17 september 1939

Sorry to intercede on your bullcrap, Rydz Śmigły gave a directive "avoid combat with the Red Army if possible".
So, suddenly his orders became relevant..when it suited you :lol::lol:

Thats it, he did not order his troops not to fight and the reason for this order was to preserve the remnant of the army, Red Army invaded into completely unprotected Polish rear which negated any chance of effective resistance.
Yeah and I should believe it because you say so:sarc: C'mon at least once try to back up your claim, give some source rather than your version of interpretation and stupid speculations.....

There's no picture sorry but i bet since you're hell bent on spreading totalitarian communist propaganda
Yeah exacctly the approach I expected you will take... Whenever west couldn't refute a truth they come up with exactly this line... Sorry, nothing new.......

the picture shows Ukrainian or Jewish citizens, both groups were ardent communist symphatizers they have not been Poles however, just Polish citizens, they also constituted minority and were not a governing class in Polish Commonwealth (Poles were).
Yeah sure if you support red army, you are stupid commie and if you don't you are a great fighter...And this is not propaganda:sarc::sarc:......Any more stupid logics..

Fuser you're lying and manipulating the facts, its some sort of provocation but still needs to be straightened up for the benefit of a casual reader.The Romanian goverment did not act because Poles specifically stated that they only require Constanta to be open and Romania to help with eventuall evacuation, Poland outright sent a note that it requests Romania to stay out of the war since its neutrality would ensure flow of goods from UK via Constanta.
Source please...How many times I have to remind you people stop spreading propaganda and back up your claims but may be the simple fact is you can't.;)And who acted on behalf of poles because I clearly remember romanian government admitted that poland have no government. http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/moscicki_resignation.html
You see When I say something, I back up them give sources.... That's the way its done but yeah if all your posts are just lies, I can understand, you can't back up them.......
By the way
The Polish government later claimed that it had “released” Rumania from its obligations under this military treaty in return for safe haven in Rumania.
But there is no evidence for this statement.(may be you have:p) No wonder: it is at least highly unlikely that Rumania would have ever promised “safe haven” for Poland, since that would have been an act of hostility against Nazi Germany.

Anyway i thought this was a serious forum where neonazis and communists are not allowed?
:lol::lol:Yeah its serious and you are making it funny.. So if you can't refute try to ban.... Once again your statement shows your complete lack of knowledge regarding communism, so don't even get started on that........ Don't you guys have library these days or you are completely dependent on TV for your daily dose of propaganda.....
 
See now thats a problem with Soviet records, in 1920 after crushing Russia Poland had in its POW camps over 150.000 Russians yet Russia claimed only 20.000 Russians got captured.

In 1939 SU claimed it lost 3000 dead yet in the storming of Grodno alone 900 Russians were killed and this was neither the biggest nor longest of the battles you claim were just "skirmishes".

I would love to see your sources here because its was not SU source that I had provided but the polish source who claimed 3000 dead:p....Any way SU estimate was 768.....So, another proof of your complete lack of knowledge and it clearly indicates that you just want to believe what suits you and not the facts.... Wake up from your dreams.........

OK then simple question, did Russian troops cross the border into Poland and fight/murder Poles or not? If so then what purpose would Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Ukraine and even Russian veterans have in lying claiming Russia did invade?

Ok, I got it so when you were unable to refute an argument, you came up with your own Question...The first part of your Question is already answered and its not that simple as you are suggesting it....I suppose you are not a teenager.....and regarding second part of your question, unlike you without reading their claims, I can't comment on it.... I need to study them first and not start parroting like you.....

And my friend you have untouched several of my points which also speaks for itself highly..........
 
the logic of Fusers thinking(if one can call this thinking:wink: )is
Japan did not invade China in 1937 ,because there was no declaration of war by China
India did not invade Goa,because Portugal did not declare war
India did not invade Sikkim,because Sikkim did not declare war
India did not invade East Pakistan,because no declaration of war by Pakistan
Inonesia did not invade Timor,because no declaration of war by Portugal:bored::bored::bored:

You are now on record breaking spree of posting gibberish..:stupid:
Rather than you I have been backing up every claim of mine with sources which i challenged you to do so and you utterly failed.........
So, you did what you do best "post garbage" which has nothing to do with the debate..... Any way many points you have provided with so simplicity is only exposing the fact that you know nothing about those points.... I really doubt now that have you even completed your high school or not:confused:

Kid come back when you have arguments........
 
I will not waste my time with a Stalinist who said that the Polish fought against the Russians from a misplaced sense of nationality and who is claiming that the Poles were very happy when the Red army was invading their country.
Yeah, you won't argue because you can't. (Another gibberish postof yours which has nothing to do with the debate)

You can't refute a single argument, can't back up your single statement...
All you have is your foolish personal speculation......
 
Last edited:
Fuser you're either a kid enjoying a provocation or a hardcore stalinist, either way its no point since you'll just continue trolling wont you, have fun, alone.
 
Fuser you're either a kid enjoying a provocation or a hardcore stalinist, either way its no point since you'll just continue trolling wont you, have fun, alone.
Panzercracker, all I am asking you people is to provide facts and sources which you have been unable to do.... This is how a normal discussion goes...
If you can't do this I am happy that you are leaving.... As far provocation goes read your own posts "you have been no saint, mostly it was you trolling around when I was giving facts". And hell I can even prove that.......

My first post regarding you was

You need to read my previous post carefully....

Yes it fought a war with SU total 3000 dead.....Now compare it to the causalities it suffered while fighting germans......As I already said they were nothing more than skirmishes....


Every event of that period suggests that SU was not an aggressor but as here in India we have a proverb which says "when you speak a lie 1000 times it becomes true after some course of time."
This is what happened a lie was forged during cold war..........
Where do you see any provocation or indecency in this post??

Your answer was
@Fuser.

Are you Russian perchance?
Sorry to intercede on your bullcrap
These were your lines and I am the one who is trolling:shock: WTF........ first learn to criticize yourself before preaching others..Hypocrisy is the least thing that should be welcomed in a debate... If you find any indecency in my post blame yourself for starting it... I am no saint who will behave nicely whereas you are provoking and trolling around....



You see its the facts that matters....... Not what you or me thinks....



But don't worry I know the real reason.... The simple fact is you can't refute the truth, You were also unable to provide a single source, every argument of yours has already been refuted.... Especially the one about casualities:D

For you now all Have to say is "Come back when you have some facts supported by evidence rather than your Trolling and f.ucking self ignorance...... I can't believe I was debating with a man who don't even know what he himself is posting....
 
Last edited:
:sleep:
You are now on record breaking spree of posting gibberish..:stupid:
Rather than you I have been backing up every claim of mine with sources which i challenged you to do so and you utterly failed.........
So, you did what you do best "post garbage" which has nothing to do with the debate..... Any way many points you have provided with so simplicity is only exposing the fact that you know nothing about those points.... I really doubt now that have you even completed your high school or not:confused:

Kid come back when you have arguments........
:sleep::bored:
 
:p
Yeah, you won't argue because you can't. (Another gibberish postof yours which has nothing to do with the debate)

You can't refute a single argument, can't back up your single statement...
All you have is your foolish personal speculation......
:bored::p
 
Another meaningless crap as expected from a kid...:smil: This debate is just too much for your little brain, go play in some park if bored :lol::lol:

:m16shoot::p
 
Last edited:
Another meaningless crap as expected from a kid...:smil: This debate is just too much for your little brain, go play in some park if bored :lol::lol:

:m16shoot::p

Your version of the claim that the Soviet Union newer invaded Poland all comes from Grover Furr's Home Page

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/

An obscure professor at a minor university who spends class time telling students that America is the world's biggest oppressor and greatest terrorist state. He urges them to work for communism.

Grover C. Furr is this little-known professor, and if you think that American college students should be educated and not indoctrinated then you should know what he's been up to.

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9247

Try to Google Grover Furr. And judge for yourself.

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”
Joseph Stalin


So in your own words: Another meaningless crap as expected from a kid
 
Yeah sure anything that west says is true and if you dare to say against it its propaganda...:rolleyes: It would have been better if you have tried to deal in points or had countered mine rather than gibberish....
Speaking of propaganda first go and find out how many nazi officials worked for USA/UK including those who were working on campaigns like anti soviet propaganda since hitler and of course their work continued after hitler too...
The basic fact is that
The USSR did not invade Poland – and everybody knew it at the time

It was only during cold war that this lie was fabricated...
I wonder people who are so fond of commenting on molotov ribbentrop pact even bother to read it and the so called secret protocol or even the news articles of those times....
Here is little education :
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/m-rpact.html
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/no_partition.html

Now, let's interpret some of the events of that time which clearly suggest that USSR was not an aggressor against poland

1. The Polish government did not declare war on USSR. But it did declare war on Germany..


2. The Polish Supreme Commander Rydz-Smigly ordered Polish soldiers not to fight the Soviets, though he ordered Polish forces to continue to fight the Germans.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/rydz_dont_fight.html

3. Rumania had a military treaty with Poland aimed against the USSR. Rumania did not declare war on the USSR.

4. France did not declare war on the USSR, though it had a mutual defense treaty with Poland.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/m-rpact.html

5. England never demanded that the USSR withdraw its troops from Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine, the parts of the former Polish state occupied by the Red Army after September 17, 1939.
On the contrary, British government concluded that these territories should not be a part of a future Polish state. Even the Polish government in exile agreed.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/maisky_101739_102739.html

6. The League of Nations did not determine the USSR had invaded a member state.No country took any sanctions against the USSR. No country broke diplomatic relations with the USSR over this action.
However, when the USSR attacked Finland in 1939 the League did vote to expel the USSR, and several countries broke diplomatic relations with it

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/391214a.html

7. All countries accepted the USSR’s declaration of neutrality.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/soviet_neutrality.html



There's big difference between being anti and fanatically anti to something...

Hmmmm ....! :confused:

Same text. It must be a coincidence :-|

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html
 
Your version of the claim that the Soviet Union newer invaded Poland all comes from Grover Furr's Home Page

Its not my version....These are facts..........

An obscure professor at a minor university who spends class time telling students that America is the world's biggest oppressor and greatest terrorist state. He urges them to work for communism.

Grover C. Furr is this little-known professor, and if you think that American college students should be educated and not indoctrinated then you should know what he's been up to.
I know who furr is... I am not citing his opinion.... I am citing the events of those times, the reaction of major governments of those times... You should address that rather than discrediting any man.......

Originally Posted by fuser
Yeah sure anything that west says is true and if you dare to say against it its propaganda...:rolleyes: It would have been better if you have tried to deal in points or had countered mine rather than gibberish....
Speaking of propaganda first go and find out how many nazi officials worked for USA/UK including those who were working on campaigns like anti soviet propaganda since hitler and of course their work continued after hitler too...
The basic fact is that
The USSR did not invade Poland – and everybody knew it at the time

It was only during cold war that this lie was fabricated...
I wonder people who are so fond of commenting on molotov ribbentrop pact even bother to read it and the so called secret protocol or even the news articles of those times....
Here is little education :
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...9/m-rpact.html
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...partition.html

Now, let's interpret some of the events of that time which clearly suggest that USSR was not an aggressor against poland

1. The Polish government did not declare war on USSR. But it did declare war on Germany..


2. The Polish Supreme Commander Rydz-Smigly ordered Polish soldiers not to fight the Soviets, though he ordered Polish forces to continue to fight the Germans.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...ont_fight.html

3. Rumania had a military treaty with Poland aimed against the USSR. Rumania did not declare war on the USSR.

4. France did not declare war on the USSR, though it had a mutual defense treaty with Poland.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...9/m-rpact.html

5. England never demanded that the USSR withdraw its troops from Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine, the parts of the former Polish state occupied by the Red Army after September 17, 1939.
On the contrary, British government concluded that these territories should not be a part of a future Polish state. Even the Polish government in exile agreed.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...39_102739.html

6. The League of Nations did not determine the USSR had invaded a member state.No country took any sanctions against the USSR. No country broke diplomatic relations with the USSR over this action.
However, when the USSR attacked Finland in 1939 the League did vote to expel the USSR, and several countries broke diplomatic relations with it

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/391214a.html

7. All countries accepted the USSR’s declaration of neutrality.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...eutrality.html



There's big difference between being anti and fanatically anti to something...

It doesn't matter where it comes from.....Are you saying that all the points mentioned above is not correct....:shock: If yes then give sources, if not then you know my stance is the correct one but you just don't want to recognize it.......
 
Fuser the guy you use as your source is a communist i especially like the ending from your source!

First among these our predecessors are the brave, intelligent, and visionary people of the Soviet Union during the time of Lenin and Stalin (I put Khrushchev in a different category altogether). They, and especially Joseph Stalin, have been slandered, traduced, demonized by the class enemy, the capitalists and their researchers.

And thats what you use as a source?!:shock:

Lenin and Stalin between them murdered over 20 milion people, makes you wonder what kind of people are you and your communist patrons to preach about such mass murderers.
 
Fuser the guy you use as your source is a communist i especially like the ending from your source!
So, you came back after :crybaby:It amazes me now is there no one here on this forum who have capabilities to address the real argument... The main points in the debate.........
You people are not even trying to answer direct questions... You are only digging matters which have nothing to do with the debate.......

And if he is a communist so what?? Why don't you dare to refute his arguments rather than labeling him.... Because you can't..

Plz stick to point if you can

Let me rephrase my last question

Are you saying that all the points mentioned above is not correct
Answer this first before any other meaningless post........

And thats what you use as a source?!:shock:
I already stated it but as it seems you take lot of time to comprehend anything. I am not citing his opinions, I am citing facts which happens to be arranged on his site neatly......... If he is so dumb source as you suggest why the f.uck you people are unable to refute any argument or provide any source of yours........

Lenin and Stalin between them murdered over 20 milion people, makes you wonder what kind of people are you and your communist patrons to preach about such mass murderers.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Gotta say USA/UK & co. have a better propaganda machine than nazis.......

Another point that has nothing to do with the debate..........

I wonder when you people will dare to say anything on the ongoing debate rather than evading it desperately :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

No wonder you don't dare to challenge any of the points.........

Why don't you at least stop trolling around then.... Oh, sorry you can't as there is nothing else that you can do........:whip:

Now I really appreciate your concern for casual reader :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
In 1938 to 1939 Hitler built what was called the Western Wall. This ran for some 400 miles and consisted of tank traps and huge pill boxes every quarter of a mile, and all these were linked by underground tunnels. Once this was completed in 1939 Hitler considered Germany was safe from attack from the west and then attacked Poland. In 1944 the Allies lost a 250.000 men breaking through this wall into Germany. Now when you consider just how well the allies were equipped in 1944 to what Britain and France were in 1939, it should explain why they did not attack Germany in 1939.
 
Last edited:
In 1944 the Allies lost a 250.000 men breaking through this wall into Germany.
It has more to do with the concentration of men without sufficient men that wall was obsolete....And german army lacked manpower severely in west....

Here's a interesting fact

on the 9th of September, the ambassador of Poland asked the British for immediate assistance: the bombing of German airfields and industrial areas by the RAF. The British declined: no bombs would be dropped on German soil until the Germans bombed Britain itself. Bombing Germany would be seen as an act of agression and thereby negatively influence the public opinion in the U.S.A.
The only action taken were 'truth raids': the spread of leaflets urging German citizens to rise against their leaders. The British were hoping this would lead to the downfall of the nazis and if it didn't, that it would show the RAF was capable of making bombing raids on Germany.
In reality the only result was that the Germans increased their Flak and, in the words of general-major Harris, that 'the continental need for toilet paper for the next five years had been met'.
12.gif



On the continent the balance at this time (just after the fall of Poland) was 72 French and 4 British divisions -vs- 32 German, definitely enough to push through the Siegfried-line (which wasn't nearly as well defended as the Maginot).


After a note was sent from London to Berlin regarding to the invasion of her ally, Lord Halifax followed up by sending British Ambassador in Berlin Nevile Henderson a note stating that the note was "in the nature of a warning and is not to be considered as an ultimatum." Deep in its pacifist fantasies, Britain did not consider the violation of her allies borders a valid cause for war. France's response to the invasion was similar, expressing a willingness to negotiate though refusing to send any deadline for a German response. At 1930 London time on 1 Sep 1939, the British parliament gathered for a statement from Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, expecting a declaration of war as dictated by the terms of the pact between Britain and Poland, or minimally the announcement of an ultimatum for Berlin. Instead, Chamberlain noted that Hitler was a busy man and might not had the time to review the note from Berlin yet. When he sat down after his speech, there were no cheers; even the parliament characterized by its support for appeasement was stunned by Chamberlain's lack of action. As Britain and France idled, the German Luftwaffe bombed Polish cities. They submitted messages to Berlin noting that if German troops were withdrawn, they were willing to forget the whole ordeal and return things to the status quo. It was a clear violation of the military pacts that they had signed with Poland. Finally, on 3 Sep, after thousands of Polish military and civilian personnel had already perished, Britain declared war on Germany at 1115. France followed suit at 1700 on the same day. Even after they had declared war, however, the sentiment did not steer far from that of appeasement. The two western Allies remained mostly idle. While Poland desperately requested the French Army to advance into Germany to tie down German divisions and requested Britain to bomb German industrial centers, Britain and especially France did nothing in fear of German reprisals. In one of the biggest "what-if" scenarios of WW2, even Wilhelm Keitel noted that had France reacted by conducting a full-scale invasion of Germany, Germany would have fallen immediately. "We soldiers always expected an attack by France during the Polish campaign, and were very surprised that nothing happened.... A French attack would have encountered only a German military screen, not a real defense", he said. The invasion was not mounted; instead, token advances were made under the order of Maurice Gamelin of France, where a few divisions marched into Saarbrücken and immediately withdrawn. The minor French expedition was embellished in Gamelin's communique as an invasion, and falsely gave the impression that France was fully committed and was meeting stiff German resistance. While the Polish ambassy in London reported several times that Polish civilians were being targeted by German aerial attacks, Britain continued to insist that the German military had been attacking only military targets.




Now, I leave you all with Nazi propaganda poster


800px-Poster_Anglio.jpg
 
Lee thats just hoghwash.

In 1939 the difference between Allies and Germans was much much bigger, also the wall itself was an unfinished thing unfit for defence.

If Germans had 0 tanks, no more then 300 guns on the entire front and no more then several hundred mgs while allies had 1500 tanks alone in the concentration point and 1000 more dotted across the country there was no chance for Germans to mount an effective defence of anything.

You propose exactly Chamberlain-esque "pacifism" claiming that even such pitifull resistance was excuse enough not to move.

Allies had more tanks in the West in 1939 than Germans had artillery, AT guns and machineguns combined (in the West) but still you insist that the French army with its gigantic complement of all types of arms would be beaten by guys in rifles and field trenches.


@Fuser.

That propaganda poster shows just to what perverse depths Germany would go to attach blame for its own attrocities, it holds twisted truth to it but i still dont agree with it.

The sign says "England - Your work!"
 
Back
Top