The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 266

Why Was D-Day So Significant for Poland ?


Lyzko 42 | 9,492
11 Jun 2021 #61
Aha, mais au contraire, Pierre! Communism sounds trés lousé both in theory and practiceLOL
Velund 1 | 561
11 Jun 2021 #62
Communism sounds trés lousé both in theory

Why not? Real Communism is not enforce grinding of resources and wasting environment just to increase numbers on bank accounts of some "incestors". Products manufactured in quantities, necessary to fulfill demands of people, and distributed to anyone in need. There is no need to insert "time bombs" to products, to assure further demand and cash flow. No need to brainwash stupid consumers to force them to buy new model of iphone just because it have higher number in model.

Planet would be really grateful to really communist society. ;)

But in practice, building of communism stops once ruling elite gets all benefits, and the rest is oppressed to keep status quo indefinitely. ;) Not much difference from current US capitalism, though.
Novichok 4 | 7,924
11 Jun 2021 #63
Not much difference from current US capitalism, though.

There is a difference and it's huge. The motive to invest and work your ass off: profit. Under communism, real or pretend, profit was a dirty word. It would be confiscated because it "belonged to the workers".

The second difference: you could always leave the US.
Velund 1 | 561
11 Jun 2021 #64
The motive to invest and work your ass off: profit.

So, everything optimised to generation of digits in bank computers, even if "motivated people" will have to finally destroy the habitat to get their annual interest. ;)

But, as I understand, there is no objection about "communism for elite"?
Novichok 4 | 7,924
11 Jun 2021 #65
So, everything optimised to generation of digits in bank computers,

Why is this a problem?
Velund 1 | 561
11 Jun 2021 #66
Because to be successful in a "for profit" model you HAVE to artificially "cripple" your product, and shorten its lifetime. You HAVE to lure people to purchase unnecessary things. You have to spend extra natural resources that your beloved jewish banksters cannot "emit" as easily as their hollow dollars. You HAVE to make people drug addicts instead of actually restoring their health. You need CASH FLOW, and it is normal to destroy environment, create huge piles of trash on landfills and perform unnecessary expensive surgery on patients, at the same making them lifetime customers of Big Pharma.

''With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent will produce eagerness, 50 percent positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime which it will not scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.''

Karl Marx, "Capital"
Novichok 4 | 7,924
11 Jun 2021 #67
at the same making them lifetime customers of Big Pharma.

You included many things I would like to respond to. For now, I will agree with you about that one. The US is one of only two countries where Big Pharma is allowed to advertise prescription drugs on TV. The idea that a patient can pressure his doctor to prescribe X rather than Y is beyond insane.

Personally, I avoid all feel-good drugs like a plague. Alcohol included.
The environment is a big issue and because it is big, it's beyond my control. I am not going to make any sacrifices to help climate or tropical forest because it will not make a dent in the big picture but would make a very big hole in my life. So, fu*ck it, while China and India are exempt and pollute all they want.
pawian 224 | 24,500
11 Jun 2021 #68
communism is the best formation, as well. But practice

But we live in the practical world, not theoretical. That is why communism is BS, sort of opium for masses. My Polish teacher in high school, a confirmed communist, used to repeat: if people were angels, every communist country would be Paradise. But people aren`t angels so the whole idea is utter nonsense.

this convo is over

I see. Good that you relinquished coz I could go on crushing your infantile arguments one by one like I have done so far in this little exchange. As I told you - I have the war in the Pacific at my fingertips - you are no match to me in this field.

Now, the final question to test you. Why did the Japanese eventually surrender? Of course, it was the effect of the atomic strikes. But firebombing of Tokyo and other cities before had produced more casualties and destruction than nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, why?
Novichok 4 | 7,924
11 Jun 2021 #69
So, why?

Because they thought the US has more of them. Dumb suckers.

A steady firebombing would have accomplished the same thing if they were sure the US would not blink first under the pressure from the pacifists. That's how the US lost in Vietnam. We had targets galore but they were off-limits to the American pilots. Like the dikes. Bomb those and North Vietnam would be un the knees in mud and starving. Haiphong port was also on the prohibited list.

In 1945 and beyond, things were still more normal when the generals, not lawyers and useful idiots like you, were in charge.
pawian 224 | 24,500
11 Jun 2021 #70
if they were sure the US would not blink first under the pressure from the pacifists.

Ha! Warm, warm, warmer, even warmer! Good. The Japanese counted on the US pacifists to exert enough pressure on Pres and the military so that they would feel forced to sign a peace treaty with Japan. That is why Japanese were intent on fierce defence despite their horrible casualties. You were mistaken when you said Americans ruled in the sea and the air - no, coz Japanese were still able to inflict losses and damage. Also mental. Don`t forget that burning a city alive with all its inhabitants affects soldiers who carry it out - personal reports and memories from the time suggest that crews who participated in those raids were deeply touched, even appalled.

This changed completely when Ams went nuclear - Japanese were helpless coz they weren`t able to retaliate on American soldiers and in result to influence the pacifist faction in the USA. . They realised the resistance was useless.

Thank you for this little discussion. You helped me sort of relive that time in my youth when I was really fascinated with the subject.

Thank you, Staff, for allowing us to distract the thread a little. :):):)
Novichok 4 | 7,924
11 Jun 2021 #71
Japanese were still able to inflict losses and damage.

After May 1945? With what? You are really dumber than I thought.

even appalled.

No sh*it! War is hell, said Novichok, the genius and the discoverer of Truth, in 2021.

Now, pay attention, my little Polish ignorant. Quoting from:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_in_World_War_II

By May 1945, most of the Imperial Japanese Navy had been sunk and the remnants had taken refuge in Japan's harbors. By July 1945, all but one of its capital ships had been sunk in raids by the United States Navy.

No navy, no aircraft carriers, no risk to the US Navy. The airfields in Japan were a little too bumpy for take-offs and landings. Oh, yeah, they had no warplanes. either.

But, according to a genius in Poland, Japan could still inflict losses on the US in 1945. Crap...Poor ignorant Americans had to wait how many years to find that out..?
pawian 224 | 24,500
11 Jun 2021 #72
Oh, yeah, they had no warplanes. either.

So tell us how Americans managed to lose a few dozen planes during Tokyo air raid?

said Novichok, the genius and the discoverer of Truth,

Yuk, that`s disgusting. :):)
Novichok 4 | 7,924
12 Jun 2021 #73
So tell us how Americans

Link or shut up.
pawian 224 | 24,500
12 Jun 2021 #74
9th March 1945 - Operation Meetinghouse: A grand total of 282 of the 339 B-29s launched for "Meetinghouse" made it to the target, 27 of which were lost due to being shot down by Japanese air defenses, mechanical failure, or being caught in updrafts caused by the fires.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Results

shut up.

Of course not. :):)
Novichok 4 | 7,924
14 Jun 2021 #75
27 of which were lost

27 too many. But the reward was so sweet that it brought a smile to my face:

The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded.

Now, you tell me how long the Japs could take it even with the US losses like in this case, which would be going down with time.

BTW, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the Tokyo raid killed more Japs than any other single raid in WW2. Cool.
pawian 224 | 24,500
14 Jun 2021 #76
you tell me how long the Japs could take it

Very long provided at least one Am plane was shot down, later blown into 50 planes by the regime`s propaganda. All in all, if Americans hadn`t used atomic bombs, they would have had to invade Japan as the last resort.
Novichok 4 | 7,924
14 Jun 2021 #77
No, they wouldn't have to since in the summer of 1945 Japan was no longer a threat. They could just go home and be done.

Would you want to die for a piece of paper with "unconditional surrender" on it, signed by some as*hole Jap? How many Americans would be worth it in your opinion?

That calls for a number, not some evasive essay. If I don't see a number, we are done.
pawian 224 | 24,500
14 Jun 2021 #78
The difference between us is that you are stupidly obsessed with numbers while I am not. :):):)

since in the summer of 1945 Japan was no longer a threat

Oh, I see. :):)

They could just go home and be done.

Of course. :):)
Novichok 4 | 7,924
14 Jun 2021 #79
If you "see", what are those moronic smiles for?

you are stupidly obsessed with numbers while I am not.

Because you are nothing but a dumb Polak - with feeling and no brains - the kind that gave Poland its worse disaster.

The first thing they would ask you in Congress would be how many men do you think we would lose during an invasion. They would remove you from the room, by force if necessary, if you said: Senators, you are stupidly obsessed with numbers while I am not.

Their response would be: Get the fu*ck out of here, you dumb Polish pos! In the US, we don't plan invasions without knowing what the cost might be in human lives. That's your specialty, as the Warsaw Uprising has proved beyond the shadow of the doubt.
pawian 224 | 24,500
14 Jun 2021 #80
you dumb Polish pos!

Actually, you are a dumb ex-Polish pos coz you constantly shift from one concept to another in a very relaxed but also illogical way. When you asked me for a number, you wanted to know this: tell me how long the Japs could take it

Now you are making a big fuss about: how many men do you think we would lose during an invasion.

I know you are troubled by dementia but can you still do sth with it coz it is very tiring to explain such basic things to you. :):)

If you "see", what are those moronic smiles for?

Coz I laugh at what I see in your posts. Simple. :):)
Novichok 4 | 7,924
14 Jun 2021 #81
"Would you want to die for a piece of paper with "unconditional surrender" on it, signed by some as*hole Jap? How many Americans would be worth it in your opinion?"

Now, did you get it?
pawian 224 | 24,500
24 Jun 2021 #82
Why Was D-Day So Significant for Poland ?

Sort of was. Anglo-Americans managed to conquer half Germany. After the war they turned it into a democratic country which soon became an economic power and top player in Europe West Germans proved that capitalism was superior to communism coz their Eastern brothers in Soviet-controlled Germany were much poorer. People in the Soviet block, especially Poles, could see that difference and reasoned logically - why should we keep the corrupt and inefficient system which stiffles personal freedoms? Such thoughts gave rise to dissident movements which finally got rid of communism.
Miloslaw 20 | 4,813
24 Jun 2021 #83
@pawian

A point well made.
But it still hurts that The Allies could not do more for Poland in 1945.
But the fact is that they probably could not.
The Soviet Union were too strong and in place and The Allies were exhausted and spent.
And the Russians knew that......
mafketis 37 | 10,925
25 Jun 2021 #84
Eastern brothers in Soviet-controlled Germany were much poorer

Not just materially.... I knew a couple of Poles who, in the 1980s, had a temporary work contract in the DDR (several months) when that was considered a plum assignment since the DDR was materially better off than Poland.

They returned home after about three weeks because they couldn't stand the oppressive, suspicious and fearful atmosphere.
pawian 224 | 24,500
25 Jun 2021 #85
Not just materially..

I compared two Germanys, not East Germany and Poland.
1980 gdp
West G - 11.000 $
East G - 5000
Poland 3000
Tacitus 2 | 1,392
25 Jun 2021 #86
And that is the estimsted based on the inflated numbers given by the GDR. By 1989 a citizen of the GDR earned officially 1/3 of his counterpart in West, though in reality it was more like 1/5.
Strzelec35 27 | 868
25 Jun 2021 #87
It really wasnt. What it was was significant for post war world of communism vs capitalism and for influence of what countries. The war was decided at Stalingrad some say earlier that at Smolensk in 21 the winner was already foretold as it showed resistance was now starting and deep operations or the doctrine of deep operations vs blitzkrieg which was the German way of war at this point.

The German plan was to establish a line near urals or archangelks:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-A_line

They did not even get to Moscow and failed in every way possible even in 41. There was zero chance of them winning unless they did everything right and Guderian and Mainstein literally had hitler imprisoned and would take over high command since inception of the campaign in addition to the total war directive. Thats how outmatched they were. And they would have had to only focus on the soviet union and continue to go past this archangelks line because stalin showed he had a incredible resiliance and ability to continuously shift factories and industry east like into the urals to bust out tanka fter tank t34 after t34 24/hr women working all night all day factories. It was really a losing effort from day one just a question of how long. Maybe there was a chance in there if they got more motarized and either waited till after spring 42 and got more european allies onboard but who knows.

"The plan was for the Red Army to the west of the line to be defeated in a quick military campaign in 1941 before the onset of winter.[5] The German Wehrmacht assumed that the majority of the Soviet military supplies and the main part of the food and population potential of the Soviet Union existed in the lands that lay to the west of the proposed A-A line.[5] If the line were reached, the Soviet Union would also be deprived of around 86% of its petroleum assets (oil territories in the Caucasus).

The A-A line as the end-goal of military hostilities was chosen because an occupation of the entire Soviet Union in a single military campaign was considered impossible in view of its geographic dimensions. The remaining Soviet industrial centers further eastward were planned to be destroyed by aerial bombardment, for which an entire Luftflotte ("air fleet"; equivalent in status to an army group) was to be assigned.[5]"

If they just bypassed Stalingrad and hitler didnt care that it had stalins name on it and focused on the oil in 42 that may have been their last chance or hailmary chance. But they supposedly burnt or made the crude oil production impossible for like a year or two ayway so who knows. the 42 plan was quite brilliant tho to totally forego moscow and focus on resources or crude oil only when it came to stalingrad they fuked themselves up. it really meant nothing.

But the fact they couldnt take it after getting so close and pulling so many resources to do it and same with leningrad where single cities held out shows they lost from the get go. and no crappy d day or americans meant anything., they couldnt take individual cities lol. and warsaw uprising mwans garbage little for anyone outside of polaks or the war efforts btw.

Even if Guderian and Mainstein had total control and say they reached this line the AA r Archangelsk line in 42 and actually dug in instead of fanatically going for moscow in 41 when snow started hitting. how the fuk would they even win then with fuking aerial bombardments? you got to be kidding me. they were retarded like hitler and soviets still would have won.

"The remaining Soviet industrial centers further eastward were planned to be destroyed by aerial bombardment, for which an entire Luftflotte ("air fleet"; equivalent in status to an army group) was to be assigned."

Or sorry I apologise. The great Rodinya the Great Rosiyyyya The Great Russia Mother Russia would have won.
Strzelec35 27 | 868
25 Jun 2021 #88
quora.com/What-would-have-been-the-consequences-if-Germany-reached-aa-line-in-operation-barbarossa

armchair historians. on fuking quora speak.

I also dont agree with that quora armchair historian for the simple reason: partizans. even if germans took over soviet oil and those baku oilfields they still would have existing stored up soviet oil and a huge advantage of arnaments such as a much higher tank production (t34) to deal with before thst oil runs out. secondly, they could have traded for it from other countries or with burrowed money. thirdly the territory was just too big with too mcuh resistance and partixans for them to take much else over imo or go all the way to siberia.

I have never heard of a nation just submitting do defeat outside of maybe france but theyre known dykes without most of the territory and the capital taken over. I have also never heard of a nation submitting due to not being able to wage war due to oil or economic reasons. Usually in such cases liek Russia in w1 they either settle or do a deal or simply borrow more money or resources promising to pay for it later. or they have again a civil war internal conflict like Russia in ww1. But I just dont see it happening under stalin or Germans winning under any scenario. And before anyoe says shet about zywbosc or sanditches reaching russians from uncle sam fuuuuk u thats the biggest polak crap ever lol. they really need some old rotten sandwitches when those ******* can live off bears and grass. Look at fuking vyazma holdout and shet. Or sevanstopol.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,952
25 Jun 2021 #89
But I just dont see it happening under stalin or Germans winning under any scenario.

It wasn't always so clear.....don't forget that the Wehrmacht was seen in big parts in the East (Ukraine) and the North (Baltics) as liberator from the Soviet yoke and could count on civilian support, then there was those Russians themselves (Russian Liberation Army) which decided to fight with the Wehrmacht against the Red Army....

It could have easily shifted to an big anti-Stalin-anti-communist movement with german military support! And THAT could have done Stalin and Co.

It was the Nazis themselves who blundered all that initial support with their unspeakable behavior as cruel occupiers no longer liberators stemming from that race policy which even put just liberated people into the "Untermenschen"-category...making new Partisans with every movement.
Strzelec35 27 | 868
25 Jun 2021 #90
But the thing is they fuked it up because they started murdering civilians and burning entire villages down. Hitlers racist views and that of his generals as well as the eisentzgruppen behind the lines made the support much much less than it could have been or made the support they had quickly wane.


Home / History / Why Was D-Day So Significant for Poland ?