17 september 1939




 
--
 
August 10th, 2005  
Wildcat
 

Topic: 17 september 1939


This is date of soviet shameful attack on Polan. We were fightnig with german army and that was punch in the back. You must know that USSR and Poland sign document about non-aggression. Stalin helped Hitler in beating Poland. Poles would fight only with Germans which had bigger army. But Soviet with Germans was not to beat. I would know what do you think about this shameful date?
August 10th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Should you not address this question to the League of Nations the for runner of the UN. Lets face it they sold Abyssinia down the river long before they sold out Poland. What did Poland do to help Abyssinia not a lot, so then why get off your high horse about about Britain and France. You should look at why your forces where so under equipped to deal the Germans, because at that time the Germans were picking of the weakest Nations around them and every one had their heads in the sand.
August 10th, 2005  
Wildcat
 
I don't know what you mean. Hitler had bigger army than Poland. He had about 1800 planes...we had 400 planes...he had 2000 tanks...we had 500 tanks...he had mechanized infantry...we had calvary...But Polish HQ haven't done good work in 1939. But better than France in 1940 cause we were defending our capital...They didn't want to defend Paris...
Hitler conquered Austria and Czechoslovakia. Everybody have done nothing. There were stronger countries than Poland which were able to do something...
--
August 10th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Hitler didn't "conquer" Austria and all Czechoslovakia though he did conquer part of it to some extent. He was handed them over on a silver platter. The Austrians themselves agreed to join Germany in the "Anschluss" and the appeasement governments of Britain, and France gave him the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia - which happened to include all the country's fortifications. Hitler then walked in and took the rest of it to no resistance. Goebbels called these actions "the war of flowers" because of the garlands tossed into the streets as Hitler's troops marched in.

As to what I think about what happened to Poland, well I could say much, but I will say that Poland was doomed from the beginning by two things (1) the Polish corridor seperating East Prussia from the rest of Germany and (2) the topography of the land itself. Poland has been a battlefield virtually all its existence. The League of Nations, the Treaty of Versailles, and appeasement from Britain and France set Poland up for the fall. However, it is easy to sit back in these times and find fault with Britain and France. They both had lost millions, I'll say that again, millions of young men on the fields of WWI. An entire generation was lost. Three of my grandparents were Scots. All lost nearly all their male relatives of their generation. One grandmother had seven brothers - none returned from France. Having faced such losses, it can be understood by anyone of compassion how horror struck they must've been to see the spectre of such another war again.
August 30th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildcat
I don't know what you mean. Hitler had bigger army than Poland. He had about 1800 planes...we had 400 planes...he had 2000 tanks...we had 500 tanks...he had mechanized infantry...we had calvary...But Polish HQ haven't done good work in 1939. But better than France in 1940 cause we were defending our capital...They didn't want to defend Paris...
Hitler conquered Austria and Czechoslovakia. Everybody have done nothing. There were stronger countries than Poland which were able to do something...
The French Military never surrendered in WWII, only the government. The military took off for North Africa, the UK and Russia.
Its even been argued that the French could have mounted a resistence in the South had they abandoned Paris. The French military had problems buts its real hinderence was its weak government.
August 30th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
mmarsh......I can't go along with that because the French Colonies could have fought on with the Allies, but they didn't. There were many cases of them actively opposing the Allies when they landed in North Africa
September 28th, 2005  
sunb!
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
The French Military never surrendered in WWII, only the government. The military took off for North Africa, the UK and Russia.
Did you know that UK troops, the French Legion and Norway caused several major problems for the German Army in the city of Narvik in the North Of Norway? This battle is considered as the first draw back for the German war machine in the second world war - unfortunately the British gouvernment decided to abandon the Norwegian theatre where as the Norwegian troops surrendered after two weeks of heavy fightings.

Anyways when it cmes to Poland I agree with Charge 7. The Poles ought to know something was going on.
December 16th, 2005  
Reiben
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
The French Military never surrendered in WWII, only the government. The military took off for North Africa, the UK and Russia.
Its even been argued that the French could have mounted a resistence in the South had they abandoned Paris. The French military had problems buts its real hinderence was its weak government.
French military formations did surrender in WW2 (I dont mean squads, platoons, companies). The surrender was as you point out organised by the government, executed by the military. The head of the government was Marshal Petain. The French army was a defeated formation, although doing well against Italy. The French armies total and complete defeat was only a matter of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunb!
Did you know that UK troops, the French Legion and Norway caused several major problems for the German Army in the city of Narvik in the North Of Norway? This battle is considered as the first draw back for the German war machine in the second world war - unfortunately the British gouvernment decided to abandon the Norwegian theatre where as the Norwegian troops surrendered after two weeks of heavy fightings.
These formations were also defeated. The Germans had control of the skies and constantly outflanked the allies. Britain did well at sea in Norway at holding the germans, but Norway was not decided upon the sea but on land. The Germans were better lead and equiped for the war in Norway.

I dont think abandonned is the correct or best expression for Britain leaving Norway. Should they have committed further forces? those that would have been needed for France? When can a lost cause be won? Where was the decisive theatre in 1940?
December 30th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildcat
This is date of soviet shameful attack on Polan. We were fightnig with german army and that was punch in the back. You must know that USSR and Poland sign document about non-aggression. Stalin helped Hitler in beating Poland. Poles would fight only with Germans which had bigger army. But Soviet with Germans was not to beat. I would know what do you think about this shameful date?
Personally? I think it was a good thing. Stalin managed to get an extra couple hundred miles between Moscow and the front, which probably prevented the Wermacht from taking the city and kept Russia in the war, if Stalin doesn't attack Poland it is quite possible that Russia falls and the Allies don't win the war for several years, if at all.

It is unfortunate what happened to Poland but as Charge said your nation was pitifully ill-prepared for the attack, despite the fact that several neighbors had already fallen Poland was not at all prepared. I will say however that Poland did a far better job of defending themselves than France. Unlike Poland, France held the advantage in manpower, number of tanks, and as they claim far superior tanks. This will probably never be known because most were simply destroyed because they were dispersed instead of grouped together behind the lines to hit back wherever Germany hit.

Poland was, IMO, the worst treated nation during WWII followed closely by Ukraine, screwed first by Germany, then Russia, then Russia again and if my memory serves me correct more jews were killed in Poland than any other nation.

But I am going to be a little harsh in my judgements because I am of the opinion that if France was going to be such a little ***** at Versailles and insist that Germany be brought to face such harsh punishments then it was there job to make sure that Germany was never able to do what they did again. Which they of course failed miserably at millions suffered because of their incompitence.
December 30th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildcat
This is date of soviet shameful attack on Polan. We were fightnig with german army and that was punch in the back. You must know that USSR and Poland sign document about non-aggression. Stalin helped Hitler in beating Poland. Poles would fight only with Germans which had bigger army. But Soviet with Germans was not to beat. I would know what do you think about this shameful date?
I'm afraid your country was deemed expendable by all the other major powers. Even though the UK and France declared war on Germany as a result, neither country did anything tangible at all to help Poland when it was invaded by Germany. There's not a lot Germany could have done about a strong, concerted Anglo-French attack into Western Germany via the Low Countries as the holding German divisions there were quite weak. However, this attack never came, one of the main reasons being that the French Army, considered the finest in the world at the time, was set up on defensive lines to defend France from German aggression.

A Soviet 'stab-in-the-back' was inevitable, agreement or no agreement. There's simply NO way Stalin would have allowed Germany to entirely swallow what the Soviets considered a buffer zone around their borders.