The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 330

The Polish Blame Culture!


Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,447
29 Apr 2010 #271
Last time I checked England was in Europe

Well...;)

and just stop with this German aces.

I'm a fan of our Luftwaffe and their fliers I must admit...I own biographies of Hartmann and several others.

If Russians had better airplanes there would not be so many of this German aces.

You don't know much about the russian airforce during the war, don't you...
Harry
29 Apr 2010 #272
In the end they specialized in terrorizing civilians as they had not much else to bring to
the allied military table...

Strange, I thought that the only two encounters when it was Brits v Jerry (BoB and North Africa) ended up 2:0 to the Brits. As for specialising in terrorising civilians, remind me which nation specialised in exterminating civilians and even built special death factories to carry out their masterplan.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Apr 2010 #273
Read your own arguments again!
Hitler never turned the full might of the Luftwaffe on GB

He did, 80% of all combat aircraft were used in BoB, the remaining 20% were being serviced, repaired or canibalized, in the later stages of BoB UK outproduced Germany 5:2 fighters and trained 3 pilots for every 2 german.

Germany compared to UK had limited resources when it came to building planes.

seriously if you believe that the Islands could have survived an onslaught of the german forces as Poland

Yes because they were islands, all it took is RN blocking supplies and reinforcements from mainland France.

Yes, that's why british aces are so disproportional present in the list of air aces of WWII...oopsie! ;)

Both RAF and USAF were superior to Luftwaffe, Luftwaffe churned out more individual aces but their tactics, strategy and co-operation with ground detection and AA facilities suffered when compared to the western allies.

You don't know much about the russian airforce during the war, don't you...

He's right to an extent, RAF (Red Airforce) was flying Polikarpovs and other junk, when Russians got to use real fighters german pilots survivability and the amount of scoring aces dropped dramatically.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,447
29 Apr 2010 #274
He did, 80% of all combat aircraft were used in BoB, the remaining 20% were being serviced, repaired or canibalized, in the later stages of BoB UK outproduced Germany 5:2 fighters and trained 3 pilots for every 2 german.

We are talking 4 months here...if GB would had been a real war, a real objective of Hitler, it wouldn't had been only 4 months, believe me!

I'm not even sure what that battle was meant to be....it was never enough to achieve anything...in the same kind as why did Hitler let the Brit army go away at Dunkirk...it's puzzling.

Yes because they were islands,

You can blockade islands much easier than a land on a continent.

Both RAF and USAF were superior to Luftwaffe,

*rolls eyes*

What a superiority...if your best make barely even the 20 victories mark, whom are you kidding!

He's right to an extent, RAF (Red Airforce) was flying Polikarpovs and other junk,

No he isn't....the russians had fine machines. The Yak-1 or Sturmovik rings a bell?
Marek11111 9 | 816
29 Apr 2010 #275
You can blockade islands much easier than a land on a continent.

yes but you can not drive a tank there
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Apr 2010 #276
We are talking 4 months here...if GB would had been a real war, a real objective of Hitler, it wouldn't had been only 4 months, believe me!

It doesnt matter, after 4 months UK was outproducing Germany and by 1942 production reached 300% of the peak level during BoB, they trained six times more pilots as well.

Germany had no hope of competing, it didnt have enough factories, resources and german organisation was horrid.

To be more specific, UK was pumping money into its air industry since 29, Germany started spending less than half british total in 34, Brits had at least 10 years head start in industry.

You can blockade islands much easier than a land on a continent.

Who says anything about blockading? Brits could run over any german fleet without even breaking a sweat, they had 3 times capital ships and 4 times heavy cruisers, any invasion of the islands with RN intact was a myth.

No he isn't....the russians had fine machines. The Yak-1 or Sturmovik rings a bell?

Yes it does and when they were introduced german air victories dropped dramatically, in 41-42 RA flies ancient junk, 43 is the year of refit and Russians go on the roll only in 44-45.

What a superiority...if your best make barely even the 20 victories mark, whom are you kidding!

Given that allied formations regularly slaughtered their numerical counterparts due to better group tactics, intel and ground deployment strategy individual superiority of relatively few ace fliers ment little.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,447
29 Apr 2010 #277
Forget it Sokrates...frankly I don't believe your statements anymore....you also tried to convince me once that russian battle tactics were superior just because they had the men to run over a minefield to clear it.

And it isn't a discussion about WWII...We will never agree on these topics! ;)

I at least have stats I can show off....the Luftwaffe had clearly the best and most successfull pilots.

Had Hitler used the same power he used in France or Russia or even only used the U-boats for a tight blockade GB would had fallen like a ripe apple!

Have to go now!
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Apr 2010 #278
Forget it Sokrates...frankly I don't believe your statements anymore....you also tried to convince me once that russian battle tactics were superior just because they had the men to run over a minefield to clear it.

RA was inferior untill the end of the war, however Russians made the gap from focking huge to much smaller, of course you still werent able to use Luftwaffe in the east as early as 1943 because russian divisions had an equivalent of AA brigade attached to them and shot down everything that came close.

the Luftwaffe had clearly the best and most successfull pilots.

Absolutely, it also had the best jet fighters but as an organisation it was still inferior to western airforces.

Had Hitler used the same power he used in France or Russia or even only used the U-boats for a tight blockade GB would had fallen like a ripe apple!

But he didnt and he couldnt have, he could not outproduce UK, BoB was his only window of opportunity, outside it short term solution to the british issue was impossible.

Have to go now!

Night:)
guzzler 1 | 88
29 Apr 2010 #279
in the same kind as why did Hitler let the Brit army go away at Dunkirk...it's puzzling.

This also puzzled me why he stopped his advance for three days he had the men on the ground to completely destroy or capture the retreating troops. He then made a speech in the Reichstag on the 19th of July 1940 offering peace to Britain. I heard he had contact with the Duke of Windsor and other members of the British ruling class. The FBI had a file on the Duchess of Windsor and accused her of being a spy it came to light fifty years later. If anyone has a copy of that speech I would love to see it.
Bzibzioh
29 Apr 2010 #280
The UK was equal with the US in beating the Nazis. I'd hand the biggest contribution to the Russians.But, don't downgrade our effort below that of US!

WW2 was won 60% by Russians, 30% by Americans and 10% by combined forces of UK, France, Poland and the rest. UK didn't come even close to US war effort (don't forget Pacific front). You are seriously delusional.

We were the first to defeat the nazis in the battle of Britain, and fought equally with the US in the push into Germany at the end. We were never going all out to beat the nazis, we were about defence mostly.

Ok, you had a decent air force and a navy but land forces were an embarrassment. Beyond near-death experience of BoB you had spectacular failures everywhere: Dunkirk, Greece, North Africa. But don't let facts get in the way of a feel-good story.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
29 Apr 2010 #281
Forget it Sokrates...frankly I don't believe your statements anymore....you also tried to convince me once that russian battle tactics were superior just because they had the men to run over a minefield to clear it.

lol.

No, they needed to be destroyed because they were Poles: the Poles who wanted to co-operate would be Aryanised.

You can't have it both ways, besides you would have to admit that out of all the countries occupied the Poles were arguably the ones who cooperated least with Hitler!
Harry
29 Apr 2010 #282
It's not about what I think: it's about how the Nazis saw the situation and that we know from their policies. Poles who had a trace of German ancestry (which a lot did) and wanted to co-operate with the Reich would be Germanized. As would suitable Polish children. The rest of the Poles would be scattered over as wide an area of Western Siberia as possible, according to the plan resulting in their assimilation by the local populations which would cause the Poles to vanish as a nation. By 1952, only about 3-4 million non-Germanized Poles (all of them peasants) were supposed to be left residing in the former Poland. Those of them who would still not Germanize were to be forbidden to marry, the existing ban on any medical help to Poles in Germany would be extended, and eventually Poles would cease to exist.

As for Poles being the ones who co-operated least, do you have any evidence that at least 100,000 Frenchmen joined the German armed forces?
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
29 Apr 2010 #283
Bratwurst Boy:
in the same kind as why did Hitler let the Brit army go away at Dunkirk...it's puzzling.

This also puzzled me why he stopped his advance for three days

Well, if you'd bothered to read my posts, you would've known :)

If Hitler didn't halt his troops out of fear for an attack on his flanks, he would have captured the entire British army

He was afraid the long line of his attacking force would be attacked from the flank and in order to re-group, he halted them for a few days. Has nothing to do with brotherly feelings for the British, yet it still remains one of the biggest mistakes he made. But that's just in hindsight.

Edit: however, he did hope until the early May-days of 1940 that he still could make some sort of peace-arrangement with the British. He did view them as a fellow Germanic ppl, which of course they are.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
29 Apr 2010 #284
100,000 Frenchmen joined the German armed forces?

No I don't, but about half of the country did under Vichy, so i would assume a lot of them were troops. What is more despite the great myth surrounding the French resistance, it was in fact the Poles who had the biggest underground resistance army in Europe.
Wroclaw Boy
29 Apr 2010 #285
and together the US+Russia wore Germany down.

Germany? what about all the other axis nations?
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
29 Apr 2010 #286
Germanic ppl, which of course they are.

Apart from the Scottish, Welsh and Irish of course.
Harry
29 Apr 2010 #287
No I don't, but about half of the country did under Vichy, so i would assume a lot of them were troops.

There is a difference between following the orders of one's own government and joining the army of a foreign nation.

it was in fact the Poles who had the biggest underground resistance army in Europe.

Tell that to the Yugoslavs: their partisan army was double the size of the AK and mainly armed, full-time members (unlike the AK, which had only 8,000 such members).
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
29 Apr 2010 #288
Tell that to the Yugoslavs: their partisan army was double the size of the AK and mainly armed, full-time members (unlike the AK, which had only 8,000 such members).

Tell that to Norman Davies, who seems to disagree with you, last time i checked the Serbians were huge Hitler supporters that's why Stalin treated them so kindly.

There is a difference between following the orders of one's own government and joining the army of a foreign nation.

Indeed the Poles had no gov to follow, the French did and they just happened to be Nazi supporters, which kind of makes it worse because it was officially sanctioned, making them official Nazis.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
29 Apr 2010 #289
it was in fact the Poles who had the biggest underground resistance army in Europe.

Nope. Yugoslavia had the biggest resistance army in Europe and in fact, in the world. If you don't agree with this, then answer me the following question: if the AK was the biggest in the world, why didn't it liberate PL by itself? The Yugoslavs did. The Yugoslav partizans liberated Yugoslavia without the help of any foreign army. There's also an indication of how huge Tito's army was. At least much bigger than the AK.

Norman Davies

Norman Davies gets a hardon from everything Polish. He is strongly biased in some of his books and is generally regarded as not really reliable a source. It's like Simon Schama.

>^..^<

M-G (and yes, another Polish myth busted)
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
29 Apr 2010 #290
Nope. Yugoslavia had the biggest resistance army in Europe and in fact, in the world. If you don't agree with this, then answer me the following question: if the AK was the biggest in the world, why didn't it liberate PL by itself? The Yugoslavs did. The Yugoslav partizans liberated Yugoslavia without the help of any foreign army. There's also an indication of how huge Tito's army was. At least much bigger than the AK.

Nope, you are wrong: Norman Davies and wiki seems to agree with me:

"The Polish resistance movement fought against the occupation of Poland (1939–1945) during World War II. The fight against the Nazi occupation of Poland was an important part of the European anti-fascist resistance movement and had the largest partisan army in occupied Europe."

Norman Davies gets a hardon from everything Polish. He is strongly biased in some of his books and is generally regarded as not really reliable a source. It's like Simon Schama.

Regardless, I think i will stick to his opinion.

I guess it is game set and match:)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Apr 2010 #291
Germany? what about all the other axis nations?

In BBs world of supreme Germany Italy, Japan, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Finnland contributed nothing at all:)
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
29 Apr 2010 #292
"The Polish resistance movement fought against the occupation of Poland (1939-1945) during World War II. The fight against the Nazi occupation of Poland was an important part of the European anti-fascist resistance movement and had the largest partisan army in occupied Europe."

That's strange because when you look up Armia Kraiova on Wiki, it says following:

Estimates of its membership in 1944 range from 200,000 to 600,000, with the most common number being 400,000; that figure would make it not only the largest Polish underground resistance movement but one of the 3 largest in Europe during World War II, after the Yugoslav partisan army and Soviet partisans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armia_Krajowa

Furthermore, the Yugoslav Partisans consisted of about 800.000 men, twice the AK.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Partisans

Regardless, I think i will stick to his opinion.

Yeah, if only he says sth that is favourable for PL, like most of his books. And all the Poles swallow his nearly nonsensical works as sweet pies because they confirm what they have told themselves such a long time. He is willing to co-operate in Polish myth-forming. And that is a bad thing to do for a historian.

I guess it is game set and match:)

Yes - and I have won ;)

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)
Harry
29 Apr 2010 #293
Nope, you are wrong: Norman Davies and wiki seems to agree with me:

No Wikipedia does not agree with you. The article on the AK says "Estimates of its membership in 1944 range from 200,000 to 600,000, with the most common number being 400,000; that figure would make it not only the largest Polish underground resistance movement but one of the 3 largest in Europe during World War II, after the Yugoslav partisan army and Soviet partisans." The article on the Yugoslav partisans states "From the second half of 1944 the total forces of the Partisans numbered 800,000 men organized in four field armies and 52 divisions"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisans_%28Yugoslavia%29

last time i checked the Serbians were huge Hitler supporters

Really showing your ignorance of history there mate.

Norman Davies gets a hardon from everything Polish. He is strongly biased in some of his books and is generally regarded as not really reliable a source.

He is indeed more Polish than most Poles (which may explain why he was denied tenure at Stanford). My favourite was his article about how Britain betrayed Poland in which he gave the victory parade as one example and promptly wrote about it happening in 1945! What a serious historian!
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
29 Apr 2010 #294
What a serious historian!

Agreed, Norman Davies is not a serious historian. It's like the Simon Shama complex: Shama is an American historian who wrote many books about Dutch history, but the "facts" he presents in those books are mainly based of myths and common misconceptions. Same goes for Davies. But what is more serious: most Poles use him as proof: "look, a non-Polish historian says so too!". And of course, the Polish historians who claim the opposite are conveniently called liar, while they DID perform SERIOUS research, contrary to Davies.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)
Bzibzioh
29 Apr 2010 #295
Comparing side show with main attraction makes no sense. Why would you ask such an ignorant question?
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Apr 2010 #296
while they DID perform SERIOUS research, contrary to Davies.

So basically just because yoou dont like Poland you baselessly attack Davies? Good one:)
frd 7 | 1,399
29 Apr 2010 #297
Of course Norman Davies isn't a historian if his point of view doesn't go along yours. Hypocryte bs

Whoever at least slightly agrees with Poland is damned to get caned.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
29 Apr 2010 #298
Comparing side show with main attraction makes no sense. Why would you ask such an ignorant question?

Side show being Yugo and main attraction being PL? Pls leave this discussion. You have nothing to add except bytching at me. You're a useless, sad person. And I feel truly sorry for you that your only objective seems to be bytching at me.

So basically just because yoou dont like Poland you baselessly attack Davies?

Ah the ignorant, insecure little racist rat rears his hideous head again. Davies is a biased historian, who is not completely neutral and as with all not neutral historians, you constantly have to doubt any work. Baselessly? Well, being a historian myself, I've had quite some discussions with fellow historians about the reliability of Davies' work. Not only about PL, but also his previous works. Some facts he presents, like indeed the crux-evidence of the AK being the biggest resistance army in Europe, are simply not true and are very easily rebuked. It has nothing to do with my preference for countries. Just as a historian.

But of course you wouldn't see it that way as you are indulging yourself in sad and pathetic feelings of blame and being mistreated as a Pole. How do they dare to critisise the glorious nation of Poland? Grow up.

Of course Norman Davies isn't a historian if his point of view doesn't go along yours. Hypocryte bs

Non of the sorts. This goes about his previous works as well. Why is Davies so well liked? Because he confirms all Polish myths.

>^..^<

M-G (guess Brown would've called Sokidoki and Beƫlzebibi also bigots and don't blame them)
Bzibzioh
29 Apr 2010 #299
Thank you for sharing that personal opinion with me; I'm sure you know how valuable it is to me.

And now answer my question: how possibly Polish underground army was supposed to liberate Poland by herself? It took Russia only 4 years and enormous amount of blood but hey - Poles should do it by themselves!

Or leave this discussion.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
29 Apr 2010 #300
Thank you for sharing that opinion with me, I'm sure you know how valuable it is to me. And answer my question: how possibly Polish underground army was supposed to liberate Poland by herself?

Like I care about your opinions. Well if they were so glorious and strong and good as it's been portrayed here, it would be a piece of cake for them now, wouldn't it? But it's ok if you don't see the sarcasm in that question. I wonder if you even would recognize it if you stumbled over it. You have to be smart to recognize sarcasm and intelligence is not your strong point, isn't it?

>^..^<

M-G (and then to think that you could be on my fb page without me knowing it - scares a bit)

Home / History / The Polish Blame Culture!
Discussion is closed.