The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 133

Why Was D-Day So Significant for Poland ?


johnny reb 31 | 6,330
6 Jun 2021 #1
77 years ago Stalin was pushing against Germany's conquered territory in Poland and the Baltic states.
The Soviets looked unstoppable.
Would Stalin have been able to finish Hitler without D-Day and an allied advance from the west.
Perhaps with many more civilian deaths and Poland would have been speaking Russian or German.
What is certain is that D-Day and the liberation of western Europe that followed made Hitler's destruction a certainty.
Any hope that Germany might be able to direct its entire war machine towards the Red Army came to an end once the western allies were pounding up the beaches of Normandy on 6 June 1944 with "Operation Overload."

Casualties that day were:
2500 Americans dead
3000 Americans wounded
2000 Americans missing in action
2700 British dead
1000 Canadians dead
Some estimates are much higher.
pawian 181 | 17,079
6 Jun 2021 #2
Would Stalin have been able to finish Hitler without D-Day

Yes, he would. Only it would have taken longer that it actually did.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,694
6 Jun 2021 #3
Yes, he would.

I don't think so....

It weren't only the boots on the ground, but the sanctions and the boycotts which made it much harder for Germany to get ressources....not to mention the daily bombing which chipped away constantly at the war machine...

Not to mention that the western forces were much easier to surrender too....all these forces kept in the East, with no inclinement of surrendering, I doubt the Russians would had made it into Germany.

I could imagine a "standstill" in what is now Poland...on the old "default lines"...
pawian 181 | 17,079
6 Jun 2021 #4
BB, I am not talking about the Western allies suspending all their activities and leaving only Soviets engaged in the war against Nazis. I answered the straightforward question by JR about the D-Day. If everything had stayed the same as it was and D-Day wouldnt` have taken place, Soviets would have crushed Germany sooner or later.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,694
6 Jun 2021 #5
.....at least an interesting topic again....
Novichok 2 | 5,231
6 Jun 2021 #6
Soviets would have crushed Germany

I love that "crushed". Sounds so much better than defeated.
pawian 181 | 17,079
6 Jun 2021 #7
I love that "crushed".

The Soviet would have won this way or another coz they copied everything from America, so their main slogan was also:



Novichok 2 | 5,231
6 Jun 2021 #8
The Soviet would have won this way or another

...and occupied Germany till now. No refugees!!!
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,694
6 Jun 2021 #9
You know that the Sovietunion was a multiethnical entity? With masses of brown and muslim people?
pawian 181 | 17,079
6 Jun 2021 #10
"crushed".

When I mentioned production, I meant that German industry, mercilessly air raided by Western allies, wasn`t able to compete with Soviets, That is why in 1944 Soviets produced a few dozen thousand tanks while Germans only a few thousand. They couldn`t win.
Ironside 51 | 11,510
6 Jun 2021 #11
Would Stalin have been able to finish Hitler without D-Day

In my estimate, yes they would have been able to do that alone. At the stage of the war the outcome was pretty much decided, it was only a question of time.

One could speculate what would have happened IF the west wouldn't send munitions' and supplies to Soviets in 1942. or what would have had happened if Germans wouldn't have to fight British Empire and USA on the seas, in Africa and so forth.

There is not denying that Soviets managed to survive for two years of the onslaught and in 1943 got a breakthrough. One only need calculate and gauge how much of the help supplies and munitions' actually were in the overall Soviet effort.

It is a difficult one to answer. All - what if questions - are like that!
I have no enough data for that to hazard a guess.
Novichok 2 | 5,231
6 Jun 2021 #12
it was only a question of time.

...but when you (editorial) are a brainless zealot devoted to your god the way the Japs and the Germans were in love with theirs, you fight till the last moment. And then you die. Good.

I just finished reading all history books and couldn't find one war where the Americans would be defending the US. WW2 included.

In fact, they are prohibited from it.

Fighting other people's wars - no problem.
Ironside 51 | 11,510
6 Jun 2021 #13
So you are saying that USA has been an aggressor for its whole history? You should read some on 1812 war.
Novichok 2 | 5,231
6 Jun 2021 #14
The 1812 "war" was not a war. With 3000 Americans killed in 3 years, it's about what we have in Chicago right now.

Assisting others is cool but only if you make money selling guns and stuff. Sending your own men to die thousands of miles away is criminal.
Ironside 51 | 11,510
6 Jun 2021 #15
The 1812 "war" was not a war.

Don't be weird. At the time it is a war.

Assisting others is cool

Aggression is not about assisting others is about building a Pax Americana and to milk it for what it is worth.
OP johnny reb 31 | 6,330
6 Jun 2021 #16
In my estimate, yes they would have been able to do that alone.

The nearly 1,000,000 German troops Hitler was forced to keep in the west would have made a big difference if they had been deployed to the Eastern Front.

Berlin knew the Allies would soon land in Continental Europe, and had assembled 850,000 men and over fifteen hundred panzers to face them.
That made a huge difference I would think.
Ironside 51 | 11,510
6 Jun 2021 #17
That made a huge difference I would think.

Not in 1943 or 1944, it might have some impact earlier but there was Dutch, Romanian, French, Ukrainian, Russian corps and volunteers fighting for Germany. Vichy France had their own forces to keep communist and British agents in check, Italian was on German side, Spain was a neutral /ally...
Lyzko 32 | 7,928
6 Jun 2021 #18
The West saved Poland's butt and here but for the grace of G_d went Germany along with the rest of the Axis! The Americans were far from perfect, but many other nations might never even wanted to make diplomatic amends with the enemy, either erstwhile or current-:)
Ironside 51 | 11,510
6 Jun 2021 #19
The West saved Poland's butt a

babahah are you high?
That never happened.
Lyzko 32 | 7,928
6 Jun 2021 #20
The US acted as buffer while the Soviets exerted ever greater hegemony over Eastern Bloc neighbors.
Novichok 2 | 5,231
6 Jun 2021 #21
The West saved Poland's butt

A. Poland has no "butt" and Poland is not "she". Idiot.
B. It was the Soviets that asked the barbarians to remove themselves from Poland, not the West.

but many other nations might never even wanted to make diplomatic amends

Waging a war on the US is profitable. You win, you win, You lose, you win. Every sh*ithole on the globe would like to do it.

The Soviets, on the other hand, did it the way that Germans, especially women, will not forget for a while. Good Soviets, dumb Americans.

babahah are you high?

Yes, he is nuts.
Lyzko 32 | 7,928
6 Jun 2021 #22
First, read the facts folksies, then comment! Countries are often referred to as"she", at least in standard English. Wrong on both counts LOL
mafketis 29 | 10,322
6 Jun 2021 #23
The West saved Poland's butt

By doing nothing in 1939 and then selling Poland to the Soviets in 1944?
pawian 181 | 17,079
6 Jun 2021 #24
Maf, now you are speaking like a Pole!
Sorry, I meant as a true Pole. Amazing. :):)
Novichok 2 | 5,231
6 Jun 2021 #25
Countries are often referred to as"she"

Bullsh*it! I spent over 50 years in the US and not a single person said "she" about it. Only a sick idiot would add "butt".

What other body parts does Poland have? Vagina? No wonder Poles didn't like you Jews.

By doing nothing in 1939 and then selling Poland to the Soviets in 1944?

Not exactly but close enough.
Lyzko 32 | 7,928
6 Jun 2021 #26
@Novichok, ships and countries among the educated classes are typically referred to in the feminine-:) @Maf, even the Allies couldn't work miracles.
Miloslaw 12 | 3,328
7 Jun 2021 #27
I think you are all forgetting the third front, via Italy, in which many Polish troops were involved.How significant was that?
Novichok 2 | 5,231
7 Jun 2021 #28
To them and other Poles - very. To the war outcome - none.
Ironside 51 | 11,510
8 Jun 2021 #29
Polish troops were involved.How significant was that?

Well, less Brits died that would have had otherwise. Other than that not much. Poles paid for the privilege.
If you look for a significant input to the war effort. Enigma..
Novichok 2 | 5,231
8 Jun 2021 #30
Once Luftwaffe was demolished, the US and the Brits should have carpet-bombed Germany into a parking lot without one American on the ground. It would take longer but Germany could last only so long. I really don't get the point of taking Italy and the D-Day invasion. So the Soviets would be first in Berlin? Big deal. They were there first anyway and did exactly what the Germans asked for by attacking them four years ago. Good Soviets.

On the other hand, I admit I use a different acceptable kill ratio. To me, 1000 Germans to one American is just about right.

The same with those stupid nothing islands in the Pacific - each costing thousands of American lives. My AKR there is 10,000 to 1.


Home / History / Why Was D-Day So Significant for Poland ?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.