Battle of Warsaw

[KrooK]

Tomorrow, 15.08.2006 there will be anniversary of great victory.
In 1920 Poles defeated Russian army, which had invaded Poland. Russians behaved like barbarians (killed prisoners of war, even injured, murdered, raped and destroyed everything) but fought like pus-sies. They have been destroyed near Warsaw and later close to Niemen river. That battle is perfect example of old military truth - smaller, better commanded army with high morale can crush 3 times more band of criminals.
Cav army, proudness of soviet army, has been destroyed later by polish cav divisions. That unit fight well with polish mitiary hospitals or very well murdered prisoners but sucke-d facing organised cav.
During August 1920 Poles captured over 100.000 prisoners of war. Despite they should be all killed for war crimes, they were sent to prison and released after war. This is for me one of differences between Poles and Russians.
Without that victory, all Europe would be captured by communist. Russian communist revolution would connect with German communist and capture all Europe.
For long time it was worst defeat of Soviet Union, compared only with loses from 1941. Even with german help Russians couldn't face polish army and they still remember their defeat. They keep telling that Poles murdered prisoners into prisoner camp or that they keep using poisons. It's false. Russians just lost because of their commanders stupidness, low morale of their soldiers (criminals never had good morale) and high morale of polish army.
So remember "eastern friends" - never try again or prepare on polish flags on Kremal.:skull:


My post seems to be nationalist - exactly!!! It is nationalist because I'm pround nationalist. I'm pround because we didn't kissed russian ass, we hold formation and we won.

[Kraxis]

I can understand your pride, but that doesn't mean you should just throw out verbal conventions or general nice behaviour.

Instead of a 1337-speak styled jab at the Russians, you should perhaps structure it differently and refrain from using words such as 'sucked' or 'pussies'.
Keep it intellectual or I will have to move it to the Backroom where it presently deserves to be.

Now I will let it stay because generally people here are more calm and won't enter a pissingcontest.

So people, discuss away, just remember I'm here too and I'm watchful.

[Oaty]

world war II could have been a whole lot different and perhaps earlier, later or never happened. The invasion of Poland could have been seen as liberation instead of occupation.

Killing and/or torturing POW's has at times brought disasterous results and to my knowledge has never had a great benifical gain.

The Poles more than likely got knowledge of this treatment and therefore more than likely led to more cases of fighting to the death.

Quite often generals/commanders reguraly discouraged unfair treatment of prisoners knowing that it is easier to entice a surrender.

[cegorach]

COUNTEROFFENSIVE OF 15.08.1920

Yes, very important event in european history. Consequences of a defeat would be enormous with another world war in the 20s itself.

It bought very important 20 years of independence for the whole central-eastern Europe without those present Europe would be much, much different.

Cegorach :2thumbsup:

[SwordsMaster]

You know, I've always looked with suspicion at paople that claim that ALL russians were criminals, and ALL poles were heroes, and specially with claims of russian communists joining german communist in some sort of quest to conquer europe.

And, personally, if I were russian, I'd be offended.

[cegorach]

Genocidal campaigns of the Red Army against the Don Cossacks at that time. The imposed terror in the territories they conquered. The way they treated the deputees who appeared to create new Russian constitution, the way they dealt with peasants... you can find hardly anything better, any difference so crystal clear - the Bolshevick government were murderers and war criminals.

The Russians were however both a victim and the perpetrator in this case. That is why they were treated fairly when captured or even joined pro-Polish Russian units which DID appear in this war ( Kuban Cossacks brigade for example).


It is better to describe this war as conflict between a democratic state and society vs brutal regime interested in conquest in the name of their sick ideology.:book:

[Conradus]

I'm actually suprised the Russians managed to form such large an army only three years after they left WWI, on the other hand without wanting to say anything about Polish bravery, I think it would be very unlikely that a country like Germany would've been able to field armies large enough to once more march through Belgium and France.

[cegorach]

I personally doubt they were able to conquer entire Germany even if notable numbers of communist supporters or people who would join them later due to various reasons.

Still the entire central-eastern Europe would fall, the consequences of the Red expansion are still apocaliptic with some sort of world-wide conflict immediatelly emerging. The treaty of Versailles would be scrapped and Europe would find itself at war another time.

Possibly there would be no Holocaust, but given the anti-semtism so deeply rooted in Russia and among some important members of Bolshevick leadership ( e.g. Stalin) it could easily be replaced my massive pogroms and re-settlement at enormous scale which de facto equals the Holocaust - this time a Red one...

[L'Impresario]

Well the Reds fared overall pretty good in the post-WWI conflicts. With so many enemies over a vast amount of territory, the fact that they managed to finally consolidate power and regain most of the lands that were occupied by counter-revolutionary forces spells out a success.
Now, in the scenario that Poland was removed as a buffer state between the future USSR and Germany, it'd be quite interesting to see how the internal balances in Germany and by extension the whole continent would have formed up. If again it came down to Hitler's Drang nach Osten, then one can develop a mind-numbing number of possible outcomes for WWII. But ofcourse a decent awareness amount of the butterfly effect means that some of the things mentioned could had been mutually exclusive.

EDIT: Stalin's antisemitism was more of a consistent Cold War propaganda stunt than a hint of systematic Jew persecution. It's just that some of his harshest measures were put out of context for evident purposes.

[Kraxis]

I'm actually suprised the Russians managed to form such large an army only three years after they left WWI, on the other hand without wanting to say anything about Polish bravery, I think it would be very unlikely that a country like Germany would've been able to field armies large enough to once more march through Belgium and France.
Well, the troops deserted in WWI because they were fed up with the system, both politically and militarily. They were among the first to join the the communists in St. Peterburg.
So it isn't that surprising, to me at least, that after the civil war where more or less all the troops of WWI joined up on way orthe other, Russia could field a rather large army to fight Poland.

[Conradus]

Well, the troops deserted in WWI because they were fed up with the system, both politically and militarily. They were among the first to join the the communists in St. Peterburg.
So it isn't that surprising, to me at least, that after the civil war where more or less all the troops of WWI joined up on way orthe other, Russia could field a rather large army to fight Poland.

True enough Kraxis, but on the other hand, the Russians were badly armed and equipped in the first war and yet be able to field armies to invade Poland seems quite an accomplishment to me. On the other hand, Russia was/is a huge country and an army of 900,000 isn't quite the staggering number that armies had during WWI. Still I'm suprised they actually tried it.

[cegorach]

The Red Army was more than 3 000 000 large at that time.:book:

[Kraxis]

Actually 5 million, but 'only' around 800-900,000 troops were actually involved in the war. Partly because the Red Army didn't have enough weapons.

Those numbers aren't too far from the 737,767 troops of the Polish forces on the eve of the Battle of Warsaw.
So not only did the Soviets get outmaneuvered but they also underestimated the strength of their enemies.

[cegorach]

Poles didn't have enough weaponry too - a large part of deliveries was blocked either by Germans in Danzig or by Czechs (railroads).

About the numbers - Red Army had other wars o fight and a number of its own citizens to control and they didn't stop to wait for supplies and more men.
Poles on the other hand had a huge rise of volunteers and were fighting on their territory - the Bolshevicks were counting on some sort of revolution among Polish peasants and workers, but they seen little reason to rebel or join the horde-like army invading their country.
The battle for minds was won a long time before the war by Polish socialists and various activists, mass education ( rabid anti-Polish in Russia and Germany) was used against the German and Russian plans and patriotism was present in the entire society. Still victory was a matter of great riske taken by Jozef Pilsudski ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Pilsudski.ogg) who redirected most valuable units in the army for a suprising and devastating counterassault.:2thumbsup:

[Kraxis]

I do not deny that, of course not. But the Red Army wasn't the huge mass of men it has been viewed to be in most conflicts.
Now losses and all that can of course be disguised so I suppose that the Russians had more troops posted to the Polish front than the 900,000 all together, but I doubt they had more at any one time.

[rotorgun]

:poland:
Tomorrow, 15.08.2006 there will be anniversary of great victory.
In 1920 Poles defeated Russian army, which had invaded Poland. Russians behaved like barbarians (killed prisoners of war, even injured, murdered, raped and destroyed everything) but fought like pus-sies. They have been destroyed near Warsaw and later close to Niemen river. That battle is perfect example of old military truth - smaller, better commanded army with high morale can crush 3 times more band of criminals.
Cav army, proudness of soviet army, has been destroyed later by polish cav divisions. That unit fight well with polish mitiary hospitals or very well murdered prisoners but sucke-d facing organised cav.
During August 1920 Poles captured over 100.000 prisoners of war. Despite they should be all killed for war crimes, they were sent to prison and released after war. This is for me one of differences between Poles and Russians.
Without that victory, all Europe would be captured by communist. Russian communist revolution would connect with German communist and capture all Europe.
For long time it was worst defeat of Soviet Union, compared only with loses from 1941. Even with german help Russians couldn't face polish army and they still remember their defeat. They keep telling that Poles murdered prisoners into prisoner camp or that they keep using poisons. It's false. Russians just lost because of their commanders stupidness, low morale of their soldiers (criminals never had good morale) and high morale of polish army.
So remember "eastern friends" - never try again or prepare on polish flags on Kremal.:skull:

My post seems to be nationalist - exactly!!! It is nationalist because I'm pround nationalist. I'm pround because we didn't kissed russian ass, we hold formation and we won.

I don't fault you for your obvious pride in the achievements of the brave Polish army in this affair. It is a shame that you could haven't provided us, those interested in the historical aspects, with a more detailed account of this Battle of Warsaw. I am curious about the units involved, the terrain, the tactics, the key generals on both sides, and of course any particular heroics during the fight. In what ways did it differ from the siege of Warsaw by the Germans in 1939?

Thanks in advance for any more that you might tell us.

Regards brave Polski! May Poland live forever free! :poland:

[cegorach]

Wikipedia is very helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_war


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War_in_1920


and here is the map of the particular battle

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/719px-Battle_of_Warsaw_-_Phase_2.png

[Kraxis]

The image doesn't show... Try imageshack.

[L'Impresario]

I can see it perfectly well. The image is from wiki anyway, one can click on the link as well.

[Kraxis]

Ah yes it is up now... Previously it was just the little red cross.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As Kraxis has pointed out, the fielding of a large Soviet Army was hardly surprising.

The Soviets, following the revolution, were immediately involved in a civil war Red v White and in countering incursions by the Western expeditionary forces and the anti-communist volunteer groups.

The conflict was not all that much shorter than, and was just as visciously fought as, the Spanish Civil war a few years later -- it simply didn't have the degree of "coverage" lavished on Franco and company.

The war against Poland was executed by a Soviet Army that really had not done more than pause between conflicts -- they had plenty of folks in uniform (though their logistics sucked).


Moreover, as to morale, this army was no longer fighting to free Russia from the Tsars. Traditionally, the Russian soldier has always been a fierce opponent when defending the Rodina -- but prone to mixed results when fighting off Russian soil.

[Pontifex Rex]

...The Soviets, following the revolution, were immediately involved in a civil war Red v White and in countering incursions by the Western expeditionary forces and the anti-communist volunteer groups...
The war against Poland was executed by a Soviet Army that really had not done more than pause between conflicts -- they had plenty of folks in uniform (though their logistics sucked)....

Seamus gives a far better overall description of the factors involved in the Red Army's defeat at Warsaw than our Polish friend did with his "unique" view. It is worth noting that the Russians were not the only ones who were effected by poor morale. The so-called Mozyr Group of the Red Army that continually pushed back four Polish divisions all the way to the Wieprz River south of Warsaw. When Pilsudski was able to regroup these divisions and reinforce it with a fifth he attacked the Mozyr Group on August 16th which quickly began to retreat.

As it turns out this 'powerhouse' formation that had so roughly handled the Poles on their retreat consisted of little more than elements of a single Soviet division, the 57th Rifle. What was importatnt about the location of the attack was that it uncovered the entire flank of the Soviet 16th Army then attacking Warsaw. As the Polish formation bagan to wheel in behind the Red Army it began to collapse, creating a larger gap in the front, further uncovering the flanks of the other armies and forcing them to withdraw. As the front began to crumble the entire Polish army was able to go over to the attack and the reatreat turned into rout. The Soviet 3rd, 4th, 15th and 16th Armies as well as the 3rd Cavalry Corps had no choice to withdraw or be encircled. Losses were heavy and 70,000 soviet troops were captured and 70,000 more forced to withdraw into East Prussia where they were interned by the German army. Some 231 artillery pieces were lost along with 1,000 machine guns and 10,000 carts and wagons.

The Polish attack had been fortunate to attack the weakest point of the Red Army's front and the breakthrough was totally unexpected. However, history is full of such lucky events for one side or the other and things might have worked out differently if Pilsudski had struck anywhere else. It is also worth noting that the Polish delegation in Minsk, unaware of the victory for some five days, was trying to negotiate a ceasefire and settlement of the border issues in the face of what appeared to be certain defeat. The peace talks were then moved to Riga where on October 18th the ceasefire was signed followed by the Treaty of Riga in Mar 1921, ending the war.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE] When Pilsudski was able to regroup these divisions and reinforce it with a fifth he attacked the Mozyr Group on August 16th which quickly began to retreat.

As it turns out this 'powerhouse' formation that had so roughly handled the Poles on their retreat consisted of little more than elements of a single Soviet division, the 57th Rifle.

This task force was never strong - 1 infantry division and two weak brigades. It is hard to call that a powerhouse simply Pripet Marshes covered Red flank well enough.



The Polish attack had been fortunate to attack the weakest point of the Red Army's front and the breakthrough was totally unexpected.


Luck or good planning ? THe decision to concentrate on attacking in this place was hard to make and involved some pretty massive redeployement - 4 elite infantry divisions and two cavalry brigades were sent there to overrun Mozyr group and cut off as many Red Arm's units as possible.
The flank of the attacking force was covered by weak force ( 6th Ukrainian allied division mostly) so it could be risky.

However we know now that it were the Polish code-breakers who made the decision much easier. It wasn't lucky, though remained dangerous if the Horse Army was redeployed fast enough. Good that it wasn't but heavy fighting at Lwow and the local counteroffensive in that are in July has something to do with that.




It is also worth noting that the Polish delegation in Minsk, unaware of the victory for some five days, was trying to negotiate a ceasefire and settlement of the border issues in the face of what appeared to be certain defeat.


The Bolsheviks blocked all communication between them and the government and tried to intimidate them, but they stopped after the news of defeat reached them.



Low morale of the Red Army ?

Don't forget that it was at the gates of a big city which meant massive plundering. Also anti-Polish sentiments were strong among their troopers especially with CZk behind the lines with machine guns to 'boost the morale' (in 1920 they started using the tactic known better from 2nd WW).

The main problem was that the army was advancing quickly for last 5 weeks - supplies and replacements were not quick enough to reach the front in time, but stopping that was also risky - would give the Poles enough time to re-group, so Tuchachevsky decided to carry on the offensive.

We shouldn't go to far in judging the Red Army so harshly otherwise me might reach the conclusion that Poles couldn't lose this war at that time - contrary to the belief of all other european governments at that time - NOONE expected Poles to win !:inquisitive:

[Sarmatian]

Tomorrow, 15.08.2006 there will be anniversary of great victory.
In 1920 Poles defeated Russian army, which had invaded Poland. Russians behaved like barbarians (killed prisoners of war, even injured, murdered, raped and destroyed everything) but fought like pus-sies. They have been destroyed near Warsaw and later close to Niemen river. That battle is perfect example of old military truth - smaller, better commanded army with high morale can crush 3 times more band of criminals.
Cav army, proudness of soviet army, has been destroyed later by polish cav divisions. That unit fight well with polish mitiary hospitals or very well murdered prisoners but sucke-d facing organised cav.
During August 1920 Poles captured over 100.000 prisoners of war. Despite they should be all killed for war crimes, they were sent to prison and released after war. This is for me one of differences between Poles and Russians.
Without that victory, all Europe would be captured by communist. Russian communist revolution would connect with German communist and capture all Europe.
For long time it was worst defeat of Soviet Union, compared only with loses from 1941. Even with german help Russians couldn't face polish army and they still remember their defeat. They keep telling that Poles murdered prisoners into prisoner camp or that they keep using poisons. It's false. Russians just lost because of their commanders stupidness, low morale of their soldiers (criminals never had good morale) and high morale of polish army.
So remember "eastern friends" - never try again or prepare on polish flags on Kremal.:skull:


My post seems to be nationalist - exactly!!! It is nationalist because I'm pround nationalist. I'm pround because we didn't kissed russian ass, we hold formation and we won.

Don't forget that pride can be a dangerous thing. Probably because of that pride polish commanders thought that their "invincible" cavalry can hold its own against german tanks 2 decades later.

Also, calling an entire russian army "rapists, criminals, murderers, bandits" is very rude, and I would also be offended if I were russian.

[Reverend Joe]

I think the very fact that a single division of "thieves, murderers and rapists" was able to force back four Polish divisions is a pretty impressive accomplishment in and of itself. Had things been a little different- mainly, had the Red Army had better logistical trains- the Mozyr group might have become known as the standout unit in the battle.

[Pontifex Rex]

Luck or good planning ? The decision to concentrate on attacking in this place was hard to make and involved some pretty massive redeployement - 4 elite infantry divisions and two cavalry brigades were sent there to overrun Mozyr group and cut off as many Red Arm's units as possible.
The flank of the attacking force was covered by weak force ( 6th Ukrainian allied division mostly) so it could be risky.

Probably a bit of both, most victories are a combination of good luck and good planning. I am sure you would agree that the retreat from Russian and the Ukraine had actually helped the Polish army. The retreat had been going on for some six weeks and while the Polish were suffering morale problems the armies did not collapse. The retreat to the west had brought the Polish armies closer to their supplies and sources of replacement while the Red Army drew further away from their own. By August the Poles had some 191,000 "fighting men" (rifles and sabres) compared to the Red Army's 177,000 (Bitter Glory, Richard Watt, pg 143).



However we know now that it were the Polish code-breakers who made the decision much easier. It wasn't lucky, though remained dangerous if the Horse Army was redeployed fast enough. Good that it wasn't but heavy fighting at Lwow and the local counteroffensive in that are in July has something to do with that.

I believe you are talking about Captain Jan Kowalewski, who broke the Red Army codes and made possible the monitoring of the Red Army's radio traffic.
I would submit that the luck, good planning, Pilsudski's skill, errors on Red Army's part, logistics and morale all played a role in the victory. Had Yergarov followed his orders and swung his 'Army of the Southwest' northward instead of heading for Lwow, the Russian plan of encircleing the Polish army near Warsaw *may* have worked. Instead, a gap grew between his armies and those of Tukhachevky's 'Army of the West' which could only be filled by the scratch "Mozyr Group". Pilsudki saw this growing gap and decided to try and take advantage of it. Unfortunately, even with being able to read the Russian codes the Poles did not have a good idea of how strong this group was.

With only five divisions for the attack, it was definitely a calculated risk and Pilsudki was concerned the attack could fail as the "enemy who up till now, had constantly broken the resistance of the great part of our army" ("Decisive Battles", JFC Fuller, pg 954, quoting General Pilsudski). The five Polish divisions were not of uniform quality and varied greatly in strenght and weapons and Polish intelligence could not identify more than the 57th Rifle division on the other side of the river. Since the Mozyr Group had driven back the 21st Polish division so easily it was thought the group was much stronger than it turned out to be (Bitter Glory, Richard Watt, pg 146-147).


The Bolsheviks blocked all communication between them and the government and tried to intimidate them, but they stopped after the news of defeat reached them.

Agreed, the tone of the discussions changed 180 degrees after August 21st and the Polish delegation demanded the talks be moved to a neutral site (Riga).


Don't forget that it was at the gates of a big city which meant massive plundering. Also anti-Polish sentiments were strong among their troopers especially with CZk behind the lines with machine guns to 'boost the morale' (in 1920 they started using the tactic known better from 2nd WW).

I would suggest that the use of "blocking forces" to prevent Red Army units from retreating speaks volumes about the level of morale within the Red Army.


The main problem was that the army was advancing quickly for last 5 weeks - supplies and replacements were not quick enough to reach the front in time, but stopping that was also risky - would give the Poles enough time to re-group, so Tuchachevsky decided to carry on the offensive.

Exactly. Also, the Soviet government expected revolution to breakout as soon they entered Poland and were very surprised when it did not. Instead of being supported (materially) by the peasants they were uniformly ignored or treated with hostility. As such, there was now a need to leave troops behind to secure the rear areas where the Poles could use the vast majority of their troops to fight. The Red Army's logistical services were almost non-existant and thus the troops often had to resort to the older practices of foraging from the countryside and population to feed themselves (as in the days of Napoleon, for example). Supplies and reinforcements simply could not keep up.


We shouldn't go to far in judging the Red Army so harshly otherwise me might reach the conclusion that Poles couldn't lose this war at that time - contrary to the belief of all other european governments at that time - NOONE expected Poles to win !:inquisitive:

I agree. There were so many factors that took place that made the Polish victory possible that it does seem like a "Miracle on the Vistula". It is in examining these factors that we learn what happened and why.

Cheers. ~:cheers:

[cegorach]

I think the very fact that a single division of "thieves, murderers and rapists" was able to force back four Polish divisions is a pretty impressive accomplishment in and of itself. Had things been a little different- mainly, had the Red Army had better logistical trains- the Mozyr group might have become known as the standout unit in the battle.


Hmm... When ?:inquisitive: :inquisitive:


@ Sarmatian
Quote:

Don't forget that pride can be a dangerous thing. Probably because of that pride polish commanders thought that their "invincible" cavalry can hold its own against german tanks 2 decades later.

What ?:inquisitive: On what grounds are you making this statement ?


Though you are right in one thing Polish cavalry handled German tanks in 1939 pretty well, that is true.



Also, calling an entire russian army "rapists, criminals, murderers, bandits" is very rude, and I would also be offended if I were russian.

Of course it wasn't me who wrote that... thing, but I will answer that. It wasn't Russian, but the Red Army formed from severla nationalities, mainly Russian true, but as a force of totalitarian, despotic regime it cannot be treated as normal forces unless we call Nazi SS or Wehrmacht 'liberational forces'. Tne number of criminals was generally quite high in the Red Army sent to Poland in 1920 acting often as mongolic hordes from legends. If someone uses POWs for sabre practice, kills soldiers and civilians in hospitals, cuts a part of civilian population in every city it passes it certainly shouldn't be treated the same way as every other force or army. Or should it ?

@Pontifex Rex

'Bitter Glory' by Richard Watt

Is generally a good source, although the author could add more of the Nemel offensive which decided the outcome of the war.

Also N.Davis 'White Eagle and Red Star' is better in details like internatioal situation, consequences of the war and also some other pieces of information like the state of the Red Army at the end of this war which literally was falling apart.



Few notes only:

The force used to counterattack consisted of elite divisions which used some of the best soldiers available so even if it was only roughly 5 of them it certainly equalled at least 7-8 Red Army's divisions.


The entire war had one interesting feature - almost irregular character of warfare with 'normal' infantry like the Polish forces from Greater Poland never used to one particular problem - fighting wih exposed flanks - it was not possible to halt enemy outflanking your position which easily ended in a retreat, sometimes in a rout.


The volunteer force rised at the eve of this battle proved to be suprisingly effective with losses in regular forces replaced and their morale notably rised by those 'priests and poets' as they were called. In fact it is the beginning of modern Polish officer cadres who later were called by German Abwehra 'fanatical'.:2thumbsup:



I would suggest that the use of "blocking forces" to prevent Red Army units from retreating speaks volumes about the level of morale within the Red Army.

It is however a logic conclusion to the long tradition of handling similar problems in Russian/Soviet forces starting with Oprychniki or even the Streltsy of Ivan the Terrible.

Terrorist dictatorship of Ivan III or Ivan IV and Communist state have so much in common.:book:

Regards Cegorach:2thumbsup:

[KrooK]

Polish cav charging german tanks.

Interesting stereotype - don't you think Cegorach1?

In my opinion it's all results of french propaganda from 1939/1940.
French high command couldn't understand that Germany won because of new tactic and powerfull air/tank support, so they thought that Polish army was simply untrained. Later it appeared that French soldiers were fighting much worse.

Everyone who thinks that cavarly can't stop tanks - read about Battle of Mokra. Remember that in polish army cav brigades were simply elite infantry brigades on horses. They were charging when situation was suitable, but normally they were fighting like typical infantry.

[Pontifex Rex]

Polish cav charging german tanks....
In my opinion it's all results of french propaganda from 1939/1940.....

This an old stereotype that just refuses to die. Actually, Krook, the myth began as a result of an Italian journalist who witnessed a battle near Krojanty in the opening days of the war. In one instance, on September 1st, 1939, the 18th Uhlan Reg't of the Pomorska Cavalry Brigade rode in to rescue elements of the 13th Infantry Reg't of the 9th Infantry division.

The Uhlans swept through the woods and stuck the flank of the 76th infantry reg't of the 20th Motorised division. The Germans tried to pull back but were hit hard by the charge. Just as the Germans were beginning to crumble a column of German light tanks and armoured cars arrived who in their turn caused very heavy casualties to the Polish cavalry. The Uhlans pulled out only after the infantry they had come to help had made good their withdrawal. They did not charge the tanks.

Cheers.

[rotorgun]

From the articles and map provided us by cegorach1, it appears that the Polish army was able to use good economy of force along with trading space for time in order to spring thier flank attacks on the Soviet thrusts. The only way for it to have succeeded so well was for the Soviet command to have failed to make adequate reconnaisance of the Polish army's strength and intentions. Perhaps they were so focused on thier objectives that they forgot this elemental procedure. This was also quite common of them during WWII during thier relentless offensives.

Interesting battle, almost looks like armored tactics in some ways.

[Reverend Joe]

Hmm... When ?:inquisitive: :inquisitive:


The so-called Mozyr Group of the Red Army that continually pushed back four Polish divisions all the way to the Wieprz River south of Warsaw. When Pilsudski was able to regroup these divisions and reinforce it with a fifth he attacked the Mozyr Group on August 16th which quickly began to retreat.

As it turns out this 'powerhouse' formation that had so roughly handled the Poles on their retreat consisted of little more than elements of a single Soviet division, the 57th Rifle.

:thinking: Then? One division, pushing back four Polish divisions... I would call that one hell of a ruse. However, it quickly folded when the single unit was counterattacked by five elite Polish divisions. Thus the almost-history element.

[Pontifex Rex]

From the articles and map provided us by cegorach1, it appears that the Polish army was able to use good economy of force along with trading space for time in order to spring thier flank attacks on the Soviet thrusts. The only way for it to have succeeded so well was for the Soviet command to have failed to make adequate reconnaisance of the Polish army's strength and intentions. Perhaps they were so focused on thier objectives that they forgot this elemental procedure. This was also quite common of them during WWII during thier relentless offensives.

Hmmmm,...I'm not so sure. The facts point more to a shift due to the Poles gaining the numerical advantage and a failure of the Army of the SW to fulfill its role as left pincer. The facts also tell us that the Mozyr Groups was ad hoc and consisted of all that could be spared from the drive on Warsaw.

Your observation about being too focused on Warsaw is probably very close to the mark but the 16th Army was deeply involved in the seige of Warsaw at the time and thus looking into the city and not to the south in an area that was to be covered by another army..


Interesting battle, almost looks like armored tactics in some ways.

More classic manoeuver warfare IMO. We tend to think of the period as dominated by slow moving infantry armies and large scale attacks a la the western front 1914-1917. In the east and the Balkans the war was quite mobile with both sides constantly trying to find the flanks. Where cavalry was all but useless in the west, it played its traditional role of reconnaissance and screening elsewhere.

[Pontifex Rex]

The force used to counterattack consisted of elite divisions which used some of the best soldiers available so even if it was only roughly 5 of them it certainly equalled at least 7-8 Red Army's divisions.

Hmmm,... small quibble. Watt places the units as the 14th, 16th and 21st divisions supplemented by the "crack" 1st and 3rd Legionary Divisions. Of the 21st Division it was noted by Pilsudski that half the men were without boots. Four days before the attack there were logistics errors with wrong ammunition going to units and delays in troops arrivals (what plans goes perfectly :shrug: ). Prior to the arrival of the Legionary infantry Pilsudski stated, " never in the whole course of the campaign had I seen such ragamuffins as I saw now."

Do you have sources that name other units involved in the attack? ~:confused:

[Subedei]

So remember "eastern friends" - never try again or prepare on polish flags on Kremal.:skull:


My post seems to be nationalist - exactly!!! It is nationalist because I'm pround nationalist. I'm pround because we didn't kissed russian ass, we hold formation and we won.

Is the stereotyping in your post helpful to anyone, except people who don´t like Russia?

I don´t know, I am always very very distrustful when it comes to "Nationalism", in ANY case. Polish, German, Russian or where the hell ever from....

[KrooK]

Show me stereotype in my post please.......

[cegorach]

:thinking: Then? One division, pushing back four Polish divisions... I would call that one hell of a ruse. However, it quickly folded when the single unit was counterattacked by five elite Polish divisions. Thus the almost-history element.

That is completely incorrect. It was the bulk of the Mozyr Group which hardly seen any fighting protecting it from the side of Pripet Marshes.

The Mozyr group covered the flank and followed the Polish retreat, however saying that it was pushing back 4 divisions is absurd. :laugh4:

You have not understand the quote you have shown well.

[Subedei]

@ KrooK: I'm pround because we didn't kissed russian ass, we hold formation and we won.
Without that victory, all Europe would be captured by communist. Russian communist revolution would connect with German communist and capture all Europe.
Russians just lost because of their commanders stupidness, low morale of their soldiers (criminals never had good morale) and high morale of polish army.

-> Definition Stereotype: Stereotype production is based on:
Simplification
Exaggeration or distortion
Generalization
Presentation of cultural attributes as being 'natural'

...See???:shrug:

[Kraxis]

:helmet:

[KrooK]

Here I must repeat
lllooolll
please explain not quote

[Sarmatian]

@cegorach1

I am by no means expert on polish history. But from what I know cavalry was significant part of polish army in the years before the ww2. And polish commanders actually thought that they can fend off the germans long enough for england and france to intervene. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
France, on the other hand, put too much faith in the Maginot line (while thinking that the ardennes were impassable) and suffered similar, humiliating defeat.

Considering "rapist, murderers, bandits" etc... I'm guessing that in russian history you can find similar examples of polish crimes and brutality, and maltreating of war prisoners. History is not an exact science.
Soviets were not only russians, true, but I think Krook said at the end of his post "I am proud we didn't kiss their russian *****". It is quite clear what he meant.

So, what I'm saying, if you put together relationship between russians and poles, a bit of nationalism and complete absence of manners, you get this thread.

[Kraxis]

Here I must repeat
lllooolll
please explain not quote
I would suggest that you do NOT mock another poster when he has presented evidence for his standpoint, that counts pretty bad in my book, and you are already not all that highly regarded I'm afraid.

What Subedei did what take the important part of your initial post and compared it to the definition of 'stereotype'. Now he didn't elaborate on it because he thought it would be clear. He was apparently mistaken.
I hope I have rectified that situation (meaning, take a look at your post and compare it to the definition and you will see striking similarities).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Stereotyping examples, quoting your first post.


In 1920 Poles defeated Russian army, which had invaded Poland. Russians behaved like barbarians (killed prisoners of war, even injured, murdered, raped and destroyed everything) but fought like pus-sies.

This is stereotyping on two levels: over-generalization and the use of the loaded term "barbarian."

Certainly, any number of the soldiers in the Red Army of that era behaved badly. You label it as a universal characteristic, which is innaccurate and a form of stereotyping. Even labeling it "barbarian" is somewhat of a stereotype, since the label presumes that a more sophisticated or developed culture would not behave so. However regrettable, incidents like this occur in all wars and are not confined to combatants from tribal or under-developed nations (soldiers surrendering too late in the opinion of the attackers on the Western Front in WW1 were bayoneted to the phrase "too late, chum."; In numerous cases, soldiers taking a town by assualt traditionally put it to the sack, even when ordered not to do so; the Bataan Death March...the list is very long). To single out the Soviets in this fashion is, at best, over-generalizing.


During August 1920 Poles captured over 100.000 prisoners of war. Despite they should be all killed for war crimes, they were sent to prison and released after war. This is for me one of differences between Poles and Russians.

Again, over-generalization, here. It would be staggeringly unlikely that all 100,000 captive Soviets were war criminals -- though some of them almost certainly were. Your pride in Poland's honorable behavior is well-placed, I would encourage you to reflect upon it more.


Russians just lost because of their commanders stupidness, low morale of their soldiers (criminals never had good morale) and high morale of polish army.

Certainly morale is a critical component in effective warfare, and Napoleon's old dictum about 3-1 gives as accurate a measure as any. However, your use of the label "criminal" stereotypes all Soviet soldiers as criminal, which is a virtual impossibility.

Moreover, your assessment that criminals always have poor morale is innacurate. Mohammad Atta [sic?] and company, however criminally evil, could hardly be described as low-morale hangers-on who weren't willing to sacrifice. IRA Provo operatives would hold their silence under lengthy interrogations and as much pressure as could be brought to bear, refusing all communication efforts -- yet I have no trouble describing their behavior as criminal. The carefully un-checked pasts of recruits to the Legion Etragere camouflage any number of criminal pasts, yet virtually no one could accuse the Legion of a failure of morale. Again, criminal organizations, in many cases, lack discipline and morale is limited, but this is by no means a universal truth.

Nothing wrong with Patriotism, Krook, and any nation that can still exist after the history of invasion, absorption, dissection, and quasi-genocides that Poland has had to endure has much of which to be proud. In a limited way, I share that pride (Dombrowski and Konopka ancenstry). I am happy that Poland is free -- for more than half of my life this was not so. I rejoice that the efforts of Lech Welesa, Karol Wojytila (Magnus et Sanctus!!!!!), Ronald Reagan, & Margaret Thatcher -- along with many thousands of less-well-known others begat that freedom and that I was alive to see it. Just don't let justified pride prevent you from looking at things clearly.

Besides, Krax' has been more patient than many would've been. Don't force him to pull a trigger, he'll be mopey for days if he has to...but he would. If you want rough and tumble, try throwing out a few posts like this in the Backroom -- you'll garner plenty of interesting responses.

[Pontifex Rex]

Krook,

I hope that you will take the opportunity to examine the conflict between the USSR and Poland in a more objective manner in the future. You will find that the facts do not support your emotionally charged rhetoric. I am sure some of your countrymen here on this forum will be more than happy to point out the books (in Polish) to you that approach the subject in an scholarly and professional manner, although I am sure you already know where to find them.

Now,...may I suggest to all concerned that we leave this aspect of the topic be and return to discussing the conflict in a more balanced manner.:focus:

[Pontifex Rex]

That is completely incorrect. It was the bulk of the Mozyr Group which hardly seen any fighting protecting it from the side of Pripet Marshes....The Mozyr group covered the flank and followed the Polish retreat, however saying that it was pushing back 4 divisions is absurd. :laugh4:

cegorah1,

Whether the Mozyr Groups "pushed" the Polish back or the Poles chose to continue retreating before an enemy formation of unknown strength misses the point, in my opinion. While we now know how weak the formation was, the Poles had been unable to stand before the Red Army attacks thus far, as noted by General Pilsudski himself, and thus continued to withdraw before the enemy.

We should not forget that this same group had just driven a Polish division out of an important city just days before the counterattack. I would suggest that the Mozyr Group had developed a reputation out of proportion to it actual strength and this showed in the Polish actions prior to Pilsudski's master stroke.

Cheers.~:)

P.S. - This discussion has got me wanting to search out another book or two dig further into the topic but it may have to wait until I finish the 25+ already on my reading list.

[cegorach]

@cegorach1

[QUOTE]I am by no means expert on polish history. But from what I know cavalry was significant part of polish army in the years before the ww2. And polish commanders actually thought that they can fend off the germans long enough for england and france to intervene.

and suffered similar, humiliating defeat.

5-7 %, however if you check the records of the cavalry units during the 1939 war you will find out that suprisingly the cavalry very well and caused a lot of troubles - the reason - better morale,semi-elite status, high speed of manouvers and lage number of anti-tank weaponry.
And yes Poland's only hope was to survive untill the western allies would attack - that is why alliances are for. But as we know now they decided to leave Poland to its fate in MAY 1939 and didn't give even minor support (British attacked Germany ONCE, France occupied few square miles of undefended German territory).

Also I wouldn't call Polish defeat humilating - it lasted longer than any other before 'Barbarossa' - France was defeated earlier than it capitulated - in the later phase only lack of fule slowed down some German divisions, also it was fought against German-Soviet-Slovak forces which were 6 times larger than Polish and attacked from 4 directions - the allies in 1940 head LARGER army than Germany and defended a relatively narrow pice of border...




Considering "rapist, murderers, bandits" etc... I'm guessing that in russian history you can find similar examples of polish crimes and brutality, and maltreating of war prisoners. History is not an exact science.


The big prblem is that you really will have a lot of problems to find A SINGLE ONE. Without really good knowledge you won't find NONE and with exceptionally good one you might find 2-3 examples during 500 years of war. Unusual ? Maybe, but very true you can find situations of Russians killing POWs in every single war - they broke peace treaties when the ink was still wet - as Nikolai Strachov - Russian historian from mid-XIXth century wrote - 'the conflict is sobitter because it is war between civilised people and barbarians' - this is the problem - Russia wasn't liberal democracy with which you could have good relations also if you tried, you either resist or are occupied by people who will send the worse scums to 'oversee' your lands.
It is not a matter of nationalism or political correctness both would chang e the picture in a wrong way.
However we have a similar situation as when the UK fought Nazi Germany - genocidal, totalitarian force vs. liberal democracy. The SAME situation has always been between Poland and Russia - the fate of democratic russian Novgorod republic is a great lesson - after 100 years inside Russian state it was attacked, sacked and its citizens boiled alive untill the city was virtually destroyed...


Soviets were not only russians, true, but I think Krook said at the end of his post "I am proud we didn't kiss their russian *****". It is quite clear what he meant.

Whatever, I am not Krook.


So, what I'm saying, if you put together relationship between russians and poles, a bit of nationalism and complete absence of manners, you get this thread.


I have written a large part of posts in this thread, so did other people - please do not offend them because the initial post was controversial at least.OK ?


@Pontifex Rex


We should not forget that this same group had just driven a Polish division out of an important city just days before the counterattack. I would suggest that the Mozyr Group had developed a reputation out of proportion to it actual strength and this showed in the Polish actions prior to Pilsudski's master stroke.

You mean Brzesc Litewski ? The problem it had really NO reputation - it was second rate formation which rarely seen any fighting, maybe except the 57 division itself which followed the Polish retreat - but not before this group but other units - outflanking was the main problem.
The loss of Brzesc however was a serious blow - it could be a very good re-grouping point and covered the flank of counteroffensive which was planned earlier, but it was most likely the only achievement of Mozyr group - later it left the swamps and the trouble begun...



mmm,... small quibble. Watt places the units as the 14th, 16th and 21st divisions supplemented by the "crack" 1st and 3rd Legionary Divisions.

The 14th and 16th division were both from Greater Poland/Pomerania region and were as usual better equipped and armed with larger number of fighting men as well. the 21st division was Highland division so was a sort of 'crack' unit even without shoes. There were also 2 cavalry brigades - I don't remember which 4th and 7th if I am correct.
Also a brigade of Russian Cossacks ( they changed sides in Ukraine and later were getting more soldiers from soviet POWs who were willing to join them) was supposed to fight there - I don't remember where it fought actuall at that time.
I need to check some sources - there are numerous books about that war after all.

Regards Cegorach:2thumbsup:

[Subedei]

Show me stereotype in my post please.......[...]
Here I must repeat
lllooolll
please explain not quote

That is what I did.....and I was thinking it was clear to you. To show you your stereotype-using, I gotta cite you. To give you an idea, what a s.t. is to me, i gotta define it. That is what I did; it is unnecessary to make fun of my opinion/explanation anyways. And I would prefer to leave this kind of "discussion-level" with you now and get back to normal. There developed an interesting discussion anyways. I didn´t know much about these events I have to admit.

Peace out...Subedei

[KrooK]

I'm not afraid of ban if you are talking about it. I always speak my mind.

1920 war was war between freedom and terror, democracy and dictature.
Soviet forces fought bad, they were crushed facing volunteers division.
And actually Russians ( because I think their country was Soviet Russia not Soviet Union) in 1920 were very similar to Waffen SS or Ersatzgruppen in WW2. So that they were ALL criminals or mostly criminals.

And in last 500 years Russians never did anything good to Poland, so
DON'T EXPECT I WILL BE LOVING THEM. Even now Russia is doing everything to attack Poland, but now it uses oil instead of tanks. Cegorach has his onw point of view, I'm having my own. And I won't change it due to political correctness.

Subedei - if someone tell the truth you don't accept, you call it stereotypes.
So I hope you will never meet russian army during war. Otherwise you meet your stereotype.

[Kraxis]

Fine that is it... This thread will not develop further.