The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 489

Polish-German alliance.


Crow 152 | 9,747
8 Mar 2009 #151
while due to historic resons, i could imagine that Russia fail and tries to colaborate with Germany in those failures, i simple can`t imagine that last center of Sarmatia Europae (to say Poland) make similar mistake. Because, what is Slavija without Poland, what with our hopes and dreams,... what without Poland- that last tower of defence, what would happen with Serbia without Polish support, what would happen with that Southern outpost of Sarmatia....

So, Poland should try to cooperate with Germany, to colaborate in alliance with mortal Slavic enemies is impossible. Poland won`t fail or in worse scenario Polish failure can be only temoporarely. But, Poles shell arise! Racowie do believe in Poland
southern 75 | 7,096
8 Mar 2009 #152
Crow

Crow,is it possible that Serbia collaborates with Germany?
Crow 152 | 9,747
8 Mar 2009 #153
same as Poland, only temporarely due to occupation and by wish of some particular world `powers`.

But, Southern outpost of Sarmatia (Serbia) is aware of its historic responsibility. Serbians shell arise once again and again and again and again.... and push occupational forces (mujaheedines, NATO, EU) out from Slavic land. From the Balkan to the Baltic, from the Europe to the Siberia our foes shell see that name of Serbs still live and, Slavija Majka will be smiled again
Harry
9 Mar 2009 #154
YES!!!!!! Where in Krakow is that cementary? Locate it on Google maps.

So have you been to put the flowers and light the candles yet?
Filios1 8 | 1,336
9 Mar 2009 #155
A rather tricky subject, today a German friend of mine and i had a chat about WW 2, when asked what was Hitlers biggest mistake he told me "not allying with Poland".

Either your friend is an idiot, or you're an even bigger idiot for asking such a ridiculous question.
lol, domination of Europe by Germany, AIDED by Poland?

Polish army while not modern has proven to be the most effective opponent that Germans faced up to

Poland was the most effective opponent that the Germans faced up to, simply because they relied on sheer grit and determination. They knew that if Germany was allowed to take Poland, then Poland would be in chains, once again.

Let me ask you one question. Do you think that the Polish army would have been as effective in slowing the German advance down, IF they had no knowledge of the brutal occupation the Germans had in store for them?

Freedom is one thing, as in France's case. When one still has the memory of being enslaved, freedom will never be taken for granted.
OP Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Mar 2009 #156
lol, domination of Europe by Germany, AIDED by Poland?

More or less.

Poland was the most effective opponent that the Germans faced up to, simply because they relied on sheer grit and determination.

Uneducated rubbish, Russia relied on grit and determination in 41 see how that ended up, Polish conscript of 1939 has a very high standard of training, the professional soldier and low/med ranking officers have been on the level of the best Wehrmacht units in tactical planning.

Polish army lacked good strategic command, modern equipment and an effective defensive planning, it put up such a fight because despite all these shortcomings it was one of the best fighting forces of Europe at that time with skilled determined personnel who performed miracles with what they had at the time, the very fact that the war would drag into 2 or 3 months without Russians is testament to this skill it had nothing to do with the desperation you imply because:

Do you think that the Polish army would have been as effective in slowing the German advance down, IF they had no knowledge of the brutal occupation the Germans had in store for them?

In 1939 no one had ANY idea whatsoever as to what Germans were up to, everyone expected Prussian occupation at the worst, which was a lawfull and disciplined affair without genocide or racism, Polish army was disciplined and determined as such, there was no outside factor affecting them simply because they were clueless as to what Germany has in store for Poland.

Freedom is one thing, as in France's case. When one still has the memory of being enslaved, freedom will never be taken for granted.

If Poland had France's equipment the war might have ended in Berlin, France of WW 2 was like Russia a behemoth on clay legs for various reasons, Poles fougth hard because they were awesome soldiers with very good training and rock hard discipline and morale, not out of desperation.
Crow 152 | 9,747
9 Mar 2009 #157
Either your friend is an idiot, or you're an even bigger idiot for asking such a ridiculous question.

true. its ridiculous question

History nicely remembered Hitler`s biggest mistake. It was his attack on Yugoslavia and Serbians...

Hitler's most catastrophic mistake

Page 824:

...During the delirious celebrations in Belgrade, in which a crowd spat on the German minister's car, the Serbs had shown where their sympathies lay.

The coup in Belgrade threw Adolf Hitler into one of the wildest rages of his entire life. He took it as a personal affront and in his fury made sudden decisions which would prove utterly dissastrous to the fortunes of the Third Reich.


He hurriedly summoned his military chieftans to the Chancellery in the Berlin on March 27 - the meeting was so hastly called that Brauchitsch, Halder and Ribbentrop arrived late - and raged about the revenge he would take on Yugoslavs... He was therefore determined,... "to destroy Yugoslavia militarily and as a nation. No diplomatic inquiries will be made," he ordered, "and no ultimatums presented." Yugoslavia, he added, would be crushed with "unmerciful harshness."

But actualy, we can say that Hitler`s previous mistake (attack) on Czechoslovakia and Poland irritated Serbians and pushed them hard against Hitler`s Germany. Yes, it was attack on Poland that motivated Serbs to `urinate` Germans. In the same time in Croatia and Bosnia (Muslim population) prised Hitler`s invasion on those Slavic countries and glorified expected Germanization.

Anyway, today`s so called ``Polish`` Tusk don`t like Serbians but support mujaheedines of Bosnia and Kosovo and German servants in Croatia. You see, Tusk is on the Hitler`s line and by anology EU is on the Hitler`s line and again by another anology Serbians would urinate all freaks who deserve to be urinated.
Filios1 8 | 1,336
9 Mar 2009 #158
More or less.

Ok. Well, Sokrates, I hope you are not mistaking me as anti-Polish, and trying to play down the skill of the individual Polish soldier. I was not trying to, by any means. However, it is well known that not only training and experience come into play during war. Other, more ambiguous factors come into play, like morale, courage, and determination. France fell, mainly because she had underestimated the German's, and their speed, and had over relied on infantry, rather than motorized vehicles. France, after seeing Polands large army fall, probably did not feel very confident that her own army could withstand the Nazis.

it put up such a fight because despite all these shortcomings it was one of the best fighting forces of Europe at that time with skilled determined personnel who performed miracles with what they had at the time, the very fact that the war would drag into 2 or 3 months without Russians is testament to this skill it had nothing to do with the desperation you imply because:

So you would not call retreating all the armies to the capital, a desperation move? Large supply columns, artillery, all being hurried back for a last stand. Was it merely skill that was slowing down the Germans, then? You would not call the countries leadership fleeing to Romania, a desperation move? Thats shite, and you know it. All these things factored into play. You obviously did not see similar manoeuvers by the French army, after the Germans had broken through. The French back had been broken, as soon as their Maginot Line was surrounded from all sides, the troops there stranded.

But, I do agree with you about the 2-3 month time frame, had the Russians not invaded from the East. Simply, the armies would have kept retreating further, and further towards the East, creating problems for the Germans of placing occupation troops along the way.

In 1939 no one had ANY idea whatsoever as to what Germans were up to, everyone expected Prussian occupation at the worst, which was a lawfull and disciplined affair without genocide or racism,

Yes. Although Hitler's intentions in the East were widely publicised, since the 20's, no Pole had ANY idea of what was coming, right?

And, I was not referring to extermination. But rather, very harsh occupation. For a country that had been free for 20 or so years, this was not a very nice prospect. People forget, nations forget, in times of peace. It is times of war that give new found appreciation to freedom.

If Poland had France's equipment the war might have ended in Berlin

What if? Yes. It might have. The German army, looking back, had not been as invincible as widely perceived. If France had struck, with British help from the West, and Poland from the East, with a more modern army, the war would have been over in a month or so.

I think you are missing the point though. The point is, that Hitler never had any intentions on keeping a promise, and actually respecting an alliance, AFTER, it had already given him what he wanted. Poland would have been eventually invaded, and taken over, as soon as Russia would have fallen. And then what? You are hated by the Germans, and you are hated by the Allies. Not a great position to be in, certainly.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,694
9 Mar 2009 #159
History nicely remembered Hitler`s biggest mistake. It was his attack on Yugoslavia and Serbians...

Are you sure? As far as I remember Belgrad fell without even fired a shot to the cleverness and boldness of one small group of german soldiers, didn't it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Klingenberg

Invasion of Yugoslavia: Waffen SS Captain Fritz Klingenberg and the Capture of Belgrade During World War II

I really don't think Yugos in general and Serbs especially played a big role with Germany...any time...:)
Filios1 8 | 1,336
9 Mar 2009 #160
true. its ridiculous question

Crow, it is nice to see you again, bracie!

A very interesting article you sent.. May I ask you a question. What factors kept Hitler from occupying Yugoslavia (not including Croatia), and enslaving the Slavic population there, as in Poland?
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,694
9 Mar 2009 #161
What factors kept Hitler from occupying Yugoslavia (not including Croatia), and enslaving the Slavic population there, as in Poland?

No interest?
Filios1 8 | 1,336
9 Mar 2009 #162
No interest? Even in the women, for breeding purposes back in the fatherland?
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,694
9 Mar 2009 #163
Seems like it....

The preoccupation of some ex-Yugos with Germany is decidedly one-sided!
OP Sokrates 8 | 3,346
10 Mar 2009 #164
Ok. Well, Sokrates, I hope you are not mistaking me as anti-Polish, and trying to play down the skill of the individual Polish soldier.

The skill of the individual soldier was inferior to Wehrmacht soldier but then again everyone's was, German army was at the time the only truly professional force worldwide.

France fell, mainly because she had underestimated the German's, and their speed, and had over relied on infantry, rather than motorized vehicles. France, after seeing Polands large army fall, probably did not feel very confident that her own army could withstand the Nazis.

Uh no, France fell because of the complete lack of discipline within its troops, officers were leaving their units as they pleased, so did the soldiers, the personnel was underfed and underpaid plus the goverment made the increasingly complacent army firmly believe that there will be no war, this coupled with nepotic assigment of officer status to people who had connections rather than skill resulted in what we can simplify as an army of cowards led by incompetents.

Strategic issues were not so relevant in the face of the fact that the army was not prepared to fight a war and put it simply preferred to surrender, there were dozens of instances where firm opposition would have stopped Germans dead in their tracks but the french army was so horribly demoralized and incompetent that it was destined to lose regardless of equipment or strategic outlook.

So you would not call retreating all the armies to the capital, a desperation move? Large supply columns, artillery, all being hurried back for a last stand.

If you have a choice to witdhdraw or lose an army to encirclement you withdraw, Warsaw would not be taken any time soon which was proven when significant German forces tried to take it from the move and got firmly spanked, the situation was definitely desperate but without Russia the war was still a few months from over.

Germany had suffered massive losses in vehicles and most of the armies would soon face winter and assaulting the so called "Romanian triangle" which would drag the war well into the winter, Germany would win regardless but instead of 30 days you would have 2-4 months of heavy fighting.

First of all you're looking from our modern point of view, in 1939 no one knew of holocaust, no one knew of plans for Poland, no one believed the rumors, so no the Polish soldiers were not fighting against the devil himself, they defended Poland with the usual determination the Polish armed forces presented ( see 1920).

German army was far weaker than many believe, the chief component that made them so strong was the human element which is today intentionally omitted in favor of equipment.

I think you are missing the point though. The point is, that Hitler never had any intentions on keeping a promise, and actually respecting an alliance, AFTER, it had already given him what he wanted. Poland would have been eventually invaded, and taken over, as soon as Russia would have fallen. And then what? You are hated by the Germans, and you are hated by the Allies. Not a great position to be in, certainly.

Probably yes but we would end up as a junior ally with less priveliges rather than **** end of the food chain, Warsaw and a hundred other cities would be intact, our elites would not be messed up by Soviets, like i said Jews would most likely had to go but in retrospection seeing how they behaved in 1939 when Soviets came i would be unhappy but willing to make such a sacrifice for the greater good of Poland.
Filios1 8 | 1,336
10 Mar 2009 #165
Like i said Jews would most likely had to go but in retrospection seeing how they behaved in 1939 when Soviets came i would be unhappy but willing to make such a sacrifice for the greater good of Poland.

Yeah, sure, thats all well and good. But tell me.. do you actually think Poland would have made that big of a difference, in the grand scheme of things? Would Germany have taken all of Europe, and been able to hold onto it? What happens after? I don't think the Soviets would be too happy as they make their way through Poland back to Germany. You'd encounter devestation, not to the same extent perhaps, but devestation nonetheless. So now you are forever seen as Nazi collaborators, instead of freedom fighters. What in your mind, is the better legacy?
OP Sokrates 8 | 3,346
10 Mar 2009 #166
Yeah, sure, thats all well and good. But tell me.. do you actually think Poland would have made that big of a difference,

Definitely, over one milion good soldiers, a military orders of magnitude more effective than for example Italian one, Poland could have provided the skilled troops that Germany lacked in the critical moment.

Would Germany have taken all of Europe, and been able to hold onto it?

Once Soviet Union fell who would be there to stop them? England would be out-produced by a factor of what? 10 to 1? And even if US would enter the war the Western Allies were never capable of defeating Germany alone, just look at the heavy fighting in Normandy and Italy, and the forces there constituted less than 20% of the total German strength.

I don't think the Soviets would be too happy as they make their way through Poland back to Germany. You'd encounter devestation, not to the same extent perhaps, but devestation nonetheless. So now you are forever seen as Nazi collaborators, instead of freedom fighters. What in your mind, is the better legacy?

I would like to remind you that our freedom fighters ended up murdered by the Soviets and helping Germany would give Germans a much better shot at conquering Russia, as for legacies?

Germany commited one of the most horrible crimes in the living history and the West elevated their economy to the status of regional power while Poland was brave, noble, true to its ideals and got sold, fucked red raw and will take decades to recover so screw legacies, go with whats profitable the most, legacies wont rebuild our economy or culture.
Filios1 8 | 1,336
10 Mar 2009 #167
Look Sokrates, I hope I'm not ruining any dreams of yours here. But there are certain, shall we say, cultural, social, ethnic whatever you want to call it, differences which would have nullified any attempts at your glorious alliance. So as much as you sit here right now, and ponder, what if, can you just realize that it is highly doubtful that such a pact could have been made, when Hitler had already tried to make similar ones years earlier? It was not Hitler who rebuffed this alliance, it was the Poles themselves.

I'm no idealist, either, but there are huge, huge barriers which would have to be crossed in order for an alliance to work.

Definitely, over one milion good soldiers, a military orders of magnitude more effective than for example Italian one, Poland could have provided the skilled troops that Germany lacked in the critical moment.

Napoleon tried that once, didn't he? With the Poles. You think 1 million men would be suited up, and ready for direct action against the Russians? Can you imagine the leadership issues, transport, supplies... And would this 1 million force be used, only in this offensive? Or used elsewhere in Europe? And again, you're whole plan relies on the simple fact, of whether or not they are going for Germany's goals.. or for their own?

Germany commited one of the most horrible crimes in the living history and the West elevated their economy to the status of regional power while Poland was brave, noble, true to its ideals and got sold, fucked red raw and will take decades to recover so screw legacies, go with whats profitable the most, legacies wont rebuild our economy or culture.

Yes. A rather unfortunate fact of life, I'm afraid.
There are certainly decisions made by Poland, which are not well thought through.. all throughout history. The heart, rather than the head, is what has guided them.

Perhaps a classic example, one which I've mentioned before, is in the late 17th century, where Poland had a chance to ally themselves with the Ottoman Empire, or save Western Europe. Right when the scales were tilted in the Ottoman's favour, Sobieski allied himself against the wicked Muslims.

And to think. Austria would backstab Poland in the partitions, only a few decades later.
I've contemplated the idea of Poland sitting back, and letting the Ottoman's carve up Western Europe, and giving Poland free right to take some in the East, many times before. Not only would they have been overstretching themselves at that point, and looking for an ally to help them keep their land, they also would have left Poland alone, for the respect they had for Sobieski and his armies.

So we can dream all we want, Sokrates. What has been done, is done.
Rafal_1981
10 Mar 2009 #168
Snif, snif... I sense

Bratwurst Boy

He was here to spread a propaganda, wasn't he? ;-]





Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,694
10 Mar 2009 #169
He was here to spread a propaganda, wasn't he? ;-]

How did you get my photo???

Still fighting (and losing) the same old war, Rafal?
OP Sokrates 8 | 3,346
10 Mar 2009 #170
Look Sokrates, I hope I'm not ruining any dreams of yours here. But there are certain, shall we say, cultural, social, ethnic whatever you want to call it, differences which would have nullified any attempts at your glorious alliance.

What differences were that?

what if, can you just realize that it is highly doubtful that such a pact could have been made, when Hitler had already tried to make similar ones years earlier? It was not Hitler who rebuffed this alliance, it was the Poles themselves.

Correct but they did it not because of hatred or distrust towards Germany but because they were certain the West would help, there was a significant pro-German faction which sadly was silenced by the majority after the West offered us this worthless alliance.

I'm no idealist, either, but there are huge, huge barriers which would have to be crossed in order for an alliance to work.

Again you're looking from the perspective of year 2009 when we have concentration camps, bombing of Warsaw and all the stuff that made sure we're not gonna be buddies with Germans, behind us, in 1930s these huge barriers did not exist.

With the Poles. You think 1 million men would be suited up, and ready for direct action against the Russians?

Wrong, by 1812 most Poles had no illusions as to Napoleons priorities which is why instead of expected additional 100 thousand troops he got only an additional few thousand, also Duchy of Warsaw was a relatively small and weak country whereas Poland of the 30s was a medium power capable of commanding respectable resources, its looked down today mainly because it was overrun in a month, but it took two powers and no small effort by the Germans to do that.

So we can dream all we want, Sokrates. What has been done, is done.

Of course, this is simply a "what if" discussion:)
Rafal_1981
10 Mar 2009 #171
Still fighting (and losing) the same old war, Rafal?

You see, I'm kind of a sentimental bloke.
I like good old days when we all knew that Germans are bad, and the Germans knew that they are bad ;-]


  • Polish soldiers in Berlin
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,694
10 Mar 2009 #172
Polish presence must really suck!

Polish soldiers in Berlin

Did the Soviets invite you?

...but we could invade and occupy you again if that makes you feel better...
Filios1 8 | 1,336
10 Mar 2009 #173
Now, good Poles. There is a German in the room. Let us now shift our focus to him.
Filios1 8 | 1,336
10 Mar 2009 #175
Now Bracia, surround him!
Rafal_1981
10 Mar 2009 #177
Polish presence must really suck!

Not really. I fell quite good. I'm not in a state of mind to start looking for a Germanforums to spread the pro-Polish propaganda in there, Bratwurst Boy ;-]

BTW: you should relax. There's so many threads on this forum. Let's discuss about music or literature...and you should improve your sense of humour (it is necessary to understand what I'm saying;-])
Filios1 8 | 1,336
10 Mar 2009 #178
HEY! It's enough for everybody

*The disheveled body of what used to be a glorious, invincible, German soldier, lies in the field of freshly, harvested wheat, with a saber stuck in him. With his last breath, he utters,

"Poles, never... could... beat.... th...em !"
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,694
10 Mar 2009 #179
BTW: you should relax

Well...it's YOU stalking me all the time with old stories!
Maybe YOU should relax and have a beer....

...but....but...but...where is my helmet???
OP Sokrates 8 | 3,346
10 Mar 2009 #180
...but we could invade and occupy you again if that makes you feel better...

With Bundeswehr?? You've been getting your asses kicked since 2003 in every single joint excersize where we served as OPFOR, you might want to read gen. Harald Kujats opinion about Polish army and airforce, i'm not big on german language but when he critisized German military he said something along the lines "they have an airforce four times smaller, an army ten years behind us but their capability is at least equal" :)


Home / History / Polish-German alliance.
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.