The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 178

Why did Russia attack Poland in WW2?


PolskiMoc 4 | 324
10 May 2011 #31
If Russia was with the Allies why would they back stab Poland.
Was it for revenge or Coal.

Soviets were allies with nazis first. Soviets never were allies. They just were invaded by Nazis who backstabbed Soviets.

Yes, Probably revenge too. Because of the Polish Soviet war.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 May 2011 #32
One word alone should speak volumes here, assuming you follow the logic. 'Katyń', that's the word. See the logic in that and you will understand the rationale. Then there's the Soviet mentality which shines through in the Katyń debacle but not fully.
Crow 146 | 9,117
11 May 2011 #33
Why did Russia attack Poland in WW2?

Russia was sick from communist sickness
hubabuba - | 113
11 May 2011 #34
If you have one thousand soldiers in a defended position , it requires at least three thousand soldiers to stand a good chance of defeating them , so three against one is the ideal military situation..

Poland wasnt very prepared and is flat so what defend positions?most of the times it was open battles.
It was more of a 5-6 to 1
wildrover 98 | 4,451
11 May 2011 #35
Yes the Germans had it pretty much in their favour in open country , but the panzers suffered heavy losses when they were foolish enough to send them into well defended cities...

The Russians made the same mistake in Berlin...
southern 75 | 7,096
11 May 2011 #36
Germans had problems only in some polish forests.
wildrover 98 | 4,451
11 May 2011 #37
Yes the Polish marshes claimed quite a few panzers...
hubabuba - | 113
11 May 2011 #38
well defended cities

not really, I read the memories(is this the right name?)about these times, and even in
Warsaw they were digging the trenches in late August IN FREE TIME!!!!I am always astouned how unprepared, naive and innocent people were
wildrover 98 | 4,451
11 May 2011 #39
Warsaw they were digging the trenches

In cities you don,t need trenches , every building becomes a bunker , and in the narrow Polish streets a German tank with the hatches closed was an easy target....

As a result of the losses in Polish towns and cities the Germans ordered that Panzers were not to be sent into cities without close support from Panzer grenadiers....

We are not talking about the mighty Tiger and Panther tanks here , they were mostly light tanks , and the Polish anti tank guns were quite capable of knocking them out...
hubabuba - | 113
12 May 2011 #40
sorry I meant just outside of Warsaw.
The cities werent taken with much effort as there was mostly civilian population and they had planes to bomb them, who would hide in some building that can be bombed and destroyed easily?
Gregrog 4 | 100
12 May 2011 #41
Germans lost many tanks during attack of 2 panzer division at very beginning of the siege of Warsaw. They wanted to take city by surprise but the were easily repelled. Same happened during Wilno defence from Soviet units. Tanks - doesn't matter what kind cannot be used in the city without heavy looses. The best weapon in that kind of fight is not AT gun, but simple bottle with gasoline. When it comes to trenches - they were vital part of defence system. When German tanks comes to Warsaw they weren't attacking by narrow streets but along main communication lines. It there won't be trenches they could easily went through the city. For tank it is impossible to force well prep prepared trench.

and yes - forests were our fortress:) Also our road were against Germans. Sadly this September had very beautiful weather... against us:(
hubabuba - | 113
12 May 2011 #42
Warsaw capitulated on 28th?was it long?hard to say, but I dont think any sensible person can see a city/town as good defend position, to many civilians to think about.

and cities are no fortresses sooner or later they will be taken
wildrover 98 | 4,451
12 May 2011 #43
cities are no fortresses sooner or later they will be taken

Lenningrad and Stalingrad held out against all odds... Cities are terrible places to attack ...much better to go around them and cut them off...

Any army that has to actually go into a city and take it always suffers heavy losses...

Warsaw surrended because it was seen that a fight to the death would have caused huge civilian casualties , and would not have changed the outcome of the war...

If they had decided to fight to the last man it would have taken the Germans months to bomb the place into dust to take it...
hubabuba - | 113
12 May 2011 #44
.much better to go around them and cut them off...

exactly:] You can cut them off, You can surround them, bombed them etc they cant hold for long without a help

months to bomb the place into dust to take i

warsaw uprising lasted only 63 days...
and there werent that many German soldiers to take it
legend 3 | 664
12 May 2011 #45
We are not talking about the mighty Tiger and Panther tanks here , they were mostly light tanks , and the Polish anti tank guns were quite capable of knocking them out...

I am glad you know this.

The Germans werent invincible in 1939. In fact many countries including Poland, France, etc had technology that was on par with the Germans (except for maybe the Luftwaffe planes).

The Germans attacked Poland with mostly PzI and PzII tanks. Even the Polish 7TP could hold its on against those. The problem was numbers.
gumishu 11 | 5,632
12 May 2011 #46
Lenningrad and Stalingrad held out against all odds... Cities are terrible places to attack ...much better to go around them and cut them off...

as far as I know the Germans never tried to assault Leningrad just wanted to cut it off and drive to capitulation (or starve) - Stalingrad was a completely different story

The Germans werent invincible in 1939. In fact many countries including Poland, France, etc had technology that was on par with the Germans (except for maybe the Luftwaffe planes).

Polish fighter pilots scored many air victories over more modern German aircrafts including in fighter to fighter encounters between P-11c and Me-109 (the lowest estimate of the planes downed by the Polish fighters in 1939 was 126)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
12 May 2011 #47
The Germans werent invincible in 1939

No they werent, if France and England actually did attack Germany would roll over in 2-4 months in 1939.

In fact many countries including Poland, France, etc had technology that was on par with the Germans (except for maybe the Luftwaffe planes).

German never led in technology, thats a myth manufactured by the West to justify why western soldiers sucked so horribly when compared to Germans, the myth is also upheld by todays Germany for national pride reasons.

Germany had exactly the same level of technology everyone else had, where it differed was the training of its troops and the quality of its commanders.
Harry
12 May 2011 #48
if France and England actually did attack Germany would roll over in 2-4 months in 1939.

Yes, I'm sure that the nine whole divisions which the British had available would have rolled right over the thirty German divisions by the end of November 1939, especially given that those German divisions would have been added to by divisions freed up by Polish surrenders.
convex 20 | 3,978
12 May 2011 #49
Germany had exactly the same level of technology everyone else had, where it differed was the training of its troops and the quality of its commanders.

Most people think of the Wehrmacht at the time as being some steel and diesel killing machine... People seem to forget that it was literally horsepower, not diesel engines, that moved the army.

No they werent, if France and England actually did attack Germany would roll over in 2-4 months in 1939.

Didn't Jodl make that comment after the war?
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
12 May 2011 #50
Germany had exactly the same level of technology everyone else had,

Then how do you explain the "Operation Paperclip"???

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
operationpaperclip.info
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/OperationPaperclip.html

Getting german tech, patents and scientists into the West shouldn't had been necessary if they were all on the same page... ;)
Marek11111 9 | 816
12 May 2011 #51
harry
Yes, I'm sure that the nine whole divisions which the British had available would have rolled right over the thirty German divisions by the end of November 1939, especially given that those German divisions would have been added to by divisions freed up by Polish surrenders.

if French and bloody Brits kept their end of agreement Soviets would not attacked Poland so yes the Germany would be done in 2 to 4 months and ww2 would never happen the holocaust would never happen so suck on that Harry and let me ask this why Brits hated Jews? by their action they took or not taken any action let Germans to kill millions.
southern 75 | 7,096
12 May 2011 #52
Germans had a crucial advantage only in tank technology.In this regard they were 2-3 years in front of the allies.
Palivec - | 380
12 May 2011 #53
German never led in technology, thats a myth manufactured by the West to justify why western soldiers sucked so horribly when compared to Germans, the myth is also upheld by todays Germany for national pride reasons.

Yeah, electric boats, air-independent propulsion, flying wings, turbojet bombers and fighters, rocket-powered fighters, sweep wings, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, supersonic surface-to-air missiles, man-portable air-defense systems, short-range ballistic missiles, assault rifles... what a myth!!! I'm sure it's some kind of anti-Polish conspiracy.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
12 May 2011 #54
I'm sure it's some kind of anti-Polish conspiracy.

Or...as the American said to the Soviets after the moon landing: "Our Germans are better than your Germans!"
legend 3 | 664
12 May 2011 #55
Polish fighter pilots scored many air victories over more modern German aircrafts including in fighter to fighter encounters between P-11c and Me-109 (the lowest estimate of the planes downed by the Polish fighters in 1939 was 126)

i agree. in fact imo Poland had the best fighter pilots in WWII.
we did quite well considering our planes didnt have the huge numbers.

No they werent, if France and England actually did attack Germany would roll over in 2-4 months in 1939.

I agree that France+England+Poland would beat Germany. How long I dont know. But some uninformed people would not believe us.

German never led in technology, thats a myth manufactured by the West to justify why western soldiers sucked so horribly when compared to Germans, the myth is also upheld by todays Germany for national pride reasons.

Germany had exactly the same level of technology everyone else had, where it differed was the training of its troops and the quality of its commanders.

I agree the stuff is quite exaggerated at how powerful and advanced they were.
They had most technology that was on par with the rest of Europe.
The problem was German numbers (and then soviet numbers) and thats why Poland lost in the Battle/Invasion of Poland.

The quality of their commanders is a lie also. The Lightning war wasnt that smart (assuming you believe in it... its just common sense). The soldiers training was about the same as other European soldiers.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
12 May 2011 #56
i agree. in fact imo Poland had the best fighter pilots in WWII.

Really! Do you have any proof or stats for that?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

They had most technology that was on par with the rest of Europe.

Really!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_during_World_War_II

No mention of Poles.

The quality of their commanders is a lie also. The Lightning war wasnt that smart (assuming you believe in it... its just common sense). The soldiers training was about the same as other European soldiers.

Really!

:):):)
legend 3 | 664
12 May 2011 #57
Germans had a crucial advantage only in tank technology.In this regard they were 2-3 years in front of the allies.

wrong. as I stated they were using PZI and PZII for the most part in the early part of the war.
The Polish 7TP tank was better than a PZII and worst than a PZIII.

The problem wasnt the quality but quantity. We didnt produce enough tanks to counter the Germans in time.
Harry
12 May 2011 #58
if French and bloody Brits kept their end of agreement

As is traditional, I will now ask you to go into detail about what more British could have done to fulfil her obligations under the Anglo-Polish treaty. And as is equally traditional, you will either completely ignore the question and simply repeat the accusation (quite possibly with a few personal insults thrown in) or say "Britain should done x" with x of course being impossible. Do feel free to tell us how and to where would you have liked British forces to have been sent. Perhaps an amphibious assault on Hamburg by the entire nine divisions?
southern 75 | 7,096
12 May 2011 #59
They never used Pz1 in the front.Panzer 3 had no match till the appearance of Sherman.Only the heavy French Renault had some equal aspects but was foolishly deployed.On the other hand the Soviets possessed quite capable tanks like the T-34 which was actually superior to any German tank in 1942.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
12 May 2011 #60
Don't sweat it, Poland was best in everything...they should have won! Mean enemies wouldn't let it! ;)


Home / History / Why did Russia attack Poland in WW2?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.