The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 120

Which nation were the biggest pussies of WWII?


convex 20 | 3,978
16 Mar 2010 #31
4:1 in people.

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.
time means 5 | 1,310
16 Mar 2010 #32
Congatulation to Sokrates winner of the inaugural "silliest quote of the week" contest with this beauty below.

it still doesnt change the fact that it had more succesfull engagements in a month then the Allies had in all the years untill D-Day.

Your prize of two weeks self catering in Sangin is waiting for you (flights not included)
convex 20 | 3,978
16 Mar 2010 #33
Russia was not the naked aggressor thats the difference and the point anyway, youre conveniently skipping that. They bacame a threat and the reasons are far from different than those preceding WWII.

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?
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
16 Mar 2010 #34
2mil:950k
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?:))
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #35
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?
convex 20 | 3,978
16 Mar 2010 #36
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.

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.
time means 5 | 1,310
16 Mar 2010 #37
Would you like me to recount British defeats since 1939 till Rommel got the boot vs Polish victories in 1939?:))

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

Don't forget your sun tan lotion.
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #38
Poland was invaded in a month, Britain wasn't invaded at all.

Because we are an Island Poland was inbetween two monsters, dont be a fcuking idiot.
time means 5 | 1,310
16 Mar 2010 #39
Because we are an Island Poland

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.
Barney 15 | 1,476
16 Mar 2010 #40
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.
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #41
The Romans managed to get across as did the Normans. It didn't save most of the world from the British either did it?

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.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
16 Mar 2010 #42
my apologies, bad planners, not pussies.

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

You listed the French, which is interesting as France went to war because of Poland.

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.

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

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.
Harry
16 Mar 2010 #43
Polish victories in 1939?

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!
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
16 Mar 2010 #44
So Poland won a grand total of four actions and lost 32. Superb work

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

Poland: even less successful at defending itself in WWII than Holland!

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.
Torq
16 Mar 2010 #45
Poland: even less successful at defending itself in WWII than Holland!

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.
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #46
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.
Harry
16 Mar 2010 #47
What do ya say Harry, feeling just a tad guilty?

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.
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #48
and talk sh!t about the British effort during WWII

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.
Torq
16 Mar 2010 #49
any time a Pole wants to boast about his nation's successes in 1939

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

I'll happily set him straight

Yes, we've noticed that you made it your life mission :)
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Mar 2010 #50
World War II? You mean The Emergency
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_%28Ireland%29

So why didnt you jump in with the Gerries then. Perfect opportunity to slam home a win. Luftwaffe bases in Ireland within easy striking distance of all the UK. Handed on a platter really...

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

To try and conqour your enemy the BRITISH of course. I guess the safe plan was sit it out and see what happens then jump into bed with the dominating power, noble put puss1e all the same.

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.
TheOther 5 | 3,711
16 Mar 2010 #51
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'...
Harry
16 Mar 2010 #52
or in 1989, 1992, 2008 or in any other year in fact...

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.
Torq
16 Mar 2010 #53
what the successes were in 1992

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.

2008

Grzegorz Lato was elected the Polish FA president...

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

Poland was better than all other allied nations until D-Day

That's a statement that would be extremely hard to defend. Who's saying that?
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #54
You call Ireland immoral yet you have no understanding.

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.
RevokeNice 15 | 1,859
16 Mar 2010 #55
You boyos got a spanking. Lucky the Yanks bailed you out.

You shouldnt have entered WW2 either.
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #56
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.

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

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.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Mar 2010 #57
I have no understadning of Irelands stance during WWII that much is correct,

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.

all i know is that they werent involved at all in the fighting, that much i understand.

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

You said immoral not me.

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

It most probably would have solved your current issues

Or made them worse.
RevokeNice 15 | 1,859
16 Mar 2010 #58
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.

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?
Harry
16 Mar 2010 #59
We managed to get a 1:1 draw against England in Chorzów.

A draw is a success for Poland???

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

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."
Torq
16 Mar 2010 #60
A draw is a success for Poland???

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

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."

So it does...

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

Home / History / Which nation were the biggest pussies of WWII?
Discussion is closed.