Interesting fact about today's military parade in Warsaw

[cegorach]

It will be the very first time when after-1989 celebrations of the day of Polish Army will be joined by foreign troops.

What is really interesting is that they are French soldiers from the First Artillery Regiment from Belfort where Napoleon Bonaparte served as an ordinary soldier and today is actually Napoleon's birthday !

So the question is what are they celebrating ? :wink:





BTW I like the fact they are there, some French soldiers actually fought during the war against the Reds on our side and even if I see the entire centuries long 'frienship' with France as a waste of time (except Napoleonic period) and one big fiasco, but during those celebrations French soldiers actually deserve their part.
I think that there should be Ukrainians ( Poland was allied with Ukraine), Belorussians (similar case) and Americans ( 'Kosciuszko' volunteer squadron was fighting for a large part of the war), though I would laugh a lot if there will be anyone British. :wink:

[InsaneApache]

though I would laugh a lot if there will be anyone British

Why's that? We started WWII honouring our treaty obligations to Poland. It was a constant source of unease and shame that we were unable to help Poland achieve freedom and independence when the war ended.

Anyroad our troops can march in step and we wouldn't wish to embarrass our continental friends, now would we. :wink:

[Gregoshi]

It was a constant source of unease and shame that we were unable to help Poland achieve freedom and independence when the war ended.

I'm reading Eisenhour by David Eisenhour and I'm at the closing days of the war. Churchill pushed as hard as he could to counter Stalin's aim to have a communist government in Poland. Alas, the US did not back up his efforts very strenuously. Churchill also tried to airlift in relief for Warsaw as the Poles rose up and fought the Germans while the Red army stood miles away and did nothing to help. England did as best they could to do right by Poland, so you can't fault them for not trying.

BTW, cegorach, if you go to the parade, take some pictures and post'em please. :bow:

[cegorach]

Why's that? We started WWII honouring our treaty obligations to Poland. It was a constant source of unease and shame that we were unable to help Poland achieve freedom and independence when the war ended.

Anyroad our troops can march in step and we wouldn't wish to embarrass our continental friends, now would we. :wink:



THE HOLIDAY commemorates the battle at Warsaw during Polish-Russo war of 1918-20 and I don'y think there is any reason to honour the British.
Sorry, but I believe only those who fought during that war deserve their place during the parade.

Lloyd George wasn't the most 'helpful' person at that time - unless help equals his support to capitulation proposals sent by the Reds.;)


It has nothing to do with the II WW so it is not a good idea to discuss it. As a side note I can only add that after years of researching the question of allied 'help' during the 2nd WW I can only repeat - 'never before were so many betrayed by so few for so little' (a RAF officer's words spoken 1945) - the British are seen as totally untrustworthy people here. But THIS ENDS the question of the 2nd WW NOW, the parade has nothing to do with it anyway.





Gregoshi



England did as best they could to do right by Poland, so you can't fault them for not trying.

NO it didn't - in fact its inactivity was appaling, but that is not a place to discuss it anyway.

I suggest 'Rising '44' of N.Davies for more accurate information regarding the international background of the battle.


BTW, cegorach, if you go to the parade, take some pictures and post'em please.


I am not from Warsaw.

Besides you can watch some videos if you want anyway.

http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1518086,wiadomosc.html

but if you want some pictures here you have

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/gid,9114998,kat,32834,galeriazdjecie.html

[Gregoshi]

Sorry cegorach, you weren't clear on the purpose of the parade. I assumed it was WW2. My bad. I didn't mean to touch on such a sore spot either.



Sorry, but I believe only those who fought during that war deserve their place during the parade.


Of course.

Wish there was more footage of the parade itself, but it looked good (and well attended) from what there was. Thanks for the links.

[Marshal Murat]

Ceg.

I'm sorry that the U.S. squadrons couldn't have done more.
It's an unwritten chapter in our history that airplane squadron and what they did (or tried to do).

Have fun!

[Papewaio]

It has nothing to do with the II WW so it is not a good idea to discuss it. As a side note I can only add that after years of researching the question of allied 'help' during the 2nd WW I can only repeat - 'never before were so many betrayed by so few for so little' (a RAF officer's words spoken 1945) - the British are seen as totally untrustworthy people here. But THIS ENDS the question of the 2nd WW NOW, the parade has nothing to do with it anyway.


I think you should read up about WWI and the British invading Turkey.

Then you should read up about ANZAC day and Gallopolli. Then you can see how a mature nation (Turkey) deals with that day of remembrance for a foreign invader. They have set up a shrine on their soil for foreign nations that invaded them and allow the remembrance to be held annually. Nowadays Turkey, Australia and New Zealand remember the fallen on both sides as friends not as enemies as they once were.

ANZAC day although a remembrance day that started for remembering WWI also encompasses all other wars fought by Australia and New Zealand since that time. It is a day of reflection and remembering all sides in these conflicts.

ANZAC day is an ironic occasion too, it was a massacre for the Australians and the New Zealanders, a tactical and strategic defeat of them by Ataturk... we were spanked royally. So we celebrate a major defeat, and the location of the event Gallopolli is a sacred place to both sides. The main Turkish mosque in Sydney is called Gallopolli in remembrance of both sides of the conflict too. I find it a nice thing that old enemies are now friends.

[Louis VI the Fat]

BTW I like the fact they are there, some French soldiers actually fought during the war against the Reds on our side and even if I see the entire centuries long 'frienship' with France as a waste of time (except Napoleonic period) and one big fiasco,Gah. France and Poland ally to counter the German threat, Germany and Russia ally to divide Poland. They win, we lose. Suxx.
Mate, trust me, if it was up to me, we would've burned down Moscow and Berlin for you. Beats the alternative. But it was not to be, hey? It's Europe, you win some, you lose some. I'm not blaming Poland for not crushing the Germans in 1939, I don't blame the English for abandoning the continent in 1940, I don't blame the Americans for not wanting to have anything to do with Old World madness until it was nearly too late. And I don't blame England, Prussia, Austria and Russia for ganging up on us in 1815. And I don't blame the Italians for those pesky Roman legions they send.

I especially don't care about military parades and who did what when. All I care about is a peaceful Europe of befriended nations who don't give in to the madness ever again.


I think that there should be Ukrainians ( Poland was allied with Ukraine), Belorussians (similar case) and Americans ( 'Kosciuszko' volunteer squadron was fighting for a large part of the war), though I would laugh a lot if there will be anyone British.The British are your EU partners, your future, your livelihood, your holiday destination and your endless supply of hot lasses.
So who cares what regiment of illiterate peasants was sent where by silly monarchs and despots 6000 years ago...

[KukriKhan]

So who cares what regiment of illiterate peasants was sent where by silly monarchs and despots 6000 years ago...

Someday, a couple of gernerations from now, 20-something Abdul in Baghdad will write those exact words to his friend, Ariel, in Tel Aviv, when they're discussing the foul-ups we made at the turn of this century.

[Gregoshi]

Someday, a couple of gernerations from now, 20-something Abdul in Baghdad will write those exact words to his friend, Ariel, in Tel Aviv, when they're discussing the foul-ups we made at the turn of this century.

~:cheers: Cheers to that.

[Brenus]

Louis, we had this conversation long before. Gegorach got another point of view which is France and England should have attack anyway. You will not convince him: he is a victim… of History.:inquisitive:

[cegorach]

Ceg.

I'm sorry that the U.S. squadrons couldn't have done more.
It's an unwritten chapter in our history that airplane squadron and what they did (or tried to do).

Have fun!

They did fine. Actually when I was trying to find why USA is so popular in Poland I found that it has to be from that period 1917-22 - Wilson's support to the independence, charity organisations helpind during the time of 'spanish flu' and other diseases and other actions including the volunteer squadron.
No later mistake or failure managed to spoil that - even FDR.:2thumbsup:


Louis VI the Fat



BTW I like the fact they are there, some French soldiers actually fought during the war against the Reds on our side and even if I see the entire centuries long 'frienship' with France as a waste of time (except Napoleonic period) and one big fiasco,
Gah. France and Poland ally to counter the German threat, Germany and Russia ally to divide Poland. They win, we lose. Suxx.

Jeez, but I guess I will say the same - 'friendship' with France was a failure. In politics we need someone more reliable - it would be our neighbours I believe - states which have in general similar problems and similar memories - that is why one thing doesn't change - that Ukraine and Belorus membership in the EU is supported here.
For the same reasons the USA is seen as the best choice for the another ally. The UK and France should be not trusted - that is the lesson we gained, though it doesn't exclude alliance with them, simply they need to be made to do something, not only supposed to do.
But even this can fail as we seen in 1939 - the only rational choice not to save us, but to save them was totally wrecked. One can ask himself/herself how to secure your country against such a total inability to act properly, even more to act the way everyone would.



Mate, trust me, if it was up to me, we would've burned down Moscow and Berlin for you. Beats the alternative. But it was not to be, hey? It's Europe, you win some, you lose some.

I am sorry, but I have no such desire. I am afraid it is much easier to find friendship with Germany than with the UK and France - they admitted their faults - Brits and French didn't and that is where the entire problem lies.



I especially don't care about military parades and who did what when. All I care about is a peaceful Europe of befriended nations who don't give in to the madness ever again.


Sorry, but ignorance and amnesia is not the way. History must be discussed and certain actions HAVE to be done, even simple gestures can really change much.
LACK of such is seen as not 'giving up' a subject, but rather as inability to see one's mistakes and pure, old fashioned, imperial ARROGANCE.
In order to create such a friendly comanionship you need not only to do what you think, but also to do what others expect FROM YOU. Historical empathy...
You cannot just say 'ok that sucks let's start everything from the beginning and if you have a problem with that you are a moron'.
Thank you.



The British are your EU partners, your future, your livelihood, your holiday destination and your endless supply of hot lasses.
So who cares what regiment of illiterate peasants was sent where by silly monarchs and despots 6000 years ago...

THe UK is the obvious choice in the EU, I can only agree to that, but with A LOT of scepticism, entire freaking 8 000 meter high MOUNTAINS, entire bloody Mars vulcano sized dosage of scepticism. On the very brink of paranoia, almost paranoia in that case.
Though I wonder - is it possible to secure yourself against everything ? Of course it is not and sometimes you cannot do anything to save yourself, but if the only excuse your ally has is that he wasn't able to save himself too when it was his turn the only thought I personally have is that a) life sucks, b) you should have told us you cannot, c) should I care at all you are so lausy fighters you couldn't defend your own country - from my selfish point of view I would expect the kind of an action you promised and at least no cover up and inabilyty to admit your failures afterwards.
That it all about - about lack of empathy, lack of memory, MORE some sort of an expectation that your sins will not be reminded, that 'we can all be friends', 'leave past to the past', 'live in peace' - GUESS NOT - historical memory of pissed off people, especially tends to need some sort of a gesture, not the endless slogans from bloody flower power generation politicians.
Forgiveness is EARNED by actions, not by wiping your own memory and demanding the same from the others.
I don't have a problem with any people on personal level, but on the evel of international security I would tend to ask MANY, MANY detailed questions which might make some people ask themselves 'isn't that they don't trust us for some reason ?' - even if that will be seen as not convenient or especially rude.

[InsaneApache]

You're not into positive thinking and 'letting go' are you? :inquisitive:

You claim that the UK and France have a lot to answer for in 1939/40. I was wondering what you think the UK and France should have done? There was that trifling little detail of the Third Reich in the way, physically.

By the time the troops had been deployed in northern Europe the Polish campaign was finished. There's not a great deal you can do to help an ally who has already been beaten.

I agree with one aspect though. Technically the western powers should have declared war on the Soviet Union in October 1939. Realpolitik would suggest otherwise however.

[cegorach]

You're not into positive thinking and 'letting go' are you? :inquisitive:


Of course NOT. On personal level I have no problem with that, but this is history and we must learn from it.
I believe it will be relatively easy to forgive and 'let go', but only if the second side actually ADMITS its failure and that is NOT the case here unfortunatelly.




You claim that the UK and France have a lot to answer for in 1939/40. I was wondering what you think the UK and France should have done? There was that trifling little detail of the Third Reich in the way, physically.

Easy. Do something - total inactivity of the Allies meant that one dropped bomb anywhere except a naval base would be A HUGE improvement

The French shouldn't LIE to us about their offensive 'due to be launched' from MAY 1939 when they DECIDED that 'future of Poland lies with the final outcome of the war' - perhaps this way Polish defence would actually take this into consideration, but conveniently they were not informed - worse were reassured several times.

The British might not put the pressure they did to cancell Polish mobilisation in 1939. Thankfully Polish HQ secretly continued with more critical issues such as re-location of the airforce to filed airstrips.
Still the cancelled mobilisation (re-newed after few days) meant that roughly 25 % of Polish forces were not ready - if Poland listened to the UK... you can imagine...for example no Polish and Czech pilots in the battle of Britain and most likely no 'Enigma' breakthrough for another 1-2 years (pretty important years actually) - if you ask for some result affecting the situation of the UK.
Of course I could also add some details about 'not bombing private property' or 'confetti war' and how many lives that spared, but that would be too easy.

You asked and here is the answer.

And what can REALLY BE done ? I guess starting with more gestures and apologies on state level in some cases because for now we have the endless denials and cases of selective amnesia - it really makes me wonder how the country which apologises for slavery (despite the fact it was historically essential in stopping the slave trade worldwide) DOESN'T apologise in case where it is so bloody, plain obvious.

[Pannonian]

For the same reasons the USA is seen as the best choice for the another ally. The UK and France should be not trusted - that is the lesson we gained, though it doesn't exclude alliance with them, simply they need to be made to do something, not only supposed to do.
But even this can fail as we seen in 1939 - the only rational choice not to save us, but to save them was totally wrecked. One can ask himself/herself how to secure your country against such a total inability to act properly, even more to act the way everyone would.

By the time the Germans invaded in 1939, you had already got yourself into a position where nothing could have saved you. Your last chance of salvation was in 1938, when the Soviets offered a strong 2-front coalition guaranteeing action should Czechoslovakia be violated. That would have meant, in the event of a German invasion of Czechoslovakia, Soviet troops moving through Poland to attack Germany from the east while the British and French attacked from the west - Germany would have been squashed without a chance in the middle. Perhaps the Russians would have stayed after the invasion instead of withdrawing, but at least the British and French would have been in a position to dispute Poland with them, instead of having been bled dry as was the case in the OTL.

But you rejected that, so don't blame us for being powerless to do anything to help. You rejected any chance of allowing us to help, and it's not as if we didn't try (we lost an empire in the attempt). Imagine a Kuwait appealing to the US for help in ejecting the Iraqis in 1990, but rejecting all help that might involve relations with Saudi. For all the good intentions in the world, they would be imposing conditions that made their demand impossible. That was the position Poland had placed itself in in 1939.

[Husar]

I especially don't care about military parades and who did what when. All I care about is a peaceful Europe of befriended nations who don't give in to the madness ever again.
:2thumbsup: :knuddel:


Of course NOT. On personal level I have no problem with that, but this is history and we must learn from it.
And you obviously didn't. One thing we can learn from history is that people and entire nations can change, might also have to do with the fact that governments change. you however are saying the French and British were unreliable today just because they were more than 60 years ago. and concerning Germans and WW2, I'm sorry "we" ever did that, but I don't personally feel guilty or think I owe anyone anything. That's why I also don't like nationalism based on the great deeds of ancestors, quite simply, the great deeds of you ancestors might make them great, but greatness is not genetical so they don't make you great. It's the same with football/soccer/any sport, people try to stick to a team and think it somehow makes them better/greater if the team wins even theough their own participation was limited to sitting passively in front of a TV screen.

Or in other words, just because Bismarck was a great German(IMO), doesn't mean that Hitler was a great German as well, despite him thinking so. Even worse, he thought Germans were great because of the middle ages and created one of the biggest wars ever on that.

Yeah, I have a habit to avoid sticking to a group that creates outsiders because I usually like the other people as well. I know that makes me great, but it has nothing to do with my ancestors. ~;)

[Brenus]

“Hitler was a great German”. Austrian.:beam:
No need to argue with Cegorach. He read in history want he wants, ignoring the politico-military facts:
“In September 1939 the Bomber Command consisted of 55 squadrons (920 aircraft). However, only about 350 of these were suitable for long-range operations. Fighter Command had 39 squadrons (600 aircraft) but the RAF only had 96 reconnaissance aircraft. The performance of the RAF was considered disappointing during Germany's offensive in 1940. It emerged that daylight bombing against German targets was highly costly against modern fighter planes. By the end of the campaign the RAF had lost more than 900 aircraft.
On the outbreak of the war, the BEF took up defensive positions along the Franco-Belgian frontier; the force included four regular infantry divisions and 50 light tanks.

In terms of equipment, the French Air Force was also inferior to the Luftwaffe, in both quantity and quality. The French Air Force entered the 1940 Campaign with only 1,200 aircraft against the German total of 3,200 aircraft. Moreover, the bulk of France’s aircraft was obsolete equipment, accumulated from the 1920s and early 1930s, and was inferior in both speed and range to those manufactured in Germany. Unlike the German aircraft, the bulk of the French aircraft were not equipped with radio communication.
Concerning the Army the French military degenerated into a tragic state of inertia after the Great War. The French military minds were closed to new innovations and new tactics. Technological advances, which had made possible faster planes, heavily armoured tanks and radio communication, were received with much scepticism. Other than the conversion of five infantry divisions and a cavalry division into light mechanised divisions, the French military of 1940 had virtually shown no progress since the last war. The first two divisions were created in January 1940, while a third was only added in April 1940.
To make the things even worst, the French doctrine which emphasised static defence and “methodical battle” was conduct by inept generals, from Gamelin, Weygand to the final traitor Petain.

All that together (and the fact that Belgium had said to fight against the Allies if they crossed her territory) would have produce a superb relieve offensive to Poland. Right…:sweatdrop:

And I did enjoy seeing the Polish Troops for the 14th of July… And the Germans, and the British, and the Slovenes, Slovaks, Spanish, all EU countries which fought happily each others during centuries celebrating one other National Day, like the French and the Spanish Fleet being present in Trafalgar Celebration…

All that wasn’t really the subject, but I am sure that our friends Cegorach will explain that whatever, our Grand-fathers (French and English) should have charge anyway, and we should apologised because they didn’t.:inquisitive:

[Husar]

Austrian.:beam:
I was hoping noone would notice, I hope my point was clear nonetheless.:sweatdrop:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sorry, but ignorance and amnesia is not the way. History must be discussed and certain actions HAVE to be done, even simple gestures can really change much.
LACK of such is seen as not 'giving up' a subject, but rather as inability to see one's mistakes and pure, old fashioned, imperial ARROGANCE.
In order to create such a friendly comanionship you need not only to do what you think, but also to do what others expect FROM YOU. Historical empathy...
You cannot just say 'ok that sucks let's start everything from the beginning and if you have a problem with that you are a moron'.
Thank you.Just to be sure: my 'madness' referred to belligerent nationalism, not to any parade or anything anybody posted here.


Do you know what the French national symbol is? It is a cock. It constantly swells itself to look more impressive than it really is.*

It is very apt, and I'll let you in on a little known, well-guarded secret: France is not as powerful as she pretends she is. (Sshh...don't tell anyone).
The balance of power in Europe shifted somewhere during the last decades of the 19th century. France could no longer alone take on either heavily industrialised Germany, or Russia with its limitless supply of resources and people.
Hence an alliance with France alone could not secure Polands integrity against the designs of these two nations. It couldn't. Never mind against the two of them together, not to mention: the integrity of an authoritarian and itself underdeveloped Poland.

So apologies - my arse. We fought, we lost and paid a heavy price for it. At least we went down as a democracy, something which can not be said of all of Hitlers enemies in 1939...
What would you have us do? March to Berlin? I knew I could count on Brenus to give you the numbers. Tell Poland to mobilize in 1939? Maybe we should have, but let's not let myth get in the way of a sense of realism here: a fully mobilised Poland would still have been crushed within three weeks.

Yes, France and Britain couldn't have conducted their foreign policiy any worse in the 1930's. I am quite aware of that. For Pete's sake, half the posts about France here have been about our devastating defeat, the other half now is about some glorious French army that refused to ride out to save Europe. ~:confused:

As for empathy for 1920 - why? For not supporting a Poland that installed a petty dictator and had designs against Germany, the Ukraine and Russia?


* Edit: Just to be sure, with all you dirty-minded foreigners around: I am, of course, talking about the animal.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That it all about - about lack of empathy, lack of memory, MORE some sort of an expectation that your sins will not be reminded, that 'we can all be friends', 'leave past to the past', 'live in peace' - GUESS NOT - historical memory of pissed off people, especially tends to need some sort of a gesture, not the endless slogans from bloody flower power generation politicians.
As for flower-power generation: Yes, I will have myself a nice Kolner pils at the Rhine with Husar. I'll bring him a bottle of the finest champagne. InsaneApache can join too - if he promises not to bring any of those horrible British bitters. Why don't you join the party too?

You know, we always disagree on this forum, but I actually love Poland, believe it or not. I've been there twice. Great place, Cracow is gorgeous, there are friendly people everywhere. Then I read the newspaper, or posts here by Polish members, and I don't see where Polands insecure nationalism is coming from. That weird brew of extreme nationalism, of mistrust and xenophobia, that hurt tone, historical fixation. Why? It is so counter-productive. Poland is a great country with a very promising future.

Poland reminds me of what plagued the Republic of Ireland for so long - forever suffering not from too much history, but from too much historical awareness. My prediction is that Poland will follow Irelands path: Poland will continue its current annual growth rates of seven percent for fifteen years, and by then nobody will be interested anymore in building Polands national identity on some half-mythological (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=90035) wrongdoings of the past.




Hitler was a great German.
Come on, Husar. That's no way of handling your past. For a nice and glorious past and a happily inflated sense of self-esteem why not take lessons from the masters - us: When they win, they are French. When they lose, they are Corsicans. :beam:

[KafirChobee]

Going against tanks with cavalry was heroic, but not very practical. Regardless, the Poles fought with courage and bravery against insurmountable odds - and lost. As others have noted, how could it have gone better? Sad, but there really was nothing to be done.

That the Western democracys were unable to save Poland after the war - how pray tell? Suppose Eisenhower could have risked WWIII. Truman, well he dismissed his advisors and believed he could control his good friend Stalin - and attain the freedom of Eastern Europe through negotiation; that was the plan anyway. Naive as it sounds today. Ike went with the Truman doctrine of containing the commies - and it sorta worked ... sorta.

That Poland stands tall today, ought to forgive some of the :oops: of former and present allies. It's a different world.

Remember reading about a Pole cavalry unit charging the Nazi tanks when I was young and thinking, "what balls!" Believe I would have shot my horse first. :ahh:

tiptoes quietly out ... lets grownups go back to their discussion

[Marshal Murat]

I thought that the cavalry charge was against WW1 troops, and was disproved.:404:

[Husar]

Come on, Husar. That's no way of handling your past. For a nice and glorious past and a happily inflated sense of self-esteem why not take lessons from the masters - us: When they win, they are French. When they lose, they are Corsicans. :beam:
I usually do it this way but in this case it kind of destroys my point.:sweatdrop:
Then again, you can easily swap Hitler with Wilhelm II. or any other not-so-intelligent person born here, if you're in doubt, I'd say just pick me, but I already explained why I'm great.:eyebrows:

[Brenus]

“When they win, they are French. When they lose, they are Corsicans”: Addendum: When they win, we are French, when they loose they are Corsicans…:laugh4:

Kafirchobee, the lancers didn’t charge the tanks, but the infantry behind the tanks, breaking the couple, which was the western doctrine against the Red Army in the 80’…
The French Spahis did the same, it slow down the troop; tanks were obliged to withdraw to rescue their infantry… I in fact interviewed one of the guy who actually did it, it turned out when I was doing my research on Indochina Veterans.

[KrooK]

And all in all Poland everyone is blaming Poland, because we are nationalists , antisemites and mad people who keep charging cav vs tanks (btw how many times you explained that situation:dizzy2: ):help:

You see cegorach, ho stupid are we :2thumbsup: If we helped sending Jews to Auschwitz like Frenchmen did or if we joined SS legions like Dutchmen, we would be happy into United Europe. There would be no Jews we could hate (all of them would be finished once for ever) so we would be happy cosmopolitans and respected members of .org community:2thumbsup:

And of course we should have allowed Russians on entering Poland into 1938. Absolutely!!!!
Everything would be so cheap with that move - Russians would conquer Poland without shot and France and UK wouldn't have to support. Who cares that Russians would kill us even faster than Germans:) There would have been no geographical problems int EU.

As Herman Goring told once uppon a time. "Into Sept 1939 we were most afraid of situation when 100 french divisions on western front attack 20 german ones." :wall: Luckily into 1920 Poland count only on Poland.

I wish we were like Ireland. I think they are one of best nations into EU. Friendly, hard working and respecting others. And I agree with Cegorach - nowaydays any alliance with France is worthless. I can discuss about UK but we shouldn't make alliance with untrustable France.

[cegorach]

By the time the Germans invaded in 1939, you had already got yourself into a position where nothing could have saved you.


Interesting...




Your last chance of salvation was in 1938, when the Soviets offered a strong 2-front coalition guaranteeing action should Czechoslovakia be violated. That would have meant, in the event of a German invasion of Czechoslovakia, Soviet troops moving through Poland to attack Germany from the east while the British and French attacked from the west - Germany would have been squashed without a chance in the middle.

Ohhh THAT ???:laugh4: Sorry, but you are assuming that France and the UK actually ATTACK. That would be PERFECTLY enough in 1939 without NY NEED for some imagined Soviet assistance. IN 1938 German army was even weaker and Czechoslovak force + Polish on one side and French and British on the other sde = total defeat of Germany.



Perhaps the Russians would have stayed after the invasion instead of withdrawing, but at least the British and French would have been in a position to dispute Poland with them, instead of having been bled dry as was the case in the OTL.

Perhaps ? For sure they would stay !

Anyway I don't get your point - anyone would tell you that it was ENOUGH if the French army moved and attacked, no need for imagined assistance of Soviet 'allies'.


But you rejected that, so don't blame us for being powerless to do anything to help. You rejected any chance of allowing us to help, and it's not as if we didn't try (we lost an empire in the attempt). Imagine a Kuwait appealing to the US for help in ejecting the Iraqis in 1990, but rejecting all help that might involve relations with Saudi. For all the good intentions in the world, they would be imposing conditions that made their demand impossible. That was the position Poland had placed itself in in 1939.

RUBBISH. The entire point of your post is to blame Poland. Everyone with at least BASIC knowledge of strategy will tell you that only assistance of ONE country mattered i.e. of France but I guess it is always better to blame the Poles for not letting the Soviets to peacefully annex their own country.:smash:

Now prove me wrong that Soviet Union was NECESSARY to defeat Germany in 1939 or 1938 - I AM WAITING.:whip:



Husar



Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Of course NOT. On personal level I have no problem with that, but this is history and we must learn from it.
And you obviously didn't. One thing we can learn from history is that people and entire nations can change, might also have to do with the fact that governments change. you however are saying the French and British were unreliable today just because they were more than 60 years ago. and concerning Germans and WW2,

Geopolitics DON'T. I assume that our neighbours and the USA can be the only real allies we could have. Polish strategy in 1939 was based on help from the UK and France too much, hard to find any other possibility actually at that time, but now it is simply safer to assume that such countries, far away or without much interest here cannot be trusted to the same degree.



I'm sorry "we" ever did that, but I don't personally feel guilty or think I owe anyone anything. That's why I also don't like nationalism based on the great deeds of ancestors, quite simply, the great deeds of you ancestors might make them great, but greatness is not genetical so they don't make you great. It's the same with football/soccer/any sport, people try to stick to a team and think it somehow makes them better/greater if the team wins even theough their own participation was limited to sitting passively in front of a TV screen.

Or in other words, just because Bismarck was a great German(IMO), doesn't mean that Hitler was a great German as well, despite him thinking so. Even worse, he thought Germans were great because of the middle ages and created one of the biggest wars ever on that.

Yeah, I have a habit to avoid sticking to a group that creates outsiders because I usually like the other people as well. I know that makes me great, but it has nothing to do with my ancestors.

And what this little declaration has to do with anything here ?





Brenus



No need to argue with Cegorach. He read in history want he wants, ignoring the politico-military facts:

It is always your chooice to listen or to ignore.




“In September 1939 the Bomber Command consisted of 55 squadrons (920 aircraft). However, only about 350 of these were suitable for long-range operations. Fighter Command had 39 squadrons (600 aircraft) but the RAF only had 96 reconnaissance aircraft. The performance of the RAF was considered disappointing during Germany's offensive in 1940. It emerged that daylight bombing against German targets was highly costly against modern fighter planes. By the end of the campaign the RAF had lost more than 900 aircraft.

ONE. Poland was PROMISED assistance and build its defensive plan accordingly.

If you cannot deliver hellp DON'T promise it.

TWO. In 1939 German airforce was fighting in Poland - only a small token force was left in the west.



In terms of equipment, the French Air Force was also inferior to the Luftwaffe, in both quantity and quality. The French Air Force entered the 1940 Campaign with only 1,200 aircraft against the German total of 3,200 aircraft. Moreover, the bulk of France’s aircraft was obsolete equipment, accumulated from the 1920s and early 1930s, and was inferior in both speed and range to those manufactured in Germany. Unlike the German aircraft, the bulk of the French aircraft were not equipped with radio communication.

AGAIN. In 1939 only a token airforce was left in the west, mostly to guard coastal areas.
Virtually WHOLE Luftwaffe was fighting in Poland and first units were sloly relocated from the second week of the campaign, NO SOONER.

If British and French airforces had even 50 aircrafts it would BE PROBABLY more than the Germans had THE West.

Besides if the Allies were not able to do anythin in 1939 they should NOT promise so much and OPENLY LIE about the help.
Military plans are BASED on such statements.

Not a single German soldier in September 1939 was relocated to the west due to Allied pressure, NOT A one, despite OPEN, NUMEROUS AND REPEATED PROMISES AND CLAIMS.




And I did enjoy seeing the Polish Troops for the 14th of July… And the Germans, and the British, and the Slovenes, Slovaks, Spanish, all EU countries which fought happily each others during centuries celebrating one other National Day, like the French and the Spanish Fleet being present in Trafalgar Celebration…

Don't you dare. I know the trick - me/us open and forgiving and polite and friendly vs. you selfish/bitter/whatever - bad anyway.

For international parades you can have 11th November (Our independence day) or 3rd May (our national holiday), but celebrations of the battle for warsaw and the day of our military is for those who deserve it.



All that wasn’t really the subject, but I am sure that our friends Cegorach will explain that whatever, our Grand-fathers (French and English) should have charge anyway, and we should apologised because they didn’t

You have it above - plain and simple.

Promises, empty promises and lies - none told you to misinform Polish general staff about 'massive offensive on its way' at that time when no such action was planned, MORE it was decided in May 1939 it will NOT happen.

But that would be too simple wouldn't be ?


Louis VI the Fat



Just to be sure: my 'madness' referred to belligerent nationalism, not to any parade or anything anybody posted here.

OK.



Hence an alliance with France alone could not secure Polands integrity against the designs of these two nations.

It wasn't supposed to. It was perfectly enough if the promises dto do something against Germany were delivered at least a little.




It couldn't. Never mind against the two of them together

Find me a place where I said it WAS supposed to. Soviet attack actually suprised everyone, so no bother there, however THE ENTIRE POlish strategy was based on French and British promies that help will be delivered QUICKLY, those claims were repeated long after both states were quite sure thay cannot organise anything and were repeated in September 1939.
More French general staff (mis-)INFORMED the POlish counterparts that 'the offensive is on it way', that 'the bulk of our forces is fighting', that 'me engaged numerous German divisions' - sadly Germany somehow didn't notice such massive attack, smae with large scale British bomber raids this country promised.

There is a moment when realpolitic doesn't justify such lies - especially when the fighting is already started and expectation of a relief is growing with every day.




, not to mention: the integrity of an authoritarian and itself underdeveloped Poland.

I guess you had to be industralised and fully democratic like Czechoslovakia to get French assistance ?


...Hey... wait...:inquisitive:



What would you have us do? March to Berlin? I knew I could count on Brenus to give you the numbers. Tell Poland to mobilize in 1939? Maybe we should have, but let's not let myth get in the way of a sense of realism here: a fully mobilised Poland would still have been crushed within three weeks.

Not tell to not mobilise, that would save the defeat of reserve army "Prusy" which led to outflanking of both southern and central front and crossing Vistula.
Actually the misinformation would mean the Polish plan of defence would be much different - if the relief had to come in time of for example two months the general staff would deploy the defenders on the prepared positions they were never able to take during the campaign because it was decided to engage the Germans as soon as possible in order to make the French to launch the attack they promised after 'two weeks of fighting'.




As for empathy for 1920 - why? For not supporting a Poland that installed a petty dictator and had designs against Germany, the Ukraine and Russia?

??? :inquisitive: I suggest to read something about the subject. Virtually every single word in that sentense wouldn't be there if you did.
From 1918 Poland was social-democratic country in every area, sadly the constitution was based on the French one (as in many other 'new' european states') which led to squabbling in mid 1920s and centrist coup of Józef Pilsudski.
And designs against Germany ? You mean Versailles or local uprisings of Polish majority in areas which mostly where in Poland 123 earlier (or even much later like Greater Poland which was a part of the Duchy of Warsaw and had guaranteed autonomy after Vienna in 1815 0 abolished after rebellion of 1848).

Against Ukraine ? The war was to CREATE independent Ukraine - allied to Poland, true, but that was different to others which had no desire for independent Ukraine at all.

Against Russia ? Good joke. The entire contested area had mixed population with large groups of Poles especially in Wilno area and which was a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a century earlier + joined both uprisings in 1831 and 1863 - in any way though it wasn't Russian...:wall:
In other words Poland was 'bad' because it didn't allow the region to get under Soviet control ??:inquisitive:
True the politics were hardly what entente wanted - they had some desire for reborn tzarist Russia 9which wouldn't enven recognise indeppendent Poland, but don't bother...) and nothing else. Poland by trying to create Miedzymorze (inter-sea) federation clearly had other ideas so it was not convenient...
But never mind - France didn't do anything AGAINST Poland at that time, the UK DID - but British plans were not even in any sense related to that idea - Lloyd George was interested in 'stability' in the region and he didn't really care if Poland is of that or another size as long as it doesn't take 'german' Silesia and doesn't fight the Soviets even if it becomes their puppet (the peace proposal he supported).

Besides I didn't even mention France here in negative sense - ON THE CONTRARY.



You know, we always disagree on this forum, but I actually love Poland, believe it or not. I've been there twice. Great place, Cracow is gorgeous, there are friendly people everywhere


And I like French culture, Russian literature, English language and Brtish culture, but that is NOT the point.


. Then I read the newspaper, or posts here by Polish members, and I don't see where Polands insecure nationalism is coming from.

It is a different topic, but I am happy to deal with that.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO different stances.

One is:


That weird brew of extreme nationalism, of mistrust and xenophobia

That is sometimes expressed by nationalist-right here and certain more conservative people. It is totally based on this sense of BETRAYAL and spite bordering paranoia.


, that hurt tone, historical fixation.

Historical 'fixation' is common in the entire region, especially in Poland because of persecution and those three (at least) attempts to eradicate us utterly as people, as culture and as a phrase in language (yes I mean the word 'Poland' and related) - this is always present somewhere, in subconsciousness always somewhere as evil spirit telling 'I told you so they will never change'.

The 'hurt tone' is the direct consequence of this 'Western betrayal' complex which is sadly feeded by the other side.
Simply it is quite hard not to believe in trust if you were abandoned and that betrayal is not only not admitted, but DEFENDED to the point of utter absurd.

This approach is present virtually everywhere here, in everyone who doesn't follow the first stance.

I am a liberal after all.


Why? It is so counter-productive. Poland is a great country with a very promising future.

Only if it is the first stance. Second one assumes that the future is very important, but the past CANNOT be forgotten and SHOULD be discussed, EXPLAINED until RECONCILLIATION is achived - see our relations with Ukraine - those were TERRIBLE only 40 years ago and now are almost perfect - Poland supports Ukrinian attempts to jon the western organisations, was the first country to recognise its independence and now we will prepare Euro 2012...

The problem I find disturbing in contacts with some western mambers is that they long time ago assumed that history is to be forgotten or is not worth a discussion. That + the stable, virtually fossilized vision of the past, of 'known' facts which become myths means that EVERYONE who tries to undermine that is seen as a nationalist, troublemaker or someone who cannot be treated seriously.

Add that to the ignorance about Poland which you mentioned some time ago in a PM and you have the problem.

Because the very myths and legends about this part of Europe are under assault some people react by attacking the people who question them. An undestandable reaction to be sure, but too often it is simply assumed that past is past and it cannot/shouln't be discussed...

The problem is that from my point you cannot have stable, honest relationship if you cannot reach an agreement in areas which ARE DIFFICULT.
This western betrayal is like cancer and without some gestures from the other side this ' weird brew of extreme nationalism, of mistrust and xenophobia' is only supported and will resurface every time someone in France or the Uk does/says something stupid - every freaking time....



Poland reminds me of what plagued the Republic of Ireland for so long - forever suffering not from too much history, but from too much historical awareness. My prediction is that Poland will follow Irelands path: Poland will continue its current annual growth rates of seven percent for fifteen years, and by then nobody will be interested anymore in building Polands national identity on some half-mythological wrongdoings of the past.

The Irish have it more or less admitted by the other side - I would be happy to see a movie made by someone from Fance or the UK about the topic just like directors from the UK deal with Ireland nowadays.
It reminds me too, but remember that the whole problem is far more complex and far more larger - after all the Irish had (many still have - I have seen it first hand living there for some time and doing research in Irish nationalism for years ) problems almost only limited to the UK - we have issues with France, the UK, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Belorus, Lithuania and the USA...
Notice that reconciliation with Ukraine is faring very well, it is getting from good to better with Lithuania ( they had cerain 'colonial' complex towards Poland), similar with Czechs, it is really good with Americans and it is very well with Germany - even this 'bastard' government of us and their 'expelled' organisations won't spoil it anyway - besides at least our part of the quarrel ends this October ( early elections).
Belorus will have to wait for a change of government obviously (though we have gret progress with their opposition) so only the UK and France are left.
Only about one decade earlier if you were English ( not Scottish or Welsh) you could got beaten only because of your nationality here in less civilised and drunk company - now you can only expect severe words acting as imagined razor sharp bledes to trash the 'trator'.
The French have comparably easier - only because strong cultural bonds, Napoleon and the fact they are seen as almost proverbial losers - so only if people like J.Chirac say something about 'staying silent' the old accusations of betrayal reappear.

About the Russians I won't speak - their present government has no desire for any form of reconcilliation which even makes Yeltsin era comparably better. Currently if you don't praise 'Soviet liberation' you got accused for fascism out there and every difficult subject is duly removed from schoolbooks.
Still at least we are not at war and that is a huge progress.




KafirChobee


Going against tanks with cavalry was heroic, but not very practical. Regardless, the Poles fought with courage and bravery against insurmountable odds - and lost. As others have noted, how could it have gone better? Sad, but there really was nothing to be done.

That charge never happened...:wall: I have no idea how many times I have said so, though. This time I will advise to chech the Wikipedia or any other source.

About inability to deliver help. It is a little different than about empty promises and open lies and misinformation - but I already said that above so I am not going to repeat it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Poland reminds me of what plagued the Republic of Ireland for so long - forever suffering not from too much history, but from too much historical awareness. My prediction is that Poland will follow Irelands path: Poland will continue its current annual growth rates of seven percent for fifteen years, and by then nobody will be interested anymore in building Polands national identity on some half-mythological (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=90035) wrongdoings of the past.

:yes:

Good post, Louis.


I wish we were like Ireland. I think they are one of best nations into EU. Friendly, hard working and respecting others.

Thank you. We appreciate your plumbers too. :beam:

From reading the thread, I ascertain that we were also the bestest friends of Poland in the last war too. After all, we lifted nary a finger to help anyone, promised nothing and therefore made no mistakes to be hated for later.

Craven neutrality ftw - yay for us Irish.

[Papewaio]

Things did alter course after Chamberlain resigned and was replaced by Churchill.

So Britain goes to war against a much more superior power, loses its Empire in the process, lots of prestige, people and power, spends sixty years to pay off this event... Britain only this year paid the US back for war loans (at very reasonable rates), plus the British Empire was no more because of WWII. France got invaded and defeated fighting against the Germans, and just to make it worse Vichy France later on got defeated by the Allies, so France lost twice in WWII. Both nations could have chosen to play total realpolitik and decide not to have declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. Heck they hadn't mobilised against Germany when they had invaded others.

That Britain did and ended up losing so many people for it, that they even had an Army after Dunkirk or an Air Force after the Battle of Britain is amazing in itself. Churchill certainly wanted to fight the Soviets for Poland after Germany was defeated but it was not to be.

That Britain declared war on Germany also meant that the British Colonies did so as well, In fact Britain declared war followed by Australia and New Zealand followed by France (btw this is not a colony of the modern British Empire except in computer games), with the rest coming in particularly quickly. Now really did the British Colonies have to get involved? Not only this but once things were at its worst the Japanese decided to put the boot in, Singapore falling was probably the final nail in the coffin of the British Empire.

To put WWII in context Germany was the superpower of the time, with superior numbers in equipment and technology with the tactics that used these to the max. It would be like nowadays having Poland invaded by the US and expecting UK and France to defeat them with ease... not happening even if it stays a conventional war.

With modern heavy lifting equipment it took the US and the coalition some 4 months to mobilise before they were ready to counter invade Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait. Poland was defeated in 3 weeks, that is far too quick for even modern armies to deal with.

[cegorach]

Things did alter course after Chamberlain resigned and was replaced by Churchill.

So Britain goes to war against a much more superior power, loses its Empire in the process, lots of prestige, people and power, spends sixty years to pay off this event... Britain only this year paid the US back for war loans (at very reasonable rates), plus the British Empire was no more because of WWII. France got invaded and defeated fighting against the Germans, and just to make it worse Vichy France later on got defeated by the Allies, so France lost twice in WWII.

Hmm, but what DOES it supposed to HAVE WITH 1939 ? And especially with false assurance that the help not only WILL be delivered but IS ON ITS WAY - that was repeated from early 1939 to late September 1939 even if never really happened and wasn't actually planned to happen untill some later months of the war.

THe question is why to UNDERMINE the defensive efforts of another state - Polish general staff had to count a number of critical factors which not only didn't materialised, but never happened - you cannot comand an army if your allies tell you they are on the brink of breaching the enemiy defences while in reality their soldiers occupy few empty villages



Both nations could have chosen to play total realpolitik and decide not to have declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. Heck they hadn't mobilised against Germany when they had invaded others.

Hmmm of course they could, they also could not intervene in Norway or don't defend themselves, but lets not go this way, please...



To put WWII in context Germany was the superpower of the time, with superior numbers in equipment and technology with the tactics that used these to the max. It would be like nowadays having Poland invaded by the US and expecting UK and France to defeat them with ease... not happening even if it stays a conventional war.


NO, no, no, no, no... In September 1939 Germany commited 85 % of their army fighting Poland with roughly 30 weak divisions to guard the entire western are from the North Sea to the end of the border with France.
They didn't start redeploying untill some two weaks of the war passed.

You example with the USA is not useful - Germany had army which was elewhere and which was entirely engaged in some fierce battles only a screening force was in the west. Most of Luftwaffe was also commited in Poland.
Major French offensive was all what was necessary, but even this doesn't matter to the my points - it is false promises, misinformation and open lies which all should be considered - not even the ability to deliver those, but the very sense of misinforming Poland to such ridiculous degree...


With modern heavy lifting equipment it took the US and the coalition some 4 months to mobilise before they were ready to counter invade Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait.

Ohh please. Don't use current examples it is like talking about inferiority of feudal infantry tactics compared to Israeli armoured units in the 1960s...




Poland was defeated in 3 weeks, that is far too quick for even modern armies to deal with.

Defeated true, but the 'mopping up' lasted another 2 weeks. Thinking this way the French campaign was over after Dunkirk was reached.

Besides that has nothing to do with this topic just like the modern example about the Gulf War of 1990.


The question is how to call repeated, empty promises and open, utter lies which affected the entire plan of defence of Poland in 1939 - realpolitic ? Yeah righ - betrayal is far better word for that because at that stage it could have only negative consequences to Poland.
I remind that Polan was never informed that the help will not be delivered - quite different it was reassured several times, because there was a sizable level of distruct to Allied will to act.
Even worse is the situation from September 1939 :


The French assault was to be carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armoured division, three mechanized divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions. All the necessary forces were mobilised in the first week of September. On September 12, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately. By then, the French divisions have advanced approximately eight kilometres into Germany on a 24 kilometres long strip of the frontier in the Saarland area. Maurice Gamelin ordered his troops to stop not closer than 1 kilometre from the German positions along the Siegfried Line. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions are in contact with the enemy, and that French advances have forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland, General Louis Faury, informed the Polish Chief of Staff, General Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to September 20. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line. The Phony war started.


And now how the HELL THIS CAN BE EXPLAINED ? that is an open act of military sabotage, of disruption of your ally's plan to defend. And remember that ALL this happened even before the Soviets attacked and before the most intense part of the fighting during the Polish Defensive War of 1939.


About the Brits - read and laugh/cry/whatever...


At the same time Great Britain, who promised to start air-raids on German industry as soon as possible, conducted a number of air raids against the German Kriegsmarine on September 4, 1939, losing 2 Wellington and 5 Blenheim bombers in the action.[10][11] During those first days of the war RAF Whitley night bombers also dropped propaganda leaflets on German cities, taking great care to ensure that the leaflets were not dropped tied together so that they would cause no casualties on the ground. On September 11, the leaflet raids were halted.

I guess the surreal British sense of humour had its influence on the military branch too.:wall:

And now tell me that it was all fair and realisitc and honest and that nothing else could be done...

In my opinion the French could at least stop lying about their imagined 'victories' that would mean the order to retreat towards Romania and Hungary would be given earlier and more Polish soldiers would fight in the West later + the underground in Poland would get more weponry hidden in time by better informed Polish general command, but NO it is always better to lie, lie and lie and later say 'we did everything we could'. :wall: :wall:

[rory_20_uk]

Did Poland do everything they could?
Where were the polish tanks? Why didn't they purchase or build more? Where was the Polish army and airforce? Why didn't they have greater ones?
Where were the Polish defence lines: miles of tank traps, mines, bunkers? The threat is there - spend all your money on weaponry to prepare for the fight - begin a war economy!

So, the Polish based their entire plan on hoping the French will help - attacking a foe with a defensive army. That the French et al did nothing for the Cheks didn't phase them - and they even had the sense to build defences.

Your Generals believed the assurances of allies and not the obvious facts on the battlefield? Did they not look at the general's views in 1914 about how close victory was?

When Britain was facing invasion we decided to build defences - even though there's a 20 mile sea to cross and the navy and airforce would maul transport vessels. The polish had to all intents and purposes no defences, an unrealistic belief in their allies and yes unsurprisingly they were crushed.

Did the UK and France do any better to defend themselves? No, they were useless: not defending a forest that had provided victory for the Germans a year before the real attack in a mock wargame, French routed and Britain lost all wargear in a flight to the sea and only saved as Germany wanted to be allies with the UK. and so didn't attack to the extent that was possible.

But you can still blame the UK for not taking an almost non-existent army half way across Europe to fight, or use a tiny and mainly out of date airforce to cripple Germany - when 1,000 bomber raids didn't manage it in 1944...

Hindsight is 20:20 isn't it?

We didn't do all we could, nor did you. You didn't declare war on Germany with Czechoslovakia when you could, nor do a myriad of other things.

Britain didn't intend to pack the ships incorrectly when it attacked Gallipoli - but we did. Thousands died due to that. If we'd attacked the right way the first time, maybe the Ottoman's might have lost quickly - who knows.

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

Ohh please. Don't use current examples it is like talking about inferiority of feudal infantry tactics compared to Israeli armoured units in the 1960s...

Defeated true, but the 'mopping up' lasted another 2 weeks. Thinking this way the French campaign was over after Dunkirk was reached.

Besides that has nothing to do with this topic just like the modern example

The modern example has a lot to do with what happened. I'm not talking tactics, I'm talking logistics.

If it takes 4 months of prep for the US and allies in the 90's to invade a much smaller nation, then the logistical demand for France and UK to invade Germany in WWII would have been both higher in volume (so taking longer) and the lift rate per unit would have been slower (so taking longer again), so if it took 4 months for the coalition, then 50 years before hand it would have taken significantly longer.

The phony war happened because
a) They still believed despite everything to the contrary that Germany would back down :wall:
b) That they needed far more resources before they attacked (and guess what they got there butts handed to them despite having the 'advantage' of defending their nations)... the Brits and France were stalling for as long as possible (the colonies had a long way to go to help supply extra manpower), so that they would have a fighting chance... as it was France was defeated and UK had an unarmed army after Germany fought them.

So if they lost a defensive engagement how were they supposed to win an offensive one earlier with less prep time?

[cegorach]

I want to scream...


Great a series of posts which have nothing to do with my earlier posts.


I will repeat what I said a thousand times before.

Britain promised to bomb Germany as soon as Poland is attacked. Didn't do so except some night time leaflet delivery. The question is if they were not able to do so they shouldn't promise that.

France promised they will start an all out offensive in time of 2 weeks from the beginning of the fighting.

BOTH countries repeated their promises a dozen of times.

France repeated these promises a long time later AFTER they decided not to lauch an attack - decision was made in May 1939 - promises were delivered several times after that time.

France OPENLY LIED that their soldiers are not only PREPARING an attack, but THAT IT has ALREADY STARTED and that their soldiers are ENGAGED in fighting and that Germans are redeploying a number of divisions from Poland to the West at the very SAME TIME they retreated from Germany withouth engaging the enemy and so on, etc,

It was ALL AFFECTING the defensive plan of Poland, it was all affecting the orders and the way Polish army fought during that war because without such LIES the order to evacuate to Romania and Hungary would be GIVEN earlier - this way Polish forces in the West would be considerably bigger than it really happened.

Yes I am talking about THIS, not something you think I said, assume I said or believe I said. So please answer those questions, discuss that not EVERYTHING except this and with huge amount of sheer ignorance and incompetent assumptions about numerous factors.


If it goes this way I will start to believe there is NOONE here who knows anything about that part of the war - all this time I have examples from 1940, 1944, 19(bloody)90 all directed to something which doesn't need a discussion.:smash: :smash:








So, the Polish based their entire plan on hoping the French will help - attacking a foe with a defensive army. That the French et al did nothing for the Cheks didn't phase them - and they even had the sense to build defences.

NO they didn't plan on HOPES, but on REPEATED PROMISES and reassurances to launch an offenseve. These promises were repeated even when the war was already started, were repeated when French army STARTED RETREATING from Germany - were REPEATED even when French high command KNEW that they would NOT DO ANYTHING.
That is what is important here.

So what the hell are you talking about ???



Did Poland do everything they could?
Where were the polish tanks? Why didn't they purchase or build more? Where was the Polish army and airforce? Why didn't they have greater ones?
Where were the Polish defence lines: miles of tank traps, mines, bunkers? The threat is there - spend all your money on weaponry to prepare for the fight - begin a war economy!

And what do you thing we did - went to Ibiza ???
You are aware that about 40 % of the entire budget at that time went for military needs ? Do think it should be more ? And how ?
The economy wouldn't handle that, besides a number of weponry was actually bought after public actions i.e. collected thanks to generous society.
In 1939 Poland had probably 7th*** strongest army in the world - mostly equipped with weaponry produced in Poland.
About weponry bought before the war - it includes 120 french MS fighters, some 50 British light bombers, about 20 Hurricanes, 1 Spitfire (for testing), 50 R-35 French tanks, a number of other weaponry - and the list could be longer and longer.
Most of this weponry wasn't delivered quickly enough and for example the airplnes were used by Polish squadrons in 1940 - not all of it, because a part was confiscated by the French...
All this equipment was bought because polish industry couldn't cope with the demand for weaponry - I don't know how can you even openly claim things you are saying - personally I talk only about something I have SOME idea about....




When Britain was facing invasion we decided to build defences - even though there's a 20 mile sea to cross and the navy and airforce would maul transport vessels. The polish had to all intents and purposes no defences, an unrealistic belief in their allies and yes unsurprisingly they were crushed.

No defences... I salute you for this groudbreaking discovery...

But... wait... I guess these bunkers must be an elaborate forgery to confuse Mr. Rory_20_uk the ultimate living encyclopedia of the campaign in 1939...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_W%C4%99gierska_G%C3%B3rka


Please READ ANYTHING, becuase it is not my desire to write a book here.:wall:
What happened to this forum - are all military history enthusiasts moving to TWC these days ??





Papewaio


The phony war happened because
a) They still believed despite everything to the contrary that Germany would back down
b) That they needed far more resources before they attacked (and guess what they got there butts handed to them despite having the 'advantage' of defending their nations)... the Brits and France were stalling for as long as possible (the colonies had a long way to go to help supply extra manpower), so that they would have a fighting chance... as it was France was defeated and UK had an unarmed army after Germany fought them.

So if they lost a defensive engagement how were they supposed to win an offensive one earlier with less prep time?


Jesus H Christ... Read a THING I WROTE BEFORE OK ?:wall:







*** or 8th if we count the British Commonwealth to the UK - Germany, Soviet Union, France, Japan, Britain (with the Commonwealth), the USA, Italy - I can't say for Brasil, Argentina and some other states unfortunatelly, but one of more important features here would be the level of independence in equipping your own army and Poland achived that to very high degree with the exception of the navy which only from 1941 would start receiving larger warships build in Poland.

Overall that would be a major minor army of the world.

[KukriKhan]

OK, this has gotten out of hand. Temporarily closed, pending staff discussion.