The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 264

Why Was D-Day So Significant for Poland ?


Alien 20 | 5,227
1 day ago #241
Ukraine is losing the war not for lack of intelligence or equipment

This is exactly how it is, apart from new drones, the equipment they have is 30-60 years old. This also applies to Western equipment. They don't get the latest equipment, only used ones.
Ironside 50 | 12,461
1 day ago #242
All what-if scenarios are just pure fantasy but some are more fantastic than others. One of those more out with the Loonies' fantasy claims that the Soviet Union would be able to win decisively with Germany during WWII without USA help - no, that wouldn't happened. It is nonsense.

The second question would the soviet Union win over Germany without a new front in Normandy in 1944? Possibly, it is not out of the question but one needs to remember that there was already a first front in Britain and the Atlantic then there was another one in Africa and then Italy.

The Soviet front was the second front if we talk in chronological order. Also that front in Normandy would be the third front not the second. Simple.
Novichok 3 | 7,883
1 day ago #243
would be able to win decisively with Germany during WWII without USA help

Nobody claimed that.
I claim that in the summer of 1944, WW2 was already over and the Red Army was plenty capable of reaching Berlin literally in months.

Once Berlin was in Soviet hands, the rest would fold quickly. Just like Saigon and the rest of Vietnam. Or Warsaw and the rest of Poland.
OP johnny reb 50 | 7,221
1 day ago #244
Also that front in Normandy would be the third front not the second.

And the Allies landing there was a mere diversion and nothing more than a hoax to fool Hitler if you were to read on.
Eisenhower knew in advance that he was sacrificing these men needlessly to help win the war.
He should have been hung.
And another fact is that it was Britain that took the lead in the invasion, not the United States.
gumishu 15 | 6,272
1 day ago #245
the US would not invade Iraq twice.

the US didn't invade Iraq twice - the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait from Iraqis - but feel free to correct me

also Ukraine IS low on heavy weapons and low on ammunitions for those heavy weapons - for every shell the Ukrainias fired Russians fired at least 10 - also the shortage of manpower has only been a problem for Ukraine for about last two or three months

Nobody bombed anybody into surrender.

actually the US bombed Japan into surrender - and I don't mean only the A-bombs
OP johnny reb 50 | 7,221
1 day ago #246
Come on children, can we please stay on topic today before I pull all of my hair out
Alien 20 | 5,227
1 day ago #247
Why Was D-Day So Significant for Poland ?

If D-Day had occurred half a year earlier, perhaps the Allies would have occupied all of Germany and liberated at least part of Poland.
OP johnny reb 50 | 7,221
1 day ago #248
It took more than six months to cordinate such a huge operation though.

Where did you read that ?
Tell us the rest of the story.
Alien 20 | 5,227
1 day ago #249
Where did you read that ?
Tell us the rest of the story.

I didn't read it, I just made it up. Half a year before the end of the war, the Russians were still standing near Warsaw. If D-Day had been half a year earlier, the Americans would have met the Russians not at Torgau but near Warsaw. Perhaps they would even withdraw from part of Poland just to get an occupation zone in Germany or at least in Berlin. (a kind of East Berlin, surrounded by a wall). Then the fate of Poland might have turned out differently.
Novichok 3 | 7,883
1 day ago #250
actually the US bombed Japan into surrender

Japan didn't surrender even after the first nuke.

Japan surrendered because Japs didn't know how many nukes the US had. Losing 100,000 civilians per pop was too much even for those fanatics.

Leningrad never surrendered - even facing starvation.
gumishu 15 | 6,272
1 day ago #251
Leningrad never surrendered - even facing starvation.

most probably because the troops who defended it had enough food :P
Novichok 3 | 7,883
1 day ago #252
The way to judge any Western is by going to the extreme end of the cynical scale - and then still twice as far.

...from wars to transgenders and everything in between...
Bobko 26 | 1,999
23 hrs ago #253
remember that there was already a first front in Britain and the Atlantic then there was another one in Africa and then Italy.

More jokes.

1) Britain was never invaded. The Battle of Britain, was fought entirely in the air, and lasted approx. three months from July to Oct. of 1940. Props to the British Air Force for being able to establish eventual air superiority.

2) The Battle of the Atlantic involved several hundred submarines, and maybe several thousand merchant ships and government owned cargo carriers. The total losses are tallied in the tens of thousands. In other words, approximately a week of Stalingrad fighting.

3) The North African Campaign was an absolute sideshow next to what was happening on the Eastern Front. Once again, total casualties are tallied only in the tens of thousands. Many more were captured, but that is because Hitler and Mussolini had no means of shipping those men back to the Continent. Soldiers who were transferred from North Africa to the Eastern Front, would complain that it was like entering hell (btw the soldiers transferred from France and the Low Countries complained about the same thing).

Bottom line - the scale, brutality, and amount of armament involved - puts the Eastern Front on an entirely different level than any other theater of the war. The Eastern Front of WW2 is the most brutal fighting experienced in the history of our species. Meanwhile, the battles in the West, in Africa, in Asia, could have easily happened in WW1 or in the 19th century in terms of the losses involved.

Britain and France both lost much more men in WW1 than in WW2, though that war is rarely ever discussed when fighting for bragging rights over the dead.

Britain - WW1 losses: 887K military deaths
Britain - WW2 losses: 383K military deaths

France - WW1 losses: 1.4M military deaths
France - WW2 losses: 217k military deaths.
gumishu 15 | 6,272
22 hrs ago #254
puts the Eastern Front on an entirely different level than any other theater of the war.

that doesn't change the fact that if it weren't for American supplies your country would most probably have starved during the war

Nobody bombed anybody into surrender

you can however bomb them into the middle ages - that helps your war effort quite a great deal if you ask me
Novichok 3 | 7,883
22 hrs ago #255
Bobko, don't you know that your post above is off-topic?

So let me remind you what posts are allowed here:

Without D-Day Poland would not exist today.

...close equivalents...

That's it. Anything else, except my dementia, is off-topic.

Can a guy with dementia get a Russian visa?
Novichok 3 | 7,883
22 hrs ago #256
you can however bomb them into the middle ages

Quoting RT.com:

The Most Bombed Place on Earth

American aircraft dropped over 5 million tons of bombs on Vietnam- the largest bombardment of any country in history- and more than twice as much tonnage as the U.S. Air Force dropped in all of World War II.


...and still lost the war...

Today, life expectancy:

Vietnam: 74

US : 76

Was life expectancy 74 in the Middle Ages?
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,834
22 hrs ago #257
....I guess the Vietnamese eat mostly still normal smaller portions, less processed food, less sugary stuff?

USians and Europeans eat mostly crap and to much of that, that probably is the reason!

Okay....back to the thread topic!
Novichok 3 | 7,883
22 hrs ago #258
USians and Europeans eat mostly crap and to much of that, that probably is the reason!

That's why Vietnamese should be on their knees daily thanking God that the Vietcong won.

If the Vietcong lost, Vietnam would now be gorging on cancer-causing crap, have two corrupt parties, and be drowning in debt...

Oops...I forgot global warming and pregnant men...

Okay....back to the thread topic!

I already covered it:

Without D-Day Poland would not exist today.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 11,834
22 hrs ago #259
That's why Vietnamese should be on their knees daily thanking God that the Vietcong won.

....na ja....fasting sometimes can be healthy....but forced all the time? In the middle ages heavier people had been viewed as healthy and rich!

You can't please everybody! *shrugs*
Alien 20 | 5,227
22 hrs ago #260
In the middle ages heavier people had been viewed as healthy and rich!

It's obvious, but they also had diseases of today's civilization, such as diabetes and coronary heart disease.
gumishu 15 | 6,272
21 hrs ago #261
..and still lost the war...

the US didn't lose the war - Americans just reached a conclusion that they are not ready to sacrifice any more American lives to fight the war in defence of South Vietnam - it was South Vietnam that lost the war, that's for sure
Novichok 3 | 7,883
21 hrs ago #262
OK. North Vietnam along with Vietcong lost the war.

Happy now?

In wars, nobody gives a fvck why one side quits and runs for its life in panic...See Afghanistan.
gumishu 15 | 6,272
20 hrs ago #263
OK. North Vietnam along with Vietcong lost the war.

I have already said it was South Vietnam who lost the war - but you are right to an extent there were millions of Vietnamese from the North and those in Viet Kong who also lost the war mainly because they lost their lives
OP johnny reb 50 | 7,221
19 hrs ago #264
Okay....back to the thread topic!

That rule doesn't apply to manic depressant people that come here every day just to argue.


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