The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 120

Which nation were the biggest pussies of WWII?


OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #61
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.

What take the sides of the Evil British or the Evil Nazis?

One was current the other hundreds of years ago.....

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

Lets not start fighting talk but you would have been wiped out fairly swiftly. So Ireland siding with the Axis, sorry doesnt compute.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
16 Mar 2010 #62
Oh, well - I'll leave it to Sokrates to defend his statement then.

I said Poland had more victories then the Western allies untill DD didnt you learn to not even read what Harry writes? You just keep feeding him by even noticing his posts.

Among the battles won by the Poles are: the battle of Pułtusk, the German storming of Warsaw, the battle of Wólka Węglowa, the battle of Kałuszyn, the battle of Mokra, the battle of Szack, the Battle of Bukowiec.

All in all Poles won more then 20 large scale engagements against Germans, thats more won battles then the Western allies combined untill D-day (including the defeat of Rommel).

Of course it couldnt have made a difference but the case holds.

Also Poland alone and attacked by two countries inflicted approximately 70% of losses the combined forces of France, UK and the Low Countries did a year later
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Mar 2010 #63
What take the sides of the Evil British or the Evil Nazis?

No.

One was current the other hundreds of years ago.....

Neither Britain nor Germany were our enemies at this time.

Lets not start fighting talk but you would have been wiped out fairly swiftly. So Ireland siding with the Axis, sorry doesnt compute.

Ireland siding with Germany and having the Nazi army be able to attack Britain from both sides was most definitely a national security threat to England.

You should know that full well.
And what I said is that we did not fight and from your perspective that is important.
It was not a threat, I am not starting "fighting talk".
RevokeNice 15 | 1,859
16 Mar 2010 #64
Neither Britain nor Germany were our enemies at this time.

What difference would the Irish army have made to the allied war effort?

"Mein fuhrer, the Irish zay coming"
"How many?"
"Six, mein fuhrer".
"Six regiments?"
"Nein, six tanks".
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #65
Ireland siding with Germany and having the Nazi army be able to attack Britain from both sides was most definitely a national security threat to England.
You should know that full well.

I do know that very well which is why i posted that to lovely RN a while back. Question to him was why didnt Ireland side with our enemy. Also Britian could have farted and blown Ireland away at the time, they were scared IMO either way. Would have been nice for them to jump on the rightous band wagon though.

Neither Britain nor Germany were our enemies at this time.

Enemy is regardless this was naked agression here from the Germans again. What the fuck happened to moral obligations?

What difference would the Irish army have made to the allied war effort?

Thats an easy out RN, we needed every swinging dick in the field
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Mar 2010 #66
What difference would the Irish army have made to the allied war effort?

If that is a question, just read what I had written above your last post.

six tanks

I would be surprised if the Irish army had six tanks in those days.

Also Britian could have farted and blown Ireland away at the time,

Again, I am talking about the upper hand the Germans would have got if they had Ireland as a base and could attack England from both sides.

What the fuck happened to moral obligations?

We had no moral obligation to Britain.
That is the point, we were freed from Britain.
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #67
I'm not talking about moral obligation to Britain but fcuking humanity. So you supported the annexation of Poland, Czechoslovakia, the murder of Jews?
RevokeNice 15 | 1,859
16 Mar 2010 #68
I would be surprised if the Irish army had six tanks in those days.

They had a few armoured cars the Brits left behind. The Nazis wouldnt of known whether to laugh or cry!

The Irish army had many capable soldiers, unfortunately, the equipment was dilapidated. Wroclaw Boy should also remember that our urban areas were a lot smaller than the UKs. The Luftwaffe could have flattened them within a week.

No new state could have taken that risk. Whether you like Dev or not, everyone has to admit WW2 was his finest hour.
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #69
The Irish army had many capable soldiers, unfortunately, the equipment was dilapidated. Wroclaw Boy should also remember that our urban areas were a lot smaller than the UKs. The Luftwaffe could have flattened them within a week.

Thats all pretty funny and most probably the truth - fair enough.

The Irish from my opinion are good guys i sincerely like them except you of course RN.

Thats all ive got to say on that.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Mar 2010 #70
I'm not talking about moral obligation to Britain but fcuking humanity.

What?
Where had Britain's "humanity" been for us and the rest of the world?
We owed you nothing and we were an (partly) independent Republic, mostly not part of your Kingdom any more.
And I believe it was necessary to show our strength by not fighting with you or against you.
When we were given two options we chose the third.

The decision had everything to do with Britain and Ireland's history.

So you supported the anexatation of Poland, Czechoslovakia, the murder of Jews?

Wrong and you are using false logic.

E.g. you supported communist Poland? the people who were killed in katyn? the Siberian prison camps?

The Irish from my opinion are good guys i sincerely like them

And we will always love that you aired Father Ted :)
RevokeNice 15 | 1,859
16 Mar 2010 #71
Thats all pretty funny and most probably the truth - fair enough.

It is the truth. A quick google will show you that. The Irish army was in no fit state to take on the German war machine. IF the Krauts invaded Ireland, and thats a big if, the regular army would have been squashed within days. Although a few "familar" faces would have taken to the hills once again. The country was awash with guns in the 1940s(from the 1920s). The Nazis would have found Ireland very difficult to occupy. Much more difficult than the rest of europe.

The Irish from my opinion are good guys i sincerely like them except you of course RN.

I aim to please.

Thats all ive got to say on that.

Anyone who took up arms to defend their country is a hero. No matter if they won or lost.
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #72
Where had Britain's "humanity" been for us and the rest of the world?

That was in the past, move on.

We owed you nothing and we were an (partly) independent Republic, mostly not part of your Kingdom any more.

Not saying or implying that you did for one second, just choose the lesser of two evils if thats how youd prefer it.

And I believe it was necessary to show our strength by not fighting with you or against you.

OK, RN just gave me the run down on that but moral strength desreves respect if thats how you want to play it.

When we were given two options we chose the third.

I would say youre taking a patriotic stance here to subsidise shortcomings, i could be wrong.

Wroclaw Boy:
So you supported the anexatation of Poland, Czechoslovakia, the murder of Jews?
Wrong and you are using false logic.

How am i using false logic? Im making an accusation based on Irelands WWII soveriegn status. Its not false logic at all.

Ahh based on the following:

E.g. you supported communist Poland? the people who were killed in katyn? the Siberian prison camps?

We had no choice in the matter and even if we did it was too late, short of 3rd World War.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Mar 2010 #73
That was in the past, move on.

That was the present in the past.
Today we are called "neutral" but we let fighter jets refuel to go off to Afghanistan.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality#Ireland.27s_concept_of_neutrality

I would say youre taking a patriotic stance here to subsidise shortcomings, i could be wrong.

I am taking a patriotic stance but I don't see it as short comings.

How am i using false logic? Im making an accusation based on Irelands WWII soveriegn status. Its not false logic at all.

It is not the point, the point is that just because you do not go around fighting people in foreign countries does not mean you support them.
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #74
I am taking a patriotic stance but I don't see it as short comings.

Come on you and Ireland wanted to be blasting the big guns along with the rest of us on D-Day and all that, beating the Gerries right back to a pulp.

Patriotism has many faces and i hope it dies a slooooow death, for the sake of humanity.

World wars are over but were all here to celebrate a massive acievement in mankinds development. Whats next????????????????????
Amathyst 19 | 2,702
16 Mar 2010 #75
Italians.

French had no chance, they were occupied, they also had a massive underground network, without their help, the war could not have been won same as Dutch.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Mar 2010 #76
Come on you and Ireland wanted to be blasting the big guns along with the rest of us on D-Day and all that, beating the Gerries right back to a pulp.

I think we would have preferred to have had all of our country back and be left alone.
After getting mostly independence (1921) from Britain, we broke into civil war (1922) and that is the worst in my opinion, brother against brother.

Patriotism has many faces and i hope it dies a slooooow death, for the sake of humanity.

Isn't this whole thread based on patriotism?
OP Wroclaw Boy
16 Mar 2010 #77
brother against brother.

Isnt that war personified?

Isn't this whole thread based on patriotism?

Not really.
Amathyst 19 | 2,702
16 Mar 2010 #78
Isn't this whole thread based on patriotism?

Its based on raking up the past when there is no need. Im sorry I posted about Italy..even though they did change sides an awful lot.
Harry
16 Mar 2010 #79
Among the battles won by the Poles are: ... the German storming of Warsaw

So to you the enemy "storming" your capital is a "win"? No wonder you have so much trouble understanding real history!
convex 20 | 3,978
17 Mar 2010 #80
I agree absolutely, although if the Polish commanders would be good planners the war would have lasted a whooping two weeks longer, maybe.

I meant more on the long term strategic side of things. I mean Hitler wrote exactly what he was going to do nearly 15 years before the invasion.

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.

France was expecting to make good use of the Maginot line while mobilizing the rest of the forces. The political situation in France at the time was utter chaos as well. And there's the whole pussy thing too.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
17 Mar 2010 #81
I meant more on the long term strategic side of things. I mean Hitler wrote exactly what he was going to do nearly 15 years before the invasion.

You misunderstand Polands position, after WW1 when the frontline went through Poland there were no factories, no industry no nothing and because of German and Russian embargo and the rest of the world in crisis or viewing Poland as a season state almost no one invested.

Poland had to rebuilt its industry from scratch, Polish army was not outdated because Poles were bad at organizing stuff but because Poland was p*ss poor and all that was done had to be done with domestic resources, by 1939 Polish economy was about the size of the city of Berlin.

As for political plans they were good but there just wasnt much Poland could do, we could aquire strong allies and we did, the rest was up there with the French and to a lesser extent the British.
time means 5 | 1,310
17 Mar 2010 #82
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

The Romans were in Britain before the Anglo Saxons. What's the deal with the intelligence lately?

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.

Given that the distance from Dover to Calias is about 21 miles that's well within your quoted radius.

Here's a liitle link for you two. You may skip if you want to the 2nd paragraph entitled background. There is some info on intel of the time :-)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge
wildrover 98 | 4,451
17 Mar 2010 #83
Do you think the Anglo saxons knew the Romans were coming? Did they have fcuking radar?

You might have though they would have read about it on the internet , or in a newspaper or something...?
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
17 Mar 2010 #84
French had no chance, they were occupied, they also had a massive underground network, without their help, the war could not have been won same as Dutch.

The so called "massive underground network" didn't really matter much until after the allies landed at Normandy. Of course the French always had their gall, this time around it was Charles de Gaulle
TheOther 5 | 3,711
18 Mar 2010 #85
French had no chance, they were occupied, they also had a massive underground network

Yeah, right. After the war everybody claimed to have been in the resistance during the war. There were more resistance fighters in France than citizens... :)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
18 Mar 2010 #86
re's a liitle link for you two. You may skip if you want to the 2nd paragraph entitled background. There is some info on intel of the time :-)

Yeah the guy fought a battle about 100~ miles north, it took him two and a half week to get to the battle site mainly because he found out Normans have landed a week after they did, your point?

There was no way to find out where and when someone is going to land, a few hundred years later during 100yrs it was a bit easier since you had to land an army near a large population centre but rapid responce was still impossible which is why the Brits managed to land wherever they bloody wanted.

Even in the 17th century rapid responce to landings was impossible, French dropped units to help the Irish for example.

The Romans were in Britain before the Anglo Saxons. What's the deal with the intelligence lately?

Have some to comment, you come across as rather stupid as it is quoting wikipedia articles that actually defeat your point.
czar 1 | 143
18 Mar 2010 #87
the Allies bombed Rome on Sunday May 16, 1943, invaded Sicily on July 10 and began to land on the Italian mainland on September 3, 1943..

pussolini
and as sokrates said the failed invasion of Ethiopia screams la farfalla

but jews get the #1
If someone asks why 6 million plus jews walked in step to their death without a fight whats the answer?

I was going to go with Germans for my #3 but i would have to work on that arguement.
Mr Grunwald 29 | 1,961
18 Mar 2010 #88
I'm not talking about moral obligation to Britain but fcuking humanity. So you supported the anexatation of Poland, Czechoslovakia, the murder of Jews?

Ehrm...
I could agree somebody would make a stand or show some solidarity at the point of Czechoslovakia since they were a democracy. While Poland had a known reputation of being pain in the ass for global powers, while the murder of Jews didn't start an mass until 1941 (not to anger Soviet Union lol) also if anyone knew about the holocaust it was only few important figures in U.K and U.S.A as both said that this problem can't be dealt with until the end of the war. So I can't understand that anyone felt any moral obligation to declare war upon NAZI Germany at that time. As most of the countries that were in the Allied camp joined it as an result of being attacked. The reason why countries like South Africa or Australia joined the war was to support U.K. I can't really remember any nation declaring war towards Germany because of moral obligations.

It's easy to say that now as time has past but, at those times nobody knew of the holocaust except those who was experiencing it every day or those who were informed of it.
time means 5 | 1,310
18 Mar 2010 #89
Yeah the guy fought a battle about 100~ miles north, it took him two and a half week to get to the battle site mainly because he found out Normans have landed a week after they did, your point?

At this time King Harold was in southern England, anticipating an invasion from France by William, Duke of Normandy, another contender for the English throne. Learning of the Norwegian invasion he headed north at great speed.

Please note where he was and why he was there. Come on it's clear enough even for you!

Have some to comment, you come across as rather stupid as it is quoting wikipedia articles that actually defeat your point.

If you read WBs comment it says something along the lines of "do you think the Anglo Saxons knew the Romans were coming" so my (not Wikis) comment that the Romans were in Britain before the Anglo Saxons is correct so how does that defeat my point and how does being correct make me come across as rather stupid?
convex 20 | 3,978
18 Mar 2010 #90
but jews get the #1
If someone asks why 6 million plus jews walked in step to their death without a fight whats the answer?

Seriously? Really? So which countries were the biggest pussies during communist times?

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