Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach1
: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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex Rex
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
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..
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach1
Do you have sources that name other units involved in the attack? ~:confused:
Is the stereotyping in your post helpful to anyone, except people who don´t like Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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....
Show me stereotype in my post please.......
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
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.
@ 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:
:helmet:
Here I must repeat
lllooolll
please explain not quote
@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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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).
Stereotyping examples, quoting your first post.
This is stereotyping on two levels: over-generalization and the use of the loaded term "barbarian."Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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.
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:
cegorah1,Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach1
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.
[QUOTE=Sarmatian]@cegorach1
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.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.
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...
Quote:
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...
Whatever, I am not Krook.Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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.
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...
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.Quote:
mmm,... small quibble. Watt places the units as the 14th, 16th and 21st divisions supplemented by the "crack" 1st and 3rd Legionary Divisions.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
Peace out...Subedei
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.
Fine that is it... This thread will not develop further.