all actions , not just the ones that are choosen. That would be like priding =Pres. Bush on just Afganastan and leaving Iraq out of the history. Stalin had potential to be a great hero, as does Pres. Bush... It should be truthful history that determines this not what makes their country most proud. IMO Russia should tell the full nasty truth in the "New state textbooks" and by now changing the record and playing down the treatment surrounding the atroicites is another slap in the face. Personally , I feel Pres. Putin's pushing this type of slander is nothing short as disrespectful slander.

Now I repeat, history between Poland and Russia will never start until Russia and the leaders show remorse vs. glorifying this past that has millions of victims. Pain from my grandmother, aunts, uncles still hurts today. As does the behavior "Stalin" ordered for my loved ones in Poland. How do we accept Pres. Putin as a respected leader when he shows such disrespect for our people? How many unarmed military were shot in the head?

Yeltsin was a sero compared to Trotsky.An alcoholic demagogue of very low quality who had planed everything with Gorbatsev even their ''conflicts.''


Russians never really used the Shermans americans gave them regarding them of much lower performance than T-34s and JS.Oppoiste to British who jumped to them to find relief from their Vickers.

Was it true that the Russian's were afraid of them as stated on this link?

russia.com/forums/history/16432-russian-t-34-tank-9.html

Dont be daft,you asked me a question,I say nothing comes to mind and now im guilty of evasion,how stoopid is that?


Every bug ger who had to crew a Sherman was terrified of them,they were crap,under armed,under armoured and would burst into flames with a single hit from a gerry light anti tank gun......Like all the garbage given so nobly by the USA the red army dumped it as soon as possible,boots that fell apart etc,about the only bits of kit the RKKA liked were Jeeps and Studebaker trucks.

These trucks were very important.They gave the red army great flexibility and improved the supply lines dramatically.Wehrmacht suffered from a serious lack in track numbers as the ones produced in Germany were not enough to cover the needs,so it made extensive use of horses in supply lines.

When the british army became fully motor mobilised in 1936,it sold all its horses to Wehrmacht.The paradox was that the horses helped greatly in the campaign against Soviet Union as they were the only means of transportation in a rural land with no roads or bad manufactured roads full of rasputnica,where the trucks could not move at all.

Wrong,"we" still had cavelry brigades upto 1941/2.
But you are right about the horse being useful for the hun,although,in the main they prefered the panja ponies native to the area.

I mean the supply lines were fully motorized.
Also the PPSh41 proved its value in Stalingrand battle wher it proved superior to german MP40 turning many german soldiers to start using captured PPSh41s instead of their guns.The mashine gun Degatrajev was also good although inferior to german MG42,the best mashine gun ever produced.

In contrast the only british element among ground forces that Germans respected was the artillery.

No,agreed,I think the British Army was one of the first to become fully motorized in that respect.
The ppsh41's main selling point to the germans was its 71 round drum magazine,as opposed to the 30 round stick mag of the mp 40,in close in fighting its weight of fire rather than technical superiority that counts.

True,the dp28 was a fine gun,if rather heavy,but the mg 42 beats all contempory lmg's hands down.
As this is a Polish /Russian thread Im not getting drawn into your last point,but,I think you may like to talk to a few wSS vets like I have who fought against the British airborne lads in Normandy or Arnhem,not forggetting the Commandos that gave gitler the serious hebbie jeebies:)

I have read books written by Wehrmacht soldiers and german commandos who regarded the british troops on Kreta in 1941 far superior to british troops they met later in Tunis,Italy and Arnhem.The british army became gradually worse instead of improving and became totally dependant on american weapons.

actually,sorry,I am going to get drawn in then.....
Right,youve read books,always a good starting point,but I have spoken at length with Veterens of all sides in the last war.


Really,I will have to take exeption to your last points. The troops on Crete were second line troops so I find that hard to believe,the airborne troops at arnhem were the best trained and hardest fighting troops of the NW europe campaign,that comes straight from the mouths of 9th and 10th wSS troops I have met.


On a grand scale,you have a point,by the end of the campaign in Europe Britain had been bled dry by 5 years of fighting around the world,the avarage line soldiers were of a bog standard ,"lets just survive this crap" type of soldier.The best troops were being saved for the continuing campaign in the far east( thats the big scrap in asia that the poles didnt fight in).as for you last point,about totally dependent on US weapons,that is complete and utter nonsence,the british army always used its own British designed weapons,with the exeption of the odd tommy gun and Sherman tanks,but even they had been largly replace by the various mks of Sten gun and British built tanks such as the Comet which were far superior in every way to th Sherman...

These were crucial weapons.They made a difference.Also bazookas instead of Boys and Piats,american food supplies,jeeps,the carriers in Normandy landing...


Which were there for reorganization having lost almost all their heavy weapons in France.

I hope compromise can be reached on this issue...

Lithuania again demands compensation for "Soviet occupation"

Gazeta, 09/ 01/ 2008
en.rian.ru/analysis/20080109/95913907.html

Do you think Russia is the legal successsor of Soviet Union?Why not asking compensation from Ukraine,Belarus,Kazakhstan as well?And what does occupation mean?

Lithuania was considered to join SU by the free will of its population.I did not see any western government recognizing an independant Lithuania in 1945-1991.

For the period 1939-1941 they can ask Germans to whom they should be grateful for their independance in 1941-1944.
They can also ask Israel for compensation.

Nope,sorry,the British army never used bazooka's,they for some daft reason stuck with the PIAT, US food supplies,no,we had our own rations,totaly different to the US K and C rations,sure,much of the basic ingredients MAY have come via the states(we are a small island after all with limited food production) but that is not what you imply.Yep,we used jeeps,though would hardly say we relied on jeeps.and,I think you will be surprised to learn that most of the landing craft used by the british and canadian forces in Normandy were RN british built ships.The small higgins boats as seen in Saving Private Ryan et all were not used by the british,in fact,many of the landing ships used by US force in Normandy were British built crewed by RN sailors.


er,so what,they were still some of gitlers finest ,toughest troops and as such recognised the same in the "red devils" so you make a moot point Im afraid.

Wrong choice.PIATs could not penetrate german tank armour.


This was the most successful american product after the B-29 and the Mustangs.


I did not know that.The Higgins were considered ideal.I consider it is possible what you tell.


It was bad decision of Montgomery which delayed the allied progress.These troops were very reduced by the time of the attack but the lack of heavy armour in british air borne divisions made their success almost impossible.

Wonder if during your tet a tet you pointed out all the SS' faults to these upstanding gentleman as you have no hesitation in doing on this forum when it comes to Poland and Poles?

Still waiting on those Russian contributions - you've obviously had the time to go off thread and give us minute details of GB and german weaponology.

Isthatu seems well informed and maybe has used some of the guns he describes because he tells technical details.
Only sometimes he omits some facts which you have to remind of.

and always happy to be reminded southern.after all,nobodys perfect,even me;)
Dan,Im disapointed,your turning into a bit tosser too (ur obviously joining my club)with that post,wrong thread,wrong subject......


That has got to be one of the most pathetic things I have read on here for a while.Tet a Tet...muppet.No I didnt start blaming those fine old gentlemen any more than I would critises any veteren,I will however continue to critisise young kids who are clueless.


well,considering its my frikkin job,i dont have to "go off" and do much research at all........


didnt say it was the right choice,just pointing out it was the choice made,BTW,do you really suppose a bazooka rocket penetrated ever a tigers armour?


Neither of which used by the Soviets(the raf had a few mustangs but on the other hand the USAAF had a few spitfires :) )


sorry,to clarify,some of the higgins boats used on the US beaches were crewed by RN sailors,they wernt used to any major extent on the 3 UK/Canadian beaches though.

No.Maybe they could cut the track of them but I am not sure.However they could penetrate the lateral armour of Panzer 3 and 4 which were the majority in the front.


They were military secrets.The Soviets would copy them if they got them in their hands(as they actually did with the B-29).

I knew they copied the DC3,hadnt heard of a copied B29 though,surely a post war plane?
BTW the Mustang was not a "secret" just a bog standard(though absoloutly gorgeous) fighter plane.
regarding the PIAT,I will look out a link later ,too an Arnhem soldier who succsesfully knocked out severel Tigers,panzer mk6,tanks with a piat and earned himself the VC,actually Jeremy Clarkson's father in law !

They completed it in 1947 and placed it on North Pole in order to be able to bomb USA in case of war.

Bit tosser eh? Drill bits? Needless and failed attempt at profanity against me.

Right thread, right post.


Why's it pathetic? Let's spin this around - I recall from your previous posts you have little love for the IRA. Just say I had a chat with them about their exploits and blurted it out on say an English forum. I'd expect a similar question. I certianly wouldnt call them 'fine old gentleman'.

my bad,sorry,bit OF A tosser.
that better?


nope,you are bringing up a debate from another thread and using it on here for some reason only known to yourself.

Now,if I said Id spoken to ss veterens of the warsaw uprising I would respect your comment,as I havnt,and the two old boys (and correct me if im wrong,you were the one to first class them as old gentlemen.)I spoke to only served in westeren europe and were both thouraly investegated for possible war crimes and cleared to live in the UK as fine upstanding citizins for the last 60 years I fail to see where your point lies.

I have no love for the IRA or the Orangemen,what has that got to do with having respect for old boys conscripted into their countries armed forces in time of war.......It is not mine,or anyone under 80s place to judge people for their service in those bleak times.Remember,I am talking about men who were still in their teens at the time and not KZ guards or kaminski criminals.

If you have an axe to grind with me for not wanting to see everything as black and white/good and evil,fine,your loss .

SS Panzer Hochenstaufen and Lehr which were in Arnhem never participated in atrocities.

sorry southern,it was actualy the Hohenstaffen(9th ss) and frunsberg(10th ss) divisions at arnhem,but,your right,neither of those divisions were charged with atrocities,unlike many other ss and non ss units.

Several words come to mind about you too. As I'm a gentleman, and don't believe in the cowardly use of profanity behind the safety of a computer screen, I'll keep my thoughts to myself. Ive noticed you enjoy using those witty little camouflaged swear words (ie Fek, aschole, gay dogs et al - wow, really tough and scary) against lots of people on this forum too. You've set a benchmark that I wont stoop to.


What? Look at your last few posts. Look at the quote.


I can only shake my head.

not much of a valuble contribution to an internet forum is it?


nuff said?
as to the rest,no,not wittily disguised,just adapted to slip through this darn yankee profanity blocker.btw,Id like to see you tell an irishman that fek is a disguised word :)