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

Poland Remembers start of WW2


Marcus Cygy 1 | 4  
7 Sep 2009 /  #151
I wrote an article yesterday about World War II beginning 70 years ago on September 1, 2009. My grandpa, Stan Cyganiak, was 18 years old at the time when he was captured during the Invasion of Poland. He managed to escape and lives today next-door to me at 88 years of age in Canada.

Take a look at my tribute article here, which also proves as a warning of potential things to come if we do not know our history: cygy.com/politics/war/wwii-begins-70-years-ago/
Ironside 53 | 12,424  
7 Sep 2009 /  #152
Really but we won against:

....
....
one by one or all in one ?:P

wrote

Good for you - do you have any question?
regards to your Grandpa
Bzibzioh  
7 Sep 2009 /  #153
Poland was ill-equipped to fight a war with Germany.

No sh1t, Einstein!

Britain and America played a major part in keeping Europe free of Nazis.

Wrong. 60% of WW2 was won by Ivan, 25% by Joe and the rest by Brits/Poles/whoever.
Ogorki - | 114  
7 Sep 2009 /  #154
please don't insult me by telling me i don't know a thing about WWII or what roll Poland or any other nation played in it

You know shite!
Ok lets go throught this again. In 1939 Hitlers army was only a shadow of what it was before the French invasion. A large part of the German forces relied on horses. Hitler was not 100% sure of his capabilities in full combat - how could he be? no one had taken him on before? Right? He didn't have the tiger/panzer tanks that early! Hitler was shitting himself. The Polish cavalry (the best in the world at this time) was causing havoc amongst the German forces. The last cavalry battle took place at this early stage with the Germans! The Poles were kicking the Germans ass! To the North of Warsaw the Polish army routed the Germans and forced them back into East Prussia. German prisoners were being taken left right and centre.

They did what they said they would do!

A deal was made with the allies. The Poles would hold off the Germans for 2 weeks until the Brits and French invaded in the West! Not invade right up to Poland you prick!

ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS INVADE GERMANY FROM THE WEST - ON FRANCES DOORSTEP! That would have distracted Hitler - he would have lost his nerve and the outcome may have been a lot different. But the allies didn't go. No honour. I'm alright Jack. It's as simple as that. But Poland carried on!

THE POLISH ARMY ONLY GAVE UP BECAUSE THEY RAN OUT OF FOOD AND AMMUNITION AFTER THREE WEEKS.

THEY HAD NO SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!!

Hitler defeated Poland. Became cockey. Built his army even stronger.

Even when the Russian retards invaded from the East (duhhhh we have a deal with Hitler - and we beleive him - duhhhhh LLOOOLLLLL!!!!) the Polish army STILL kicked ass. They killed 999 russian soldiers in about 2 days whilst holding off the Germans from the West. The Poles shot down 600 german planes, 400 german tanks, inflicted 50,000 german casualties. LOOK IT UP! IT'S ALL THERE - IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO SEEK THE TRUTH. I'm sure you would rather refer to what is more comfortable for you. Look up the word 'Honour'. It's a good thing.

SO HERE IT IS AGAIN.

IF THE BRITS AND FRANCE INVADED FROM THE WEST AND RUSSIA SUPPORTED FROM THE EAST - HITLER WOULD HAVE BEEN CRUSHED.

NO WAR.

50,000,000 LIVES SAVED.

The allies fell back into self interest.

IS IT REALLY THAT DIFFICULT?

Yeah, that's why there are 100's of 1,000s not depending on the job market in Britain on on benefits

Just one example - Poles have been asked specifically to do a renovation job here where I work because it has been done twice before by (whoever) and f**ked up. Why - because they get the job done. They pay their taxes and will be paying your pension.

5 million British men gave their lives plus

400,000 actually (still a lot) Remember, britain went to war because the invasion of Poland was the final straw! Obviously not to protect Poland (because they didn't) but to start to put a stop to Hitler because eventually he would reach the Channel.

plus Im not sure how many women and children were burried alive under the rubble of the houses that were bombed

40,000 dead from Bombing. You almost sound like the Germans - being at war and not expecting to be bombed yourself? How dare they! Remember, Britain was at war becuase they had no choice. Hitler was a comin. (Not to protect Poland) By the way, because Britain bombed German cities, 35,000 Polish men women and children were dragged out of their house in Warsaw and shot in the streets in a few days by the Germans as revenge. Didn't know that did you.

So we can have some ignorant turd say, we owe them nothing, they did nothing...

You are a disgrace.
You don't even know you're born.
Wroclaw Boy  
8 Sep 2009 /  #155
Just one example - Poles have been asked specifically to do a renovation job here where I work because it has been done twice before by (whoever) and f**ked up. Why - because they get the job done.

Poles fcuking up jobs, ha. Thats the story of my life.

They cant even write on a packaged product without fcuking it up.
Harry  
8 Sep 2009 /  #156
A deal was made with the allies. The Poles would hold off the Germans for 2 weeks until the Brits and French invaded in the West!

Please quote the document in which the British gave a commitment to invade Germany within two weeks. Good luck finding it: it doesn't exist.

Please quote the part of the relevent treaty which the British did not keep to. I've asked countless Poles to do this and not even a single one ever has, but I thought I'd ask you anyway.

Remember, Britain was at war becuase they had no choice. Hitler was a comin.

Your knowledge of history is laughable. Britain was repeatedly given the choice of peace with Germany (on the sole condition that Germany could do what it liked to the east) and continued war. Hitler was not "a comin". Read Mein Kampf, pay attention to the stage-by-stage plan it contains: In the first stage, there would be a massive military build-up, the overthrow of the "shackles" of the Treaty of Versailles, and the forming of alliances with Fascist Italy and the British Empire. The second stage would be a series of fast, "lightning wars" in conjunction with Italy and Britain against France and whichever of her allies in Eastern Europe — such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia — chose to stand by her. The third stage would be a war to obliterate what Hitler considered to be the "Judeo-Bolshevik" regime in the Soviet Union. Then read the sequel to Mein Kampf: Zweites Buch. That adds another stage to the plan: around 1980, the final struggle for world domination would take place between the United States and the now Greater Germany allied with the British Empire.

But why should we expect a Pole to talk about what actually happened in history?

By the way, because Britain bombed German cities, 35,000 Polish men women and children were dragged out of their house in Warsaw and shot in the streets in a few days by the Germans as revenge. Didn't know that did you.

You are completely right: I did not know that. And why did I not know it? Because it never f*cking happened. You are very simply lying when you claim that it did. I would be very surprised if you could even supply the date of the first British raid on a German city.
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
8 Sep 2009 /  #157
But why should we expect a Pole to talk about what actually happened in history?

I actually second that. I'm too getting a bit tired of hearing and reading how great the Poles were in WW2 and how they suffered and how world-changing their work was. I am sure they did something, but for the biggest part the effects were only local, not global. In short, nobody outside of Poland really cared about what happened in Poland. And they still don't care. Poles may think is does, but the world doesn't.

By the way, because Britain bombed German cities, 35,000 Polish men women and children were dragged out of their house in Warsaw and shot in the streets in a few days by the Germans as revenge. Didn't know that did you.

What nonsense is this? Because the BRITISH bombed GERMAN cities, the GERMANS were taking revenge on the POLES???? Again, an exaggeration of the Polish role in history. Poland was and will remain a backwater in Europe.

M-G (tsk)
Harry  
8 Sep 2009 /  #158
I'm too getting a bit tired of hearing and reading how great the Poles were in WW2 and how they suffered and how world-changing their work was.

Poles most certainly made a contribution to WWII but the result would have been the same without them.

What nonsense is this? Because the BRITISH bombed GERMAN cities, the GERMANS were taking revenge on the POLES????

I've had a look back over a couple of sites which have histories of Warsaw and can find absolutely no reference at all to a massacre of that size taking place in Warsaw at that time. It's just another lie told by a Pole who wants to make Poland's role in history seem more important.
Bzibzioh  
8 Sep 2009 /  #159
Poland was and will remain a backwater in Europe.

Unlike Ireland, of course.
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
8 Sep 2009 /  #160
Yep, and why? Because they are in the West :)
I am not Irish, by the way.

M-G (not Irish)
Bzibzioh  
8 Sep 2009 /  #161
Yep, and why? Because they are in the West :)

Nothing better than simplistic outlook at world; such a lovely shortcuts of thinking.
Harry  
8 Sep 2009 /  #162
Given that you base your outlook on the world purely on lies (preferably lies about either the British or the Jews, or best of all British Jews), you might want to think twice before opening your rather ignorant mouth.
Bzibzioh  
8 Sep 2009 /  #163
Is that your latest pronunciamento, sweetie? I know you have this compulsion and no post to me is complete without a drive-by shooting aimed at my alleged lying.

British Jews??? WTF
southern 74 | 7,074  
8 Sep 2009 /  #164
I'm too getting a bit tired of hearing and reading how great the Poles were in WW2 and how they suffered and how world-changing their work was. I am sure they did something, but for the biggest part the effects were only local, not global

I am also tired of hearing how great the Jews are and how they suffered in WW2.I am sure they suffered a bit and did sth but the effects were only local,not global.I mean the Germans exterminated them only in the countries they occupied and not globally.

And at least the ones who really fought the Nazis were the Slavs.We own a lot to these people and we will be always grateful to the millions of Slavs who gave their blood for us to be free,otherwise if they behaved like the Belgians or the Danes and the Swedish,now we would polish german shoes and our entertainment would be to say ja,ja and l1ck german assses from day till night.
scrappleton - | 829  
8 Sep 2009 /  #165
And at least the ones who really fought the Nazis were the Slavs.

Yeah good point, man. No Slavs, no EU today. Actually, no US as a superpower either.

Edit: Ironically .. no Israel either.
tornado2007 11 | 2,270  
9 Sep 2009 /  #166
I have been away for three or four days so have not really kept up with whats going on in this thread, it seemed to have been heading in the direction of a Germany VS UK/US discussion when i last left.

Let's be honest about it, nobody was that great in WWII because if they were maybe the war could have been avoided, If a certian mad Austrian didn't get into power in Germany then a lot of innocent people would have lived their lives normally.

I don't know why people say 'ow we did this' and 'we did that' followed by 'we saved your backsides' or 'if it wasn't for so and so, so and so would have.....'

I'm also a bit fed up of hearing 'we suffered this' 'we suffered that' or 'we suffered worse than you did' 'you didn't lose half as many people as we did' take all those comments above and you could be forgiven for thinking you were in a school playground.

At the end of the day we are in 2009 where i can stand next to (being British myself) a German, Pole, Russian, American and expect no problems between either of us. No guns, no bombs, no bitter past, just five normal people from five different nations having a discussion/drink/good time or whatever.

Looking back and respecting/remembering the dead is part of what should be happenening, i'm sure it does in all the countries involved in the world wars, however isn't it about time we stop pointing fingers, being bitter and generally stuck in the past and move on with the world today to develop a better EU/World.

Yes its long, yes i'm sure Wroclaw Boy may call it boring :) but i tell you this what i've said makes an awful lot of sense.

Thanks

T
southern 74 | 7,074  
9 Sep 2009 /  #167
No Slavs, no EU today

If there were not the Slavs,EU would exist today but its name would be Grossdeutschland.
Let's face it,Slavs coped with the 4/5 of german forces.Their sacrifice was numerous.
3 million Poles,1 million Serbs and 17 million Russians perished for our freedom.
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
9 Sep 2009 /  #168
If there were not the Slavs,EU would exist today but its name would be Grossdeutschland.

Or the Union of Soviet European States?

I do appreciate the effords of the ppls in Eastern Europe. Especially the Russians, and so did everybody else in the world, witness the massive rise in popularity of the respective Communist Parties in Western Europe in the years immediately following WW2. And I also think that a victim is a victim, no matter Pole, Romanian, Russian, Jew or whatever. I have to add to this that the sheer number of Russian casualties is also due to the general Russian tactic of throwing in as many ppl as you can and in the end you will win, not because of militairy superiority, but by sheer numbers of ppl. Just look at this list:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

I have to admit though that the true number of victims will never be known. But this comes close. Poland: about 2.5 million Poles, 3 million Jews.

Guess we will never be able to comprehend the vast numbers we're dealing with.

M-G (coffee)
southern 74 | 7,074  
9 Sep 2009 /  #169
Guess we will never be able to comprehend the vast numbers we're dealing with.

We comprehend them very well.There seemed to be an extinction program for the Slavs from the german side.There was also touch slavic resistance.

that the sheer number of Russian casualties is also due to the general Russian tactic of throwing in as many ppl as you can and in the end you will win, not because of militairy superiority, but by sheer numbers of ppl.

While the French avoided this tactique and so they had less casualties.

But I would like to see how many would be the british and US casualties if they had to cope up with the 4/5 of german army.Maybe 10 million casualties instead of 1.5 million?Would they be able to continue this war for more than 6 months?
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
9 Sep 2009 /  #170
We comprehend them very well.

How can you comprehend 50 to 70 million dead ppl? There also SEEMED to be an extinction program concerning the Jews from the Nazi-side. But I am not sure. I am sure the main aim of the Nazis was to exterminate all Slavs. Maybe the Jew extinction-program is just a rumor?

While the French avoided this tactique and so they had less casualties.

Ergo, the French are smarter, after all, they saved a lot of lives. Even Pétain had this in mind when he decided to capitulate to the Germans and started Vichy-France. He had seen the slaughter of his men in WW1, he didn't want a repetition of that. The Russians didn't learn. They just use as many men as pssbl. Who cares if they die? There are plenty more where that came from! Russians always use this tactic. Against Finland they only won because of this. If the Russians were a bit smarter, it would have saved them many lives.

I am not saying that Russia is responsible for the many deaths on their side, but they could've reduced it greatly by altering tactics. Of course, the war was imposed on them, but yet. Also there are clues that suggest that if Nazi-Germany hadn't attacked Russia in 1941, Stalin would've attacked Germany at some later point in time.

M-G (needs more coffee - sending an Irish slave to get some for him; great to provide opportunities for everyone:) )
southern 74 | 7,074  
9 Sep 2009 /  #171
but they could've reduced it greatly by altering tactics.

What tactiques tio change?If russian soldiers were captured,death rate in german concentration camps was 80%.It was not 1% like for french,english or US soldiers.So to fight meant to die one way or another.The only way to avoid casualties was not to fight.

For example if Germans treated French the same way they treated Russians,1.2 million French POWs would die.
Ironside 53 | 12,424  
9 Sep 2009 /  #172
I actually second that. I'm too getting a bit tired of hearing and reading how great the Poles were in WW2 and how they suffered and how world-changing their work was. I am sure they did something, but for the biggest part the effects were only local, not global. In short, nobody outside of Poland really cared about what happened in Poland. And they still don't care. Poles may think is does, but the world doesn't.

at last you have knowlegde about things you don't care about.

Poland was and will remain a backwater in Europe.

When ?
what do you mean -Poland was- ?

Poland was one of the great European power !
IN WWII nobody were better then Poland in 1939!
Polish Army was one of the best !

I've had a look back over a couple of sites which have histories of Warsaw and can find absolutely no reference at all to a massacre of that size taking place in Warsaw at that time. It's just another lie told by a Pole who wants to make Poland's role in history seem more important.

!944 Wola - check it!
Harry  
9 Sep 2009 /  #173
!944 Wola - check it!

Well done for that. Unfortunately for you, the Wola massacre was 5 to 8 August of 1944 and the first British bombing of a German city was 24 August 1940.

So your rather pathetic statement that "By the way, because Britain bombed German cities, 35,000 Polish men women and children were dragged out of their house in Warsaw and shot in the streets in a few days by the Germans as revenge." is in actually a lie. The Wola massacre was actually part of the German responce to the Warsaw Uprising. But why miss a chance to blame the British for something which the Poles did?

I know you have this compulsion and no post to me is complete without a drive-by shooting aimed at my alleged lying.

Your 'alleged lying'?! How about you back your comments that Poles were not invited to the London Victory parade of 1946 and that "most of Polish ex-soldiers (lower ranks) were send to Canada where they had to work basically as slaves on farms for two years"? If you can't (and let's face the facts: you can't), you will have again been exposed as a liar. Just like Ironside has been.
Seanus 15 | 19,674  
9 Sep 2009 /  #174
Ironside, may I recommend wink marks? Poland was trounced in a matter of weeks. To the Nazis, it was a stroll in the park. One of the best armies would have been much better prepared. Even listen to what PiƂsudki himself said in 1933, just 2 years before his untimely death. He managed to foretell the dreaded events (tho he predicted a Russian onslaught) and he hadn't modernised the Polish army at all. They barely had any tanks (20 Nazi tanks to 1 Polish one). Unconventional weaponry was never going to yield positive results against the Nazis.
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
9 Sep 2009 /  #175
What tactiques tio change?If russian soldiers were captured,death rate in german concentration camps was 80%.

The finnish did not put their Russian POW's into concentration camps to be killed. Yet the Russians provided the same tactics by sheer masses as they always have done. True, the Nazis were not kind on Russian POW's but one cannot use the "either die fighting or die as POW" excuse for the lack of Russian strategic insight. And there couldn't have been any insight anyway as Stalin had killed his best generals during the cleansing of 1936-1937 and the good ones remaining were put on non-active. What was left were incompetent b*stards who basically didn't have a clue what they were doing beside the "send-more-cops" method. Only later in the war some militairy intelligence came on the Russian side of things, when it was decided to give the good generals another chance. But by then tens of millions of them already had died.

at last you have knowlegde about things you don't care about.

Yes - I like to know as much pssbl, I'm broad- and openminded. I am Dutch :))

Poland was one of the great European power !
IN WWII nobody were better then Poland in 1939!
Polish Army was one of the best !

*grin* You make a couple of grammatical errors there. You should write it like this:

Poland was one of great European power!
In WW2 nobody was better then Poland 1939!
Polish Army was one of best!

(it kinda strikes me that all the Wikipedia articles presented here as links AND as English versions to prove that sth is not only a Polish version of history, are in fact all written by Poles. It's easy to pick out the typical grammar errors Poles make)

M-G (likes Ironside)
Ironside 53 | 12,424  
9 Sep 2009 /  #176
So your rather pathetic statement that "By the way, because Britain bombed German cities, 35,000 Polish men women and children were dragged out of their house in Warsaw and shot in the streets in a few days by the Germans as revenge." is in actually a lie. The Wola massacre was actually part of the German responce to the Warsaw Uprising. But why miss a chance to blame the British for something which the Poles did?

It not my statement and I'm not backing it!

Wola - 1944 is an answer to your claim that

I've had a look back over a couple of sites which have histories of Warsaw and can find absolutely no reference at all to a massacre of that size taking place in Warsaw at that time. It's just another lie told by a Pole who wants to make Poland's role in history seem more important.

Ironside

I would advice you against linking me with lies and my alleged lies!
You are not able to have a discussion without resorting to personal insults?

Ironside

Well, France was trounced in matter of weeks.
France - world power with colonies, big industry and rich country, protected on her Eastern border by enormous fortification, many modern planes and tanks, in all French armed forces were equal to German army.

Supported by British Army!

Poland, agriculture economy, after 120 years of the partition country had only 18 years to rebuilt itself form a scratch.
Surrounded by Germans from the North, West and South , attacked by Soviets from the East(future superpower).

Britain country where industrial revolution started.
World Empire for more than 100 years , strong industry and banking system.
Allied with France, supported by Canada, New Zealand, India, Australia and from 1941 by USA! In the same year formed alliance with Soviet Russia.
Had her ass kicked on all fronts from France to Northern Africa.
Faced only by Luftwaffe, make a stand fortified behind the canal.
With a little help of the friend\s won the war but tide turned in 1943 on the eastern front.

Greece trounced in matter of weeks, Denmark trounced in matter of a day, Holland trounced in matters of days, Belgium trounced in matter of days, Norway trounced in matter of weeks, Yugoslavia trounced in matter of weeks.

Tell me who done better then Poland in 1939??????
Nobody till 1943.
And they dare to spread that lame excuses in the British history books - that Poland were ill prepared!??
fukkking lying bastards - who was prepared better ? Germany?
And who financed Germans military preparation? Bankers from Wall Street ......

We talking on PF about polish myths
Maybe its Time to talk about western country's myths about WWII
time means 5 | 1,309  
9 Sep 2009 /  #177
Faced only by Luftwaffe

You are forgetting the battle of the Atlantic.

Had her ass kicked on all fronts from France to Northern Africa.

But not the home one :-)

You have a huge chip on your shoulder mate.
Harry  
9 Sep 2009 /  #178
It not my statement and I'm not backing it!

Wola - 1944 is an answer to your claim that

Wola 1944 is very clearly not a Nazi response to British bombing of Germany.

A poster stated "By the way, because Britain bombed German cities, 35,000 Polish men women and children were dragged out of their house in Warsaw and shot in the streets in a few days by the Germans as revenge. Didn't know that did you." That statement is very clearly a lie.

I would advice you against linking me with lies and my alleged lies!

I would advise you not to attempt to back the lies of other posters by posting about unconnected events.
Ironside 53 | 12,424  
10 Sep 2009 /  #179
I would advise you not to attempt to back the lies of other posters by posting about unconnected events.

Fair enough.

es - I like to know as much pssbl

Very good

I'm broad

Do you pay for two places ?

I am Dutch :))

I will not hold it against you :P

*grin*

shite :)

You are forgetting the battle of the Atlantic.

I know but it doesn't change a thing, Germans were threatening your communication lines and you were defending it - not much to it!

But not the home one :-)

Well, As I said, you faced only Luftwaffe :P

You have a huge chip on your shoulder mate.

Why ?????????
As I see it all country's being part of war effort have biased history.
I agree that some points about WWII Poles are biased - some!
Although on this forum we are doing nothing else but discussing WWII and Polish point of view to and fro!
I have noticed that western country's have biased history of WWII too.
Myths:
Britain involved itself with war against Germany in defence of Poland.

Poland was ill prepared to war.
Britain was ready to help Poland military in 1939
Britain issuing guarantees to Poland was ready to fight but Poland was conquered to fast for Britain to react
Babinich 1 | 455  
11 Sep 2009 /  #180
If the French had fighted like the Wehrmacht in Russia, inflicting 3times the casualties inspite of being hugely outnumbered in men and material (what the french weren't!) the war would had found a quick end then already....

What are you talking about? Comparing the eastern and western fronts are apples and oranges.

Bagration caught the Germans unprepared and confused. Bagration left the east wide open to the Soviets.

You can quote all the numbers you want. The reality of the matter was that Bagration left no doubt that the Soviet could do whatever it wanted as it marched west into Prussia and Germany.

Everybody fighted and won/lost but did fight well...but the French that is.

Quit promoting the myth that the French just left their weapons and ran to London/Vichy. There are many examples where the French inflicted tremendous causalities on the overconfident Germans.

To Lose A Battle: France 1940 - Sir Alistair Horne

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