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

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


berni23 7 | 387    
8 May 2013  #61

Not suggesting, i find the thought just unappealing to put it in simpler terms.


OP pierogi2000 4 | 230    
8 May 2013  #62

A-lot of people sided with Hitler. Except for Poland, England & Russia/France , no one else really fought him. France helped the Nazis in rounding up the Jews.
peterweg 36 | 2,210    
8 May 2013  #63

What a, monumentally, ignorant post. You deserve a prize for that.
OP pierogi2000 4 | 230    
8 May 2013  #64

What do you disagree with?
berni23 7 | 387    
8 May 2013  #65

A-lot of people sided with Hitler. Except for Poland, England & Russia/France , no one else really fought him.

1. England: You are ofc talking abuot breaking the treaty and later Yalta. Or maybe about entering the war whn their own ass was on fire.

2. Russia? Really??? Please do yourself a favor and go back to school.
3. France defended their own territory only and the results were disastrous, not because the Germans were in larger numbers or even had superior technology, but because of disastrous tactical mistakes and the governments willingness to surrender.
OP pierogi2000 4 | 230    
8 May 2013  #66

Russia defended itself fine. That's why I put an and between England/Poland .......and Russia/France.

So your argument tends to hint that Polska should have sided with it's neighbor not France and some country on the other side of Europe
Harry 67 | 12,872    
8 May 2013  #67

1. England: You are ofc talking abuot breaking the treaty and later Yalta. Or maybe about entering the war whn their own ass was on fire.

Two little points:
a) Could you go into detail about how the UK broke the Anglo-Polish treaty? I doubt you will.
b) The UK was under no threat at all when it declared war on Germany. I fear you may be confusing the UK with the USA; the USA had already been attacked and suffered serious losses when Germany declared war on the USA.
berni23 7 | 387    
8 May 2013  #68

My bad, i should have written "came to the help of Poland". Had they attacked full force with the French WW2 as we know it would have never happened.

But England still has a nice list of not respecting treaties.
This is a short recap of just 3 years prior to WW2:
England had done nothing when Hitler tripled his army to 300,000, had done nothing when the training of warship crews began, had done nothing when the design of warships began, had done nothing when construction of large warships began, had done nothing when the training of submarine crews began, had done nothing when the design of submarines began,

had done nothing when construction of submarines began, had done nothing when the training of air force pilots began, had done nothing when the design of military aircraft began, had done nothing when construction of military aircraft began, had done nothing when Göring revealed the existence of the Luftwaffe, had done nothing when Hitler openly declared the introduction of military service, had done nothing against the creation of an army, had done nothing when Germany raised its army to 500,000, had done nothing when Germany claimed the Rheinland, had done nothing when Germany annexed Austria, had done nothing when Germany took the Sudetenland, had done nothing when Germany took over Czechoslovakia.

One could say England was directly responsible for WW2.

@pierogi2000 Sorry your answer is out of context and im not going to dignify that with an answer.
Grzegorz_ 52 | 6,248    
8 May 2013  #69

Had they attacked full force with the French WW2 as we know it would have never happened.

Be careful, you've been just counted into ultraconservative nationalists.
berni23 7 | 387    
8 May 2013  #70

Those who remember me, know im not.
Grzegorz_ 52 | 6,248    
8 May 2013  #71

It doesn't matter...
Harry 67 | 12,872    
8 May 2013  #72

My bad, i should have written "came to the help of Poland". Had they attacked full force with the French WW2 as we know it would have never happened.

Could you perhaps go into detail about the exact forces with which you would have liked the British to attack and where you would have liked them to attack from?

But England still has a nice list of not respecting treaties.
This is a short recap of just 3 years prior to WW2:
England had done nothing when Hitler tripled his army to 300,000, had done nothing when the training of warship crews began, had done nothing when the design of warships began, had done nothing when construction of large warships began, had done nothing when the training of submarine crews began, had done nothing when the design of submarines began,
had done nothing when construction of submarines began, had done nothing when the training of air force pilots began, had done nothing when the design of military aircraft began, had done nothing when construction of military aircraft began, had done nothing when Göring revealed the existence of the Luftwaffe, had done nothing when Hitler openly declared the introduction of military service, had done nothing against the creation of an army, had done nothing when Germany raised its army to 500,000,

What were they supposed to do? Invade Germany? From where and with what?
Could you perhaps go into detail about what Poland did to prevent the actions you mention above? Given that Poland was right next door to Germany and had plenty of places from which to invade, why did Poland do nothing about those alleged breaches?

had done nothing when Germany annexed Austria,

What treaty was that in breach of?

had done nothing when Germany took the Sudetenland,

What treaty was that in breach of?
Funny how you don't mention the Polish participation in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, and how that was in direct contravention of a treaty Poland had signed with Czecholslovakia.

had done nothing when Germany took over Czechoslovakia.

What treaty was that in breach of?

One could say England was directly responsible for WW2.

Only if one is utterly ignorant about the history of interbellum Europe.
berni23 7 | 387    
8 May 2013  #73

Could you perhaps go into detail about the exact forces with which you would have liked the British to attack and where you would have liked them to attack from?

From France ofc. And they would be in Berlin in 2 weeks with nearly all forces tight up in Poland.

Could you perhaps go into detail about what Poland did to prevent the actions you mention above?

Poland did not sign the Versailles Treaty.

What treaty was that in breach of?

See above.

Only if one is utterly ignorant about the history of interbellum Europe.

See above. :D
Harry 67 | 12,872    
8 May 2013  #74

From France ofc

I note that you completely fail to address the 'with what' part of the question. Yes I do know how inconvenient that part is for you. Also, perhaps you can explain how the British, even if they had had the forces to do so, were supposed to launch an attack from French soil which the French did no want to be launched.

Poland did not sign the Versailles Treaty.

So what? Why did Poland fail to stop Germany from taking those actions? It's not as if Poland was shy about taking the benefits of Versailles.

Harry: What treaty was that in breach of?
See above.

Could you be so kind as to quote the exact sections of the treaty (or treaties) in question?

See above. :D

Funny how that seems to be the only thing you can say.

BTW, if we're talking about interbellum treaties, shall we go into the interbellum treaties which Poland broke? Perhaps the ones about not invading Czechoslovakia? Or the one about not selling the Ukrainians to the Soviets? Or the one about not invading Lithuania?
berni23 7 | 387    
8 May 2013  #75

I note that you completely fail to address the 'with what' part of the question.

"In September 1939, the army had a total of 892,697 officers and men in both the full-time regular army and part-time Territorial Army."

Also, perhaps you can explain how the British, even if they had had the forces to do so, were supposed to launch an attack from French soil which the French did no want to be launched.

Ok, lets compromise. England is responsible for WW2 because the French wouldnt let them.
And i said that the British+French could have easily marched to Berlin in under 2 weeks.

So what?

I should just stop here.

Why did Poland fail to stop Germany from taking those actions?

Because Poland was not bound to. This is getting really tiresome.

Could you be so kind as to quote the exact sections of the treaty (or treaties) in question?

Nope, im too lazy to explain history to you again.

BTW, if we're talking about interbellum treaties, shall we go into the interbellum treaties which Poland broke? Perhaps the ones about not invading Czechoslovakia? Or the one about not selling the Ukrainians to the Soviets? Or the one about not invading Lithuania?

So you finally acknowledge that England broke treaties prior to WW2. Thank you.
No please admit that the English were pussies and we can end this.
Ziemowit 8 | 2,240    
8 May 2013  #76

This is getting really tiresome.

You don't know Harry yet. While you already begin to display the first signs of fatigue, Harry is only getting ready to devour you and your views on Britain not helping Poland in September 1939.
berni23 7 | 387    
8 May 2013  #77

I remember vaguely and see that nothing has changed.
I should really only drop in when i have a question.
Harry 67 | 12,872    
8 May 2013  #78

"In September 1939, the army had a total of 892,697 officers and men in both the full-time regular army and part-time Territorial Army."

Well done. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? Although I do wonder why you fail to quote the next two sentences "The regular army could muster 224,000 men, who were supported by a reserve of 173,700 men. Of the regular army reservists, only 3,700 men were fully trained and the remainder had been in civilian life for up to 13 years."

I wonder why you fail to address the issue of where those men were. Were they anywhere which allowed them to attack Germany. Opps, they most certainly were not. Nevermind.

And i said that the British+French could have easily marched to Berlin in under 2 weeks.

What an adorable falsehood. In two weeks the British had so few men in positions which could be used to invade Germany that said men could all fit into a single football stadium. As for the French army, well, the less said the better.

Because Poland was not bound to.

Which bits of the treaty imposed any obligation on the UK to force Germany to not violate the treaty? Opps, yet again historical fact fails to fit in with your highly original version of history.

Nope, im too lazy to explain history to you again.

In other words, you can't quote them; could that be because they don't actually exist?

So you finally acknowledge that England broke treaties prior to WW2. Thank you.

I acknowledge no such thing. I will thank you to not lie about what I say.
Ziemowit 8 | 2,240    
8 May 2013  #79

I should really only drop in when i have a question.

Yes, you should. You should stay pretty safe where you are in Berlin since no British bombing of that town occurs in case Poland asks her British ally to bomb it in a retaliation move against Germany in consequence of a Polish-British treaty.
OP pierogi2000 4 | 230    
8 May 2013  #80

Another point. Winners write the history:

Why isn't Stalin viewed in the same regard as Hitler when he killed more/everyone. He didn't even draw lines.

Why wasn't USA held accountable for dropping the 2 atomic bombs OR their death camps of 1.5 Million Germans who were starved to death?

If we had joined the Nazis. They win the War and the Holocaust is a little piece of history just like the Holodomor .
delphiandomine 57 | 15,125    
8 May 2013  #81

They win the War

Unlikely. Nazi Germany would still have lost to the atomic bomb no matter what else happened - there's no way that they would have been able to counter that, even if they occupied the whole of Europe at the time. Russia would have meant a massive effort on their part, too.
OP pierogi2000 4 | 230    
8 May 2013  #82

You think the USA comes to the rescue of the Soviets?

With Russia under his control and every country in the region except France. There is no point of Hitler going into West Europe. I think he stops at controlling the entire Central/East.
delphiandomine 57 | 15,125    
8 May 2013  #83

You think the USA comes to the rescue of the Soviets?

Germany had declared war on the USA - do you think Nazi Germany really would have been happy to stop at Europe?

They wouldn't have rescued the Soviets, but they would have put a stop to Germany before she was able to seriously threaten them.

With Russia under his control and every country in the region except France. There is no point of Hitler going into West Europe. I think he stops at controlling the entire Central/East.

Hitler wanted to do what Napoleon nearly did - conquer the entire continent. If you look at him as a person, he had delusions of the Thousand Year Reich - the only way to get that was to control the entire continent. But as I say, by the time he managed that, the Americans would have bombed Germany into submission.
Zooey 4 | 8    
14 May 2013  #84

It's shocking how I know you are correct and yet I can't find a single link to this on my American google. It's crazy. People rewriting history

I mistook the Pact of Steel for the Anti-Comintern Pact, which Poland declined in 1936. The sources for this suggestion, and the reasons Poland declined, not very different from what I previously wrote, come from:

Hitler's Foreign Policy 1933-1939: The Road to World War II by Gerhard Weinberg
Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin by Timothy Synder
OP pierogi2000 4 | 230    
14 May 2013  #85

Invasion on Poland

Americans think Nazis defeated Polish cavalry military in 1 week
Chris R 1 | 34    
14 May 2013  #86

Interbellum Poland had a policy of strict neutrality between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The following author also soundly refutes the absurd claim by our trolls that Poland conspired to carve up Czechoslovakia:

Anna M. Cienciala, The Foreign Policy Of Józef Piłsudski And Józef Beck, 1926-1939: Misconceptions And Interpretations.
Harry 67 | 12,872    
14 May 2013  #87

the absurd claim by our trolls that Poland conspired to carve up Czechoslovakia:

Yawn. Still trying to claim that Poland didn't join with the Nazis in invading Czechoslovakia, I see. Why do you insist on trying to excuse the inexcusable Chris?
delphiandomine 57 | 15,125    
14 May 2013  #88

The following author also soundly refutes the absurd claim by our trolls that Poland conspired to carve up Czechoslovakia:

A poor show, given that Poland had already fought one war in recent times over that part of Czechoslovakia and willingly marched in as soon as Czechoslovakia was in no position to defend herself.
Ironside 42 | 7,690    
14 May 2013  #89

awn. Still trying to claim that Poland didn't join with the Nazis in invading Czechoslovakia, I see. Why do you insist on trying to excuse the inexcusable Chris?

stop lying about Chris post, after all everybody can read his post and your pathological lies are quite transparent.
Harry 67 | 12,872    
14 May 2013  #90

your pathological lies are quite transparent.

Really? In that case it'll be no problem for you to quote them and explain how/why they are lies. Please do that. Or is your post simply another of the barrage of lies and insults you aim at me?

Either way, I note that not even you can bring yourself to deny that Poland joined with the Nazis in invading Czechoslovakia in 1938.



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