The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [13]  |  Archives [1] 
 
Witamy, Guest  |  Members
Home / History   188

How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer



Harry 78 | 13,529    
6 May 2013  #31

So what was the date of planned British-French offensive on Germany ?

The French offensive (such as it was) started on 7 September and lasted until the German units were reinforced with units who had returned from the Polish campaign. By the time British troops had been deployed in France, the German invasion of Poland had very much succeeded.


Grzegorz_ 52 | 6,247    
6 May 2013  #32

The French offensive (such as it was) started on 7 September

OK :)))
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive
Harry 78 | 13,529    
6 May 2013  #33

That was why I said "such as it was" . Now, perhaps you could go into detail about action which could have been taken by the British but was not taken?
Grzegorz_ 52 | 6,247    
6 May 2013  #34

Now, perhaps you could go into detail about action which could have been taken by the British but was not taken?

Did I say about any action British could have taken ? Isn't it obvious that they couldn't do anything :)) ? I was merely asking for the date of planned British-French offensive on Germany.
Ziemowit 8 | 2,577    
6 May 2013  #35

The partition happened due to internal political weakness which ushered in the foreign dominance. Poland was so internally divided the countries thought they were doing Poland a favor by taking over.

While the first sentence of this quote is true, the other is utter rubbish. First, it is like saying that the US should take over Mexico since it is a country which is governed badly, at least far worse than Uncle Sam would do, so the US would do Mexico a favor by taking it over.

And second, it was not at all true for Poland in the second half of the 18th century! The country started its long-range reforms shortly after its first partition of 1772 with the educational reform at the very heart of it. Monsieur Du Pont of the not-yet-famous family was invited to set up the National Ministry of Education (KEN), but soon resigned from the post saying that the king's plans for KEN are so out-reaching that they stand no chance to get started since Russia would never allow the king to go ahead with them. Nevertheless, the work went on without Monsieur Du Pont, and in several years later Catherine II got furious to hear that the Polish Constitution od 1791 abolished the liberum veto and replaced the election of kings with hereditary monarchy, this making her losing the essential tools for controlling the political situation in Poland. The country, however, was too big to be swallowed in its totality only by Russia, which Catherine originally hoped for, so she had to share the prey with the two other predators. That is, in short, the history of "foreign powers doing Poland a favour by taking it over".
Ironside 43 | 8,218    
6 May 2013  #36

Do you happen to have a source for that? My understanding is that on that day 303 squadron actually 'accounted for' 145% of German losses.

Norman Davies Rising 44 p 38.

clearly they needed no retaining at all.

That is not what I said. Surely undisciplined is in this case just a qestion of perspective or a one point of view.
Harry 78 | 13,529    
6 May 2013  #37

Norman Davies Rising 44 p 38.

He quotes claimed kills, not actual kills. On that particular day 303 claimed 13 kills from a total number of allied claims of 34 planes but actual German losses were only nine planes.
Grzegorz_ 52 | 6,247    
6 May 2013  #38

Controversies regarding the number of kills were present during every conflict and basically in case of every unit, a fact that British jump on 303 so happily clearly shows that you guys simply can't get over it that you have to share "your" victory with anyone else, especially with "Eastern Europeans", very telling and simply pathetic.
Ironside 43 | 8,218    
6 May 2013  #39

He quotes claimed kills, not actual kills. On that particular day 303 claimed 13 kills from a total number of allied claims of 34 planes but actual German losses were only nine planes.

well wouldn't be percentage be the same regardless of the numbers of planes.
Harry 78 | 13,529    
6 May 2013  #40

Depends on who was doing the claiming. Polish air force rules as to what could and could not be claimed as a kill were most certainly not the same as RAF rules on the same thing.

a fact that British jump on 303 so happily clearly shows that you guys simply can't get over it that you have to share "your" victory with anyone else, especially with "Eastern Europeans", very telling and simply pathetic.

I have never met a British person who refused to share the allied victory. However, there is no shortage of Poles and 'Poles' who refuse to share the BoB victory.
Grzegorz_ 52 | 6,247    
6 May 2013  #41

Depends on who was doing the claiming.

And counting :))
Ironside 43 | 8,218    
6 May 2013  #42

Depends on who was doing the claiming. Polish air force rules as to what could and could not be claimed as a kill were most certainly not the same as RAF rules on the same thing.

I think that all rules were there to establish the real number of kills. Putting it all down to implied inferior methods of verification in Polish air forces is just a nonsense.

The same goes for RAF - they claimed more kills than there had been real kills.
All that has no real impact on percentage and that is clear for anybody who know their ass from their elbow.
Harry 78 | 13,529    
6 May 2013  #43

All that has no real impact on percentage and that is clear for anybody who know their ass from their elbow.

The problem comes when one starts to look at German documentation and analyse where and when which types of German planes were lost. Doing that shows that the percentages most certainly do change. See, for example, the work of John Alcorn, which has 303 as the fourth leading squadron in BoB.

And then there's the question of what effect those Polish pilots would have been if Poland had allied with the Nazis. Would the Luftwaffe really have let Poles play with their toys? How much success would Polish pilots in PZL P11s have had against Hurricane, let alone Spitfires? I'd have said not much.
Ironside 43 | 8,218    
6 May 2013  #44

And then there's the question of what effect those Polish pilots would have been if Poland had allied with the Nazis

It all depends whether France and Britain would attack Germany over Soviets like they didn't do it for Poland.

Would the Luftwaffe really have let Poles play with their toys?

No need, given the time Poland would develop their own fighter-plane that already had in the prototype stage.

Doing that shows that the percentages most certainly do change

well that would be highly unlikely.
delphiandomine 82 | 15,955    
6 May 2013  #45

No need, given the time Poland would develop their own fighter-plane that already had in the prototype stage.

Wouldn't have made much difference - Poland was just too far behind in the arms race at that point.
Harry 78 | 13,529    
6 May 2013  #46

It all depends whether France and Britain would attack Germany over Soviets like they didn't do it for Poland.

Please do not make that untrue claim that France and Britain failed to help Poland in the way that they were contractually required to do. As for the Soviet Union, I am unaware of any pacts of mutual assistance between the UK and the USSR.

No need, given the time Poland would develop their own fighter-plane that already had in the prototype stage.

And that plane would have been going up against British jets.

well that would be highly unlikely.

Not at all: different units flying different planes in different roles against different enemy aircraft types will have differing rates of actual kill to claimed kill on different days, and that's before you factor in differences in different air forces as to what could actually be claimed as a kill.
Ironside 43 | 8,218    
6 May 2013  #47

Wouldn't have made much difference - Poland was just too far behind in the arms race at that point.

Not really, Poland had been developing military industry which full potential would have been reached by 1944.
Harry 78 | 13,529    
6 May 2013  #48

As noted above, even if Poland had bought that industry on-line by 1944 and had got its prototype aircraft into the air, those planes still would have been facing British jet, they were at least a full generation of aircraft behind.
Ironside 43 | 8,218    
6 May 2013  #49

Please do not make that untrue claim that France and Britain failed to help Poland in the way that they were contractually required to do. As for the Soviet Union, I am unaware of any pacts of mutual assistance between the UK and the USSR.

we are talking - what if here Harry!
If Poland and Germany would have attacked Soviets would Britain and France take part in the war at the stage attaching themselves to Soviet and if so would that attack Germany? I doubt that.

The only way to help Poland in 1939 would be full fledged offensive - so yes they failed to help Poland - end of story.

And that plane would have been going up against British jets.

In 1944 or in 1943? British had no jets before Germans.

Not at all: different units flying different planes in different roles against different enemy aircraft types will have differing rates of actual kill to claimed kill on different days, and that's before you factor in differences in different air forces as to what could actually be claimed as a kill.

Still percentage would not be altered much.
Harry 78 | 13,529    
6 May 2013  #50

If Poland and Germany would have attacked Soviets would Britain and France take part in the war at the stage attaching themselves to Soviet and if so would that attack Germany? I doubt that.

I don't see much reason for the British to attack Germany in such circumstances (although they may very well have done so anyway).

The only way to help Poland in 1939 would be full fledged offensive - so yes they failed to help Poland - end of story.

Do feel most welcome to go into detail about the full offensive that the British could have launched then.

In 1944 or in 1943? British had no jets before Germans.

The first British jet flew in 1941. The first British combat jet flew in 1943 and entered service in 1944.

Still percentage would not be altered much.

The work done by historians who know quite a bit more about this topic than you do very much say otherwise.
Ironside 43 | 8,218    
6 May 2013  #51

The work done by historians who know quite a bit more about this topic than you do very much say otherwise.

any links or books?

The first British jet flew in 1941. The first British combat jet flew in 1943 and entered service in 1944.

Did they now? Never heard about it. Must be because of their negligible impact on the war.

Do feel most welcome to go into detail about the full offensive that the British could have launched then.

What? do you want the details of something that never materialism? Very much like attaching gross of their forced to the attack and please do not put France out of the equation.
Harry 78 | 13,529    
6 May 2013  #52

Did they now? Never heard about it. Must be because of their negligible impact on the war.

Or perhaps it could be due to your ignorance of air-war related topics?

What? do you want the details of something that never materialism?

If you wish to claim that a full-scale attack could have been launched by British forces at that time, I do expect you to go into detail about what attack could, in your opinion, have been launched.
Ironside 43 | 8,218    
6 May 2013  #53

Or perhaps it could be due to your ignorance of air-war related topics?

Nah i will stick with my version.

If you wish to claim that a full-scale attack could have been launched by British forces at that time, I do expect you to go into detail about what attack could, in your opinion, have been launched.

stop that nonsense I'm not British war office from the period. They would tell you what they could do in details if they ever planned for that, but they didn't and neither did France they simply duped Poland.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569    
7 May 2013  #54

Utter bollox mate and you know it, there was ONE squadron of Polish who fought in the last few weeks of the Battle of Britain.

Truth hurts, doesn't it. The fact that it was only one squadron makes the fact that same saved Britain all the more remarkable.

hobby horse

High horse, actually. The only one pretending to ride hobby horses here is you, with your claimed Polish Army dress ups and pantomines. Just go back to rummaging through the costume box whilst the adults discuss matters of history. Pip pip ;-).

If Poles and Poland were so god dammed tough and invicable why the FK didnt you go and invade the soviet union yourself and liberate your own fking country? I mean, you lot constantly trot out that BS about 4th largest allied army.why didnt you use it then for more than 2 ,or 3 at a push,battles?

Whilst I'm wholly unfamiliar with the term "invicable", yours is a question, no doubt, best put to HMG in respect of their outright refusal to allow Anders' request in early 1945 to gather the remnants of his army fighting for HMG and return to Poland and reclaim their own country - yet another tick against the list of perfidy against the Poles. You wouldn't be aware of that however, being inculcated with Western propaganda.

And please note Issy, no response from you is desired or required. I've ended the discussion. Thank you.

"Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by Polish squadrons and their unsuppressed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the battle have been the same" - Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding.

Well put Ironside. As usual, you are at the vanguard of dismissing fantasy with fact. In similar vein, one should also recall the immortal words of the Honourable Sir Winston Churchill in praise of the Polish pilots when saying:

"Never in the field of conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"

Were you aware that HMG had the audacity to invoice against the Polish gold reserves held on trust for payment of the use of British planes, inter alia. It's a bit like me getting you over to my place to help put out a fire that's burning my home, then charging you for the use of the water and the singed hose.

Yes it was sufficient.

An interesting claim, and I thank you for revealing it.

No doubt you've garnered some tangible information from relevant archives which, no doubt, set out, in particular, details regarding precisely what was or wasn't within the power of HMG to do viz their obligations under the Agreement. Please share that with us, bearing in mind your often repeated claims on this forum that you never claim anything without having the sources to back it up. I look forward to reading what you provide by way of source material...

If you are aware of action which could have been taken but was not taken, please do feel free to go into detail about it (not that you ever will).

For a start, the leaflets dropped could have been replaced with bombs...

You'll no doubt however be aware of why the order was given to drop leaflets instead.

By the time British troops had been deployed in France, the German invasion of Poland had very much succeeded.

You're falling for the ol' Western propaganda here too Harry. The BEF commenced deployment to France from 3 September, so your above quoted is pure dissimulation. Would you please explain the delay as to why it took til the 26th for them to start moving, and why in any event they were to wait til not earlier than 5 October in taking up places in Northern France? Mind you, I'm not after your opinion, but facts and matters gleaned from your knowledge of HMG's state of mind at the time. Please also refrain from any cheeky comments when responding - thanks in advance.

In any event, there is no text within the Agreement which says that in the event of invasion succeeding, obligations were to be suspended, but do feel free to point it out if you say there is...
Harry 78 | 13,529    
7 May 2013  #55

For a start, the leaflets dropped could have been replaced with bombs...

You'll no doubt however be aware of why the order was given to drop leaflets instead.

Oh dear, you've gone back to type and started lying. I do wonder why you insist on lying about the RAF bombing raids even after they have been posted about so many times here.

But regardless of what drives your compulsion to lie, the fact that yet again you have fallen back on the same old offensive lies means that there is no point in continuing this exchange; come back if you ever feel like having a discussion which doesn't involve you simply lying when things are not going your way.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569    
8 May 2013  #56

there is no point in continuing this exchange; come back if you ever feel like having a discussion which doesn't involve you simply lying when things are not going your way.

How very unlike you...

Shirking from a discussion, and moreso a discussion to which which the subject matter is near and dear to you, and whenever it pops up otherwise you home in on it. You've never let someone else's 'lying' hold you back - indeed, it seems to drive you in correcting the lie - but here, nothing.

Well, you've called me out, and I'm your huckleberry...
legend 3 | 672    
8 May 2013  #57

Boy oh boy, so many revisionist chauvinistic Brits spreading lies on the forums.

I mean, you lot constantly trot out that BS about 4th largest allied army

This is a fact. I know it hurts.

Considering how France and England did little to nothing following Germany's attack

Completely agreed. Its not even debatable.
Meathead 5 | 475    
8 May 2013  #58

You're falling for the ol' Western propaganda here too Harry. The BEF commenced deployment to France from 3 September, so your above quoted is pure dissimulation. Would you please explain the delay as to why it took til the 26th for them to start moving, and why in any event they were to wait til not earlier than 5 October in taking up places in Northern France? Mind you, I'm not after your opinion, but facts and matters gleaned from your knowledge of HMG's state of mind at the time. Please also refrain from any cheeky comments when responding - thanks in advance.

In any event, there is no text within the Agreement which says that in the event of invasion succeeding, obligations were to be suspended, but do feel free to point it out if you say there is...

This whole thread is a good example of why Poland was occupied for 300 years, Poland expects other countries to be responsible for them. England's army in Sept. of 1939 was totally unprepared for war. That's why they were pushed into the channel at Dunkirk. Their troops didn't even have maps. They were short on ammunition for rifles and cannon. The whole expedition was ridiculous. The German's cut through them like cream cheese.

e
berni23 7 | 387    
8 May 2013  #59

Oh my, PF is still full of ultraconservative, nationalistic and disillusion aggregators that wont stop their propaganda about their sick views. History is history and one should learn from that, instead of repeating the same mistakes. And the mods obviously care only about the traffic the site generates.

Most Poles who arrived in the 21st century have better tings to do, not like the unemployed(for a good reason) shrills that poison the site.
OP pierogi2000 4 | 230    
8 May 2013  #60

So your complaint is what exactly?




Home / History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer
Click this icon to move up back to the quoted message. Bold Italic [quote]

 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary and unique username or login and post as a member.