The great mistakes of Poland's history?

I did, some of the most ferocious battles of 1939 were fought as a result of major polish offensives.


We threw approximately 700k men out of grand total of 1.3 milion available for active duty, thats less than 2/3rds.

How about instead of attempting discussion off the top of your hat you go to histmag and learn something about the defensive war Seanus?


That was me being sarcastic, Germans didnt f*ck with polish comms, WP simply did not have an effective comms procedure and thats it, when static war became fast and fluid the procedures built for trench warfare went FUBAR.


Not really, Jews brought much strife to Poland and ultimately betrayed her, most Poles feel that we should have never invited them in the first place as they were a complete disapointment as citizens.

That map would've been a lot different in 1918.

Quick question Sokrates, are you actually Polish? I thought otherwise in some other threads.

Also you have good knowledge about the September campaign, I certainly am surprised at it, i.e I haven't met any people who got things as right as you have.

I want the info on a personal level, from real Poles...

Dude it all depends who you are asking.You would probably get about 38 milions different answers ranging from hell on earth to heaven.I can't provide you with my opinion since I am so called (on this forum) plastic Pole,not real one.-)

Well the one I linked shows the location of nationalities in 1931
But to give you some form of an idea of what uprising Poles "thought" they would have is quite interesting

That is (I think) one of the main reason Poles in general saw themselves as "citizens of an Empire" as the borders of the country stretched itself a bit more then the main population was.

Sokrates, you are not in a better position, really. You didn't fight in the war and have corroborated little. Many sources just want to sell copies and make money, their accuracy is lacking. You can throw out all the garbage stats you want, I won't take it as being the truth by a long stretch.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the defensive war. You come across as sb who thinks he does and that's where you go wrong. You are too sure of things that you shouldn't be too sure of.

you know what he would say if Ukraine had a German economy? Germans are primitive peasants who should be invaded by us, civilized Poles, so they can be saved. I understand that this attitude, however childish and immature still prevails among some Poles posting on PF. Really strange and unrealistic in my opinion.

So basically all publications that dont fit your uneducated view of how things went down are garbage? Guderian himself admitted traditional tactics were used in Poland in "Memoirs of a Soldier" but you know better then the guy who created Blitzkrieg


Its not relevant whether i am or am not an expert, bottom line is i base my words on knowledge, you base it on opinions, your own to make it worse.


I'm Polish.

Your 'knowledge' is not necessarily the 'knowledge' of others, Sok. As Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, "we both have truths, are mine the same as yours?".

What you fail to do is what I was trained to do at university the whole time. So and so said this while so and so said that. I agree with so and so because of x, y and z. You cite a source and take it as given to support some nonsense line. Look, "the war was an obvious failure"? True or false?

You know full well what I was saying, lad, and it wasn't about dismissing them outright. I was talking about them serving an agenda and wanting to make money. The relevance and accuracy of their findings is for us to work out by discussion, not just through picking a line here and there which supports your line of thought.

Why is it so black and white with you? I'm not saying Guderian was wrong at all, you are presupposing that. I even said that enveloping and traditional tactics were used and that Liddell Hart vastly exaggerated his Blitzkrieg claims, did I not? What do you understand by lightning war, Sok? Let's approach it on a step-by-step basis so I can expose your reasoning.

Only Soviets were in position to inflict a heavy military blow to Germany in 1939.Big mistake of Poles to refuse the pact Stalin proposed to them.(if course this rejection was made by English suggestion).

Poles should open the gates of Poland to Russians and bring Anglosaxons in front of finished results.Then the latter would be obliged to negotiate with Hitler without Poland's independance on table.Hitler would never start a war on his western border if the eastern was not secure and in this regard Russians would press the Germans a lot and bring everything to standstill.

Bottom line i base myself off books, many of them by Germans what do you base your point on?


Come on Sean Guderian serving an agenda? What would be the point? Yes Guderian lies repeatedly when for example a three day long Polish battle might throw a speck on his reputation he describes it as "uncertain conditions" but why would he lie about Blitzkrieg.


Elements of Blitzkrieg were used, organic air support (luftwaffe co-ordinators driving around with tanks) and breakthroughs with tanks, the difference between polish war and french or russian theatres was that tanks were usually unable to push deep on their own with them reaching Warsaw as one of the few exceptions.

German victory was fast but it was made possible such as it was only by the Russian invasion, though the conflict was fluid it was not a lighting war, polish army did not collapse due to german efforts, it collapsed due to Red Army destroying the rear.

WW1was fought in trenches.In Poland!s invasion by Wehrmacht no trenches were possible to build.End of similarities.

What else would I base my contentions on when you know that I didn't fight in the war? Think, man, think! I'm just saying that you don't weigh up all the different sides and come to a conclusion so you shouldn't be so sure.

Look, I didn't say Guderian was serving an agenda. I was referring to other authors who jumped on the opportunity to make money from the actions of war. I am not saying he is lying at all, how many times do I need to reiterate this? I'm just saying that it's not black and white and that there can be a bit of both. There is evidence of standard tactics and also of blitzkrieg. Do you want more examples of blitzkrieg, would that help?

Yes, we are in agreement here, Sok (with regards to the Red Army). However, look back above. What I was saying was that Blitzkrieg was employed and you even cited examples for me. German propaganda perpetrated myths on it and also on Polish cavalry marauding foolishly into their deaths. That's why I don't like propaganda at all. Operation Wasserkante was about strategic bomb dropping and a quick wiping out of targets. However, as we agree, Black Monday saw limited visibility and even smog which frustrated the pilots. Having said that, they still struck key targets.

Books, opinions of experts, historical archives.


Ok lets try it this way, invasion of Poland was not fought using blitz tactics but blitz elements were present in it, i think we're calling the same horse with two different names.


Actually the limited visibility was due to fires, another thing is Germans did not have enough bombers to moonscape Warsaw quickly and efficiently enough.


The Old Town?

Exactly, Sok, exactly. I didn't find Piłsudski's pre-emptive plea to France there ;) ;)

I think so. Let's drink to Polish successes :) :) Na zdrowie! Us Scots appreciated your efforts, especially in the RAF. Only good words :)

Fires also, yes, but also low-lying clouds and what we call stoor in Scottish. Sth like dust but of a specific type.

Communications relays more I was thinking. As you said, they targetted civilians more. Yeah, the resistance was fierce too. I can't remember the brigade name, maybe Pursuit PL?? What the Poles DID do well was perform well when outnumbered. I just feel that Wacław Stachiewicz didn't have plans B, C and D. Mobilisation was hindered by foreign bumbling but Poland was not duty bound to follow their suggestions.

Oh, "the war was an obvious failure"? True or false? ;) ;) ;) I think we are proving each other right in different places :)

The problem of Polish army was its high command not Germans, Rydz Śmigły was completely detached from reality since he was holed up in some podunk place not to mention Polish army had no fronts, no army groups and the command structure was such that all armies had to fare for themselves, Bzura is the only time when 2 Polish armies worked together and even then it was not perfect, still its effects were tremendous and for 10 days every general in Wehrmacht was crapping his pants.


There was only one sensible contingency plan, dig in in the Romanian Triangle and draw Germans into a protracted winter war, Germans themselves knew they were unable to roll up Polish army before the winter which is why they sent a letter to Stalin by 12th or 14th in which they asked for assistance.

At the same time the allies decided that Poland is lost and there's no point in dying for it even though Bzura proved thats not the case, Stachiewicz couldnt do anything beyond what he already did and when Russia entered the war any optional solution vanished instantly.


Yes it was, you have to remember how easily France and England sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler, while Poland was hoping that the West would honor its end of agreement the goverment was not stupid, there were very real fears that Poland will be sold by chunks or that lack of compliance with Franco-British wishes can provide an excuse not to help.

Thats the same reason why the Battle of the Border was even fought, originally withdrawal beyond the great rivers was considered but Poles feared that Hitler would just take the emptied provinces and the West goes Czechoslovakia on us.


Strategically it was a failure for Poland since we lost, it gave UK and France a year to prepare, a year they did not use at all so on this front it was a failure as well (though Franco-British not ours).

On the first para, it gave an excellent opportunity for you to learn from your mistakes. Many Poles are keen on history and enjoy war strategy games as I have learned. RS was isolated and ended up fleeing, I think.

It was like a game of poker. Poland banked on attacks in areas formerly occupied by Germany which is logical given their vigorous and vehement drive to win them back after WWI. This is, after all, one of the main reasons that Hitler got such broad-based support. Reparations were a thorn in their side. WS can easily be forgiven for that.

Very rational fears too. The only real thing that helped the Polish cause was a stalling of around one week when Britain and France agreed to go to war in the event of an attack on Poland. As I have conceded, Churchill was a mixed bag. Part of him wanted justice for Poles but my greater instinct tells me that his intentions were not with Poland but with British glory. You may laugh at that as obvious but plenty Brits won't even cede that. They portray Britain as this great saviour that came to the aid of the Poles. As Polish people love to say, 'gówno prawda'. You should read some excerpts of Michael Gilbert, he spoke in Poland not so long ago. He tried a balanced perspective on Churchill's war efforts. He helped collate his wartime memorials and has been extensively involved in Churchill's life and works.

Well, in fairness Sok, Britain was in just 2 days after the outbreak (on the 3rd of Sep). No, not in Poland but the war was fought on so many fronts. Poland fell in just over a month so forgive me for asking, where did you get a year from?

Sean UK could do a LOT, it could launch amass its Atlantic Fleet and land several armored brigades in Gdańsk retaking it, it could land around Hel Penninsula or destroy the German fleet in its harbors.

100% of German bomber force was in Poland and not moving anywhere since without it Germans would be in trouble, UK had a 100 thousand fully mechanised force with enough assets to drop it in Poland, whenever i hear that UK was not ready i call bollocks.

France had nearly 700k troops on the border as well, if either of those lazy fvcks decided to move the war would have ended then and there, of course today its easier to rewrite history as to show that Poland represented no challenge and was overrun just like that.

if France and England attacked Germans from west side soviets would never attacked Poland and WW2 be over before year end.

Forgive me if I've got this completely wrong but didn't Poland take part in the 1938 invasion of Czechoslovakia? Funny how Poles always tend to overlook that small but crucial point.


This would be the same Baltic sea which your own navy had decided was too dangerous to be in even before the war started? Remind me of the total number of missions which the Polish navy conducted in the Baltic in September of 1939. To the best of my knowledge the total was two: one where the submarine fleet attempted to follow the destroyer fleet (i.e. running away to the safety of British ports); and the other when the laying of mines was attempted before being abandoned because the Polish navy thought that the Baltic was too dangerous a place to even lay mines in. Always nice to see Poles complaining that Britain didn't do what Poles wouldn't do.

No, Poland didn't take part in the invasion. With the consent of Czech government,
we incorporated the lands that were stolen from us by Czechs when we were busy
fighting Soviets.

I told you that countless times and posted numerous links - why do you still keep
repeating this lie is beyond me.

Och nöööö....come on guys, we had these discussions already before a thousand times...

When we all agree Poles only sh*it gold and all others sh*it stinks can we move on then?

Exactly - but apparently some people never learn :-/

Why should they Torq, peoples/countries view of history will never become congruent...just accept that. These endless discussions to convince the other of the own version bring on only more bitterness and new hate...what for?

Well - our truth is the most truest of all truest truths!

How could I not surrender to that truth! *waves white flag*

Firstly, you took more than just the land which was taken by Czechoslovakia after Poland violated the interim agreement of 2 November 1918 agreement on the disputed territory: you even took land which had never been part of Cieszyn. Secondly, Poland was not fighting the Soviets at the time of the of the Polish-Czechoslovak conflict: I know Poles like you love to lie about it (and why you love to) but the Polish-Czechoslovak ceasefire was signed on 2 February 1919 and the first armed clashes of the Polish-Soviet war came on 14 February 1919. Thirdly, the Czechoslovak government as much 'consented' to Poland invading its territory as it 'consented' to the Nazis invading its territory. Remind me again, whose troops were first to enter Czechoslovakia in October 1938: Poland or Nazi Germany?

Truly you speak the truth long live Wielkarzeczpospolita.net! :D

The uprisings are always brought up as "proof" that all Poles saw themselves as an occupied nation seeking freedom and independence. Why this might be true for certain parts of society (mainly in the cities), I believe that the majority of the population wasn't politicized at all and just lived their lifes the best they could. The "patriotism" and "nationalism" during the 1772-1918 time frame that is mentioned here so often is political propaganda - nothing more. Why should Polish politicians have been any better than their counterparts in Prussia/ German Empire or Russia?