Poland Remembers start of WW2

I am sorry that the Dutch army didn't come to the rescue in September '39. Not that it would've been of much use, but it's the idea that counts.


You must be kidding. America is not in Europe?

M-G (it's a killer)

Do you have an army?
Never heard about it!
Well, I guess Holland have you......killer:)

Although it may seem strange, but we actually have.
In fact in 1914, if Germany or especially Britain would have attacked the Netherlands, the Dutch army would have been strong enough to beat the British back.

M-G (the Netherlands' government was slightly pro-German in 1914)

I disagree...

* German armored strength May 10 1940: 2439 battle tanks, of which 349 Panzer III and 278 Panzer IV.
* Allied armored strength May 10 1940: 4204 battle tanks including 300 Somua and 274 Char B.
---
* Allied Airforce in continental Europe: 4,469 of which at the front: 1,453
* German Luftwaffe: 3,578 of which at the front 2,589 (w/material advantage)
---
* Germany deployed about three million men for the battle.
* Because of a low birthrate, which had even further declined during the First World War, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to its total population, which furthermore was barely half that of Germany. To compensate, France had mobilised about a third of the male population between the ages of 20 and 45, bringing the strength of its armed forces to over six million men, more than the entire German Wehrmacht of 5.4 million. Only 2.2 million of these served in army units in the north, though the total there was brought to over 3.3 million by the British, Belgian and Dutch forces.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

To Lose a Battle: France 1940 - Sir Alistair Horne

(Norway was slightly pro-Great British)
Your point?

Many countires in Europe had well eqipped armies in 1914. That's why not EVERY country got invaded. In Europe 1939-1945 only 6 countries didn't get invaded (7 if you count Iceland duh)

How about Quisling?

The Dutch army was in a deplorable state in 1939, despite of being mobilized. The point was that a relatively strong army in 1914 could detoriate in only 25 years to some remnant that wasn't even capable of witholding the German armies for more than 4 days. However, it should be noted that the Nazis bombarded Rotterdam, making it one of the few cities bombarded during the Blitzkrieg phase of the war in order to make a country capitulate. And this bombardment came forth from German frustration that Dutch resistance was a bit stronger than expected, hence it took too long (4 days!) to conquer the country.

M-G (tsk)

Nah...it was a misunderstanding.
The surrender came to late...the airforce was already under way.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz


Wearesorry!



What else...

During the France Campaign the french/british troops outnumbered the Germans in all but Airforce.

When a outnumbered attacking force runs over a bigger army and their whole country in 6 weeks you can call that either "middle finger" or the most humiliating defeat of an army ever!

After the war of independance im surprised you didnt help the Jerries conquor Britian, lend them some money etc..

England was taking on France, Holland, Spain and America all at the same time. The Dutch then decidced to help the US. I guess they were still p1ssed about South Africa.


Correct, a well publicised fact.

The Dutch: we dont surrender

Germany: ok no problem

The Dutch: err actually we do i dont know why we said that.

Germany: to fcuking late, have some of this


Do you live in Poland? do you know what day to day living entails here and how much communism has affected the coutry on a long term scale? Youre not realy in a position to comment on that one for sure.


I did like your comment about Brits fighting for other coutries on their soil. I cant find the exact post but it was right on the money.


Humm stay and be slaughtered by the Nazi's on French soil or flee and live to fight another day. Thats a no brainer.

The fact is we won the war, so your "no european country stood a chance" is either wrong or a lie.

You know the difference between a one-on-one and an alliance???

But the bombers were on their way due to the fact that the Germans thought it took too long to conquer the Netherlands.


Not only South Africa; Sri Lanka as well and a couple of other things the British took from us under the pretence of "protecting it while we were occupied by France". Britain has, together with France always been much more of an enemy to the Netherlands than Germany actually was. Also for the simple reason that these things happened at a time that Germany didn't exist yet. Reason why they didn't help the Nazis conquer Britain was first of all, they had invaded us and robbed us from our innocense (the Nazis were very much hated in occupied Holland) and secondly, Britain and the Netherlands basically had put aside their differences in the 30's under the threat of Nazi Germany. This was the same reason why Belgium and the Netherlands started to co-operate much more, leading up to the formation of the Benelux in 1949, the model on which the EU is based. And we didn't have to borrow them money, they just took it from us once we were occupied.

M-G (boom!)

Yeah...always this impatience!

Sure do

Axis powers:Germany
Japan
Italy
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Yugoslavia
Finland
Iraq
Thailand

Yeah...what a joke...
Next time YOU take the Spaghettis!

Without me having to actually research it what was Hollands role in the first WW? I suppose they jumped into bed with Germany and hoped they would be left alone, a puszy nation.


LOl we'll take the spaghettis in exchange for the frogs and the Dutch.

No, only the government was mainly pro-German because of the fantastic power Germany represented AND it was right next door: we share the biggest part of our borders with Germany. 80% of our export went and still goes to Germany. Our language is evolved from the same motherlanguage as German does and there are a couple of more reasons.

It was the Netherlands that took nearly all the Belgian refugees, and I even believe they harboured the biggest number of refugees during WW1, but I am not a 100% sure of that.

They were strictly neutral though. The government may have been pro-German, but they maintained an attitude that they would defend themselves against anyone who would invade them. The British asked them once what they would do when Britain would perform a plan they had to encircle the invading German troops over Dutch soil, and the Dutch government replied that they would defend themselves against ANY foreign army that would step on their territory. If Germany would have used the utmost Southern part of the Netherlands for the von Schlieffen plan, as it originally intended, they would have defended themselves against the Germans. But they didn't say this aloud. Hence the British came to the conclusion that the entire of Holland was pro-German, while in fact only the government was and even so, the government would never be able to actively choose sides as the population would never have accepted it.

M-G (boom! boom!)

A struggling nation with do or die resolve, just runs needles down my spine reading it, this for you Brat Boy:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

A true underdog victorious against naked aggression.

Our Panzerlied is more sappy...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerlied

Bratwurst Boy
Lets break that down and analyze with the truth shall we?


Killing innocent civilians


To invade and kill in the name of a psychotic brain washer


Ohh please, no comment


To die for a psychotic bigot and being under a spell of national hypnosis is our highest honour


We stand alone against innocent civilians who we have been brain washed to attack.


We will, kill innocent civilians, but not before raping their women, eating their live stock and buring their homes. Because we have been brain washed, we are drones helpless really, were fcuked but we dont know it yet

You're right, I mixed things up a little here between 39 and 40.


Agreed. The point was the weakness of the British land forces in 1939.


Nothing wrong and not a lie, since "we" in "we won" is a very big word. Britain alone stood no chance in 1939 and it stood little chance afterward.

Americans and Russians tend to attribute the "we" pronoun to themselves when it comes to winning WW2. And I don't think I can disagree. In fact, even the position of Britain in regards to the shape of European borders after WW2 is indicative that "we" were indeed Americans and Soviets.

Well...so is war!

Brits did alot of killing innocents in their time too...and now f#uck off!

Really, well why werent we beaten in 39 then hey? hey? How did we survive so long? could it have been the RAF and the greatest Navy in the world i wonder. Please answer.


What, that makes no sense


There ya go. Pika boo

Every time BB youre gonna get a right good wippin from ol WB. You should know that by now, for every thing you gotta say i got a rightous answer even when Great Britian faulters i just bring in the lunatic Hitler, youre never gonna win plain and simple. Heres a pearl of wisdom - give it up dude..


Ive got one question for you: were we (England) ever brain washed into killing Jews, and glorified for invading and killing millions of innocent civilians?

That one really hits home doesnt it - German? Thats the second time youve resorted to obscenities when faced with the truth... Fcuking stick that in your pipe and smoke it.......... How proud are you now????

Simple. Because Britain was not attacked.


Having steady supplies from the US and Canada helped a lot.
The Sovietes tying up significant number of German forces in the East played a big role too. Polish forces in the West, actually larger than British forces, had an important impact also. The impact was so significant that in 1944, when Poles wanted some of their forces to be dropped into Poland to help with the Warsaw Uprising, the British and the Americans rejected the idea. Those Poles were needed on the Western front.


British Navy was superb by navy alone would not have won the war.

RAF was not bad either. During the Battle of Britain about 2400 British pilots had a great help from about 600 foreign pilots. And the foreign pilots turned out to be the most effective in RAF.

In fact, it is your Queen's position that had it not been for the foreign help the British people received, things may have looked very different.

Britain was more sophisticated and open due to a colonistic past and their experience in the slave trade, which was abolished in 1807 by the Slave Trade Act which explains why you saw no death camps there.

Everytime its like Dunkirk all over...

Man we chased you good, didn't we...now you are broke and Germany rules nonetheless the continent and there is nothing little WB can do about it but moping and sulking!.

And our Panzerlied still rocks much more....

Ahh the London blitz was a dream i suppose, battle of Britian a myth. Hitler would have invaded had his plans been a success. Action / reaction plain and simple.


Lend lease began in 1941 battle of Britian took place in 1940. Canada was Britains Biatch.


So they say


Not true but even if it was that goes with Britians polocy, use up the foreigners first.

Given that there was only one non-Polish top scoring pilots in 303 Sq. you are wrong.

Rank----Name----Battle Of_Britain----Total Ww2----Country
Sgt----Joseph FRANTISEK----17----17----Czechoslovakia
WCdr----Witold Aleksander----URBANOWICZ----15----17----Poland
FLt----Eugeniusz Miroslaw----SZAPOSZNIKOW----9----9----Poland
SLdr----Antoni GLOWACKI----8----9----Poland
Capt----Zdzislaw Karol HENNEBERG----8----9----Poland
Maj----Jan Eugeniusz Ludwig ZUMBACH----8----14----Poland

Also, given that The 303 Squadron, named after the Polish-American hero, General Tadeusz Kościuszko, claimed the highest number of kills (126) of all fighter squadrons engaged in the Battle of Britain, even though it only joined the combat on August 30, 1940. These 5% of Polish pilots were responsible for 12% of total victories in the Battle.

I tend to agree with the Queen's assessment of the impact Poles, and other non-British fighters had on the winning of WW2.

You did - on foreign land. You didnt fair so well on foreign land yourself once we mobilised, even with superior fire power - El Alamein any body? the desert fox. As for war in the air and sea, not so good too.

Hitler "whats the problem?" Goering "I could win the battle of Britian with a squadron of Spitfires".

z_darius
Ohh fcuking hell not 303 squadron again?

Although the number of Battle of Britain claims was overestimated (as with virtually all fighter units), 303 Squadron was one of top fighter units in the battle and the best Hurricane-equipped one. According to historian John Alcorn, 44 victories are positively verified, which makes 303 Squadron the fourth best fighter squadron of the battle, after Squadron Nos. 603, 609 and 41, which all flew Spitfires.[3]. Considering that these victories were scored in only 17 days of combat, it was also the most efficient unit, with high kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1. However, J. Alcorn was not able to attribute 30 aircraft shot down to any particular unit, and according to Jerzy Cynk and some other Polish historians, the real number of victories of 303 Squadron was in fact about 55–60.[3]

Wiki

I wasn't the one who brought it up.