WWII - who really was the first to help Poland?

WroclawBoy,I just meant in the sense that they couldn't respond.It all goes hand hand,This was certainly a huge factor as to why Germany got the Jump.

exactly, they had the most advanced technology and the best equipped armed forces back then and that's why I said earlier " no one was able to face the Germans one on one back then and even if the Brits and'or French, tried to help Poland, they would be slaughtered just like anyone else".

you mean advanced weaponry


Blitzkreig was the key, they didnt want to get bogged down in trench war fare again.

Slaughtered like anyone else? you need to choose your words more carefully.

the most advanced technology that allowed them to produce the most advanced weaponry ;-)

A mooted attack by France and Poland in 35/36 would have had a real chance of succeeding. The only issue from a Polish perspective is that they would have been open to attack from the East as a result.

The end for Poland was the stupidity of invading Zaolzie in 38.

No, i dont think so.

I do.


not really. Just look how fast they were progressing through the entire continent. Honestly, they couldn't help you guys, even if they tried.
However, I agree, they shouldn't have made any unrealistic promises, they were unable to fulfill to begin with.

Of course it does.

You wouldn't find many examples where German weaponry/tech was the most advanced in 1939.Their main advantage was successful implementation of fully integrated combined arms doctrine.

just look at some documentaries from that time and compare their equipment with that of other armies.


that too

The Germans were always on more of a war footing than most of Europe part and parcel of the Nazi ideology.

That was in 1939. Germany certainly wasn't ready for war by 1935/36, and if Poland/Czechoslovakia had formed an alliance, things could have been dramatically different.


Have you actually read the treaty in question? It doesn't make any unrealistic promises at all.

I don't need to.I can't think of any example of German weaponry which would be vastly superior to what French,Brits or Soviets had.Can you?

You kidding aren't you? Britain, for example, was still using as its main battle rifle, a rifle from before WWI, a rifle first adopted by the British Army in 1888! The British wer still using the same Helmet they used in WWI, they weren't prepared for War at all. They desperately kept trying to buy time in order to giv themselves enough time to re-arm when they thought in 1936, War with Hitler was inevitable, just 3 years later they wer at War, barely ready. No, the Germans had the best and latest equipment.

keep up with the conversation old chap!!!!!!! hes basically saying that Germany had advanced technology and thats why they had advanced weapons.


OK lets try this.

Germany is planning war from the early 30's and thus pours vast resources into weapons research. France and Great Britain are not planning war and do not deploy resources in a similar fashion. Now, which country would have the best weapons at the outbreak of war 4 eigner?

Hi Dreadnought - you're right, Patton was all for a strike to the East, as he saw the writing on the wall. If memory serves, he assessed the situation and saw a strung out Soviet Army (I think he even mentioned their food source as livestock dragged behind them on ropes) who presented an opportunity to be pushed back many hundreds of miles. Imagine this scenario too if Anders had been released (as he requested) to take his Polish Army back to Poland - what about the potential for a few hundred thousand more AK soldiers swelling the ranks (beaten, but as yet unbroken), unrest in the Berling Army, desertions, an upsurge in moral in all Poles, a show of hands from all the rank and file Poms who would join their Polish friends and allies (knowing what I do about the loyalty of Poms to their mates, I'd say 9 out of 10 who served alongside the Poles would probably have gone along with Anders too)...

Realistically, one cannot expect however that any victory over the Soviets would have come lightly. Probably tens of thousands of American and British dead. As much as it would have been a dream come true for the Poles to have their friends and allies become their saviours, I cannot in good conscience see how it would have been fair or just for them to have made that sacrifice for a free Poland. The weight of that on any Pole's conscience would have been unbearable.

I am not.


Standard rifle of German army was Mauser 98k and do you know what 98 means?It's superiority over Lee Enfield is up to debate as both rifles had their advantages and disadvantages.BTW Mauser 98 was also most common rifle of Polish army in 1939.And helmets?Come on...

I think in aviation, navigation and with submarines they were more advanced than most of Europe but the fact they were so war orientated was one of the biggest factors in events leading to WW2.

Always been glad that some of their research into rockets never came to fruition under Hitler.

I'm not talking about 1935/36


alone the promise to help was already unrealistic

.........................................

Now to answer the rest of your questions, the Wehrmacht had several distinct advantages, early in the war, which made them appear near invincible. First, they had a Long tradition of professional officers and excellent training. Second, they had started to rearm and retool for the coming war much earlier than anyone else. Thirdly, the leadership was open to new ideas, wanting to avoid a replay of WWI, and thus the ideas of Rommel and Guderian were given a fertile bed in which to grow. Finally, excellent German engineering and a powerful industrial base were also harnessed earlier than anyone else's were, and this the Germans entered the war years ahead of their opposition in tank design and production, in the design of modern artillery, and in aircraft, and also in having a amy trained in all of these new weapons, and comfortable with their capabilities.

As a result of these advantages, the Germans were able to employ the new tactics and new equipment to great effect in the first several years of the war, running down enemies who's tactical innovation and technology research and development had stagnated. In addition, France and Great Britain had not geared up for war nearly as fast, and therefore could neither replace their equipment losses so easily, nor could they field troops who were nearly so well trained.

(now I need a break. Got a freaking headache today).

There is an ignorance of history or rather a rewriting of history through the 20 20 vision of hindsight. Churchill is a good example.

Churchill was a deluded self publicist his idea of a grand alliance to confront Germany was nonsense, the US could barely feed its self in the 30s and was isolationist, he had tried to strangle the Soviet Union at birth plus bringing them into his proposed alliance would have meant Poland accepting Soviet troops into the country which was always unlikely. So his alliance would have depended upon the European nations who had failed miserably to unite over reparations and the Ruhr occupation.

Of course Barney,which is why we were of little use at the begining and so was England.I think that Churchill with the resources,coupled with the fact that he had no illusions of what Hitler was about.......... Love him or hate him,Churchill was absolutely dead on about Hitler.

You can say the same about every political figure at the time who was capable of reading. The difference with Churchill was that he was a self promoting dreamer.

Not in England

Oh but you can say that about other British politicians they were not stupid,

No one says that they were stupid,but who else was as vocal about Hitler as he was?There are a lot of people that were hoodwinked by him,Has nothing to do with intelligence.Barney I'm not saying that Churchill was the smartest,or some Paragon of Virtue but he was right about Hitler and was ridiculed by his peers.Obviously Chamberlain was taken with Hitler.This is known about Churchill.I understand that you don't like the guy,but he had proven himself a good war time PM.It's not a far cry to believe that he would have jumped at the chance.Who else was as vocal about Hitler as early as he was.He was laughed at.Why weren't they at least trying to prep for a future that Churchill knew was coming.Say what you want,but I don't see who else at the time would have.

Winston Churchill was a fascinating man, not just for changing the world, but also for being a genius. He was very intelligent and used it to help himself and others around him. First, in 1953, he won the Nobel Prize for literature with his book, Richard Carvel, which was a romantic historical novel in the American Revolution. This made people think..

gotessays.com/essays/1181/index.php

no, it doesn't sound like Churchill was dumb.

Google 'Gallipoli, Churchill, war crime' and see what others have to say about this man... ;)

to be honest, it's not really that important to me. I'm not defending him just like I wouldn't defend Obama either ;-)

and surely all the conquered people, such the Baltic states, the Ukrainians, the Georgians would hav joined in on the allies'/liberators side as well? Finland could hav got back it's stolen land, the Balts, their freedom, Ukraine could be a free and independent country, so on,


Do you know how close Churchill was to winning this battle? 6 shells, The Turkish forces wer down to their last 6 shells, when the anglo-French forces called a halt and retreat. 6 shells.

If the Anglo-french had carried on fighting another 5-15 minutes Gallipoli would be proclaimed a great victory these days.

Nothing to do with liking or disliking the man.

It’s impossible to view Churchill without taking subsequent events into account.
Firstly and most importantly France and Britain were in no position economically or militarily to start a war.

His self promotion and constantly changing political stance plus his habit of reacting to events made him more akin to an op ed writer than a strategist.