Which nation were the biggest pussies of WWII?

2mil:950k
90 divisions:40 divisions

Anyway, fighting ferociously against an invading army is all well and good, but they turned over fairly quickly. Because of working harder and not smarter, Poland got the sh*t kicked out of it.

Congatulation to Sokrates winner of the inaugural "silliest quote of the week" contest with this beauty below.


Your prize of two weeks self catering in Sangin is waiting for you (flights not included)

There was naked aggression shown to the UK? I'm pretty sure that it was the UK declared war on Germany.

Didn't the Soviets invade Finland? Why no intervention there?

Anyway, your argument for the UK going to war with the Nazis was that it was morally right. There is a different criteria that applies to the Soviets?

Poland never had 950k nor 40 divisions it had 38 division on paper, the nominal number of troops completely mobilised was around 800k from which less then 600k made it to combat, Germany had 1.8 milion active troops, Russia had 650k and Slovakia had around 50k for a total of around 2.5 milion men against 600-800 mobilized Poles, thats 3/4-1.


The question is could any other country with Polish resources and numbers in place of Poland not turn over just as quickly? Polish defeat had nothing to do with working hard or smart and everything with being grossly outnumbered on every field and having enough modern equipment to outfit maybe 2 or 3 divisions.

Everywhere where Poles did have equal strength in equipment and men it made a difference, including at the battle of Bzura where only when grossly outnumbered they fell.

Again why would you qualify Poles as wusses? Did they or did they not represent strength of character, skill in conducting operations, bravery on both individual and army level or national integrity? Because being a wuss is not the same as being militarily weak unless you started your own definition.


Would you like me to recount British defeats since 1939 till Rommel got the boot vs Polish victories in 1939?:))

In all fairness Polands army was always going to get obliterated, but they are far from the biggest puss1es of WWII. Atleast they put up a fight and continued to fight where ever possible.

Whats Poland gonna do about it?

my apologies, bad planners, not pussies.

You listed the French, which is interesting as France went to war because of Poland. Not because it was being attacked.

Poland was invaded in a month, Britain wasn't invaded at all.

Don't forget your sun tan lotion.

Because we are an Island Poland was inbetween two monsters, dont be a fcuking idiot.

The Romans managed to get across as did the Normans. It didn't save most of the world from the British either did it?

Read Soks stupid comment then you can apologise.

Ireland supplied about 100,000 soldiers to the allies, each and every one a volunteer, from a population of about 4 million, not bad for a neutral country.

I was just about to start a thread covering this very issue, im still going to do it but this galvanises the issue even more.

Do you think the Anglo saxons knew the Romans were coming? Did they have fcuking radar? and with a poplulation of around 500,000 how the hell are they going to cover the UK coastline from Normans.. whats the deal with intelligence lately, Time Means do you not have the ability to see the errors of your posts, fcuk maybe Britian really is going to the dawgs.

Dont make me carry on with this.

I agree absolutely, although if the Polish commanders would be good planners the war would have lasted a whooping two weeks longer, maybe.


Nope, France declared war and then sat on its arse and drank coffee doing zip untill Germans made them realise that it never was fun&games.

If France did go to war then it'd end there and then in Berlin, Poland might or might not get overrun by the Soviets but the West would have benefitted, no Nazi occupation for France, no bombing of London etc.


As pointed out by WB in dark ages and in the classical period everyone moved freely on the basis of no one having any recon capacity beyond 30 miles radius.

Westerplatte PL loss. Danzig PL loss. The Border PL loss. Krojanty indecisive. Chojnice PL loss. Grudziądz PL loss. Lasy Królewskie Indecisive. Mokra PL win. Danzig Bay PL loss. Pszczyna PL loss. Mława PL loss. Tuchola Forest PL loss. Jordanów PL loss. Borowa Góra PL loss. Mikołów PL loss. Węgierska Górka PL loss. Tomaszów Mazowiecki PL loss. Wizna PL loss. £ódź PL loss. Przemyśl PL loss. Różan PL loss. Radom PL loss. Wola Cyrusowa delaying action. Warsaw PL loss. Gdynia PL loss. Hel PL loss. Bzura PL loss. Jarosław delaying action. Kałuszyn PL win. Wilno PL loss. Lwów PL loss. Modlin PL loss. Kobryń indecisive. Brześć PL loss. Kępa Oksywska PL loss. Tomaszów Lubelski PL loss. Wólka Węglowa PL retreat. Kampinos Forest PL retreat. Grodno PL loss. Sarny PL loss. Krasnobród PL win. Szack PL win (v Soviets). Wytyczno PL loss. Kock PL loss and final surrender.

So Poland won a grand total of four actions and lost 32. Superb work. Only you could boast about that kind of loss! Even the Dutch did better than Poland (they won two from eight). Poland: even less successful at defending itself in WWII than Holland!

I don't usually start a retort like this but you really are a piece of manure. Of course Poland lost and the reasons are obvious. Poland was barely 20 years old after the partitions which lasted a century and a quarter; Poland, unlike Germany did not have a war economy and thus was outnumbered in every conceivable military aspect.

You almost sound proud of Poland's defeats.

As to


Germans invaded on May 10 and Holland surrendered on May 15. Casualties were 2,300 Dutch soldiers dead, and 7,000 wounded. Since you compare the Polish invasion with this one it is obvious you are too ignorant to have a sense of scale, but your hate is very prominent.

That's pure idiocy.

Poland being attacked from North, West and East by Germany and from the East by Soviets
was, in September 1939, fighting a huge encirclement battle that couldn't have been won by
any other army in the world at that time.

It was proven some time later when France being attacked by Germany only and only from
the eastern direction, having way more planes and tanks and the help of British troops,
didn't hold for much longer than Poland.

Anyway - any keyboard warrior, teenage onanist or obvious retard who is trying to belittle
or smear soldiers who fought, defending their countries in WW2, no matter if they were
Polish, French or Italian, deserves nothing more but contempt.

Dont worry about Harry he carries a desire to ridicule Poles for what ever reason. Pretty boring really i believe even he despises himself sometimes.....What do ya say Harry, feeling just a tad guilty? come on man were all human, bite it.

Not guilty at all: any time a Pole wants to boast about his nation's successes in 1939 and talk sh!t about the British effort during WWII, I'll happily set him straight.

But youre not British though.

I suspect you'll just not answer this one. Bow down to your king biatch, go on get down and kiss it.

or in 1989, 1992, 2008 or in any other year in fact...


Yes, we've noticed that you made it your life mission :)

World War II? You mean The Emergency
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_%28Ireland%29


You call Ireland immoral yet you have no understanding.

Why do you think Ireland didn't join with Germany to defeat Britain?
As I am sure you know, attacking from both sides is strategically superior, yet our leader


And there is no chance that we would have "jumped in to bed" with Britain, sure we had just gotten our independence. We did supply information and come up with a contingincy plan if Germany were to attack ireland to get the better of Britian, And the Germans did have such a plan.

And we didn't use our geographical tactical advantage to be "in bed" with Germany.

Even though they fought bravely in the Pacific theatre, I consider the Americans to be the biggest pussies of all. Nuking two defenseless cities full of civilians is not what I would call 'brave'...

Oh no, I'm very happy to tip my hat to Poland for its successes in other years (although you'd have to point out what the successes were in 1992 and 2008). I'd even agree that Poland made a brave defense in 1939. However, when dipsh!ts try to insist that Poland was better than all other allied nations until D-Day, I can and will set them straight.

We managed to get a 1:1 draw against England in Chorzów.

Roman Szewczyk scored a great goal in the 1st half but then that c*nt Lineker was there
to deny us the victory again.

EDIT: Sh*ite - that was in Poznań in 1991. I gotta get a grip of myself today.


Grzegorz Lato was elected the Polish FA president...

...no... wait a minute... I take back 2008.


That's a statement that would be extremely hard to defend. Who's saying that?

I have no understadning of Irelands stance during WWII that much is correct, all i know is that they werent involved at all in the fighting, that much i understand.

You said immoral not me.

You boyos got a spanking. Lucky the Yanks bailed you out.

You shouldnt have entered WW2 either.

It most probably would have solved your current issues, but then again you'd find something else to complain about.


Only durung Dunkirk, we won the battle of Britian we won the ocean war all on our own. Bismark any body?

We needed the yanks to win the war thats for sure.

You would have to know our history to understand why I and many people from Ireland believe we did the right thing by being neutral.


More importantly, from your perspective, Ireland did not take advantage of it and fight against you.


Excuse me, yep I mixed it up with another post.


Or made them worse.

How many of them would have considered themselves British?

You might validate this, Barney. Last time I was in Belfast I heard a story about a local man(Falls RD?) who fought for the BA in WW2. He was awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery. When he came home after the war, he was shunned by the nationalist community.

Any truth in that sceal?

A draw is a success for Poland???


This post by Sokrates says "it still doesnt change the fact that it [Poland] had more succesfull engagements in a month then the Allies had in all the years untill D-Day."

Of course it is! A draw against Zimbabwe would be a success for that joke of an NT we have :)


So it does...

Oh, well - I'll leave it to Sokrates to defend his statement then.