Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 200

Poland Remembers start of WW2


Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,823  
2 Sep 2009 /  #61
Because...

Well...nobody was disputing facts...just your way to get your respect...ah well....

*takes helmet*
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
2 Sep 2009 /  #62
Similar thing was with the anniversary of the fall of the iron curtain. I/we know what you are trying to say, BBoy.
wzgrza - | 46  
2 Sep 2009 /  #63
Well...nobody was disputing facts...just your way to get your respect...ah well....

You had questions in your post so I answered the why.

After the wars end Poland was imo the nation that got the worst of it all. So this is a much bigger deal in Poland, then anywhere else. It hits a little closer to home when you have relatives in your family who were murdered during this time, and the stories you hear about it from other relatives, on top of the things you read.

It really shocks me that the typical person seems to have a hard time wrapping their minds around something seemingly so simple.

The war in Poland was different then the war in any other nation. It wasnt a strategic military war. It was a war of murder, and genocide.

When the Jews keep bringing up the holocaust nobody says a word, but the second a Pole opens, or complains about the turn of events during and after the war, we are labeled crying and moaning Polaks. Sick of the BS double standards.
tornado2007 11 | 2,270  
3 Sep 2009 /  #64
Dose this make your achievement that much greater?

as i said the British army was rebuilding, it was hardly in any state to do anything about the huge army Jerry had been building for the 15 years previous while the UK was downsizing!!!

Uncle Adolf was not stupid, he knew exactly what was going on and where, if he hadn't turned into an absolute mad man and listened to his Military advisors we would all be speaking German now!!!

Britain was viewed as insignificant, unimportant and a pushover by the Nazi Germany

The Nazi's could think of us what they liked, after all their downfall was over confidence and fighting on to many fronts :) They had one of the best war machines in existance and still managed to fook it up, believe me if the British had an army of that size and strength, there would have been no failure.

those pathetic excuses was the cause for the greatest misery Britain had ever known and you as a nation paid dearly for it.

excuses, excuses, the state of the British army at that point is well documented!!!! So please leave the 'excuses' alone, nobody is happy about what happened to Poland and other nations that the Germans ravaged but it could have been anyone.

Despite all of this you make a back room deal effectively enslaving our nation for the next 44 years.

i think you will find that Churchill gave plenty of warnings about what the Ruski's would do to those in its occupied territories but nobody listened!!!! It was the Yanks who didn't take him seriously (or didn't care) and the Russians were allowed to do what they did. Churchill spoke up on a number of occassions about the dangers of the Soviet Union, its not his fault that nobody listened to him.

As for buying crap, there would be no need for a lot of the discussion if it was just about 'rememberance and respect' but as you can see on this forum its not just about that, its the bitter history that is wheeled out over and over again. I'm all for respecting and remembering lost and fallen soldiers, civilians alike, however to keep bleeting on and on drives me nuts when Poland has so much potential to forfill.

Ive always skipped over your posts, personally i find them extremely boring. I think the best course of action is to go back to this practice.

well fine, thats your view and your decision, although they can't of been that boring as it certainly got your back up :)

If youre going to make comments like the above you can expect reprisals

i've got no problem answering to my comments, i don't stoop down to personal insults in doing so either, i'm more than happy to discuss and debate about my point of view. As for the comment i have apologised for that, it was out of order and was the wrong way to get my point across.

GB got their arse kicked in France in 1940,

yes because the French and the Belgians surrendered here, there and everywhere leaving the flanks open to attack. I think you'll also find that our troops were not properly trained, not given the correct weapons (as i've already said, many units were given practise rounds) and considering they were fighting tank divisions they hardly had any anti tank weapons. However in the face of danger they stood their ground on another nations territory, that themselves had quit.

in Norway in 41', Grece 41', Crete 41', Tobruk 42', Greek Islands 43'...

what do you expect when fighting alongside such allies as the Greeks, lol, they were still throwing javlins at Jerry then, ppppffffffff.

you were still no match for the Gerries

i never said we were, a lot of the time we were out numbered and out gunned but still stuck around to see out the battle, the German war machine is the 2nd best in history as far as i'm concerned, who could be a match for them??? Nobody, they made their mistakes and the allies capitalised on them, of course it helped that Hitler fooked himself in the backside by turning on the Soviet Union (I bet he is still turning in his grave about that mistake :) ).

you to step down from that high horse of yours

i'm not on a horse of any variety or speaking from a high place, my point is that the Polish should respect and remember, while also looking forward into the future and developing their nation instead of continually dragging out the same old same old. If you want me to respect Poland and the Polish then first off they have to respect themselves and show a bit of self esteem to push forward instead of being stuck in the mud.
Bzibzioh  
3 Sep 2009 /  #65
If you want me to respect Poland and the Polish then first off they have to respect themselves and show a bit of self esteem to push forward instead of beingstuck in the mud.

... or maybe you really should stop talking out of your ass ... kolego sympatyczny
wzgrza - | 46  
3 Sep 2009 /  #66
i think you will find that Churchill gave plenty of warnings about what the Ruski's would do to those in its occupied territories

You are right, Churchill did know about what the Ruskies would do. But it's not that nobody listened, it's that Churchill never really spoke up. As far as Poland goes, FDR was really the initiator, and the one who pushed Poland under the knife with Stalin to start with. The betrayal from Churchills side comes as there were many agreements between him, and the Polish government in London, assuring us that Poland would come out of the conflict as an independant and soverign nation, with its borders untouched.

After the conference in Tehran, your heard less and less about Poland from both FDR and Churchill. FDR and Churchill were both busy brown nosing Stalin, and bending over to every one of his demands, as if they themselves had no negotiating power. Whatever it took to keep uncle Joe happy, they did.

Stalin was made to look like a hero, and became a warm family type member in British media. Nothing was mentioned of the betrayal starting to take place. Articles on Katyn were covered up and not published during that time to not upset uncle Joe. English writers within the UK who saw what was going on and questioned Churchills and FDRs agenda with Poland in their articles, never saw their articles published. The media was sensored. Churchill in the end did nothing for Poland after the war. FDR assured Stalin that he would give him a free hand in Poland after the war.. and that is what happened.

The allies had much more negotiating power then they used, but they just wanted the war to be over. Who cares about some distant piece of land to the East. The same appeasement of Hitler (the conference in Munich), which Churchill was very much against, he allowed to happen with Stalin in the case of Poland, a few years later.
z_darius 14 | 3,965  
3 Sep 2009 /  #67
i never said we were, a lot of the time we were out numbered and out gunned but still stuck around to see out the battle

You tend to forget that Poles were outnumbered too. And that they did put up a fight.
Did you ever check the damage Poles inflicted on Germany in 1939? Sure Poles lost 1939, but for Germans it was not a walk in the park, as it was in Western Europe in 1940 where British best achievement was evacuation of its forces from the Contonent.

I've seen the strength of Britain's land forces in Europe in 1939 compared to those those of Czechoslovakia, i.e. inconsequential in the event of open conflict with Germany. Britain, given the same geographic position as Poland, would have lasted probably half the time Poles did. And when Poles ran, they did not run like cowards. They ran to where they could form the 4th largest fighting force in the European theater of WW2 and they continued to put up a good fight, and in defense of your country too.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569  
3 Sep 2009 /  #68
Well said and entirely accurate. It fills me with great pride know that despite being homeless emigres (and therefore entitled to throw in the towel and self preserve), many Poles chose not to, and made the decision to fight on for, and under, GB, whether for altruistic purposes or in the (vain) hope that the contribution would be repaid in kind.

Did you ever check the damage Poles inflicted on Germany in 1939?

I'm sure that if some of our misconceived forum members read up on battles such as Kutno and Westerplatte they would have a different view.

In fact, having regard to relative strengths vis a vis outcomes, one could be forgiven for submitting that battles such as the abovementioned were, in every respect, paragons of how to fight when you face crushing odds and simply unparalleled in the history of WW2 (arguably military history).
Wroclaw Boy  
3 Sep 2009 /  #69
well fine, thats your view and your decision, although they can't of been that boring as it certainly got your back up :)

Boring, misinformed, twisted opinions, just general crap that drones on and on forever, totally average, Mr Dull. I mean whos going to read all this shi8e in one sitting:

Perhaps i wil start reading more just to ridicule your opinions a bit, thats if i dont die of boredom first of course.

i don't stoop down to personal insults in doing so either

why don't you stick to pumping iron you meat head :)

Ahh a liar and a hypocrit im going to enjoy this, see you later girly boy.
Babinich 1 | 455  
3 Sep 2009 /  #70
The France campaign is called the biggest and most humiliating defeat ever (in world history).

Try Bagration; Army Group Center was wiped out.

After the conference in Tehran, your heard less and less about Poland from both FDR and Churchill

From the program American Experience on FDR:

* FDR spent many sleepless night wondering if aiding the Brits was the right thing to do.
* After Pearl Harbor FDR, head in hands, worried bout how he'd be remembered as President in the face of the Pearl Harbor attack.
* Belittled his friend and ally (Churchill) to gain favor with Stalin. Stalin made a fool of FDR all at the expense of Eastern Europe.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,823  
3 Sep 2009 /  #71
Try Bagration; Army Group Center was wiped out.

Oh boy...

Operation Bagration:

Germans:

336,573 Combat Troops
495 Tanks and Assault guns
602 aircraft
2589 Guns

Russians:

1,254,300 men
4,070 Tanks and Assault Guns
6,334 Aircraft
24,383 Guns

Losses:

Germany: 350,000 men plus hundreds of tanks and more than 1,300 guns

SU: 765,000 troops, of which 178,000 were either killed or missing, plus 2,857 tanks and assault guns, and 2,447 artillery pieces

If you call that cowardly quitting than I can't help you...idiot!
Babinich 1 | 455  
3 Sep 2009 /  #72
The France campaign is called the biggest and most humiliating defeat ever (in world history).

Oh boy....board idiot Babi has spoken

What about Bagration where Army Group Center was wiped out?

In a larger sense how ironic that you of all people would talk about other nation's humiliating defeats.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,823  
3 Sep 2009 /  #73
Was Army Group Center wiped out or not?

Was Poland run over in a month or not?
What a f*ucking idiot you are...

Germany was outnumbered more than 3 times and still inflicted much more casualties on the enemy...how cowardly of them!!!

In a larger sense how ironic that you of all people would talk about other nation's humiliating defeats.

Well...what's your arguments for France?
I'm all ears...
Babinich 1 | 455  
3 Sep 2009 /  #74
Bagration: just looking at the number makes you the one lacking perspective.

historynet.com/operation-bagration-soviet-offensive-of-1944.htm

"By early August, the German Fourth Army and almost all of the Ninth and Third Panzer armies were gone. Thirty German divisions disappeared, and nearly 30 more were crippled. The Red Army was within striking distance of the Vistula and had reached the outskirts of Warsaw. By mid-August, Red Army soldiers were entrenched on Prussian soil, only 350 miles from Berlin, and Romania, with its vital oil fields, was poised to desert the Axis cause. Until January, however, the exhausted Soviet giant would remain relatively quiet, refitting and re-equipping for the final push from the Vistula to Berlin."

"The irreplaceable German losses in Belorussia, in conjunction with the Normandy landings and the July 20 attempt on Hitler's life, spread demoralization throughout the upper ranks of the Wehrmacht's command structure, and made certain that the Red Army would ever after move west. "
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,823  
3 Sep 2009 /  #75
Bagration: just looking at the number makes you the one lacking perspective

Looking at the numbers puts everything in perspective even for a brainless idiot like you.
There is losing like the Germans in Russia or the Poles and there is losing like France 1940.

But maybe that is to difficult to grasp for you...

3times outnumbered in men and a thousand times in material and still inflicting 3times the damage on the enemy...if the French had shown only a part of that fighting power of the Wehrmacht WWII might have ended much, much earlier!
Babinich 1 | 455  
3 Sep 2009 /  #76
But maybe that is to difficult to grasp for you...

Ah, it's perspective I see.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,823  
3 Sep 2009 /  #77
Babinich

Someone who tries to compare Bagration with the France campaign is blinded by stupidity and ignorance...you see nothing boy!
southern 74 | 7,074  
3 Sep 2009 /  #78
what do you expect when fighting alongside such allies as the Greeks, lol, they were still throwing javlins at Jerry then, ppppffffffff.

Sorry man,I hope you realize that Greeks were the first ones to defeat an axis force.In 1940 italian troops from Albania hoping to conquer Greece in a week were in for a surprise.63000 italian soldiers dead in 2 months,23000 prisoners,25000 missing.This happened to the italian force of 500000 men who tried to attack.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Italian_War

Even when Germans attacked(while most greek forces still fought Italians in the western front),german troops from Bulgaria could not penerate the defense along greek-bulgarian borders and entered through Yugoslavia cause there were minimal forces in yugo-greek borders due to the fact Yugoslavia was an ally and we did not expect war from this side.

(Let not mention the perfomance of the poorly equiped troops GB sent as help to fight the Germans,retreating as usual.)
Ironside 53 | 12,424  
3 Sep 2009 /  #79
as i said the British army was rebuilding

So why did they promised military help to Poland if they were not able to deliver - they lied ?
And Who's fault is it in the first place that they had not army ready ?

believe me if the British had an army of that size and strength, there would have been no failure.

What stopped you?
I mean you had an Empire for about hundred years, you invented a tank - and then what, some German state (started from 1870) bettered you, so you fuckked up badly !

excuses, excuses, the state of the British army at that point is well documented!!!!

Yeah? Whose fault is it?

drives me nuts when Poland has so much potential to forfill.

Well, I have an remedy for that ...whenever you'll discuss WWII with Poles, say - I'm sorry we fukked it big time, shouldn't give you any promises, as we couldn't keep them !

In 9 out of 10 he/she will shut His/her gob no time!

However in the face of danger they stood their ground on another nations territory, that themselves had quit.

Stop whining and bleeting about it !
You lost that one!

the German war machine is the 2nd best in history as far as i'm concerned

Sure, wimps talks !
Since 1939 you doge( or lose Greece etc), then you make a stand in 1941, after that the big boys USA and Soviets help you !
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,176  
3 Sep 2009 /  #80
Stop picking on the britts!
They helped alto with sabotage missions!
They were OP!

btw

Russians are Op and keep spamming infantry
-German soldier

One for you BB ;)
Ironside 53 | 12,424  
3 Sep 2009 /  #81
Stop picking on the britts!

What?
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,176  
3 Sep 2009 /  #82
Great Britain is nice!
Great Britain is strong!

GB PWNZ!

You target the slovaks better I say! Were they at the ceremony?! HAVE THEY APOLOGIZED?! The Queen of Great Britain has said sorry last time I remember in the sejm so STOP TI! Leave Britain alone!

*Go Britain*
Seanus 15 | 19,674  
3 Sep 2009 /  #83
Norway, a good friend of Scotland's. Long live that relationship brother :)

Britain entered the war on the 3rd of September, that was early enough and well before America.
OP szkotja2007 27 | 1,498  
3 Sep 2009 /  #85
Spean Bridge Commando monument

Operations in ( and with ) Norway. nuav.net/commando.html


  • United we conquer
tornado2007 11 | 2,270  
4 Sep 2009 /  #86
... or maybe you really should stop talking out of your ass

no not really, i'm making a serious point and obviously there are not many people here who can take it, what is wrong with moving on?? what is it about Polish and low self esteem?? People associate it with the women, i associate it with the people who drown themselves in the history.

assuring us that Poland would come out of the conflict as an independant and soverign nation, with its borders untouched.

who wouldn't want that, people are talking like i want Poland to have been badly effected or that i think they deserved all they got, when you (as in people trying to kick my backside) comment on my posts you clearly are missing my 'actual' point, think of the future instead of the past.

Yes i feel sorry for what happened to Poland/Poles, maybe a few people did let you down, whether it was their fault of not, surely though there has to be a time where people let go. Rememberance and respect, YES, dragging charity pots, NO.

Churchill in the end did nothing for Poland after the war.

obviously there is not excuse for this, however you can see why people may have looked the other way, the Soviet Union took the battle all the way to Berlin!!! I suppose maybe a few people thought (Wrongly) that this gave the Ruskies right of way to do what they liked.

he allowed to happen with Stalin in the case of Poland, a few years later.

obviously we are going to disagree, as far as i'm concerned Winston did what he could, its not his fault that he was not backed. There is only so much shouting you can do, the yanks should have listened a little bit harder than they chose to do so.

You tend to forget that Poles were outnumbered too. And that they did put up a fight.

I never said the Poles did not put up a fight, i jsut stated that it didn't take the Germans long to invade/occupy. Even when Poland was occupied the war effort continued in resistance all over Poland.

Britain, given the same geographic position as Poland, would have lasted probably half the time Poles did

that is just your opinion, no facts attached to that, so please stop trying to guess the length of a piece of string.

They ran to where they could form the 4th largest fighting force in the European theater of WW2 and they continued to put up a good fight, and in defense of your country too

i've thanked and mentioned the efforts of Polish ground/air troops many times on this forum, i am aware of the effort they put in, a lot did escape to the UK etc etc to continue the fight.

Boring, misinformed, twisted opinions, just general crap that drones on and on forever, totally average, Mr Dull. I mean whos going to read all this shite in one sitting:

well plenty of people seem to be replying :) they are up for having a discussion unlike yourself obviously who continually resorts to personal slanging matches. Anyway i can't believe this coming from you, your not exactly the great oracle yourself, let alone the life and soul of the party :)

If you want a debate/discussion/conversation then carry on but if your going to continually type 'crap' yourself that is just name calling then just give it up and let us continue, thanks.

Perhaps i wil start reading more just to ridicule your opinions a bit, thats if i dont die of boredom first of course.

go for it the door is wide open, you really think i'm offended by your point of view about being boring :) lol go try and rattle somebody else's cage

Ahh a liar and a hypocrit im going to enjoy this, see you later girly boy

i think you will find that was an 'example' showing you what its like to recieve a bit of name calling and untruths, i basically said so in the same paragraph. I don't think your a meat head or a gym freak, i wouldn't even care if you were.

As far as i can see your the one throwing around all the pointless schoolboy taunts, names, etc etc.

So why did they promised military help to Poland if they were not able to deliver - they lied ?

they either lied or gave a promise they did not know they could keep, they probably did not take into consideration what fully needed to be done to protect the Poles.

And Who's fault is it in the first place that they had not army ready ?

The British government and armed forces of course

What stopped you?

didn't have the man power, resources and mad leader to throw everything at a military effort :)

Stop whining and bleeting about it !

i'm not whinning or bleeting, i'm more than happy to admit we had to withdraw, i'm not bitter about it, i'm not banging on about needless British loses due to the French and Belgian fook up. War is war and there is nothing else like it in the world!!!

Sure, wimps talks !

:)
z_darius 14 | 3,965  
4 Sep 2009 /  #87
that is just your opinion, no facts attached to that, so please stop trying to guess the length of a piece of string.

Try books.google.com/books?id=3tQoAEo9Y6oC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=%22Statement+Relating+to+Defence&source=web&ots=bahPr94BW7&sig=_j8JJ2hCosAFPncMnvlHNG4t6l8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#v=onepage&q=%22Statement%20Relating%20to%20Defence&f=false

The land forces of the 3 countries in September of 1939 were as follows:

Germany - 60 divisions
USSR - 33 divisions
Poland - 39 divisions
UK - 9 divisions available for war

UK was stronger than Germany only with their navy, so given the same geographic position as Poland (no channel to count on) UK would stand no chance against Germans, let alone the combined forces of Germany and the USSR. In fact, no European country stood a chance, especially if Germans used their good hand to fight. They used that hand on the Eastern front. In the West, in 1939/40 they used little more than their middle finger and the British ran very fast back home across the channel.
tornado2007 11 | 2,270  
4 Sep 2009 /  #88
Poland - 39 divisions

your suggestion quantity over quality, i mean for example think how many 'Sierra Leone Rebels' could be taken out by 20 or so SAS, the point i'm trying to make is the quality of the soldier is just as important as the quantity, if not more so. How many Sierra Leone rebels would you say equal 20 SAS men??

UK was stronger than Germany only with their navy

Hang on a second, the RAF kept the riff raff away and even pressed them back, battle of britain.

n the West, in 1939/40 they used little more than their middle finger and the British ran very fast back home across the channel.

even so your estimation of 'Briatian would last half the time Poland did' is just a guess, you could pluck any amount of time out of the sky and say 'that is how long Britain would have lasted.

I'm glad you've opted for the discussion, rather than a slanging match, i wonder how you could assess (accurately) how long the British would have lasted??
z_darius 14 | 3,965  
4 Sep 2009 /  #89
the quality of the soldier is just as important as the quantity, if not more so.

Are you suggesting German forces in 1939 were comparable to Sierra Leone rebels?

Hang on a second, the RAF kept the riff raff away and even pressed them back, battle of britain.

I didn't realize Battle of Britain took place in 1939?

you could pluck any amount of time out of the sky and say 'that is how long Britain would have lasted.

Yes, it is a guess based on numbers. The same numbers that you conveniently ommit when writing about Poland's defeat in "two weeks flat". Heck, even the "two weeks flat" is not true. If we agree that two weeks are 14 days then:

The USSR invaded on Sept 17th.
Warsaw capitulated on September 27th
The Battle of Kock took place on Oct 6th

That'll add up to no less more than twice what you claimed. While I offered a guess based on facts, you did not even offer facts. And even that was not the end. Poles never ceased to fight.

i wonder how you could assess (accurately) how long the British would have lasted??

That's easy.
I gave the Brits the benefit of the doubt. Poland lasting 5 and a half weeks with their 39 divisions against roughly 100 combined divisions of German and the USSR had 4 times the power of the British land forces. Considering that Polish forces were not as well equipped as their British counterparts I'd count Polish 39 divisions in 1939 to be worth about 15 British divisions. What both countries lacked was the imagination and the foresight of the Blitzkrieg. It rained steel. Brits were shocked by some moderate bombing by Germany, whose main preoccupation was the Eastern front anyway . Poland was bombed like that for weeks, and with all the power Germans had at the time.
Ironside 53 | 12,424  
4 Sep 2009 /  #90
whenever you'll discuss WWII with Poles, say - I'm sorry we fukked it big time, shouldn't give you any promises, as we couldn't keep them !

In 9 out of 10 he/she will shut His/her gob no time!

I think you have missed above from my post.

One more thing, people discussing WWII and Poland generally tends to forget that Poland in 1939 were fighting against combined German and Soviet forces.
That change a bit equation, don't you think?
In 1939 considering that Poland done very well, if not better then anyone else until 1943, when tide of the war changed.

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / Poland Remembers start of WW2Archived