17 september 1939

Poland used the situation in 1938 to bully and demand cocessions from her neighbours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania

I doubt if Lithuania and Czechoslovakia thought Poland was a good neighbour!



Sounds just like how the Nazis thought of the Poles. Perhaps you recognise the irony?
1. Lithuania had historical beef with Poland regarding its junior role in the Commonwealth, they basically believed Poland "stole" their glory even though Poland was the sole reason Lithuania survived past XV century.

2. Czechoslovakia took these lands when Poles were busy fighting Russia in 1920, the idea of getting them back was OK, the timing was bad.

3. Except that Nazis called Poland backwards even though Poles built their first university a full 100 years before one was built in Germany while Ukraine was a war torn steppe without any nation, with culture in shambles.

Also Poles did not conquer Ukraine they were welcomed since they brought with them all the good things of civilisation and a security of a powerfull army, in fact the Ukrainian elite polonised so quickly a hundred years later the entire elite of Ukraine considered themselves Polish.

While you could find analogies in rhetoric between statements of German Nazis in regards to Poles and Poles in regards to Ukrainians the first was totalitarian propaganda and the second is historical truth.

If you're interested in broader discussion i can create a new thread for you together with pictures and sources in "older and ancient" section or i invite you to discuss it on pm.

For now i stick to my point, Ukraine was a barren land, stripped by Mongols, Tartars and warring locals, Poland came over and provided both security and wealth, that Ukrainians woke up after 500 years and decided all the Polish cities, towns, palaces, factories etc should belong to them, well tough luck.



Even the most basic Google shows the folly of such a claim.
Example:
I'm sorry but you realise that Revyuk would later become a member of the UPA and is alleged to murder women and children? He was an ardent right winger so such books cannot be counted as a source.

Its like discussing "how evil the Jews are" basing your sources on Himmler.

Yes there was abuse of Ukrainians in pre war Poland, no there were no atrocities and people who would later become criminals murdering Poles are hardly a source to quote.
 
my jaw is still dropping when someone is writing that the Germans were by 15 september stalemated by Poles and Poles launched offensives:p (how much)with 250000 men (why not 500000 ?) and fought battles larger and more hard fought then the entire Ardennes campaign,while "forgetting" that on the first days,Poland was begging,asking,demanding Allied support.Is this not a contradiction,Poland beying able to do the job on its own(no need for allied support?)
Of course;I am only a moron
 
my jaw is still dropping when someone is writing that the Germans were by 15 september stalemated by Poles and Poles launched offensives:p (how much)with 250000 men (why not 500000 ?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bzura

I have to apologize for putting forward Wiki since its no source at all but serves to give you a general idea (if you want to i'll find you a proper online source in English).

Poles attacked with 250.000 men grouped in 10 large units, completely decimated one and severely weakened three other German divisions.

Germans responded with over 500.000 men, 900 tanks and 300 armored cars.

The battle lasted almost two weeks and while largest it wasnt the only huge battle in Poland.
and fought battles larger and more hard fought then the entire Ardennes campaign,

I'm sorry i conceed i was wrong, Ardennes offensive saw almost a milion participants while the Battle of Bzura "only" 700.000, it was however larger then the invasion of Normandy, Battle of Monte Cassino, any battle in Italy and we can easily put it in top 3 major battles of WW2 not counting the sieges as far as numbers go.
while "forgetting" that on the first days,Poland was begging,asking,demanding Allied support.Is this not a contradiction,Poland beying able to do the job on its own(no need for allied support?)
In the first three days of the war Poland was holding its own rather well, winning a LOT of local victories and retreating to consolidate positions by the rivers while kicking ass in battles like Mokra where a Polish cavalry brigade and elements of an infantry division massacred 2 German infantry divisions and a Panzer division.

It was only after 6th Polish infantry division caved on 3rd of Sept that the entire defence plan had to be abandoned and to salvage the defence of Poland 2 battles of Tomaszów Lubelski (each over 200.000 participants large) and the Battle of Bzura were fought.

All the battles were lost but the effect was stabilizing the front, damaging much of the german motor park and in effect a temporary stalemate which is why the Germans sent a desperate letter to Stalin asking to finally attack.
Of course;I am only a moron
In this case just uneducated, the West diminished the Polish Campaign on purpose, showing Poland capable of fighting these massive savage battles when France and England caved in so easily was humiliating.

Also Poland was shown as an inept weakling to justify doing nothing in 1939, to teach you that said inept weakling outperformed the combined armies of the West by a vast margin while having only a fraction of their hardware and a dramatically weaker strategic situation would be humiliating.

So Poland which outfought France and UK and was outside Russia and US the only true obstacle to Hitler was painted as this backward spear wielding country that got overrun in a day rather than a powerfull uniyelding minor power it was.


Also lljadw Poland was not able to defend itself alone but it was able to provide a second front that made Germans incapable of defence Westwards, a real alliance where France and UK actually honor their word and fight would probably see Wechrmacht collapse.

According to Jentz all the way to Sept 22 Germany in Poland lost 293 permanently destroyed and 419 damaged in a way that forced them to be withdrawn back to the factories.

Thats 721 tanks lost permanently or inactive for more then two months, this leaves Germany with less than 2000 tanks of all types for both fronts.

Hahn in Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945” puts the losses to 791 tanks.

These are tanks that are destroyed mind you, either permanently or in a manner that requires them to go back to the factory, Germany also lost 500-700 tanks damaged in various ways that required them to go to depos which means that by mid september Poland seriously decimated German armored forces, French dismissed these reports ofc.
 
Last edited:
According to Jentz all the way to Sept 22 Germany in Poland lost 293 permanently destroyed and 419 damaged in a way that forced them to be withdrawn back to the factories.

Thats 721 tanks lost permanently or inactive for more then two months, this leaves Germany with less than 2000 tanks of all types for both fronts.

Hahn in Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945” puts the losses to 791 tanks.

These are tanks that are destroyed mind you, either permanently or in a manner that requires them to go back to the factory, Germany also lost 500-700 tanks damaged in various ways that required them to go to depos which means that by mid september Poland seriously decimated German armored forces, French dismissed these reports ofc.


As of 1/9/39 Germany had

Pz I 1026

Pz II 1151

Pz III 87

PzIV 197

Pz Bef. 177

Pz 35t 164

Pz 38t 57



Loss by type
Pz I 89 (1026)

Pz II 83 (1151)

Pz III 26 (87)

PzIV 19 (197)

Pz Bef. 5 (177)

Pz 35t 7 (164)

Pz 38t 7 (57)

Total 2859 of which 300 were lost. (11%)

Losses for 1940 were:

On 10/5 /40 Start total in brackets

Pz I 182(1077)

Pz II 240 (1092)

Pz III 135 (381)

PzIV 97 (290)

Pz Bef. 69 (244)

Pz 35t 62 (143)

Pz 38t 54 ( 238)

All 839 (3465)

Losses 24%



German manpower losses:
Poland 17,000
France 50,000
 
Kenny thats absolute rubbish, stop insulting us using wikipedia as your major resource.

Lets recap.

German losses against Belgium, Netherlands, BEF, French Army.

45.000 K.I.A
German losses in Poland

24.000 K.I.A

Add to this at least 6.000 Russians and suddenly we discover that Polish army alone against twice its numerical superiority inflicted 2/3rds casualities of the combined Western Armies who outnumbered the Germans in most fields.

Now to tanks.

Irrevokably lost in 1940 campaign:

836 tanks.

Irrevokably lost in Polish campaign.

416 (+100~ Soviet tanks.)

So here the patterns repeats itself, Poles destroy 2/3rds of the hardware that all western forces managed to destroy between them.

Obstlt. Eberbacha - "Sturmfahrt auf Warschau" i "Die Vernichtungsschlacht an der Bzura"

- Thomas Jentz, "Panzertruppen - The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force: 1933 - 1942

- Christoph Avender, "World War II day by day" - "Daily reports" and "Gliederungen"


Want me to upload scans of German reports of losses from the initial phase of Bzura? Thats over 5000 K.I.A and M.I.A in three days.

The 24.000 number is almost ceirtanly lowered since Germans retro-counted people dead in accidents, ilness or those who died from wounds after the campaign.

We can agree that the number of wounded that numbered around 48.000 was significantly lower than those in the West but if Poland was such a weak state and if the campaign of 1939 was such a cakewalk then why did Poland manage to inflict 2/3 losses of K.I.A and destroyed equipment of all the losses inflicted by BEF, Low Countries and France?

Something does not compute in my book, a weak country thats attacked from two sides shouldnt be able to do that.

Also why did said weak country manage to launch a semi-succesfull counter-offensive with 250.000 men that managed to tie 500.000 Germans while Franco-British forces were unable to launch any action beyond brigade level and all of them unsuccesfull?

Heck the very first battle in 1939, the battle of Mokra was victorious for the Poles, a grand total of 3 German divisions, one of them armored got bitchslapped by a cavalry brigade, three infantry battalions and 2 armored trains!

Yet today we learn how France was conquered in a month but Poland in a week! (last major battle in Poland lasted till October 5th).

If that doesnt smell of bullsh*t and historical lies to you i dont know what does.
 
Also Richard Pipes bases his data on several German reports that claim Germany in 1939 lost up to 90.000 K.I.A and W.i.A

While such a high number is unlikely the losses almost ceirtanly matched and possibly surpassed the losses in France, OKW was blatantly forging reports, for example from available (online) reports we can via simple addition find out that during the entire Battle of Bzura Germans lost 5428 K.I.A and 481 M.I.A yet the general report of OKW lists only 1293 K.I.A and 62 M.I.A.

In other words Germans were lying through their arses since this was the first true war and releasing data of 40.000 or 50.000 dead especially given that Poland was painted as a cakewalk was inacceptible.

To be specific Pipes in Communism: A History and another book quotes a specific source namely several high ranking Wechrmacht officers who claim that real losses in Poland numbered 91.000 dead and were instantly classified.

I have no idea what to think about it but given that a tiny naval outpost of Westerplatte cost Germans almost 300 dead and 400 wounded, a single polish armored assault at Tomaszów wiped out 3 battalions to a man (900 dead) and dozens other such accounts it seemed quite likely that Germans simply lied through their ears about their losses, even readily available sources from major battles add up to over 28.000 and thats just a couple of engagements, admittedly huge battles but still only several of many.
 
Last edited:
According to Jentz all the way to Sept 22 Germany in Poland lost 293 permanently destroyed and 419 damaged in a way that forced them to be withdrawn back to the factories.
Thats 721 tanks lost permanently or inactive for more then two months, this leaves Germany with less than 2000 tanks of all types for both fronts.
Hahn in Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945" puts the losses to 791 tanks.
These are tanks that are destroyed mind you, either permanently or in a manner that requires them to go back to the factory, Germany also lost 500-700 tanks damaged in various ways that required them to go to depos which means that by mid september Poland seriously decimated German armored forces, French dismissed these reports ofc.
Now to tanks.

Irrevokably lost in Polish campaign.
416 (+100~ Soviet tanks.)

Even for you that is a bewildering array of conflicting data. You mix up destroyed tanks with damaged as well
Come back when you sort it all out.




 
 
Want me to upload scans of German reports of losses from the initial phase of Bzura? Thats over 5000 K.I.A and M.I.A in three days.
 
No need. Just use these tables:
casualosses4.jpg

 
casualosses5.jpg

casualtotal1.jpg
 
Also Richard Pipes bases his data on several German reports that claim Germany in 1939 lost up to 90.000 K.I.A and W.i.A

While such a high number is unlikely the losses almost ceirtanly matched and possibly surpassed the losses in France, OKW was blatantly forging reports, for example from available (online) reports we can via simple addition find out that during the entire Battle of Bzura Germans lost 5428 K.I.A and 481 M.I.A yet the general report of OKW lists only 1293 K.I.A and 62 M.I.A.

In other words Germans were lying through their arses since this was the first true war and releasing data of 40.000 or 50.000 dead especially given that Poland was painted as a cakewalk was inacceptible.

You are talking out of your arse. The is not the slightest doubt the German totals are the most accurate source for German losses. They have never been shown to be forged. During great retreats the figures may be incomplete (1945 for example) but never faked.
 
Also Richard Pipes bases his data on several German reports that claim Germany in 1939 lost up to 90.000 K.I.A and W.i.A

To be specific Pipes in Communism: A History and another book quotes a specific source namely several high ranking Wechrmacht officers who claim that real losses in Poland numbered 91.000 dead and were instantly classified.



Pipes is famous for being a rabid anti-Russian Pole. Solzhenitsyn has denounced his (Pipes) work as "the Polish version of Russian History.
I have yet to find a Polish author who can give a blanced view of Polish-Soviet relations.

Anyone claiming 90,000 German dead in Poland in 1939 is suffering from severe delusions.
 
Last edited:
an "uneducated" reply:
1)I know the figures from Jentz and Hahn:but,that the German losses in the 2nd week of september were high (and an impartial reader will note that I am writing "that' not 'if'),does not proove that there was any chance of stale-mate:in the 2nd phase of the German attack in the West(Fall Rot:5 to 25 june )the German losses were the double of the losses of Fall Gelb(10 may-5 june):Fall Gelb:16000 a week,Fall Rot:32000 a week,but,no serious historian will claim that,after Dunkirk,the French had any chance for a stale-mate .
2)If,on 15 september,the Polish army did so well,was there any need for a French attack in the first days of september?
3)If the opposite was true(Poland having lost strategically the war in the first days),would a French offensive not have been to late ?
4)last uneducated point :eek:n the treaty between Britain and Poland:a question that an educated person will easely be able to answer:who took the initiative for the treaty ? And why ?
If it was Britain,why were they proposing a treaty ?Had they any indications of an imminent German attack?And if not,why a treaty ?
My assumption is:it was only roaring of the British lion,for home consumption(elections were nearing ),the treaty was very vague:nothing concret:no number of divisions that would be engaged on a specific day,the same for the RAF.The consequence was that Hitler was not impressed,it was all bluffing .
To compare with the NATO treaty(1949):if there were in 1950 no US divisions in Europe,no air squadrons,no military assistance,Stalin would not be impressed .
That Poland was considering the treaty as a promise of an immediate attack in the west,is a Polish interpretation .
5)about the figures given by Pipes :the origin was an unreliable Polish source from september 1939 (the figures appeared in French and Swiss newspapers);why unreliable? Because a retreating army is not able to count the number of enemy casualties;it had other things to do .
 
4)last uneducated point :eek:n the treaty between Britain and Poland:a question that an educated person will easely be able to answer:who took the initiative for the treaty ? And why ?
If it was Britain,why were they proposing a treaty ?Had they any indications of an imminent German attack?And if not,why a treaty ?
My assumption is:it was only roaring of the British lion,for home consumption(elections were nearing ),the treaty was very vague:nothing concret:no number of divisions that would be engaged on a specific day,the same for the RAF.The consequence was that Hitler was not impressed,it was all bluffing .

I totally agree with you

Even if British and French leaders had taken a more active line, powerful domestic lobbies pushed for pacifism. When a center-left government was elected in France in 1936 under the slogan of the Popular Front, a million Frenchmen marched through Paris demanding peace. In 1934 British citizens founded the Peace Pledge Union, which over the next five years became a mass movement that campaigned against war. Not until Nazi Germany seemed a very real threat in 1939 did public opinion swing more clearly in favor of confronting fascism by violent means.

None of the two wanted to risk a major war so soon after the last, but none of them wanted to let the world order slide into chaos. There were powerful pressures against an active foreign policy. The British and French empires were menaced by anticolonial nationalism in India, Indochina, the Middle East, and Africa.

Poland regained independence after World War One. While the victorious Western allies supported the idea of independent Poland, their main reason for it was to weaken Germany and Russia. Therefore their support was limited; for example, many French and British politicians considered that the industrial region of Silesia should remain with Germany, so that Germany would have an easier time paying off the war debts and contributions to France and its allies. The German interpretation was that the majority of people in Silesia had chosen Germany and so all of Silesia should remain with Germany. The German view was supported by Britain. In fact, Versailles did clearly state that Silesia was to be partitioned by districts after the plebsitice.

In the years immediately after World War One, it was French policy to weaken Germany as much as possible, and through the French did not champion the border that the Poles wanted in Silesia, the French attitude to the Polish cause in regards to the Silesian dispute was markly pro-Polish and anti-German. Indeed, it was a ultimatum from Paris that compelled the Germans to withdraw their forces from Silesia in June 1921.

Ostensibly, the British view that all of Silesia ought to remain with Germany was based on the belief that Germany could pay reparations to France easier; by 1921 London had largely abandoned any claims against Germany and was strongly pressuring both France and Belgium to lower their reparations claims against the Germans as much as possible. The British argument about reparations was mostly a bid to influence French public opinion; the real reason for London's pro-German stance was the belief that if Germany were to lose too much territory, this could undermine the fragile WeimarRepublic and lead to extremists taking power in Germany.

In the late 1920s and early 1930s a complicated set of alliances was established amongst the nations of Europe, in the hope of preventing future wars (either with Germany or Soviet Russia). With the rise of Nazism in Germany this system of alliances was strengthened by the signing of a series of "mutual assistance" alliances between France, Britain, and Poland (Franco-Polish Alliance and Anglo-Polish Alliance).

On March 30, 1939, the government of the United Kingdom pledged to defend Poland, in the event of a German attack, and Romania in case of other threats. The British guarantee of Poland was only of Polish independence, and pointly excluded Polish territorial integrity. The reasons for the guarantee policy are nowhere more clearly stated than in a memorandum by the Foreign Office, composed in the summer of 1939, which submitted “that it was essential to prevent Hitler from expanding easterwards, and obtaining control of the resources of Central and Eastern Europe, which would enable him to turn upon the Western countries with overwhelming force”. (quotation from the book The New Central Europe by Stephen Borsody).

The declaration was further amended in April, when Poland's minister of foreign affairs Colonel Józef Beck met with Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. In the aftermath of the talks a mutual assistance treaty was signed. On August 25 the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed as an annex to Polish-French alliance. Like the guarantee of March 30, the Anglo-Polish alliance committed Britain only to the defence of Polish independence. It was clearly aimed against German aggression.

The basic goal of British foreign policy between 1919-1939 was to prevent another world war by a mixture of carrot and stick. The stick in this case was the guarantee of March 1939, which was intended to prevent Germany from attacking either Poland or Romania. At the same time, the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax hoped to offer a carrot to Hitler in the form of another Munich type deal that would see the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Corridor returned to Germany in exchange for a promise by Hitler to leave the rest of Poland alone.
 
CiFindus
You asked is the French Army the best in the world, well ask any Frenchman that question and you should a postive reply
 
-,-' and what would the not french people say? US Americans would say its the USA? Russians that its Russias Army? Hmm, i was hoping there was something more official.
 
Back
Top