The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 399

Polish flag over the Reichstag first?


PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #121
That may or may not be true since there were underlings who shared his vehemence and his philosophy. A few might have actually been worse than he.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #122
I was talking about the whole Nazi movement. If no Hitler, they would never became big in Germany.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #123
Since there was a Hitler, no one can know for sure. Maybe someone else would have been the Nazi leader, someone more intelligent than he and better at convincing people to ally themselves with Germany and fight with it. Then you would have had a European continent with a strong German influence throughout. Perhaps America would have been friendlier as well.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Jan 2011 #124
Isn't it what I've been saying repeatedly so many times tonight that the Germans lost because Hitler made them fight on so many different fronts?

I'm repeating myself to the point of puking on my own shoes, untill 1943 when Germany was effectively beaten at Kursk it was fighting on one front.

Africa should not be counted because it was just 5 divisions.

omeone more intelligent than he and better at convincing people to ally themselves with Germany and fight with it.

Newsflash, the only way Hitler could achieve victory was drawing Poland in and no german commander would dream of that and no thats not chauvinism or anything, Poland had over 1.5 milion additional soldiers, even with outdated equipment thats enough to, for example storm Leningrad.

Also the polish army was better prepared to deal with the weather, the same winter that f*cked the Germans up would only seriously inconvenience the Poles.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #125
I'm repeating myself to the point of puking on my own shoes, untill 1943 when Germany was effectively beaten at Kursk it was fighting on one front.

Kursk wasn't even a victory for the Soviets. The invasion in Italy happened and the german commanders were shocked and dismayed to be forced to leave the battle and go fight the invasion.

It is not clear how Kursk would have gone if the Germans weren't forced by Hitler to leave the battlefield.

How you can say the Soviets had been better than the Germans is beyond me...the kill ratio till the end in Berlin was 5 to 10 : 1

Meaning till the end every german soldier mopped the floor with the enemy. The soviets NEEDED an overwhelming number to balance that out...they NEEDED human waves to kill enough of these efficient soldiers. 10:1 (Max Hastings)

In every field (Airforce, Panzer, Infantry) the german forces had an often incredible favourable kill ratio, that is a fact!
Where do you get the idea that the Soviets had been better in any way???

An army who loses that much soldiers (normally those armies win which make their enemy die in greater numbers than their own) can hardly be taken seriously.

They only had their people to throw at the Germans...not brain or smart tactics.
PennBoy 76 | 2,436
2 Jan 2011 #126
I'm repeating myself to the point of puking on my own shoes, untill 1943 when Germany was effectively beaten at Kursk it was fighting on one front.

Africa should not be counted because it was just 5 divisions.

Even Sok can be funny sometimes. Hitler constantly neglected to send Romel more divisions as he saw North Africa of second importance, actually they shouldn't have been there at all. No German was gonna inhabit the desert and Russia had more than enough raw materials, i think they were there to simply drag the British Army out into a desert battle and destroy it.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Jan 2011 #127
Kursk wasn't even a victory for the Soviets.

They stopped the german army and completely nuked its motorised and armored elements, they had six fast cores en route to the combat area, Germans had nothing, thats a strategic victory right there.

The invasion in Italy happened and the german commanders were shocked and dismayed to be forced to leave the battle and go fight the invasion.

They had nothing to fight with BB, nothing at all, Panzerwaffe amounted to some 200 vehicles, thats tanks and self propelled guns, Russians still had well over a 700 armored vehicles in the area and more than 500 less than a day off.

Whether Wehrmacht stayed or not it was game over, the Soviet offensive in the following weeks showed just how huge the disparity was.

How you can say the Soviets had been better than the Germans is beyond me..

44-45? Better equipment, better tactics, better unit cooperation, better soldiers, they still suffered major losses due to their commanders simply not giving a sh*t about human life and due to political demands of Stalin but in all essentials of war RKKA was, in the last two years of the war superior to the Wechrmacht.

In 1943 its still an army in the process of transition though.

the kill ratio till the end in Berlin was 5 to 10 : 1

Thats true for every major city assault BB, the kill ratio in Warsaw in September 1939 was 6:1 in favour of the Poles, the kill ratio in Stalingrad was 3:1 in favor of the Russians etc.

Germans had time and resources to fortify themselves and determination to duke it out hardcore so there's nothing special in it from the military point of view.

they NEEDED human waves to kill enough of these efficient soldiers. 10:1

Oh please, in Belarus, Ukraine, in Romania and Hungary Soviets had less than 30% more troops and by 1945 most of these efficient soldiers were dead, the reasons why Berlin went the way it went are listed above, plus Konev and Zhukov were in a hurry.

(normally those armies win which make their enemy die in greater numbers than their own)

Nope, normally armies win when they beat the enemy to a bloody pulp and have enough juice left to keep the spoils of victory.

They only had their people to throw at the Germans...not brain or smart tactics.

So you're saying that they knocked Germans back 100km after Kursk in the space of a few weeks by human waves not smart tactics?

Briansk encirclement was human waves? Stalingrad encirclement was human waves? Defeating Hungary was human waves?
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #128
44-45? Better equipment, better tactics, better unit cooperation, better soldiers,

Rofl
How did they managed to get killed then in such high numbers? How come they killed far less Germans than Germans killed them?

How can you ignore the facts, the statistics so easily???

They stopped the german army and completely nuked its motorised and armored elements, they had six fast cores en route to the combat area, Germans had nothing, thats a strategic victory right there.

You can hardly win a victory if the enemy left for another battle ;)

They had nothing to fight with BB, nothing at all, Panzerwaffe amounted to some 200 vehicles, thats tanks and self propelled guns, Russians still had well over a 700 armored vehicles in the area and more than 500 less than a day off.

Do you know the kill ration for the german Panzers against the Soviets? 30 : 1.
They had always had much less panzers than the Russians, didn't stopped them from killing them en masse!

Read about the german panzer aces like Wittmann and co.

Nope, normally armies win when they beat the enemy to a bloody pulp and have enough juice left to keep the spoils of victory.

Erm...ever compared losses???

Get real Socrates! The numbers show a clear image...The german soldiers was clear superior to their enemy, he killed much more of their enemies than their enemy managed to kill german soldiers.

You can that only achieve with better training, with better tactics, with better leadership.
When you don't have all that, then you need more men...that was the Soviet strategy!
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #129
They only had their people to throw at the Germans...not brain or smart tactics.

This is exactly what I was saying but it's like talking to the wall.

at the beginning of the German invasion of the SU

the Germans had

~3.9 million soldiers (including reserve),
3,600 tanks,
4,389 aircraft[1]
46,000 artillery pieces

the Soviets had

~3.2 million initial (later 5 million more)
12,000-15,000 tanks,
35,000-40,000 aircraft (11,357 combat ready on 22 June 1941)[2]

Even though the Soviets had a huge advantage from the beginning on, they were still losing very quickly (links above) until the extremely cold winter came and the results on the other fronts decisively impacted the eastern front.

I'm going to repeat myself again, if Hitler wouldn't send his military in all possible directions, he would most likely win this war.

How can you ignore the facts, the statistics so easily???

maybe because he's very pro Soviet? The funny thing is that Sok is taking a side of the biggest enemy Poland ever had.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #130
maybe because he's very pro Soviet?

I think his sources are very one sided. How can he think he knows about the eastern front without studying german/international sources??? Even if russian ones are either unavailable or not to be trusted at least the german side would teach him alot.

The soviet soldier got every initiative beaten out of him for years before the war even started. Stalin purged the most talented, most skilled from the army, fearing their brains.

Leaving only the most average in the highest positions. Individual bravery notwithstanding the "human wave" tactics was all what was left to them, people was a resource which they had in abundance and life was cheap (11 million losses).

Totally contrary to the german forces (3 million losses)...that influenced tactics and strategy of both belligerents like nothing else...and that the numbers show clearly.

Why Sok still keeps ignoring that I dunno...
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #131
Even if russian ones are either unavailable or not to be trusted at least the german side would teach him alot.

To keep it all neutral, let him study at least the British sites for a change.
PennBoy 76 | 2,436
2 Jan 2011 #132
the Soviets had

~3.2 million initial (later 5 million more)
12,000-15,000 tanks,
35,000-40,000 aircraft (11,357 combat ready on 22 June 1941)[2]

From the end of the 1920's the Soviets armed themselves intensively, in the first Five Year Plan the Soviet Union spent 12.6% of it's budget on the military, after the start of the third Five Year Plan in 1938 no less than 30%!! From 1930 to 1937 the production of aircraft, tanks, and artillery tripled.The result was a 5 million man armed forces. By 1942 Stalin wanted to invade Europe.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #133
By 1942 Stalin wanted to invade Europe.

Suvorov said that didn't he?
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Jan 2011 #134
~3.2 million initial (later 5 million more)
12,000-15,000 tanks,
35,000-40,000 aircraft (11,357 combat ready on 22 June 1941)[2]

Stop using wikipedia GW.

Russians had 21.000 tanks and 4000 armored cars.

Leaving only the most average in the highest positions. Individual bravery notwithstanding the "human wave" tactics was all what was left to them

Google "defence in depth" and see who's invention it was, then google "elastic defence" then "tank dessant".

To keep it all neutral, let him study at least the British sites for a change.

BB i've studied all sources including german ones and personally i'll stick to polish ones, we've beaten the horse dead and unlike western and russian sources we never missed a spot, that includes polish mistakes in 1939.

The same school as romania or czech historiography, larger countries write history in a manner that suits them and does not hold a candle.

Brits for example masturbate over german tank tactics because they try and avoid admitting that both blitzkrieg and mechanized warfare are in fact their inventions that they in their stupidity neglected.

Germans picked up what the Brits discarded as trash and used it as the british meant to.

Suvorov said that didn't he?

Thats really a given and if he did then no one would be able to defeat him.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #135
BB i've studied all sources including german ones and personally i'll stick to polish ones, we've beaten the horse dead and unlike western and russian sources we never missed a spot, that includes polish mistakes in 1939.

Then you must know about the numbers...

And why do you ignore them? The losses? Kill ratios???
That alone makes for an unfavourable picture for the Soviet army...Why do you keep ignoring that?
Do you really think the one is better who keeps getting killed in much greater numbers??? Who managed to lose tanks, air crafts etc. en masses to their enemy??? Till to the end in Berlin!

I really want to know what makes you tick...what gives you that idea!
PennBoy 76 | 2,436
2 Jan 2011 #136
Suvorov said that didn't he?

No Polish author Bogusław Wołoszański in his book "Ten Okrutny Wiek" This Cruel Age (century) he wrote countless WWII books, based on his research.

* Sensacje XX wieku
* Droga do piekła
* Encyklopedia II wojny światowej (w dwóch tomach)
* Sensacje XX wieku - II wojna światowa
* Sensacje XX wieku - po II wojnie światowej
* Straceńcy
* Śmiertelny pojedynek Chruszczow - Beria
* Tajna wojna Churchilla
* Tajna wojna Hitlera
* Tajna wojna Stalina
* Ten okrutny wiek (w dwóch tomach)
* Ocalić prawdę
* Tamten okrutny wiek (jest to jednotomowe wydanie Tego okrutnego wieku, które ukazało się w XXI wieku.)
* Twierdza szyfrów
* Władcy ognia
* Operator (razem ze Sławomirem Petelickim)
* Operacja Talos
* Sieć - ostatni bastion SS
* Testament Odessy
* Honor Żołnierza 1939
...
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #137
Thats really a given and if he did then no one would be able to defeat him.

I wish he had...then Germany would had been able to pose as the victim and there wouldn't had been a world war...Hitler could have concentrated on Russia.

Poland would still had been the main battlefield though...

No Polish author Bogusław Wołoszański in his book "Ten Okrutny Wiek" This Cruel Age (century) he wrote countless WWII books, based on his research.

Erm...could I ask for a translation?
PennBoy 76 | 2,436
2 Jan 2011 #138
Hitler's Secret War
Fortress Codes
Operation Talos
Churchill's Secret War
Stalin's Secret War
Losers
Network - the last bastion of the SS
The Testament of Odessa
Saving the truth
Soldier's Honor 1939
The Encyclopedia of the Second World War
The Road to Hell
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #139
Stop using wikipedia GW.

stop using your Soviet (Russian) sites.
Mr Grunwald 29 | 1,957
2 Jan 2011 #140
PS: Only comparing direct Kill ratios and losses should show you who sh'it on whom the whole time, even outnumbered and fighting at several fronts at once at the same time!

BB what stand would you have over an world champion in boxing losing after meeting several "novices" which later on earned from experience how to defeat him? Doesn't that say anything to you? Germans were best, yeah. But they got beaten by Russians... Doesn't it ring ANY bell to you? :p

there was absolutely no army in the entire world which could face the Germans 1:1 and win during the WW2.

In flat landscape you mean
otherwise Germans by most of the time were outnumbering their enemies (not on a global level but on a local one)
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #141
otherwise Germans by most of the time were outnumbering their enemies (not on a global level but on a local one)

Who told you that??? ;)

The german forces were always outnumbered...be it in France or in even much greater numbers in Russia.

BB what stand would you have over an world champion in boxing losing after meeting several "novices" which later on earned from experience how to defeat him?

The boxer who has to fight 10 others continously at the same time and manages to take them out one by one by one for years is clearly the better one, wouldn't you say?

But they got beaten by Russians... Doesn't it ring ANY bell to you? :p

I know that! ;)
Mr Grunwald 29 | 1,957
2 Jan 2011 #142
Who told you that??? ;)

Are you telling me that when the Germans invaded Netherlands they were fighting all forces at once? (the divisions in Netherlands)

The only times I can come to think of when the Germans were outnumbered was in Soviet Union/Africa/Italy/France 1944

And also in Norway after a time (lost almost there but the defeats in lower countries + France lead to a withdrawal for the allies in Norway)
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #143
Erm...Gruni...we are talking about WWII!

WWII wasn't over after Holland..;)

And also in Norway after a time (lost almost there but the defeats in lower countries + France lead to a withdrawal for the allies in Norway)

Yeah...Norway would had shown the Wehrmacht otherwise....

:)
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #144
Newsflash, the only way Hitler could achieve victory was drawing Poland in and no german commander would dream of that and no thats not chauvinism or anything, Poland had over 1.5 milion additional soldiers, even with outdated equipment thats enough to, for example storm Leningrad.

Germany wanted to invade the country they perceived as having the greatest numbers in their military and could quickly become better armed and quite lethal. That could have very well been their motivation for invading Poland. Same goes for the USSR which led to the signing of the Rippetoe pact. This way it was one less thing for Stalin and Hitler to worry about.

The allies could have been taken by surprise, not expecting anything so quick and also not thinking Hitler would go back on his word. Perhaps the long term plan was to arm Poland as a westernized country in eastern Europe...Germany felt threatened and feared an inability to compete with it's larger neighbor.

USSR clearly saw the westernizing of Poland as a threat to the culture of eastern Europe. Capitalism was an evil, they thought. So both Germany and USSR had an interest in invading Poland.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #145
In flat landscape you mean
otherwise Germans by most of the time were outnumbering their enemies (not on a global level but on a local one)

The Germans were winning because of their brilliant military tactics and because of their (mostly) better military equipment. As far as the numbers, the Soviets had way more airplanes and tanks from the beginning on and were still losing (very fast) until the very cold winter came and the negative results on the other fronts started affecting the German military power in the war against the SU too.
Mr Grunwald 29 | 1,957
2 Jan 2011 #146
Yeah...Norway would had shown the Wehrmacht otherwise....

lol I was talking about the war IN Norway... don't be ridiculous

Just before the British&French&Polish forces left Norway the main German forces were just to surrender in Northern Norway. But suddenly Norwegian forces surrendered to them as they saw their position as "hopeless".

It's really ironic

There are some heroic individual Norwegians during the invasion. Like the officer at the Oslofjord ordering to attack "Blücher" or the commander for an battleship outside Narvik. Otherwise troops were not supplied good enough, airports taken over in a few hours. No airforce so to say, warships from pre-WW1 the rifles were Swedish huntign rifles if I am not mistaken... The politicians general negative attitude towards war or anything military... If it wasn't for the terrain... The terrain+ allied soldiers were the main factor of why it took the Germans two months to gain control over Norway

But remember that, invasion of Yugoslavia, Denmark, Poland, Greece, lower countries, (Austria & Czechoslovakia too but... not much fighting but still an invasion nonetheless)
was Germans the larger force! Only during fights against France, British, Soviet Union and U.S.A forces you were outnumbered! Did Nazi Germany win in Africa? In "operation Barbarossa"? Or later in West France in 1944? It's an score of 1-3 when we think of when Nazi Germany invaded France in 1940! Tell me losing a football game with an score of 1-3 is that good? :/

The Germans were winning because of their brilliant military tactics and because of their (mostly) better military equipment. As far as the numbers, the Soviets had way more airplanes and tanks from the beginning on and were still losing (very fast) until the very cold winter came and the negative results on the other fronts started affecting the German military power in the war against the SU too.

buahahahhaha the trainign and experience was the most vital factor, during 1939-1940 the allies had more and better equipment. It was the drill and tried out strategies that made them win. Also the national accept of the ruling power (which is maybe why many tend to say germans and not Nazi Germans when thinking of Germans durign world war 2)
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #147
I'm not sure what you are meaning actually!
What do you know about kill ratios and losses?
What do you know about the most successfull pilots, Panzer commanders etc....?
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #148
The Germans were winning because of their brilliant military tactics and because of their (mostly) better military equipment. As far as the numbers, the Soviets had way more airplanes and tanks from the beginning on and were still losing (very fast) until the very cold winter came and the negative results on the other fronts started affecting the German military power in the war against the SU too.

The Germans were better armed, no argument there. As for their blitzkrieg tactic, that originated in Poland :)
Mr Grunwald 29 | 1,957
2 Jan 2011 #149
I'm not sure what you are meaning actually!

What do you know about kill ratios and losses?

Kill ratios don't have anything to say, you know the kill ratio in Crete right? The Germans still won! Also the German artillery was experienced/trained = very good same with the mortar teams. They were the "killers" at the front.

The Germans were better armed,

I quite like German equipment but, 1 shell works just like another shell. It's the efficiency of loading and knowing about ones weapon that gives somebody a victory!
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Jan 2011 #150
Kill ratios don't have anything to say,

Of course...*pats Gruni*

Who needs numbers and facts....;)


Home / History / Polish flag over the Reichstag first?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.