The great hoax of WW2

[Panzercracker]

Back after a long long absence.

After reading quite a few western (German, French, English, American) books on military history i notice quite a few trends.

1. Russian military was ineffective, its army primitive and incompetent and it would NEVER win against Germany on its own.

2. Germany had laser weapons, time travel and generally its level of technology was so unbelievably high that its only through valor of the western allies that it was beaten.

3. Not nearly as important or prelavent but it touches my country, Poland rolled over in a week.

These 3 struck me as outright lies but i started thinking about why would the so called "western world" bend and warp history?

Could it be because in reality Russia single handedly bested the Wehrmacht and by the time Normandy happened the end of the war was a question of "when" and not "if"?

Could it be that Poland, betrayed by France and England performed better against greater odds than these two countries a year later which caused it to be smeared and belittled?

Could it be that morale of english, french and american soldiers at large was so low that it warranted gloryfying Germany as some sort of super enemy to hide the fact that western morale bordered o cowardice and was nowhere near that of Russia?

Essentially what i'm asking about is whether the West belittles the central and eastern European effort and paints Germany as a force of nature because between the betrayals of allies, the political blunders and the inadequacy of its own soldiers the western Europe and USA made a particulary sh*tty performance in comparison to Germany, Russia and to some degree Poland?

 

[Del Boy]

Could it be that you are joking? Do you have the right war? The one fought and won by Britain and USA and their allies, Poland had to sit out, and Germany lost big? Your description of western morale is nonsense; throughout WW2 morale in UK was tremendously high, and the same went for all the US and Canadian troops I met; Britain and US could not wait to get at it. And the Aussies and Kiwis were always spoken of with awe; we still have their badges carved into our hillsides here. What books have you been reading at all, at all ?

Betrayal - don't make me laugh. Your country and its neighbours owe their very freedom to Britain's stand , and that of the great forces who joined them and who you seek to slag off with some sort of re-write from dream -land.

 

[lolwhassup]

Back after a long long absence.

After reading quite a few western (German, French, English, American) books on military history i notice quite a few trends.

1. Russian military was ineffective, its army primitive and incompetent and it would NEVER win against Germany on its own.

2. Germany had laser weapons, time travel and generally its level of technology was so unbelievably high that its only through valor of the western allies that it was beaten.

3. Not nearly as important or prelavent but it touches my country, Poland rolled over in a week.

These 3 struck me as outright lies but i started thinking about why would the so called "western world" bend and warp history?

Could it be because in reality Russia single handedly bested the Wehrmacht and by the time Normandy happened the end of the war was a question of "when" and not "if"?

Could it be that Poland, betrayed by France and England performed better against greater odds than these two countries a year later which caused it to be smeared and belittled?

Could it be that morale of english, french and american soldiers at large was so low that it warranted gloryfying Germany as some sort of super enemy to hide the fact that western morale bordered o cowardice and was nowhere near that of Russia?

Essentially what i'm asking about is whether the West belittles the central and eastern European effort and paints Germany as a force of nature because between the betrayals of allies, the political blunders and the inadequacy of its own soldiers the western Europe and USA made a particulary sh*tty performance in comparison to Germany, Russia and to some degree Poland?

So what you're asking is basically did we paint Germany as a military powerhouse because of the reasons you listed above? Not really, seeing as Germany had an extremely powerful and capable military force that blasted its way through 1,000 miles of the Soviet Union before being stopped by the Russian Winter. That was only one of many examples that showed that Germany's strength in the initial years of the war. That isn't glorifying German strength, in fact, that was simply facing the facts and then going on to fight them. Oh and underplaying British morale during WW2? Are you smoking something? They were just as tenacious in the defense of their country and defeat of the Nazis as the Russians were.


By the way, yes the Russians were the reason Germany was defeated, true, but they would not have been able to pull it off without the Western Allies. If Britain had fallen to the Germans they would have been able to pool their entire war effort at the Soviet Union. Nor would the Russians have been able to win without vital Lend-Lease aid from the U.S.

 

[Panzercracker]

Could it be that you are joking? Do you have the right war? The one fought and won by Britain and USA and their allies,

Did Britain and USA fight at Kursk?

Poland had to sit out,,

Launching a quarter milion troops large two weeks long counteroffensive in 1939 and participating on both fronts with more than half a milion troops regular or otherwise and providing the West with crucial intel as well as saving Britain in BoB is sitting it out?

Your description of western morale is nonsense; throughout WW2 morale in UK was tremendously high, and the same went for all the US and Canadian troops I met;

So you disagree that US and UK infantry regularly broke under fire and that what at Caen was considered a bloody fight for Russians would be just a nuisance?

Also you met troops? You mean you met men who are in their late 80s?

Britain and US could not wait to get at it

Was that why the invasion of Europe has been repetedly postponed and why the Western Allies moved with only the fraction of the speed their russian counterparts did?

Betrayal - don't make me laugh. Your country and its neighbours owe their very freedom to Britain's stand , and that of the great forces who joined them and who you seek to slag off with some sort of re-write from dream -land.

Really? Last i checked Poland never regained freedom after WW2 untill the 80s it was occupied by Russia.

 

[Panzercracker]

By the way, yes the Russians were the reason Germany was defeated, true, but they would not have been able to pull it off without the Western Allies.

Why? They won battle of Kursk without the western allies and that effectively meant Germany losing the war.

If Britain had fallen to the Germans they would have been able to pool their entire war effort at the Soviet Union. Nor would the Russians have been able to win without vital Lend-Lease aid from the U.S.

Britain was not pooling their entire effort to the CCCP and what they were pooling was only a fraction of Russias actuall materiel base so Lend Lease was vital only in UK and US history books.

 

[MontyB]

Why? They won battle of Kursk without the western allies and that effectively meant Germany losing the war.

Britain was not pooling their entire effort to the CCCP and what they were pooling was only a fraction of Russias actuall materiel base so Lend Lease was vital only in UK and US history books.

I think you are over looking a couple of things here:
1) The Red Army of 1943-45 was not the same army of 1918-43
Until 1942 the Red Army was little more than a really large joke it had been defeated by Poland in the 1919-21 wars, the Finns had pretty much ground it to a halt inflicting massive casualties and the Germans were giving it a lesson through out Russia.

However once it gained limited operation freedom and moved away from the "stand and die or else" policies in 1942 it began to improve rapidly and by wars end it was probably the best military in the world of course Stalin (or should I say ideology) then took over again and it deteriorated back into it pre-war joke status again.

2) Once again by 1943 Lend Lease was not that important to Russia but in 1941-42 it helped bridge the gap until Russian industry was back up to speed.

I think you are accusing people of ignoring what the Red army became by 1945 but in turn you are ignoring what it was prior to that.

 

[lljadw]

Panzercracker is looking for a victim role for Poland oland betrayed by its allies .
In fact,Poland was not betrayed .

 

[MontyB]

Panzercracker is looking for a victim role for Poland oland betrayed by its allies .
In fact,Poland was not betrayed .

I agree it wasn't betrayed, the fact that we waged a 6 year war over it would indicate that, I think he places way too much emphasis on the Anglo-Polish treaty signed what a week before the German invasion.

The situation was that given that short amount of time neither Britain nor France was in a position to aid Poland in any significant manner, even the French foray into Germany was really little more than a gesture that they hoped would make the Germans come to the negotiating table and halt the Polish campaign which was doomed to failure because of the planned Russian involvement (something neither Britain nor France knew about).

 

[Del Boy]

Did Britain and USA fight at Kursk?

Launching a quarter milion troops large two weeks long counteroffensive in 1939 and participating on both fronts with more than half a milion troops regular or otherwise and providing the West with crucial intel as well as saving Britain in BoB is sitting it out?

So you disagree that US and UK infantry regularly broke under fire and that what at Caen was considered a bloody fight for Russians would be just a nuisance?

Also you met troops? You mean you met men who are in their late 80s?

Britain and USA and others fought their corners and more.

Although Hitler sat on Poland, wherever Poles fought with their allies they were brilliant and highly rated by their hosts. They provided terrific assistance to the BoB but did not win it for us though their contribution was significant.

And finally, Yes certainly I met soldiers and folk now in their 80s, daily at times in WW11, in their camps and on the streets. I forgot to mention also the black segregated US troops, I was their pal too - horseshoes, boxing, soldiering as a kid.

Was that why the invasion of Europe has been repetedly postponed and why the Western Allies moved with only the fraction of the speed their russian counterparts did?

Really? Last i checked Poland never regained freedom after WW2 untill the 80s it was occupied by Russia.

Timing is of the essence, yours is a poor analogy.

Listen to me - I was a friend of Poand during the cold war; I was there when they first removed communist icon statues. I was asked if I could help with bringing justice to wanted war criminals sheltering in the west but I was not in a position to do so. In the early 60s they spoke to me of freedom,( walking down the middle of the roads,) and said that what they had then was not ideal, but sure did beat what they had before - Hitler. From whom they were freed and remained free.
It's good to have shoes some said.

Their next freedom was on its way. Without Britain's and American and our allies' opposition to Hitler, and to their maintenance of the cold war, Poland would still be a place where you walked down the middle of the road to avoid big ears.

What is the exact opposite word to 'betrayal'? Obviously you have never heard of it.

 

[lolwhassup]

Why? They won battle of Kursk without the western allies and that effectively meant Germany losing the war.

Britain was not pooling their entire effort to the CCCP and what they were pooling was only a fraction of Russias actuall materiel base so Lend Lease was vital only in UK and US history books.

You do realize that without the Western Allies, Kursk may not have even happened?

And by the way you misunderstood what I wrote, I meant that if Germany had defeated Britain and controlled the British Isles, GERMANY would have pooled its entire effort at the Soviet Union. With no British Isles to act as a giant unsinkable airbase for Allied bombers or staging area for Allied invasion, Germany would not have had to worry about its flank and the 59 German divisions in France and Holland, the 26 divisions in Italy that fought Anglo-American troops, wouldn't have fought them and instead been brought to the Eastern Front.

 

[84RFK]

First the Chzeck's got it, then the Poles, and then the rest of the world woke up and realized what was going on.
Would any of the countries that participated in the Summer Olympics of 1936 have been there at all if they had the slightest idea of it?

I seriously doubt that.

Oh by the way, Germany didn't defeat Poland in a week, the Soviets took half of Poland as well..

 

[lljadw]

Poland,nor an other country could claim the aid of Britain and France .
When in april 1939,Britain was giving a guarantee to Poland and Rumania,the reason was that there was panic,the tabloids telling that Hiler would attack Poland,Holland ,Rumania,the UK....
After a few days the panic was gone,and the reality was that there was no danger of a German attack,thus there was no need for Britain and France to spend money for an offensive against Germany .
At the end of august,with the M-R pact,every one knew that Poland was doomed,but,it was to late for Britain and France to help Poland :their armed forces had no offensive capabilities,only defensive ones .
Thus,the betrayal of Poland is a myth .

 

[Del Boy]

So they showed their support for Poland, a motion of intent as it were, in an attempt to hold Hitler back. No luck there, but they followed through, war with Germany. The opposite of betrayal - what is the word? And a thank-you would be nice.

 

[Panzercracker]

Britain and USA and others fought their corners and more.

Indeed but do they have the right to claim majority of the success when none of the battles they fought compared to the mamooth struggle of Russia?

Lets face it if Germans had the same forces in Normandy that they had in Kursk would the West even stand a chance? Russia did.

Lets not focus on Poland since Russia is the main victim here (and i'm no friend of Russia, my honest opinion of them would get me banned).

Russia single handedly took the brunt of the german might, turned it back and only after it did some materiel aid arrived.

Normandy was a puny effort by comparison, 100.000 soldiers in the first day? When Russia launched the offensive into Hungary it was over a milion, at Kursk it was nearly two milion faced by a milion Germans.

So isnt it fair to say that Russia won WW2?

As for Poland.

When France and UK met at Abbeville and decided not to help Poland since Poland was unable to conduct any significant military operation thus betraying Poles Poland launched the Bzura counteroffensive.

In which 200.000 Polish troops fought for nearly two weeks temporarily halting the german onslaught before being overwhelmed by a nearly 400.000 large german counteroffensive.

So are the following points true?

Russia outperformed the Western Allies by a vast margin.
Poland in 1939 outperformed the combined efforts of UK and France if even by being able to launch a large counteroffensive.

Note: i'm just providing food for thought, the more i'm into it the more i believe the efforts of various central and eastern states are being misrepresented in western historiography while western role and performance is being vastly overplayed.

 

[lolwhassup]

Indeed but do they have the right to claim majority of the success when none of the battles they fought compared to the mamooth struggle of Russia?

Lets face it if Germans had the same forces in Normandy that they had in Kursk would the West even stand a chance? Russia did.

Lets not focus on Poland since Russia is the main victim here (and i'm no friend of Russia, my honest opinion of them would get me banned).

Russia single handedly took the brunt of the german might, turned it back and only after it did some materiel aid arrived.

Normandy was a puny effort by comparison, 100.000 soldiers in the first day? When Russia launched the offensive into Hungary it was over a milion, at Kursk it was nearly two milion faced by a milion Germans.

So isnt it fair to say that Russia won WW2?

As for Poland.

When France and UK met at Abbeville and decided not to help Poland since Poland was unable to conduct any significant military operation thus betraying Poles Poland launched the Bzura counteroffensive.

In which 200.000 Polish troops fought for nearly two weeks temporarily halting the german onslaught before being overwhelmed by a nearly 400.000 large german counteroffensive.

So are the following points true?

Russia outperformed the Western Allies by a vast margin.
Poland in 1939 outperformed the combined efforts of UK and France if even by being able to launch a large counteroffensive.

Note: i'm just providing food for thought, the more i'm into it the more i believe the efforts of various central and eastern states are being misrepresented in western historiography while western role and performance is being vastly overplayed.

Have you not read what all of us posted above? Or are you simply only replying to points that you find that you can defend your POV?

As I've pointed out, the Battle of Kursk would not have happened if Britain had fallen to Germany.

D-Day was a puny effort? You forget that Operation Overlord was an amphibious invasion. Do you know how much harder it would have been to launch an amphibious invasion with a landing force of 1,000,000 men? It's a logistical nightmare, not to mention that your invasion zones would have to expand to a much larger size or else you risk over saturation of the beaches, etc. etc. etc.

Well Panzercracker if you want say Russia was the reason Germany was defeated, than at least take care to be accurate in your post. Russia won WW2 in Europe not WW2 in Asia.

When France and UK met at Abbeville and decided not to help Poland since Poland was unable to conduct any significant military operation thus betraying Poles Poland launched the Bzura counteroffensive.

In which 200.000 Polish troops fought for nearly two weeks temporarily halting the german onslaught before being overwhelmed by a nearly 400.000 large german counteroffensive.

So are the following points true?

Russia outperformed the Western Allies by a vast margin.
Poland in 1939 outperformed the combined efforts of UK and France if even by being able to launch a large counteroffensive.

I'm not even going to attempt to challenge the points you listed because everyone else has already given you accurate and suitable answers to them.

 

[lljadw]

It is senseless to reply to Panzercracker,because,in his posts,reality is replaced by patriotism,or better chauvinism (something not uncommon with Polish posters)
exemple :in his post from 1 day ago,Panzercracker claimed that Poland (=the Polish pilots of the RAF) saved Britain in the Battle of Britain .:cens:
One can see what the results are of gushing patriotism .

 

[lolwhassup]

It is senseless to reply to Panzercracker,because,in his posts,reality is replaced by patriotism,or better chauvinism (something not uncommon with Polish posters)
exemple :in his post from 1 day ago,Panzercracker claimed that Poland (=the Polish pilots of the RAF) saved Britain in the Battle of Britain .:cens:
One can see what the results are of gushing patriotism .

Yea, It starts to feel more like youtube than a mil forum when arguing with people like that. I gush patriotism myself but I still make a good attempt of keeping a straight head and facts in order.

 

[Korean Seaboy]

Well, Panzercracker's correct in some points, without the Soviet Union, the war in Europe might have not been won, but the Soviet Union didn't win the entire war. It could not have fought in the Pacific

 

[lljadw]

Well,the war in Europe could not be won,without the involvement of the SU,the UK and the US .If ONE of these fell of,Germany could not be defeated (this is without the ABomb)
The war in the Pacific was ,essentialy,won by the US and Britain and its Commonwealth :the role of the SU was negligible .

 

[Seehund]

Germany pretty much ensured their defeat in the Soviet Union with their oppressive treatment of the Soviet Citizens as they advanced towards Moscow. The Soviet Union is huge and their population outnumbered Germany’s many times. They would have had to deal with a large partisan war that would have taken years, and that alone could have tied up their eastern forces.

Had they acted as liberators rather than oppressors, they could have increased the size of their army as they advanced into Soviet territory. If they defeated the Soviet Union under those conditions, then they could have a secure eastern flank, and would have had freed up their eastern forces to move into France and Italy, to secure the western front, and perhaps forced Britain and the US to sue for peace in the European Theatre.