The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 867

Whom do the people in Poland hate more: Germans or Russians?


Wroclaw Boy
10 Feb 2008 #271
Netherlands the second biggest nation of pussies during WWII.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2008 #272
Never thought the Dutch women were so loose WB, LOL. Surely Russia had the most p*****, given their population. The Dutch were probably spreadin the peace and passing the joint round
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,510
10 Feb 2008 #273
a lot of pot smokers are pacifists
Wroclaw Boy
10 Feb 2008 #274
Surely Russia had the most p*****, given their population

The ruskies turned the tide in WWII, so I dont think they can be classes as pussies. The Dutch rolled over and became occupied in a day or two.
miranda
10 Feb 2008 #275
so what, so did other countries in Europe.
OP MareGaea 29 | 2,752
10 Feb 2008 #276
Netherlands the second biggest nation of pussies during WWII

If they are, why then did the Germans right after the war admitted they never encountered so much general hatred towards them in any occupied country as they did in Holland? Why were there relatively so many Dutch deaths during the occupation?

The first question I can answer myself: it's because WW2 was the first war that struck Holland in over 100 years. Nobody knew what war was like and just like Poland, we have this vast neighbour that is so much bigger and stronger than us and when this big bad neighbour decided to do this little peaceful country harm, this felt like a rape of the well maintained (and somewhat hypocritical) Dutch innocense. Furthermore, we had the bad luck that the Nazi's considered the Dutch as brothers, while in fact we may descent from the same tribe, we are a complete different ppl. To be viewed upon as a likewise ppl or even identified with Nazi-Germany disgusted the majority of the Dutch ppl and fueled the hatred even further. Granted, there was a Nazist movement in Holland, but they were actually very much on the decline when Germany invaded Holland in 1940. And besides this: before WW2 nearly every country had a Nazist movement.

The second question I could also answer, but I leave that up to you, WB.

NB: the Dutch capitulated after 4 days and after the Germans had bombarded Rotterdam out of irritation that resistance was tougher than expected.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161
10 Feb 2008 #277
Most educated Poles tagged Hitler and his Nazi sleazebags for what they were. Clever Poles know that modern day Germans deplore what Hitler did. Trust me, I know first-hand how much he was hated by most Germans.

Completely wrong. On individual level Poles and Germans hated and still hate each other. There is nothing like that in case of Poles and Russians. We don't like policy of their government and don't agree with many aspects of their mentality but average Poles have nothing against random Ivan and Natasha.
z_darius 14 | 3,968
10 Feb 2008 #278
Fukin animals=Polish people

so you married a "fuking animal"?
Sorry to hear.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2008 #279
Didn't u forget a LOL WB? I wasn't talkin about the cowardice factor, I was talkin about the body part, aka flange. U get it? It was a poor attempt at humour I know
Wroclaw Boy
10 Feb 2008 #280
so what, so did other countries in Europe.

Not England, we saved the WORLD
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161
10 Feb 2008 #281
You pussies escaped like rats from the French coast. LOL !
osiol 55 | 3,922
10 Feb 2008 #282
in Britain there have been some pogroms against Jews

That was quite a long time ago. It was the year 1290 when the Jews in England were expelled.
Since they began to overtly return around the time of Cromwell, there has been very little of this kind of thing.
There were riots and trouble in the early part of the 20th century, but also some interesting alliances between British Jews and others, most notably the Battle of Cable Street.

Does this do anything to answer the 'Who are the worst baddies' question?
No, I thought not. It just shows that nobody's perfect, but not everyone can be blamed.

Not England

Ever heard of the United Kingdom? You're pissing off the small percentage of me that is Welsh.
OP MareGaea 29 | 2,752
10 Feb 2008 #283
Not England

Basically Britain was just lucky. Thanks to some crucial tactical mistakes Hitler made in the spring of 1940, Britain escaped occupation by Germany. Had the pushed right through to Duinkerken, they had captured the vast majority of the British army waiting to be shipped back to Britain. If they then would sail across the Channel, they would have seized Britain in a few weeks, that's how weak the British army was in those days. The battle for Britain was another crucial mistake Hitler made.

Osiol: That's just what I'm trying to say: nobody's perfect and we should take it person per person, not an entire ppl.
Wroclaw Boy
10 Feb 2008 #284
You pussies escaped like rats from the French coast. LOL !

As I said in previous post:

Poles = Canon fodder
Brits = Tactical

The German war machine hit a brick wall in the defence of Britian, the first defeat of many.

The Russinas were the lucky ones (and the Poles in heindseight) with winter arriving a month early.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161
10 Feb 2008 #285
Brits = tea drinking fat assed mutants

Really ?
OP MareGaea 29 | 2,752
10 Feb 2008 #286
Poles = Canon fodder
Brits = Tactical

Let me guess: that's why the British did nothing to help Poland in it's struggle agains Nazi-Germany in 1939? Hm, my best bet is that the British couldn't care less what happened to Poland and the Poles: the declaration of war was more to prevent the loss of face they would have in the world (and more important in America), would they allow Hitler to do what he wanted for the fourth time in a row.

But then again; nobody of the Western Political leaders (except Wilson maybe) cared what happened to the Eastern European countries. Those, in their view, were the backwaters of Europe, nothing important there, no need to worry about them...This attitude has always made me kind of angry.

Second addition: also, to the British the idea that Germany would be the predominant power in Europe and not Britain, counted more than anything else. Even if they had to sacrifice little countries like Czechoslowakia or Austria.
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,510
10 Feb 2008 #287
thats not entirely correct kitler
Wroclaw Boy
10 Feb 2008 #288
Let me guess: that's why the British did nothing to help Poland in it's struggle agains Nazi-Germany in 1939?

1st award for idiocracy.

Brits = tea drinking fat assed mutants

Really ?

2nd award, we went to war for you, you ungrateful scum bag.
z_darius 14 | 3,968
10 Feb 2008 #289
Not England, we saved the WORLD

You saved nobody.

Your ancestors, however, managed to convince Americans and other nations to help them out. If in 1939 with the force that Hitler used to invade Poland then the Brits would stand no chance.

At that without being attacked by the USSR at the same time.

Poles = Canon fodder
Brits = Tactical

Do you realize that over 40% of UK's military inteligence was provided by Poles? Without that the only tactic the Brits would have been able to afford would be to go beg American for help harder than they did.

The German war machine hit a brick wall in the defence of Britian, the first defeat of many.

what war machine?
Germans fought UK (and the rest of Western Europe) with one hand, and not the good one at that.
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,510
10 Feb 2008 #290
Without that the only tactic the Brits would have been able to afford would be to go beg American for help harder than they did.

perhaps, but according to you this was the winning tactic
OP MareGaea 29 | 2,752
10 Feb 2008 #291
thats not entirely correct kitler

Exactly, what did Britain do in September 1939, except declaring war? Did they send massive amounts of troops? Did they attack Germany? No. Until April 1940, they sat and watched and did nothing.

Kitlers are fun, aren't they? :)

WB: your house must be crammed with those awards...

Have a look at the map and see who were Germany and her allies and see who was fighting them, colour them respectively red and green: you will see that nearly the entire map is green. There was no possible way that Germany could have won the war with America alone involved. It is actually a miracle that they kept up the fight for nearly 6 years.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2008 #292
Greg, r u capable of separating Nazis and Germans (przeciętny)? Show me u can and we can talk. U r thinking about football hooligans maybe. Some like Germans, some dislike them

As for Russians, it depends on the civilised nature of the individual. There is still a feeling of anger and suspicion but it's a generation thing. The older ones will always bear grudges.
z_darius 14 | 3,968
10 Feb 2008 #293
but according to you this was the winning tactic

Yes, it was but the "cannon fodder" part in WB's post applies as much to Poles as it does to Brits. And that was my point.

British tactics was indeed good at times. It is regrettable that it sucked in the years leading to WW2.

After that, tactics had little application in the opening days of WW2. What tactics do you use when your forces are just a fraction of the enemy's and the attack is sudden? The only thing Poles could do was fight, and they did. No other country, before the attack on the USSR (which had the West's help) gave this kind of resistance and inflicted that much damage to German forces as Poles in 1939.
Wroclaw Boy
10 Feb 2008 #294
what war machine?
Germans fought UK (and the rest of Western Europe) with one hand, and not the good one at that.

You saved nobody.

Your speaking English earnt you?

Your ancestors, however, managed to convince Americans and other nations to help them out. If in 1939 with the force that Hitler used to invade Poland then the Brits would stand no chance.

We saved the World!!!!

At that without being attacked by the USSR at the same time.

We saved the World!!

what war machine?
Germans fought UK (and the rest of Western Europe) with one hand, and not the good one at that.

That would be the Luftwaffe then, the main (left and right hook) of the German onslaught, we defeated them in the air thus avoiding a full on land assualt. On our own I might add.

We were never going to win a war with an industrial nation that had been preparing for a 1939 strike from the early 30's. But we did serve as a beacon light to the rest of the World. We saved the WORLD.
miranda
10 Feb 2008 #295
The older ones will always bear grudges.

that makes Greg 60 years old
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,510
10 Feb 2008 #296
"cannon fodder"

wars are no longer fought in the way they were last century which has considerably reduced the need for cannon fodder

as there is no longer the need for the under classes to be sent of to do battle on the front, is there not a strong argument to be made for enforced sterilisation amongst the lower classes... we no longer need them to die for us on the battle field and, in the uk at least, many of them do not want to work and are a burden on the state
OP MareGaea 29 | 2,752
10 Feb 2008 #297
We saved the WORLD

No. America saved the world and after the war they saved Western Europe through the Marshall Plan. The only countries that did not receive Marshall help were the neutral countries in Western Europe and with the exception of Switzerland and Sweden, they all did so much worse than the countries that did receive the help. Look at Ireland.

Without America's help, Britain and the rest of Western Europe would have sunk into the abyss again and there would be a 3rd World War somewhere in the 60's. It was the Marshall Plan and the fact that America decided to come out of the splendid isolation that has saved the old continent, the old continent that had codemned them so many times before that.

Let's face it, Western Europe owes it's entire existence nowadays to the Americans.
Eastern Europe before the Iron Curtain fell was actually the product of a discussion of Churchill and Stalin and a drawing on the back of a coaster: "yo, Joe, you want Hungary? Well, we want Greece, so if we divide it like this...Wait, I will draw it for you. Do you have any paper on you? No? Well, wait, I'll just take this coaster here...Waiter! Can you bring us another beer?"
z_darius 14 | 3,968
10 Feb 2008 #298
But we did serve as a beacon light to the rest of the World.

There were millions of beacons of light all over the world. These were the people who actually fought. You saved nobody. You likely botched another business deal in Poland so you're mad and came here to spit at everything Polish. Today you even spat on your own wife.

What a pitiful little fvck you are.

as there is no longer the need for the under classes to be sent of to do battle on the front, is there not a strong argument to be made for enforced sterilisation amongst the lower classes... we no longer need them to die for us on the battle field and, in the uk at least, many of them do not want to work and are a burden on the state

I thought we were chatting about WW2, not about today.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2008 #299
The use of Spitfires was an undoubted success, a triumph for the British. However, without American intervention, we wouldn't have saved the world. Hitler also feared the Russian Red Army to a certain level. When they started getting closer, he cacked himself and knew his time was almost up. That's more to the point
Wroclaw Boy
10 Feb 2008 #300
There were millions of beacons of light all over the world. These were the people who actually fought. You saved nobody

And WTF do you know? Immigrant.

America got rich from WWII, England lost their empire for the greater good.

Churchill played the fiddle and the allies danced, a good conductor and the actual winner of freedom in my opinion.

I stick with my original statment we saved the World.


Home / History / Whom do the people in Poland hate more: Germans or Russians?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.