90 divisions:40 divisions
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.
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.
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.
Congatulation to Sokrates winner of the inaugural "silliest quote of the week" contest with this beauty below.
Would you like me to recount British defeats since 1939 till Rommel got the boot vs Polish victories in 1939?:))