The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 218

Tuchola in Poland - roots of Katyn?


delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
12 Dec 2010  #31
Stalin, just like Hitler at the same time, wanted to eliminate the Polish intelligensia. That's it.

I don't know why anyone pretends otherwise - it was in Hitler and Stalin's best interest to wipe them out.

As a military tactic, it was fantastic.

I don't think anyone is in any doubt that if the chance arose for revenge, Poles would murder the Russian intelligensia without a second thought.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
12 Dec 2010  #32
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that if the chance arose for revenge, Poles would murder the Russian intelligensia without a second thought.

The only people who're in no doubt are anti-polish twats like you.
1jola 14 | 1,879
12 Dec 2010  #33
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that if the chance arose for revenge, Poles would murder the Russian intelligensia without a second thought.

Revenge for what, my neo-communist buddy?

I don't know why anyone pretends otherwise - it was in Hitler and Stalin's best interest to wipe them out.

As a military tactic, it was fantastic.

Really? I wonder if you would agree with this good rabbi? Is that also a brilliant tactic?

coteret.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews/
AdamKadmon 2 | 508
12 Dec 2010  #34
Really? I wonder if you would agree with this good rabbi?

failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/08/another-rabbi-arrested-by-police-over-racist-book-567.html

But that's another story.
noreenb 7 | 557
12 Dec 2010  #35
AdamKadmon
Why you are not interested in facts. Watch the film.

I am interested in facts very much. I love history. I can't watch the film because my loudspeakers are out of order right now.

ConstantineK
Did I get a shot in my back for disobedience?
For what?
If I were in a prison I would never go on a fence or barbed wires to escape. I would have been able to predict that somebody wanted to kill me. I love life too much to make such irresponsible step.

I would rather do anything what possible to survive and to listen my torturers. Even if I had awfully bad opinion about them. I know what does it mean to be obedient, Sir.

:)
I have to say that a way people think being in extreme conditions is strange.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
12 Dec 2010  #36
Really? I wonder if you would agree with this good rabbi? Is that also a brilliant tactic?

Uh, what has some idiot Rabbi in the West Bank got to do with military tactics during WWII?

Unless of course, you're doing the usual Polish thing of arguing for the sake of arguing.

Not sure how you can argue about the effectiveness of killing the Polish elite, though.
nott 3 | 594
12 Dec 2010  #37
As a military tactic, it was fantastic.

:) Good to know what you consider 'military tactic'. A fantastic one, to boot. That's your personal opinion, or you follow the newspaper's line? I'm out of touch with Wyborcza.

Not sure how you can argue about the effectiveness of killing the Polish elite, though.

That would be difficult, yes.

How about the Holocaust? 'Fantastic, highly effective social engineering?' Difficult to argue, I'd say.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
12 Dec 2010  #38
:) Good to know what you consider 'military tactic'. A fantastic one, to boot. That's your personal opinion, or you follow the newspaper's line? I'm out of touch with Wyborcza.

It was a fantastic military tactic in terms of neutralising the Polish State and more or less ensuring that it had the heart ripped out of it. Exactly what Stalin wanted to achieve - and they managed it. The fact that for the next 50 years, Poland was under Soviet dominance suggests that yes, it was a fantastic tactic. It certainly was devastatingly effective - or do you wish to argue this, as well?

As a war crime, Katyn was probably one of the most effective ones in history. Certainly, it was far more effective than actions such as at Srebenica.

How about the Holocaust? 'Fantastic, highly effective social engineering?' Difficult to argue, I'd say.

It didn't work - in fact, it was counter-productive, because it led to the formation of a Jewish state that is now armed to the teeth and is exceptionally well trained. Even the obsession with the Holocaust probably didn't help the German cause in WW2 - especially when there is documented evidence of Polish Jews initially supporting the Germans.

Katyn on the other hand was a bodyblow to Poland.
nott 3 | 594
13 Dec 2010  #39
Must be a cultural difference. Poles, including me, do not consider murdering defenceless prisoners a military action. And tactics, as understood in Poland, it's something that involves, you know, being smart on the run, not just shooting people with hands tied up behind their backs.

As a war crime, Katyn was probably one of the most effective ones in history.

Katyn on the other hand was a bodyblow to Poland.

Well, if you say that 20 thousand educated people was all that Poland had before the war... and if we neglect some 1.5 million of middle-to-upper class relocated to Siberia and Kazachstan... and if you do not put the German efforts in the equation... then you might be somewhere close to the historical truth.

Katyn was not a substantial blow, even the 'few' remaining military were able to almost immediately organise an effective network of underground, and the others formed the army in the West. Katyn was a symbol of the Soviet barbarism, totally neglected for decades, that's why it's so important. The 'Ally' murders our people, and 'you' don't bloody give a damn.

Stalin regretted it later on, anyway. So much for tactical genius.

nott: How about the Holocaust?

Well. It led to Poland, Belarus and Ukraine almost Jewish-free, so it worked like marvel, I'd say. In terms of social engineering. And it would be highly productive if Hitler had won the war. And, I am not sure that Israel would not emerge anyway, what with the Zionist movement, including that in Germany. Hitler just wanted Jews out of Germany, or Germany controlled lands.

Those Polish Jews supporting Germans, what do you mean? Some time before the war, I am guessing?
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
13 Dec 2010  #40
Must be a cultural difference. Poles, including me, do not consider murdering defenceless prisoners a military action.

War crimes are fundamentally military actions. The action was carried out by the Red Army, and thus, was a military action. Defenceless or not - it was a military operation designed to ensure that Poland wouldn't be able to resist in future.

A tactic is a tactic. In this case, it was an exceptionally smart tactic. It wasn't honourable, brave or in anyway ethical, but it worked. In fact, the psychological harm is still felt today.

Well, if you say that 20 thousand educated people was all that Poland had before the war...

But Katyn was the event that knocked the wind out of Poland. Of course, Poland had much more - but the breathtaking cynicalness of Katyn was all it took to really hurt Poland in the decades to come.

Katyn was not a substantial blow, even the 'few' remaining military were able to almost immediately organise an effective network of underground, and the others formed the army in the West.

It was substantial enough for Poland to still feel the after effects to this day.

Incidentally, the underground efforts (Warsaw rising excluded) really showed how devastating Poland would have been at fighting a full-on guerilla war against Germany. I was reading just earlier how effective they were at murdering German leaders, for instance. I question whether the Soviet Union would have dared to invade a Poland where they couldn't even identify the enemy - Stalin was a great opportunist, but would he have wanted the hassle of trying to fight a guerilla war against Poland?

I still blame the Miracle at the Vistula for Poland's overconfidence and subsequent humiliation.

I really only wish that Poland and Russia could sit down, open their archives together and present an honest overview of what actually happened during WWII.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
13 Dec 2010  #41
I still blame the Miracle at the Vistula for Poland's overconfidence and subsequent humiliation.

There was no miracle at vistula, it was a strategic and tactical victory planned and carried out, a miracle implies divine deliverance while Poles kicked the sh*t out of Russians through superior tactics, strategy, intel and higher morale of the common soldier.

Also i stress how anti-polish you are you little arrogant twat, at which point was Poland overconfident? Polish war plans in 1938 told outright that Poland could fight 2 months against Germany and up to half a year against Russia, both were valid.

A tactic is a tactic. In this case, it was an exceptionally smart tactic. It wasn't honourable, brave or in anyway ethical, but it worked. In fact, the psychological harm is still felt today.

And its quite clear that you approve of it and admire it you little bastard.
nott 3 | 594
13 Dec 2010  #42
War crimes are fundamentally military actions. The action was carried out by the Red Army, and thus, was a military action. Defenceless or not - it was a military operation designed to ensure that Poland wouldn't be able to resist in future.

And I thought it was NKWD, silly me. Anyway, in Poland it is not considered a military action. Whoever is doing it.

A tactic is a tactic. In this case, it was an exceptionally smart tactic. It wasn't honourable, brave or in anyway ethical, but it worked.

Killing works, no doubt.

delph, what are you trying to prove. What's so exceptionally smart in murdering people so that they can't spend the rest of the war in the POW camp? How ingenuous it is? Nobody ever tried this brilliant idea before?

In fact, the psychological harm is still felt today.

Is it? You think murdering Poles by Russians was such a novelty? Never heard of before in Poland? You really seem to think that Katyn was the greatest Soviet crime ever.

But Katyn was the event that knocked the wind out of Poland. Of course, Poland had much more - but the breathtaking cynicalness of Katyn was all it took to really hurt Poland in the decades to come.

Wrong perspective, delph, totally. What really hurt was the Western Treason. We never expected anything good from the East, and especially after the reds took over.

nott: Katyn was not a substantial blow,

It was substantial enough for Poland to still feel the after effects to this day.

You really consider Poland a backward country. What is the actual result of Poland losing those 20 thousand people, that can be felt until today?

I still blame the Miracle at the Vistula for Poland's overconfidence and subsequent humiliation.

And BB blames the Versaille Treaty :) You say Poland should just roll over in 1920, to avoid the subsequent humiliation?

I really only wish that Poland and Russia could sit down, open their archives together and present an honest overview of what actually happened during WWII.

Polish archives are open. The British ones are not.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
13 Dec 2010  #43
There was no miracle at vistula, it was a strategic and tactical victory planned and carried out, a miracle implies divine deliverance while Poles kicked the sh*t out of Russians through superior tactics, strategy, intel and higher morale of the common soldier.

Perhaps your countrymen should have been more aware of this fact afterwards. The fact that it's even called "The Miracle at the Vistula" says a lot.

I don't disagree with it, I don't see any "miracle" - I see an overconfident Red Army which got it all wrong - along with a Polish army which got it right exactly when they needed to. A perfect storm, perhaps. Either way, it was a great victory - probably one of the more underappreciated victories in European history, but still one that's worthy of respect.

But - I don't think the devoutly Catholic population of Poland in the 1920's saw it for what it was, instead choosing to believe divine intervention. And that was fatal.

Also i stress how anti-polish you are you little arrogant twat, at which point was Poland overconfident?

It's not hard to see that Poland had a high opinion of her army in the 20's and 30's. The same army was more or less routed within days by the German one - so that says "overconfidence" to me.

And its quite clear that you approve of it and admire it you little bastard.

Approve? On a military level, it was fair game. I don't buy all the nonsense about "humane treatment of prisoners" and so on - war is war, and it should be won by any means necessary. If you need to murder 22,000 of the best to psychologically damage the country, then so be it.

On a personal, ethical level, it was disgusting. There was absolutely no need to murder those people - detention in Siberia would have been enough.

Anyway, in Poland it is not considered a military action.

Fair enough. Either way, it was a hell of a war crime.

delph, what are you trying to prove. What's so exceptionally smart in murdering people so that they can't spend the rest of the war in the POW camp? How ingenuous it is? Nobody ever tried this brilliant idea before?

The smart part was the whole process. Not only was it used to symbolically knock the stuffing out of Poland, but then it was used repeatedly to hurt the Poles even more in the decades to come.

But of course it was tried before - the Americans did quite a bit of it with the Indians, and the Spanish weren't adverse to it either.

Is it? You think murdering Poles by Russians was such a novelty? Never heard of before in Poland? You really seem to think that Katyn was the greatest Soviet crime ever.

It was the crime that Poles obsess about to this day - so as far as I can see, the general population does indeed regard it as the greatest Soviet crime ever. Perhaps historians can argue about it, but in terms of sheer psychological harm - Katyn wins. Smolensk just added to that.

Wrong perspective, delph, totally. What really hurt was the Western Treason. We never expected anything good from the East, and especially after the reds took over.

The whole "Western Betrayal" thing is interesting, because the Communist propoganda was responsible for really hammering it home. Anyway, Poland should have known better than to rely on allies who were located nowhere near them and had no realistic way of getting to them. Their problem, ultimately.

You really consider Poland a backward country. What is the actual result of Poland losing those 20 thousand people, that can be felt until today?

The actual result? Perhaps look at the way that Poland is quite literally obsessed with Katyn. The same obsession isn't there with Bandera, despite him managing to even out-do the Soviets when it came to unrestrained brutality.

You say Poland should just roll over in 1920, to avoid the subsequent humiliation?

No. What Poland should have done was pour what little money there was into ensuring that every man and woman in Poland was capable of fighting a guerilla war against any invader. They should have also formed alliances with Czechoslovakia and Lithuania, and crucially, looked after the Ukrainian minority properly. Poland in this circumstance would have been far more equipped to fight Germany - especially if the doctrine called for the murder of any German in Poland during war.

But - I appreciate that the nationalist 20's/30's would have prevented any sort of sensible process like this. Was hardly unique to Poland, though.

Polish archives are open. The British ones are not.

No surprise there.
nott 3 | 594
13 Dec 2010  #44
I don't think the devoutly Catholic population of Poland in the 1920's saw it for what it was, instead choosing to believe divine intervention. And that was fatal.

I don't think the Catholic population of Poland had much say in organizing the army. Somehow I can't imagine Polish generals including divine intervention if the military doctrine. Somehow I am under an impression that you actually have no clue. Not that I would expect it from a foreigner, but, please, the General Staff praying devoutly to Mary the Virgin to repel enemy tanks? Just how stupid Poles can be, what do you say?
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
13 Dec 2010  #45
Somehow I can't imagine Polish generals including divine intervention if the military doctrine.

But they certainly could have allowed belief in divine intervention to cloud their thinking. The fact that they choose to fight the Germans man to man says a lot about their overconfidence at the time.

Just how stupid Poles can be, what do you say?

It wasn't stupidity, just naivety.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
13 Dec 2010  #46
It's not hard to see that Poland had a high opinion of her army in the 20's and 30's.

Thats because in the 20s and 30's Polands army was 3rd in Europe after France and Russia, Russia became competitive only by 1933 and Germany became on par with Poland in 1934.

As long as the industrial race didnt kick in Poland had an army that could reliably compete with any european power out there so whats your point?

Also i take it back you're not anti-polish just fcuking ignorant.

he same army was more or less routed within days by the German one - so that says "overconfidence" to me.

Again polish battle plan said outright, 2 months of war and its over, polish army was not routed at any point prior to russian invasion so not only was Poland perfectly aware of its weakness on the eve of the war but you sir are so unbelievably green its horrible, stop with the stupid statements admit you're an uneducated troglodite and instead of saying "this or that happened" start asking "what happened then" and we can have a conversation.

The whole "Western Betrayal" thing is interesting, because the Communist propoganda was responsible for really hammering it home. Anyway, Poland should have known better than to rely on allies who were located nowhere near them and had no realistic way of getting to them. Their problem, ultimately.

Again an idiotic statement by you that denotes that you're 2/3rds an ignorant idiot and 1/3rd a prejudiced anti-polish prick.

France had a straight and completely undefended road to Berlin (unless you count 200.000 troops with 300 artillery pieces between them as defence) and England never landed a single tank in France prior to BEF.

No. What Poland should have done was pour what little money there was into ensuring that every man and woman in Poland was capable of fighting a guerilla war against any invader.

Again an idiot talks, you know what would have happened? Germans and Russians would just exterminate all Poles, period.

But they certainly could have allowed belief in divine intervention to cloud their thinking. The fact that they choose to fight the Germans man to man says a lot about their overconfidence at the time.

Why? France had every means of ending the war then and there' strategic sense dictated it would, no one expected France to betray Poland so unreasonably.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
13 Dec 2010  #47
Thats because in the 20s and 30's Polands army was 3rd in Europe after France and Russia, Russia became competitive only by 1933 and Germany became on par with Poland in 1934.

But by 1939, Poland was way behind Germany. She also didn't have the numerical advantage of Russia.

As long as the industrial race didnt kick in Poland had an army that could reliably compete with any european power out there so whats your point?

Competing with one power isn't enough when you're surrounded by enemies - and even with the problem of enemies from within.

Again an idiotic statement by you that denotes that you're 2/3rds an ignorant idiot and 1/3rd a prejudiced anti-polish prick.

Are you denying that the whole "Western Betrayal" thing was propogated by the Communists? If so, it shows that you're just like many others - brainwashed by communism, even to the point of denial.

France had a straight and completely undefended road to Berlin (unless you count 200.000 troops with 300 artillery pieces between them as defence) and England never landed a single tank in France prior to BEF.

And? Poland shouldn't have relied on allies who frankly were far more interested in themselves than Poland. It hardly takes a genius to work out that after the Munich Agreement, the UK and France were more interested in leaving Germany to it than bothering to fight Germany.

Again an idiot talks, you know what would have happened? Germans and Russians would just exterminate all Poles, period.

You assume that the Russians would even want to invade a country where Germans were being killed indiscriminately with no clear army command to go after. Bear in mind that history shows guerilla warfare to be terribly effective in terms of causing havoc among the enemy.

The Russians only invaded once it was obvious that Poland had lost, anyway.

Why? France had every means of ending the war then and there' strategic sense dictated it would, no one expected France to betray Poland so unreasonably.

Strategic sense would have dictated looking at Poland's isolation and realising that the only country that could help Poland was Poland. I really, really, really cannot figure out why Poland placed so much emphasis on help on two countries that had previously shown mass indifference towards Poland and her independence.

For what it's worth, the whole "western betrayal" thing seems to be a big excuse for Poland's poor performance in WWII.
nott 3 | 594
13 Dec 2010  #48
Perhaps look at the way that Poland is quite literally obsessed with Katyn.

It's a symbol. Never mind. A Polish thing.

Anyway, Poland should have known better than to rely on allies who were located nowhere near them and had no realistic way of getting to them.

Yeah, I've seen this one before. 'Now how could the British send troops through the German controlled Baltic, please?'

And how about through Germany, delph? But this would require actually engaging the Germans, hmm... seems you're right... impossible thing. For the Brits.

What Poland should have done was pour what little money there was into ensuring that every man and woman in Poland was capable of fighting a guerilla war against any invader.

:)) so giving up the indefensible part of Poland is 'being routed by Germans in a few days', but giving up the whole country is a good idea to you. And then we will show them our guerillas.

They should have also formed alliances with Czechoslovakia and Lithuania, and crucially, looked after the Ukrainian minority properly.

I say they should've formed an alliance with Germany. And Mexico. Solomon Islands wouldn't be a bad choice neither. Or we could've attacked the USA in July and surrender the next day, unconditionally.

Harry doesn't do you any good, delph.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
13 Dec 2010  #49
And how about through Germany, delph? But this would require actually engaging the Germans, hmm... seems you're right... impossible thing. For the Brits.

At that time, public opinion didn't support it. The leader of the country wasn't particularly bothered either. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to discover that the British wanted the Germans and Soviets to murder each other senseless, leaving the UK alone. Not bothering to help Poland was almost certainly a result of people simply not wanting anything to do with helping some "far away country of which we know nothing".

:)) so giving up the indefensible part of Poland is 'being routed by Germans in a few days', but giving up the whole country is a good idea to you. And then we will show them our guerillas.

It certainly is an interesting "what-if" scenario - how would the disciplined Germans deal with wild Poles who think nothing about murdering anyone German? Poland would have been occupied in 2-3 days - but equally so, there would be a huge amount of people who were armed and trained, just waiting to murder the first Germans they see.

Do you really think that the Germans would have been strong enough mentally to deal with it? They would have been promised a swift, decisive victory - not a war in which they were fighting only what appears to be civilians.

I say they should've formed an alliance with Germany. And Mexico. Solomon Islands wouldn't be a bad choice neither. Or we could've attacked the USA in July and surrender the next day, unconditionally.

Ah, typical Polish view - "omg, how could we consider going into alliance with LITHUANIANS. And Czechoslovaks, no way! AND UKRAINIANS?! NO ******* WAY".

I'd say that Poland couldn't have done any worse in WWII.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
13 Dec 2010  #50
But by 1939, Poland was way behind Germany. She also didn't have the numerical advantage of Russia.

Numerical advantage didnt matter so much, the border between Russia and Poland was swamps, huge forests and rivers aka it was defensible, it was featured substantial defensive installations and Poland did have a milion men under arms unlike say Finnland.

Competing with one power isn't enough when you're surrounded by enemies - and even with the problem of enemies from within.

And whats your gibberish about? You claimed Poland was overconfident i countered that untill early 30s Poland could reliably steamroll Germany and defend against Russia and when it lost that capability the high command realised it early on so no Poland was not overconfindent, when it was confident it was based on real factors.

And? Poland shouldn't have relied on allies who frankly were far more interested in themselves than Poland

Thats obvious today, back then it was not obvious at all, especially since the treason was carried out via backstage agreements hidden from Poland.

Bear in mind that history shows guerilla warfare to be terribly effective in terms of causing havoc among the enemy.

Against enemies willing to exterminate your nation? Got any more brilliant ideas to share with us?

The Russians only invaded once it was obvious that Poland had lost, anyway.

Poland lost the moment Germans invaded however the russian invasion shortened the war by a good month, perhaps more.

Strategic sense would have dictated looking at Poland's isolation and realising that the only country that could help Poland was Poland.

How?

I really, really, really cannot figure out why Poland placed so much emphasis on help on two countries that had previously shown mass indifference towards Poland and her independence.

Because that was the only hope Poland had and since it was desperate it went for desperate measures, the only other option would be to attempt and become Hitlers satelite but thats an even more desperate step.

For what it's worth, the whole "western betrayal" thing seems to be a big excuse for Poland's poor performance in WWII.

Again mate please shut the feck up and start asking questions, someone who has no knowledge of history like you really should not talk.

Poland with only 50% manpower and some 10% equipment of France and UK combined faced with war on four fronts against three separate nations fought only a week shorter than the combined forces of France, UK, Belgium and Netherlands and you call that poor?

The battle of Bzura saw the combined forces of some 650.000 men fighting, there were only four or five larger battles in WW2 all of them in Russia, Poland did not perform well but it was head and shoulders above western militaries (who admittedly performed horribly throught the war).
nott 3 | 594
13 Dec 2010  #51
The Russians only invaded once it was obvious that Poland had lost, anyway.

Etc.

You're hopeless, man, really. Do some proper reading before you start posting opinions on Polish history. I can understand your pro-Michnik stance on how communism fell, but WW2 should be free of this bias. I thought.

Ah, typical Polish view - "omg, how could we consider going into alliance with LITHUANIANS. And Czechoslovaks, no way! AND UKRAINIANS?! NO ******* WAY".

Right. Now ask the Lithuanians and Czechs what is their typical Polish view. Ukrainians had no army, if I may refresh your memory.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
13 Dec 2010  #52
You're hopeless, man, really. Do some proper reading before you start posting opinions on Polish history. I can understand your pro-Michnik stance on how communism fell, but WW2 should be free of this bias. I thought.

So - you're telling me that the Polish forces didn't withdraw to that area near Lwów before the Russians invaded?

Poland was beaten the moment it became obvious that the UK/French forces had no intention of seriously engaging Germany. With a traditional army, they had no chance of surviving.

Numerical advantage didnt matter so much, the border between Russia and Poland was swamps, huge forests and rivers aka it was defensible, it was featured substantial defensive installations and Poland did have a milion men under arms unlike say Finnland.

But the border between Germany and Poland was flat, fertile grounds - perfect for invading. Poland also had a hell of an indefensible border with Germany. So - anyone with sense should have seen that the situation was hopeless in terms of traditional defence.

Thats obvious today, back then it was not obvious at all, especially since the treason was carried out via backstage agreements hidden from Poland.

What's not obvious about the Munich Agreement and the British apathy towards another war? All common, public knowledge at the time.

Against enemies willing to exterminate your nation? Got any more brilliant ideas to share with us?

Seemed to work fine for the Chinese against the Japanese in WWII. And - the sheer effort required to actually exterminate Poland by the Germans would have required manpower well in excess of what they actually had available. And yet again - I make the point that the Soviets would not have invaded a country that wasn't beaten. Stalin was a smart guy - he wouldn't commit considerable resources into fighting a guerilla war against Poland. He'd have done what he always did and simply wait for the best moment for him.

How?

By looking at a map and looking at who was unfriendly towards Poland. Lithuanians, Germans, Russians, Ukrainians and Czechoslovaks all hated Poles.

Right. Now ask the Lithuanians and Czechs what is their typical Polish view. Ukrainians had no army, if I may refresh your memory.

Their view is clouded by Poland's actions between 1919 and 1939. Or do you need reminding about the annexation of Lithuanian and Czech territory?

Ukrainians had no army, but can you imagine the UPA on the Polish side? Would've certainly helped a great deal to have some savage, brutal murderers on the Polish side with no care or worry about what they did.

(but alas, Poland lost that by betraying them)
nott 3 | 594
13 Dec 2010  #53
So - you're telling me that the Polish forces didn't withdraw to that area near Lwów before the Russians invaded?

I say Poland did. You say Poland was routed. I say Poland was ready for a long defence in Polesie, with Germans running out of supplies, you say Poland was defeated.

Poland was beaten the moment it became obvious that the UK/French forces had no intention of seriously engaging Germany.

Became obvious. A bit late to include this truth in the defence plans. That's what we call the Western Betrayal exactly. Promises of engaging the common enemy in due time, not fulfilled.

With a traditional army, they had no chance of surviving.

Except if the Allies did a little bit, with traditional army. Like bombing. Or moving some divisions a little bit more to the East. Into the German territory, like. With intent to proceed, Inshallah.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
13 Dec 2010  #54
Became obvious. A bit late to include this truth in the defence plans. That's what we call the Western Betrayal exactly. Promises of engaging the common enemy in due time, not fulfilled.

But - why on earth did Poland believe it in the first place? I still cannot comprehend why Poland trusted an ally which had a Prime Minister that didn't want war with Hitler.

Can't comment for France, but the UK quite clearly was trying to avoid any sort of fight with Germany.

Except if the Allies did a little bit, with traditional army. Like bombing. Or moving some divisions a little bit more to the East. Into the German territory, like. With intent to proceed, Inshallah.

Sure, I think it's fairly well documented that Germany didn't have the capability to fight a two-front war.

Have you ever considered that perhaps, France and the UK (and the USA too, probably) wanted Germany and the Soviet Union to smash each other to pieces? Poland was unfortunately in the middle - and I think the British attitude (at least) towards Poland, ever since WWI was that Poland was a pain in the ass and not worth fighting for. I'm not even convinced that Britain was particularly keen on an independent Poland.

At least from the evidence (Versailles, Munich Agreement, Yalta) - I've never thought that Britain cared much about Poland at that time. There was a lot of lip service paid to Poland, but generally, not much in the way of actions.
nott 3 | 594
13 Dec 2010  #55
Their view is clouded by Poland's actions between 1919 and 1939.

Oh, their view was clouded by Poles, and Polish view was typical Polish. That explains a lot, actually.

Or do you need reminding about the annexation of Lithuanian and Czech territory?

Lithuanian, you mean the region with overwhelming Polish majority, under Polish control, granted to Lithuania by the Soviets in the 1920 Treaty in exchange for the right to freely move troops through Lithuania against Poland?

Czech territory... You mean Czechoslovakia would've had succesfully attacked Germany in 1939, only if Poland hadn't taken that bit near Cieszyn a year before. As it were, they were simply pouting. Good they didn't help the Germans, we'd have been taken in hours then, and no Polish legend of September. What with the famous Czech ferocity and immense army.

Got any other candidates for Polish allies in 1939? Belarussians? Lemkos? Kashebe? Wolochians?

Ukrainians had no army, but can you imagine the UPA on the Polish side?

In September 1939? Hardly. And there was no UPA yet. And they considered themselves an army. Did I miss anything? Oh, yes. They were nationalists. Ukrainian nationalists, fighting to carve a Ukrainian state out of Polish territory. That's why they murdered Poles, not Germans.

I still cannot comprehend why Poland trusted an ally which had a Prime Minister that didn't want war with Hitler.

Cultural differences, possibly. That PM signed a treaty.

Poland had a rather limited choice, delph.

Have you ever considered that perhaps, France and the UK (and the USA too, probably) wanted Germany and the Soviet Union to smash each other to pieces?

No, I haven't. And never heard anybody suggesting it.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
13 Dec 2010  #56
But the border between Germany and Poland was flat, fertile grounds - perfect for invading. Poland also had a hell of an indefensible border with Germany. So - anyone with sense should have seen that the situation was hopeless in terms of traditional defence.

Actually there was a sensible plan of withdraw to the great rivers which could and would prolong the war by months, however french assurances made sure Poland would not do that, also after Czechoslovakia there was fear that Germans would just take the emptied area and stop.

What's not obvious about the Munich Agreement and the British apathy towards another war? All common, public knowledge at the time.

Quite a lot really, after Munich views shifted, Hawks won in both UK and France, what Poland did not and could not know is that both hawk factions would, against all military logic sacrifice Poland to purchase a few months.

Seemed to work fine for the Chinese against the Japanese in WWII.

China is the size of Western Europe.

And - the sheer effort required to actually exterminate Poland by the Germans would have required manpower well in excess of what they actually had available.

No they would not, it doesnt really take that much when its professional military vs civies/insurgents and Germans and Russians between them had more then enough, their combined militaries outnumbered Polands able bodied men.

I make the point that the Soviets would not have invaded a country that wasn't beaten. Stalin was a smart guy

Yes they would, they had 400.000 men on standby and further 350.000 men in reserve, the only difference was that should Germans actually lose than the Red Army would've invaded Germany as well.

By looking at a map and looking at who was unfriendly towards Poland. Lithuanians, Germans, Russians, Ukrainians and Czechoslovaks all hated Poles.

Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Czechoslovaks were a non factor, Lithuania and Ukrainians in Poland were too weak to consider them as viable allies, Czechoslovakia was in a hopeless strategic position so it too was useless despite having relatively good army.

The only viable allies were French, British or bending over without a fight.

but can you imagine the UPA on the Polish side?

30.000 dudes who were only good for murdering civilians since they had no training or disciplines? So you're proposing that Poland, which after a full mobilisation had an army of 1 milion 200 thousand men ally itself with murderous ukrainian fascists just because they have 30.000 unwashed militias? Good thinking Napoleon, got any more gems of strategic thinking for us?

UPA was militarily worthless, so were ukrainians as an ally.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
13 Dec 2010  #57
Ukrainians had no army, if I may refresh your memory.

Do you have one? ;) How come Ukraine lost around 3 million soldiers in WWII? And you say that Ukrainians had no army? Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Ukrainian Soviet Army. Read a bit on WWII, pal, before spreading nonsense.

Why? France had every means of ending the war then and there' strategic sense dictated it would, no one expected France to betray Poland so unreasonably.

What a childish reasoning ;) Pity...

Ukrainians had no army, but can you imagine the UPA on the Polish side? Would've certainly helped a great deal to have some savage, brutal murderers on the Polish side with no care or worry about what they did.

I hope, delphi, you haven't said this seriously.

Got any other candidates for Polish allies in 1939? Belarussians? Lemkos? Kashebe? Wolochians?

:))) Damn, my ancestors were right. There was no hope to deal with such intelligence ;)

Poland had a rather limited choice, delph.

Indeed ;) Limited, but not the choice - something else ;)

So you're proposing that Poland, which after a full mobilisation had an army of 1 milion 200 thousand men ally itself with murderous ukrainian fascists just because they have 30.000 unwashed militias?

bending over without a fight

Exactly. In just 3 weeks. Being at par in 1934 ;) Wow. Why would you need allies? But frankly, I am glad you didn't ;)

Back on topic, or in the bin it goes
1jola 14 | 1,879
13 Dec 2010  #58
ConstantineK, is this you?

Yevgeny Dzhugashvili, grandson of Josef Stalin, is to sue the Russian parliament for "defaming the honour" of his grandfather, after it passed a resolution blaming the dictator for the 1940 Katyn massacre.

thenews.pl/international/artykul145317_stalins-grandson-sues-russian-parliament-over-katyn-resolution.html
nott 3 | 594
13 Dec 2010  #59
Read the thread, before. What Ukrainians were there in 1939 to make an alliance with? Any names? Like some Ukrainian head of state, or, at least, some General Staff of the mighty Ukrainian army? Any rogue vatazhka only waiting to fight the Germans and the Soviets, provided the Poles smile to him? Petlura was long dead.

:))) Damn, my ancestors were right. There was no hope to deal with such intelligence ;)

Any facts to explain your amusement?

Back on topic, or in the bin it goes

Right. But, you know, stupid threads tend to wander.
PennBoy 76 | 2,437
13 Dec 2010  #60
Any facts to explain your amusement?

Parts of Ukraine belonged to Poland before the war, during the Commonwealth times 3/4 of Ukraine was Polish, Warsaw was the center of culture in Europe before the was, what did Ukraine have and what does it have today? no culture, no sovereignty, no money, so what exactly is amusing you Nathan? :-))))


Home / History / Tuchola in Poland - roots of Katyn?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.