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

Poland Remembers start of WW2


MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
4 Sep 2009 /  #91
America which is not in Europe

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.

America which is not in Europe

You must be kidding. America is not in Europe?

M-G (it's a killer)
Ironside 51 | 12,441  
4 Sep 2009 /  #92
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.

Do you have an army?
Never heard about it!
Well, I guess Holland have you......killer:)
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
4 Sep 2009 /  #93
Do you have an army?

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)
Babinich 1 | 455  
4 Sep 2009 /  #94
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.

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
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,200  
4 Sep 2009 /  #95
(the Netherlands' government was slightly pro-German in 1914)

(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)
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
4 Sep 2009 /  #96
(Norway was slightly pro-Great British)
Your point?

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)
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,677  
4 Sep 2009 /  #97
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.

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz

...Schmidt postponed a second ultimatum to 16:20.[22][23] However, just as the Dutch negotiator was crossing the Willemsbrug to relay this information, the drone of bombers was heard...

...Student radioed to postpone the planned attack, but when the message reached KG 54's command post, the Kommodore, Oberst Walter Lackner, was already approaching Rotterdam and the aircraft had reeled-in their long-range aerials...

Wearesorry!

...Schmidt sent a conciliatory message to the Dutch commander, who surrendered shortly afterwards.[28]

I disagree...

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!
Wroclaw Boy  
4 Sep 2009 /  #98
The Dutch army

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.

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

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

Part of the reason it is still 'effecting' life in Poland is because people do not seem to have the ability to move on, Poland could be so much more, if only people would look to the prospect of a bright future rathe than the dull, terrible past.

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.

However what i will say is that the weakest force in France, the British, held out the longest and were prepared to fight to the last before they were given the order to evacuate.

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.

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.

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.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,677  
4 Sep 2009 /  #99
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???
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
4 Sep 2009 /  #100
Nah...it was a misunderstanding.

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

The Dutch then decidced to help the US. I guess they were still p1ssed about South Africa.

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!)
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,677  
4 Sep 2009 /  #101
But the bombers were on their way due to the fact that the Germans thought it took too long to conquer the Netherlands

Yeah...always this impatience!
Wroclaw Boy  
4 Sep 2009 /  #102
You know the difference between a one-on-one and an alliance???

Sure do

Axis powers:Germany
Japan
Italy
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Yugoslavia
Finland
Iraq
Thailand
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,677  
4 Sep 2009 /  #103
Yeah...what a joke...
Next time YOU take the Spaghettis!
Wroclaw Boy  
4 Sep 2009 /  #104
Britain has, together with France always been much more of an enemy to the Netherlands than Germany actually was.

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.

Next time YOU take the Spaghettis!

LOl we'll take the spaghettis in exchange for the frogs and the Dutch.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,677  
4 Sep 2009 /  #105
and you can have the Frogs

...weneedtotalkaboutthat....
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
4 Sep 2009 /  #106
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.

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!)
Wroclaw Boy  
4 Sep 2009 /  #107
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.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,677  
4 Sep 2009 /  #108
Our Panzerlied is more sappy...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerlied
Wroclaw Boy  
4 Sep 2009 /  #109
Bratwurst Boy
Lets break that down and analyze with the truth shall we?

Dusty are our faces, but we are happy we have a sense of purpose

Killing innocent civilians

Yes, our sense of purpose

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

When before us a hostile tank appears,
Full throttle is given and we close in on the enemy.
What really does our life matter for our nations army?

Yes, our nations army?

Ohh please, no comment

To die for Germany is our highest honour.

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

With thundering engines, fast as the lightning,
Towards the enemy, by our Panzer protected.
Ahead of our comrades, in battle we stand alone,

We stand alone,

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

And are we once deserted by disloyal luck,
And we don't return to our home any more,
A bullet of death hits us, fate calls upon us,

Yes, fate upon us,

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
z_darius 14 | 3,964  
4 Sep 2009 /  #110
I disagree...

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

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

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

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

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.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,677  
4 Sep 2009 /  #111
Lets break that down and analyze with the truth shall we?

Well...so is war!

Brits did alot of killing innocents in their time too...and now f#uck off!
Wroclaw Boy  
4 Sep 2009 /  #112
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.

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.

Wroclaw Boy:
Lets break that down and analyze with the truth shall we?
Well...so is war!

What, that makes no sense

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

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..

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

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????
z_darius 14 | 3,964  
4 Sep 2009 /  #113
Really, well why werent we beaten in 39 then hey?

Simple. Because Britain was not attacked.

How did we survive so long?

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.

could it have been the RAF and the greatest Navy in the world i wonder. Please answer.

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.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,648  
4 Sep 2009 /  #114
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.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,677  
4 Sep 2009 /  #115
How proud are you now????

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....
Wroclaw Boy  
4 Sep 2009 /  #116
Simple. Because Britain was not attacked.

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.

Having steady supplies from the US and Canada helped a lot.

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

The Sovietes tying up significant number of German forces in the East played a big role too.

So they say

And the foreign pilots turned out to be the most effective in RAF.

Not true but even if it was that goes with Britians polocy, use up the foreigners first.
z_darius 14 | 3,964  
4 Sep 2009 /  #117
Given that the top scoring pilot in the storied 303 squadron wasn't Polish and that half of the top four 303 pilots weren't Polish, we can safely say that the RAF wasn't alone in finding out that foreign pilots were good.

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.
Wroclaw Boy  
4 Sep 2009 /  #118
Man we chased you good, didn't we

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?
time means 5 | 1,309  
4 Sep 2009 /  #119
claimed the highest number of kills (126) of all fighter squadrons engaged in the Battle of Britain, even though it only

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
z_darius 14 | 3,964  
4 Sep 2009 /  #120
z_darius
Ohh fcuking hell not 303 squadron again?

I wasn't the one who brought it up.

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