The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives [3] 
  
Account: Guest

Home / History  % width   posts: 216

The great mistakes of Poland's history?


convex  20 | 3928
6 Apr 2010   #121
I think that the French middle finger was big enough that any discussion about France possibly joining us can be dropped, they were ready to wave the flag and thats it.

You're lucky, at least the French acted on their alliance when Poland was attacked.
Seanus  15 | 19666
6 Apr 2010   #122
You paint it as a conspiracy, Sok. If the logical course of action was so clear then why wasn't it taken? You make it sound like Britain wanted to string out the war. Part of me believes that given the ruthless profiteering of arms firms. Isn't it odd that "peace in our times" Chamberlain just faded into obscurity?

I don't believe that the Luftwaffe lossed 25% in such a short time, it just doesn't make sense. Goering had been assembling a mighty force for years and it just doesn't add up that such a large percentage bit the dust in such a short time.

Again, what makes you think that the German navy wouldn't have been ready for us? You are discussing fleet strengths without the requisite tactical follow up and feasibility studies. That was, interestingly enough, a major critique of the Polish approach under WS and RS. They didn't carry out any war games or conduct any kind of tests into how tenable the defence propositions were. Yes, the romanticism of the Poles was overstated but it was still in evidence with some of what they felt could be achieved.

Did your grandad pick up any of those pamphlets? ;) ;)
Sokrates  8 | 3335
6 Apr 2010   #123
You paint it as a conspiracy, Sok.

I have no idea why they betrayed us, my personal opinion is that they hoped Hitler and Russia would go at it and the alliance was to ensure Poland gets destroyed instead of allying with Germany but thats my opinion nothing more.

I don't believe that the Luftwaffe lossed 25% in such a short time

I'm sorry i meant the entire war, still Luftwaffe had only 230 fighters and 1200 bombers and it could not devote more then half to the Western front, remember that most of the major victories over Poles were made possible by overwhelming airforce presence.

Again, what makes you think that the German navy wouldn't have been ready for us?

What German navy?
Harry
6 Apr 2010   #124
What German navy?

The one that sank one British aircraft carrier in the first two weeks of the war and only missed sinking a second British aircraft carrier because of a faulty torpedo. But do forgive me for confronting a Pole who is ranting about history with these things called facts.
Seanus  15 | 19666
6 Apr 2010   #125
I don't believe you were privy to the full schematics of the German navy. That is the exclusive preserve of those in the upper echelons of intel. Books can only speculate on the true accuracy of their naval capabilities.

Well, that does sound like a conspiracy. Russia wasn't in in 1939. Forgive my ignorance but the summer of 1941 was their entry time, right? That's over a year and a half into the war.

Again, you are using stats without corroboration. Any other data to back up your numbers?
Harry
6 Apr 2010   #126
I don't believe you were privy to the full schematics of the German navy. That is the exclusive preserve of those in the upper echelons of intel. Books can only speculate on the true accuracy of their naval capabilities.

He can't back his wild claims but I can certainly provide you with sources as to the aircraft carriers I referred to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Courageous_%2850%29

On 14 September 1939, after only 27 days at sea, U-39 fired two torpedoes at the British aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal off of Rockall Bank north-west of Scotland. However, both torpedoes exploded short of their target. Following the failed attack, three British destroyers in the vicinity of the Ark Royal, HMS Faulknor, HMS Firedrake, and HMS Foxhound detected U-39. All three destroyers depth charged the U-boat and seconds after HMS Firedrake released her depth charges, U-39 surfaced.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-39_%281938%29
Seanus  15 | 19666
6 Apr 2010   #127
We'll see what he comes up with. I'm very amateurish when it comes to WWII but enjoy trotting out the limited things I've picked up.
Sokrates  8 | 3335
6 Apr 2010   #128
I don't believe you were privy to the full schematics of the German navy.

Everyone in Europe knew everyone else heavy vessels if thats what you mean, Germany had 12 heavy vessels, 2 battleships, 2 battlecruises, 2 pre-dreds and 6 heavy cruisers.

By comparison Britain had 6 battlecruises alone, also add to that the French fleet.

Books can only speculate on the true accuracy of their naval capabilities.

What do you mean? We know their radars, their armor thickness, we know the kind of shells and caliber of guns, we even know what kind of lightbulbs were used on Tirpitz' crappers.

Well, that does sound like a conspiracy. Russia wasn't in in 1939. Forgive my ignorance but the summer of 1941 was their entry time, right? That's over a year and a half into the war.

Thats just my opinion nothing more but given that you hand out conspiration theories left right and centre seems strange you mind.

Again, you are using stats without corroboration. Any other data to back up your numbers?

Of course.

wpk.p.lodz.pl/~bolas/main/uzbrojenie/luftkrieg/luft/luft.htm

I stand corrected though the actual number is around 400 which is still much less than 500+ Morraines and assorted Hurricanes, we're talking about 1939 since by 40 Germans outnumbered France and the expeditionary Brits.
Seanus  15 | 19666
6 Apr 2010   #129
Germany was building up in a climate of secrecy, Sok. So I ask again, what Ministry of Defence website were you reading? Have you international clearance at the highest level? ;)

So, when did they put their cards on the table? Hindsight is a great thing, Sok.

My beliefs in 9/11 were all corroborated and not mere speculation.
Sokrates  8 | 3335
6 Apr 2010   #130
Germany was building up in a climate of secrecy, Sok. So I ask again, what Ministry of Defence website were you reading? Have you international clearance at the highest level? ;)

You've got me lost here, whats your point?

So, when did they put their cards on the table? Hindsight is a great thing, Sok.

Navy wise? The only major engagement bar sub warfare happened in Norway when a bunch of destroyers shot each other apart, there was also Bismarck and thats it, Germans were very aware that their blue water navy would get blown to bits.

If you mean the fleet then it wasnt developed in secrecy, why do you think pocket battleships were made as pocket battleships?
Seanus  15 | 19666
6 Apr 2010   #131
How simple can I make it, Sok? The data you use is of dubious origin and repute. You cannot possibly know their true capabilities as Hitler didn't make that public knowledge. Piłsudski sensed it in his 2 stools quote. However, the people that may have known didn't divulge it for whatever reason.

I meant the fleet, yes, but what is your point about pocket battleships?
Mr Grunwald  33 | 2133
7 Apr 2010   #132
"I believe" = i know sh*t but i feel compelled to have an opinion and sell it as if it was educated rather then shyte i made up from the top of my head, thats what your post really is.

I had a theory... that's it

"A company from the Polish army’s guard of honor is also invited, as its soldiers took part in the June 1945 Victory Parade."

” Units were selected for the parade from some of the countries that made the biggest contribution to the victory over Nazi Germany — the United States, the United Kingdom and France."

WTH?!

Navy wise? The only major engagement bar sub warfare happened in Norway

Lenge leve Kongen! :D

You're lucky, at least the French acted on their alliance when Poland was attacked.

That's because Britain declared war on Nazi Germany
Having pressure from two allies isn't quite funny (the national prestige was on board, oh No! Sacreblé! Zhe Islanders are attacking zhe Germans! We shall also "Do Dhat" :)

Germany was building up in a climate of secrecy,

Still if Nazi Germany had a two front war in 1939 they would get screwed, read some comments from high ranking German officers about it. Can't remember the links tho so long time ago :/

Almost all of the German troops were at the eastern front with Poland (although I probably guess the French thought they will attack us first, just like in WW1, or they shall get tired in Poland then they will get smashed by our Maginote defenses)
convex  20 | 3928
7 Apr 2010   #133
That's because Britain declared war on Nazi Germany
Having pressure from two allies isn't quite funny (the national prestige was on board, oh No! Sacreblé! Zhe Islanders are attacking zhe Germans! We shall also "Do Dhat" :)

Just the reference early to Czechoslovakia who had a military alliance with France and the Soviet Union.

After that, did Poland really expect anything from France?
Mr Grunwald  33 | 2133
7 Apr 2010   #134
After that, did Poland really expect anything from France?

Well they (Polish generals) thought Poland had more ties with France (the blue division WW1, Polish lancer during Napoleon times, France seen as nr 1) they had high expectations of France. Also Poland didn't have much positive to say about Czechoslovakia, why should they think others would have any better?

Their logic was logical, but wrong
TheOther  6 | 3596
7 Apr 2010   #135
I had a theory... that's it

I don't take Sok's personal attacks too serious, as we all know that he doesn't really mean it... ;)

Other than that he still owes me some numbers to prove his theory.
convex  20 | 3928
7 Apr 2010   #136
Their logic was logical, but wrong

Not that great a place to put your trust I suppose.
Mr Grunwald  33 | 2133
7 Apr 2010   #137
Yupp, but they didn't know :/

I wish Central Europe had a stronger bond
convex  20 | 3928
7 Apr 2010   #138
Yupp, but they didn't know :/

The thing that gets me is that after watching Czechoslovakia get completely shafted by the French, that any of her allies might still have faith in her is odd.

Poland and Czechoslovakia would have made a nice bulwark against Germany.
Mr Grunwald  33 | 2133
7 Apr 2010   #139
Poland and Czechoslovakia would have made a nice bulwark against Germany.

Well at least there was a Czech & Slovak legion in Poland later on, but as many other soldiers they didn't get arms in time. My Tip-Grandfather was himself waiting for arms and such until he got taken into prison. The other one fought in an artillery brigade/division (should read more up on them, but they write so complicated :/)
Sokrates  8 | 3335
7 Apr 2010   #140
The thing that gets me is that after watching Czechoslovakia get completely shafted by the French, that any of her allies might still have faith in her is odd.

What other choice did Poland have?

I had a theory... that's it

I meant Sean when i was writing that.
Harry
7 Apr 2010   #141
The thing that gets me is that after watching Czechoslovakia get completely shafted by the French, that any of her allies might still have faith in her is odd.

You have to remember that Poland didn't see what happened to Czechoslovakia as a 'shafting': they themselves took part in the invasion.
Sokrates  8 | 3335
7 Apr 2010   #142
Sean my point with pocket ships is that Germany was bypassing the treaties because the West was watching and it could not be kept secret.

If they could build dreads in secrecy they wouldnt even bother making weaker lighter vessels.
Mr Grunwald  33 | 2133
7 Apr 2010   #143
I meant Sean when i was writing that.

But I wrote I think.... oh nevermind
king polkacanon  - | 57
7 Apr 2010   #144
Anyway Churchill later congratulated Chamberlain for not using the RAF and the fleet in the battle for Poland and even France.British refused to send their planes to save French no way they could send them to Poland way out of their fighting range.
Harry
7 Apr 2010   #145
Sean my point with pocket ships is that Germany was bypassing the treaties because the West was watching and it could not be kept secret.

If they could build dreads in secrecy they wouldnt even bother making weaker lighter vessels.

Do remind me what the Versailles treaty said about Germany and submarines. Wasn't it that Germany wasn't allowed to have any submarines at all? Funny how they restarted building U boats in 1933 (see Maiolo, Joseph The Royal Navy and Nazi Germany pages 29-30). Guess you must be talking ignorant bollocks yet again, how surprising.
Sokrates  8 | 3335
7 Apr 2010   #146
British refused to send their planes to save French no way they could send them to Poland way out of their fighting range.

Who says about sending them to Poland? Send them to France in 1939.
king polkacanon  - | 57
7 Apr 2010   #147
I don't think anyone believed Germany follewd still the treaty of Versailles orders in the 30's.GB struggled to have them agree to a proportion of 2/3 for battleship tonnage production between the two countries.

Let's remember that Potsdam treaty forbids Germans to make tanks(noone remembers it when buying Leopards).
Sokrates  8 | 3335
7 Apr 2010   #148
I don't think anyone believed Germany follewd still the treaty of Versailles orders in the 30's.GB struggled to have them agree to a proportion of 2/3 for battleship tonnage production between the two countries.

Of course not but Germany didnt feel safe enough to build full scale battleships (for a time) subs for example were bastard children of the worlds top navies and untill Germans rocked the world with their wolf packs no one really bothered.

This is to point out to Seanus' that the navy buildup was not done secret and was completely impossible to hide due to amount of meterials needed.
Marek11111  9 | 807
9 Apr 2010   #149
no one care if Germans are breaking the treaty of Versailles the German and British royal families are first cousins
guzzler  1 | 88
9 Apr 2010   #150
Of course not but Germany didnt feel safe enough to build full scale battleships (for a time) subs for example were bastard children of the worlds top navies and untill Germans rocked the world with their wolf packs no one really bothered.

Sokrates that is a question that always puzzle me, Holland and one of the Scandinavian countries were building u boats 250 in number for Germany and what ever the German built themselves. According to the treaty Germany and the other members of the treaty had a limit on capital ships of 19000 tons. Germany built four pocket battleships 45000 tons plus, I can only imagine that international capitalism saw Hitler as some sort of a hammer against communism, Hitler had little interest in the German Navy because they got mauled by the Royal Navy in the 1WW. The German Naval plan of action was to sink merchant shipping and deprive GB of materials, on the 3rd of September the Graf Spree sunk three ships in the South Atlantic. So the Royal Navy was at war from day one, the Kriegsmarine was an unbalanced navy in 1939. she needed another four years to build to full strength then nothing could have stopped her. I have no idea what double dealing was taking place behind closed doors, but Germany showed signs of slipping back into recession in 1938, which was Hitlers main reason for going to war in 1939. If Germany finished her full term of development, he may have had the A bomb and a method of delivery, and an incredible modern army.


Home / History / The great mistakes of Poland's history?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.