The Invasion of Poland

[Kitsune]

This is a short but well researched (I think) account of the German invasion of Poland in September 1939:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/polcamp.htm

It also addresses myths sourrounding the campaign like the alleged destruction of the Polish airforce on the ground or the legendary horse charges of Polish lancers against German tanks. It also gives detailed numbers for the casualties of both sides (and the Soviet one).

Does anyone here disagree with this? Any comments are welcome!


p-)

[GazB]

"German invasion began with an air raid on undefended city of Wielun at 4:40am. Over 1200 people were killed in first warcrime of World War II. "

Is wrong for a start. You don't actually believe the Nazis were nice to the Czechs and Slovaks, or even the Austrians that didn't support their annexation. On the Pacific front the Japanese were already doing lots of bad things to the Chinese etc. (Just because the Commonwealth joined the war with the invasion of Poland doesn't mean that was the start of WWII any more than December 7th 1941 was the start of the Pacific war.)

[EvanL]

WW2 was started in 1932 when the Japanese invaded Manchuria.

[James]

Or perhaps Versailles in 1919 ;) .

[Kitsune]

Well, as far as Austria is concerned , there weren't any air raids on their cities. Most of their population supported the Nazis. (Not all of them, but thats also true for Germany itself). Austrians were treated as Germans and participated in the war as well as in the Holocaust related crimes. (Even over-proportionally for their populational size. Hitler was an Austrian by the way. So was Eichmann). Only later when the war wasn't going well for Germany anymore, they started "realizing" that they were different from the Germans. And after the war they knew it for certain. The postwar Republic of Austria was based on the myth that they were "the first victim" of Nazi aggression. A neat way of sidestepping any guilt. (The Austrian way of thinking is that Hitler was a German...and Beethoven an Austrian. :roll: )

As far as the beginning of WW2 is concerned: Historians have decided to let the war begin with the invasion of Poland. Thats just how it is. Complain if you must, but don't mess with them.
Never forget: historians possess a power even the gods don't have...they can change things that already have happened.

;)

[James]

I am an historian! :P

[Seiyuuki]

Somebody got a time machine!!!

[Maciek]

Does anyone here disagree with this? Any comments are welcome!


p-)

some 900 tanks


Tanks:
169 Vickers 7TP (11 t)
52 Vickers (6 t)
67 Renault M 17 FT (from WWI)
53 Renault R 35

693 small armoured vehicles(TK/TKS)

Armoured cars:
14 of type 29
86 of type 34

Armoured trains:
15 (11 other sourse)
5 heavy
3 medium
2 light
4 other(4 improvised)

[Maciek]

5 other trains

[GazB]

"As far as the beginning of WW2 is concerned: Historians have decided to let the war begin with the invasion of Poland."

I think you'll find that is western historians. I doubt Chinese Historians will agree, let alone other countries in Asia who were victims of Japanese expansion during the period before 1939, or even 41.

When anthropology was just becoming a real science... rather than treasure seeking expeditions or crusty old men who lived in libraries and read everything those explorers wrote of their travels... it was realised that for a long period in civilised western culture not much happened. The result was that they created a history based on druids and robin hood and King Arthur. They really don't know who built Stone Henge, but created a history for themselves so that they didn't look so boring and uncivilised at a time when civilisations in the Middle East, Africa, and China were thriving and creating things like mathematics and printing presses.

[Kitsune]

@GazB:

I think You are absolutely right there. These things are totally subjective. For example: there are a few historians who proposed that the war now known as the 7 years war could be termed the first World War, since it was fought in Europe, the Americas and Asia. But, well, it is not termed thus, we usually call it the 7 years war...
And of course: We tend to emphasize the European/American view of things, simply because Europe and the US were dominant during the last 200 years. This was not always so. And perhaps will change in the future again.
Its all convention. But we should stick to it for the time being, so that we know what we are talking about! The great war in the middle of the 20th century is WWII not WWIII...and it went from 1939 to 1945...


;)

[He219]

GazB, you really crack me up :lol:

A revisionist historian could also deduce the following:

China became colonized by European powers back in the 19th century, leading to anexation of Manchuria by the Russians, then the Japanese who aquired posessions after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. Japan's expansion into Korea to gain a foothold in China during the 1930's preceeded by China's fragmention into warlordism in the 1920's certainly were not the start of hostilities. Try the Boxer Rebellion (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion) - but that would hardly be a meaningful start to WWII.

For that we have to go to the rape of Germany through the Treaty of Versailles (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles) and the resentment that directly led to the continuation of hostilities in WWII. Interestingly enough, the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles is site of German Unification during the 1871 Franco-Prussian War with the Crowning of Kaiser Wilhelm I. The Versaille Treaty was signed in that famous railcar that Hitler accepted the French surrender in, decades later.

So it falls to the events that started WWI that link hostilites in WWII, GazB. I blame your pro-Serbian nationalist buddiy named Gavrilo Princip (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip) who assasinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia, as the culprit...

rofl

[James]

Ah, history afficianados... Nice to know that you're here. ;)

[Kitsune]

You're wrong He219.
Gavrilo Princip was on his way home when he stumbled into Franz Ferdinands car by sheer coincidence...the driver had lost his way in the narrow streets of Sarajavo. His incompetence led to WWI! He is the true culprit.

rofl

[He219]

Nice, kitsune!
by sheer coincidence...the driver had lost his way
But it warrants correction:

Nedjelko Cabrinovic threw the bomb that glanced off Franz Ferdinand's arm as the Archduke deflected it away from his wife Sophie. The bomb glanced off Franz Ferdinand's arm, bounced off his folded car top and into the street behind them. The explosion injured about a dozen spectators. The fragments also injured Lieutenant Colonel Merizzi, the Bosnian Governor General Oskar Potoirek's chief adjutant, with an injury to the back of his head.

The Archduke did not wish to cancel his visit to the museum and lunch at the Governor's residence, but wished to alter his plans to include a visit to Merizzi in the hospital. The same motorcade set out along the Appel Quay, but neither the Mayor's driver, nor Franz Ferdinand's driver had been informed of the change in schedule. This would have been Merizzi's job.

The Mayor, Fehim Effendi Curcic in his car, followed by Franz Ferdinand's car turned off the Appel Quay and onto Franz Joseph Street, as originally planned, to travel to the museum. General Potoirek leaned forward. "What is this? This is the wrong way! We're supposed to take the Appel Quay!" The driver put on the brakes and began to back up. Franz Ferdinand's car stopped directly in front of Moritz Schiller's food store where Gavrilo Princip was getting a sandwich.

Therefore it was a direct result of Cabrinovic's actions, and Princip was still the trigger man. He shot Sophie in the head and Ferdinand in the chest before his gun jammed. The conspiritor's guns and bombs were supplied by the Serbian Ujedinjenje ili Smrt.

Have a great day!
;)

[Rantanplan]

"Edmund: Do you mean "How did the war start?"

Baldrick: Yeah.

George: The war started because of the evile Hun and his villainous empire-building.

Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.

George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. (aside, to Baldick) Mad as a bicycle!

Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.

Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir."
rofl

[Kitsune]

@He219:

Ok, you convinced me!

;)

[GazB]

Rantanplan.... :-) Love Blackadder... got series 1,2, and 4 on DVD... will buy series 3 when I get the chance.

The problem with the "european" view of things is that it is biased. If you are going to standardise history then you need to look at all sides and not agree on anything... otherwise all you'll have is bollocks.
Ask an American or a Brit what the high point of WWII was than they'd say D-Day or some such thing. Ask a Russian and they'll say something completely different. Are either of them wrong? Of course not... for each front there is a clear high point, just as there is a clear low point, and a strange bit where nothing is happening.

As someone who is interested in the non-western bits of the war, the 1939-45 thing is rubbish. As far as the Russians are concerned their official war with Japan didn't start till 1945 when they opened a second front. But it could be argued that in the late 30s when there were skirmishes on borders with the Japanese and the Japanese were soundly thrashed by Georgi Zhukov was also part of WWII. Then a short time later the war with the Finns by lesser generals where well equipped Finns armed with SMGs and skis gave the Soviet conscripts and their lesser leaders a good thrashing for a while, which meant eventually a sledge hammer had to be brought in to smash eggs led those in Europe to think the Russian army was weak... and to quote Hitler once we kick in the front door the whole rotten place will collapse in on its own weight. Or something to that effect.

[Kitsune]

Yeah, as Germany invaded Russia they did it with 3300 tanks and around 3000 aircraft. Soviet forces outnumbered them severly, for example Stalins army had more than 20000 (!) tanks and more than 10000 aircraft.
(As far as tanks are concerned it is interesting to know that Soviet tanks weren't technologically inferior. In fact, the Russians were the first to build huge tanks with strong guns and sloped armor. And the Germans didn't have Panthers or Tigers at that time. The Panther was in fact inspired by the Soviet T34 tank. Nonetheless virtually all of those 20000 Soviet tanks were destroyed or captured by the Germans during the first months of the invasion). It is really astonishing that Hitler dared to attack this mighty force. He obviously had a lot of faith into the quality of German troops...or the un-quality of Soviet ones.

Perhaps he just gambled that the Soviet Union might break apart. And in fact the nearly incredible losses made the Russian state come close to it. Stalin had killed and terrorized its own population in an incredible way during the 30ties...he was hated by many. It was perhaps Hitlers cruelty which was his undoing. If the Germans would have come as liberators and not as new orpessors this probably would have done the trick. But as it were Stalin used the attack to rally his people. In fact the war and the victory over Nazi Germany gave the Soviet state an sense of purpose and a feeling of being the "liberators" of Europe that may have even stabilized the Soviet Union in the decades after the war...

[EvanL]

Wait Poland was invaded? When? How? By Whom? haha jk

[GazB]

"for example Stalins army had more than 20000 (!) tanks and more than 10000 aircraft. "

But most of those tanks were light tankettes armed with a small turret and a MG for infantry support, or a huge multi turreted bohemouth, while most of the fighter planes were Polikarpov biplanes and monoplanes that flew well in the Spanish civil war, but the introduction to that war of the Bf-109A spelt the polikarpovs obsolescence. Most aircraft were destroyed on the ground lined up next to their runways which meant that most of the pilots survived. The vast majority of the tanks lost were captured when overrun.
Throughout the war the Germans handled their armour much better than its opponents.
At the start of the war the Soviets saw tanks as single purpose vehicles... either as direct infantry support or as mobile artillery. Direct support meant MG armament or a short 3 in gun firing HE rounds. The other role was tank hunter with a high velocity small calibre gun, like a 37mm or 45mm HV gun. Such a small calibre gun couldn't use much HE so as an anti infantry round it wasn't that good... hense the short barrel 76.2mm guns.

The breakthrough of the T-34 was the multipurpose gun. Previous vehicles intended to take on other tanks had high velocity but small cailbre weapons. 37mm-45mm was common. Panzers entered the Soviet Union confident in the power of their 50mm guns. For infantry support MGs or large calibre guns were used with very short barrels... short barrel 3 in guns were common. The large 5 turreted heavy Soviet tanks had up to 5 turrets with the top central turret with a short L11 76.2mm gun, while enemy tanks were engaged with two 37mm or later 45mm guns mounted in each corner, with the opposite corners armed with turrets with MGs for close in defence. The L34 and then later L44 76.2mm gun on the T-34 used a longer barrel with a relatively high velocity added to large shell weight for a good HE round as well. (Lxx shows the length of the gun barrel in calibres... ie L44 is 44 calibres long, or 44 x 76.2 = 3352.8 or a 3.3m long barrel). this length of barrel meant the same gun could be used against infantry (HE) and tanks (solid shot).

[Maciek]

But most of those tanks were light tankettes armed with a small turret and a MG for infantry support, or a huge multi turreted bohemouth (...)

But the Germans used 3508, 2176 with 3,7cm gun(or bigger), ther were using PzKpfw I and II.

Most of soviet tanks with MG were with 12.6mm
Most of german tanks with MG werw with 7,62mm

[GazB]

No, I meant the main armament of many Soviet tankettes was a turret with a 7.62mm MG. The Panzer 2s had a 7.92mm MG and a 20mm cannon, whereas the Panzer 3s had 50mm guns. Early Panzer 4s had short 75mm guns but they were later fitted with longer barrel guns that were comparable to the gun fitted to the T-34. These were necessary as the 50mm couldn't penetrate the T-34s armour except with the brand new and expensive (rare) tungsten (wolfram) rounds... and even then they had to be fired from close range and from behind a T-34.
Soviet tankettes were later upgraded with 50 cal MGs and their heavy tanks like Stalin tanks had 50cals mounted above their turrets and later still 20mm cannon were fitted to some too, but most often the MGs used on soviet tanks were DT 7.62mm MGs.
Light tanks like the BT series were limited to 45mm guns as their turrets weren't big enough to absorb the recoil of a more powerful gun.
On the german side the 50mm anti tank guns were found to be useless against the few T-34s and KVs to be found at the start of the war, but were very effective against the lightly armoured tankettes and the thinskined multiturreted tanks (Less than 500 multi turreted tanks were actually made... they looked good on parade, but in combat they usually broke down and were abandoned).
When the Germans invaded the Tiger was on the drawing board and prototypes were being tested, though the discovery of the T-34 and KV series both greatly changed the requirements and drove an acceleration to the project. In the mean time a new medium tank to replace the Panzer 4 was demanded... and it was largely based on what the Germans learned from the T-34.

[Maciek]

GazB what do you understand under tankettes and light tank?

[GazB]

"GazB what do you understand under tankettes and light tank?"

Sorry, don't understand the question.

I am using Tankette and Light tank as interchangable terms. Both are very light, lightly armoured and lightly armed tracked vehicles.

[Maciek]

Tankette and Light tank is not the same. Tank has a turret. Tankette is armed in MG.

BTW do you know names of soviet tankettes


BTW do you know that part of soviet light tanks were able to swimm. What german tank were able to swimm?

[Kitsune]

There is a most impressive site concerning German Armed Forces of (mostly) WWII. It is still in the making, but it seems to be quite objective and well researched and has already an overwhelming mass of material.

Check out: http://www.feldgrau.com/

Note the part about statitistics and numbers: http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

(especially the KIA/MIA numbers per WWII war month. Should be taken with agrain of salt but nonetheless fascinating.)

Also note that the (Polish?) claim, that the German losses during the Polish campaign were higher than those of the French campaign in summer 1940 is not supported by the numbers given here. The losses during the French campaign were nearly three times as high.
(If anyone has a source that contradicts this, just say so...I am only interested in the truth here).


p-)

[Maciek]

My source (Janusz Piekałkiewicz book "Wojna pancerna 1939-1945") German losses :
KIA - 27074
WIA - 111 034
MIA - 18 348

note the KIA and MIA
KIA + MIA = 45422
on the feldgrau site KIA 46000 MIA 1000

I will check objective anather time

[perdurabo]

Take French forces(and Brits) stats and compare it to Polish (number of tanks planes etc)

[GazB]

Tankette and Light tank is not the same. Tank has a turret. Tankette is armed in MG.

BTW do you know names of soviet tankettes


BTW do you know that part of soviet light tanks were able to swimm. What german tank were able to swimm?

The most common light tanks at the start of the war were T-26 (single or twin turret with rifle cal MG in each), T-37 also with rifle cal MG in turret and the T-40 which supersceeded it with a 50 cal and rifle cal MGs in a turret. The later T-60 tank had a 20mm aircraft cannon as a main armament. (The T-37, T-40, T-60 and the other later recon tanks could swim).

Not sure about the german vehicles.

[Maciek]

BTW T-37A was airborne by TB3 plane

[Russian Texan]

T 37 airborne was a prototype that never went into production and you know why and what was its purpose? Hint: most of the Soviet weapons in the begining of WW2 were offensive in nature. Soviet Union wasn't prepeared for the defense it was geared for the offense that is why all the retreat, confussion, huge loses and almost 20.000 light tanks that are great on offense but useless in defense. BTW did you know that overwhelming majority of Soviet tanks could shred their track and move much faster on wheels. But again, moving around without tracks at high speeds is only possible on the paved roads and USSR didn't have back then many of those, think about it.

[Maciek]

T 37 airborne was a prototype that never went into production (...)

About 1130 prototypes were built :)

About 1200 T-37s of all variations were built.The estimated 70 T-37 vehicles built in 1933 were probably a pre-production version that were extensively tested in 1933. Production vehicles, conformed to the T-37A configuration. Later Soviet documents dispensed with the "A" when referring to the T-37A

BTW soviet build a prototype of T-60 that was airbone through attachment of wings and stabilizer and making the tank a big glider. The T37A was attach under bomber, the bomber have to land on enemy airfild with the tank.

[Maciek]

BTW did you know that overwhelming majority of Soviet tanks could shred their track and move much faster on wheels. But again, moving around without tracks at high speeds is only possible on the paved roads and USSR didn't have back then many of those, think about it. :) :) :) I know that :) :) :)

BT tanks were build to do that
The soviets build:
200 BT-2
1800 BT-5
1200 BT-7

the speed of BT tanks were 72km/h on weels

[Maciek]

Russian Texan did ypu read Wiktor Suworow books woot ???

[GazB]

"Soviet Union wasn't prepeared for the defense it was geared for the offense that is why all the retreat, confussion, huge loses and almost 20.000 light tanks that are great on offense but useless in defense."

The main reason the Soviets armour suffered so badly was because although they had plenty of light tanks and plenty of experience in using tanks in exercises they had been practising for the wrong war... they were using them like it was WWI. The Germans showed the way by concentrating tanks in Tank units that were highly mobile and with concentrated power and force. The Soviets on the other hand used them like the British used them in WWII, as part of an infantry unit... they worked with infantry in penny packets to assist in infantry attacks. In comparison when a German tank unit attacked a Soviet unit the German tanks outnumbered the Soviet tanks 10 to one... the German unit quickly took out the Soviet tanks and mowed down the infantry. Very large Soviet units were bypassed or captured enmass with their vehicles often having their turrets removed and a Soviet 76.2mm gun fitted as a makeshift self propelled gun by the Germans (who were so impressed by its natural armour penetrating capabilities they produced their own ammo for it).
Stalin KNew his forces weren't ready... that is why he did everything in his power to avoid a war with Germany. He had seen how the Germans had ploughed through the French and British and how he had swept through Europe in weeks... so unlike WWI... the war everyone but the Germans were prepared to fight... Germany Armour was ready for WWII and it showed. Estimates as to how long it was going to take to reform Soviet units on the German model ranged from 1 year to 1.5 years including of course all of the changes in training and a few exercises to iron out bugs... in the end the Germans didn't give them that time and it showed... they struck at the start of the change over.

[GazB]

"BTW did you know that overwhelming majority of Soviet tanks could shred their track and move much faster on wheels. But again, moving around without tracks at high speeds is only possible on the paved roads and USSR didn't have back then many of those, think about it."

The spring was the worst time... frozen ground is easier to traverse than mud.

On later model BT tanks the ability to drive on wheels was dropped due to the complication and the fact that the feature was hardly ever used. One of the best features of the T-34 was its wide tracks allowing it to drive almost anywhere too thick to swim through.

[Maciek]

[quote="GazB
The spring was the worst time... frozen ground is easier to traverse than mud.

On later model BT tanks the ability to drive on wheels was dropped due to the complication and the fact that the feature was hardly ever used. One of the best features of the T-34 was its wide tracks allowing it to drive almost anywhere too thick to swim through.[/quote]

The soviets stoped to build BT tanks, they were build to move on german highway so ther was no use for them in defence war

No german tank on the start of had wide tracks so they were not prepared for the war.

[Russian Texan]

Russian Texan did ypu read Wiktor Suworow books ???

Yeah I did, Suvorov has couple of books that support the idea of Hitler attacking Stalin out of desperation because he knew that the only chance to survive he had was to beat Stalin to the punch. I was very intrigued by his work and facts that he provides to support it, but the same facts presented under a different angle can take on a completely new meaning. Well anyways, I'm not sure what to believe since the author himself is very controversial figure and doesn't carry much credibility to me, although anything is possible. The only two people who knew exactly what was going on and manipulated their countries into the war are dead so I guess we will never know for sure.

[GazB]

"Yeah I did, Suvorov has couple of books that support the idea of Hitler attacking Stalin out of desperation because he knew that the only chance to survive he had was to beat Stalin to the punch."

I think Mein Kampf showed that Hitler was always going to attack the Soviet Union. It is his living space in the east and also an ideological enemy. If the air attacks on Britain had succeeded and the British had lost the so called Battle of Britain then Hitler may have gone west first and then East. Hitler knew of the power of the British navy and that he couldn't mount an operation against both the RAF and the Royal Navy. If he could have taken out the RAF he might have had a go at invasion. If he had kept concentrating on RAF airfields he would have won. Instead he had his hand smacked away from the cookie jar and turned East.

[Maciek]

GazB did you read Mein Kampf ???
I did not so I cant tell what Hitler planed to do with Soviet Union.

[Maciek]

Russian Texan did ypu read Wiktor Suworow books ???

Yeah I did
what titles did you read?

[Russian Texan]

Inside the Aquarium, Spetsnaz, Liberator and Icebreaker. Just like I said before, all of those books present very interesting read and initially I started to believe him but then I have done some research on Mr. Suvorov and the actual events, that is when he lost all credibility to me. Basically all of his books were written when USSR was a mystery to the western world and spy books were selling very well. I do give him credit for doing research but the same facts can be presented in some many ways... Anyhow, his books are fiction that he is trying to pass as the real thing through using real life people, events and locations. Nevertheless his work makes for some very intriguing reading material.

[GazB]

"initially I started to believe him but then I have done some research on Mr. Suvorov and the actual events, that is when he lost all credibility to me."

Can you post here what you think he said that was wrong?

I have seen lots of verification of many of the things he mentions. (the IT-1 missile tanks etc).

He was a defector, and some of the things he said were suspected of being misinformation, but i don't think it was doubted the he was in the GRU. Most of the things he talked about would not have been known to just any russian at the time. Even Spetsnaz troops were unknown to the Soviet Public at the time.

BTW there are two very good books written by a British woman named Carey Schofield, one on the Soviet armed forces and another on the VDV and special forces. In the middle of the latter book there are photos of m16 armed guards being taken down in exercises. One error is that some of the weapon identification in the two boks is not that great. One identifies a Metis-M short range ATGM (ie up to 1,500m) as a Strela man portable SAM, and an RPO-A flame rocket launcher is identified as a bazooka type weapon.

[Maciek]

Some things are hard to believe. The "Liberator" is about Czechoslovakia invazion (right?We have different titles). If I did not talk with the people that were ther it would be hard to believe fo me.

[Russian Texan]

Things that undermine his credibility the most:

1. Anyone who is familiar whith the Russian military will tell you that its description and relationships with in it, although true in some places, but overall grossly exaggerated and tailored for better selling in the west.

2. All of the leading Russian historians disagree on most of the numbers that he provides (I'm reffering to WW2)

3. If he was an active resident (spy), when did he have the time to go through all of those secret historical documents and archives? And who would give him such an access?

4. He is a defector who is bitter at his native country and has to make a living somehow. This alone should raise questions about his objectivnes.

And now the facts that completely destroy his credibility (IMHO):

He claims that he is sentenced to death by KGB and nevertheless he openly travels, appears on TV and in movies, makes public appearances during his books presentations and so on. Somehow it is hard to believe that KGB couldn't get off a shot in 25 years...

His book "Spetsnaz" WOW... I don't even want to go into the detailed description of all missinformation and fiction collected in that work of art, I am just going to say one thing: How can a man of his physical built and his eyesight and I'm not talking about his present day pictures, I am talking about his old/younger pictures, be a Spetsnaz member. Ofcourse may be back then Spetsnaz recruited among obesity prone geek midgets...

Anyway you look at it, there are a lot of things that just don't add up in his books and career if you start paying attention to details, but it doesn't matter because he writes what sells therefore publishers are happy and he is laughing all the way to the bank.

[GazB]

I'll admit it has been a while since I read his work, but from memory he claimed to be an oficer in the GRU. His links therefore to spetsnaz would be as an officer in their organisation. I particularly remember him talking about observing an exercise where the soldiers trying to get into spetsnaz had to go on a long run in heavy rain conditions with full gear and the part he saw where they had to run to the middle of a bridge and jump off the middle into the freezing waters of a river. As the observation post was some distance from the bridge and those observing didn't have any life saving equipment he asked the other officer there what to do if a soldier didn't surface after he hit the water. The reply was the if he didn't surface he was no good for spetsnaz units.

Undoubtedly much of what he might have known would be kept secret by the west and editorial changes by non experts might change quite a few details to the point where they become questionable.

A lot of the facts he mentions are quite true and were not known in the west a the time. Details of the 9mm silenced makarov, anti aircraft "mines". and many other things.

[NcDeuce]

Ay! :cantbeli: Silly, silly Poles.

[perdurabo]

Ay! :cantbeli: Silly, silly Poles.
ekhm what do you mean? if it's another "Polish minesweeper" better forget it :]

[Maciek]

Things that undermine his credibility the most:

1. Anyone who is familiar whith the Russian military will tell you that its description and relationships with in it, although true in some places, but overall grossly exaggerated and tailored for better selling in the west.

2. All of the leading Russian historians disagree on most of the numbers that he provides (I'm reffering to WW2)

3. If he was an active resident (spy), when did he have the time to go through all of those secret historical documents and archives? And who would give him such an access?

4. He is a defector who is bitter at his native country and has to make a living somehow. This alone should raise questions about his objectivnes.

And now the facts that completely destroy his credibility (IMHO):

He claims that he is sentenced to death by KGB and nevertheless he openly travels, appears on TV and in movies, makes public appearances during his books presentations and so on. Somehow it is hard to believe that KGB couldn't get off a shot in 25 years...

His book "Spetsnaz" WOW... I don't even want to go into the detailed description of all missinformation and fiction collected in that work of art, I am just going to say one thing: How can a man of his physical built and his eyesight and I'm not talking about his present day pictures, I am talking about his old/younger pictures, be a Spetsnaz member. Ofcourse may be back then Spetsnaz recruited among obesity prone geek midgets...



1 All Warsaw pact armys are similar
2 "leading" Russian historians are writing what Kreml want
3 On military school he was guarding archives ("Suicide")
4 What abaut other historians

You have all answers in books

He was not a spetsnaz member, he was only a spy :bash:
Did you read books or just look at the photos :)

[Russian Texan]

He was not a spetsnaz member, he was only a spy
I have never made a statement that he was career spetsnaz officer. I was talking about his time with "spetsnaz GRU"

"leading" Russian historians are writing what Kreml want

C'mon get real, you don't even know how ridicilous this statement is today, 12 years ago I'd agree with you but now...

On military school he was guarding archives

So basically he wrote 12 books based on sveral hours a week that he spend at the entrance to the archive :roll:

All Warsaw pact armys are similar
In what way? Do you mean command structure, selection process or what? In my post I was referring to the inner workings of the Russian military & society and not the organizational structure but rather social interaction in it.


Suvorov is the typical communist who went over to the "dark side", kind of "Darth Vader of imperialist propaganda" :-) His writings belong to the domain of science fiction- "alternative history" like H. Turtledove's etc.. but they are quite convincing for people who have very little knowledge of history.

Although like I have stated before not all of it is fiction, he does use a lot of real life stuff that was or is still unknown to the general public. For example hand-to-hand combat training with murderers and death row inmates, hazing in the military, some special equipment that he describes, education and training, etc. So he does provide facts, althoug he completely skips those that can be damaging to his theory,it is just the way he interprets them is geared more towards selling rather than establishing historical accuracy. BTW there was a movie made, I think it was in Checoslovakia, based on his book "Aquarium" so if you are still a believer,see it and then we'll talk. BTW2 Look at Russian president V. Putin, he is about the same age and comes from the similar background (intelligence), find any similarities...I don't think so. Well I guess you get my drift :)

[perdurabo]

[
"leading" Russian historians are writing what Kreml want

C'mon get real, you don't even know how ridicilous this statement is today, 12 years ago I'd agree with you but now...


All Warsaw pact armys are similar
In what way? Do you mean command structure, selection process or what? In my post I was referring to the inner workings of the Russian military & society and not the organizational structure but rather social interaction in it.


LOL Rusians NEVER change! look at Kursk how they treated familys members of crew :) now under Putin rule they will go further in lies and other ****:]

second well even inner workings of rusian army and other stuff were similiar, Russians tried to make all nations around them to be like them :] but Walesa come up and dystroyed comunism woot jeee and ****heads from moscow now cry for our carots and ships and are scared if we find other sources of oil....:) LOL

[Russian Texan]

You have failed to provide any logical objections or comments to my arguments so I presume that you have none. In your opinion, why would present day Russia hide any information about WW2 when everything, everyone and anything that happened during USSR was denounced, bashed, exposed, blamed in the "free media" (media is never free, it always belongs to someone, if not the gov. then to the guy who signs a paycheck) of todays Russia.
[second well even inner workings of rusian army and other stuff were similiar
Prove.

but Walesa come up and dystroyed comunism

So he is singlehandlently responsible for the change of political systems.... aha
Allow me to remind you that it actually was USSR in the first place to give Poland independence from Czar's Russia but that is besides the point. The simple truth is that if USSR cared, whatever happened in Poland would end up same way as it did Checoslovakia and other places that weren't happy with the communism and Walensa probably be explaining his political views to the bears in Siberia. Does abreviation "ZGV" ( zapadnaya gruppa voisk) tell you anything?

jeee and ****heads from moscow now cry for our carots and ships and are scared if we find other sources of oil....

The statement above hints me that either you or Poland as a whole suffer from the bitternes and a small country/penis inferiority complex... Let me see if I got it right, if it is not for Poland then Russian economy would cease to exist and its population will be sentenced to endure the lack of vitamins and eventualy die from starvation... yeah right man, whatever you say :roll:
I'll do you a favor and let you on a terrible secret: somehow I think that if tommorrow Poland disappears from the face of the Earth, 99.9% of russians won't even notice it, just ask any of them on this message board. Just make a post, who will care if the Poland in no longer...

Here is joke that you might want to remember anytime you'd like to get a reality check:

Q:Which is the most independent country in the world?
A: Poland
Q:Why?
A:Nothing depends on it :lol:

Take care pal.

[Maciek]

(...)

Here is joke that you might want to remember anytime you'd like to get a reality check:

Q:Which is the most independent country in the world?
A: Poland
Q:Why?
A:Nothing depends on it :lol:

Take care pal. rofl rofl rofl a good one did not know it before

I do not remember the carots

It is truth that they cry for ours ships.
The first person that complain about restructuring the "W.I.Lenin" shipyard was the soviet ambasador
The shipyard was the main supplier of ZSRR with fishing boat and large fishing ships and hydrographic ships.
We were selling them under construction cost.

I see that you dont know that this was on purpose, every comunist country was made to build one kind of think, that make them depend from others comunist countris, but the Kreml forget that them become depend from others to.
The same thing hapened in Ukraine, ther were some important military factorys for ZSRR

[Herrmannek]

You have failed to provide any logical objections or comments to my arguments so I presume that you have none. In your opinion, why would present day Russia hide any information about WW2 when everything, everyone and anything that happened during USSR was denounced, bashed, exposed, blamed in the "free media" (media is never free, it always belongs to someone, if not the gov. then to the guy who signs a paycheck) of todays Russia.


B/c it could cost them money. We have few graveyards in Russia made by NKWD, many pieces of art stolen from Poland, Not payed bills(for carots, potatos, onion, shoes, ships and other stuf :) ) and such...



but Walesa come up and dystroyed comunism
So he is singlehandlently responsible for the change of political systems.... aha
Allow me to remind you that it actually was USSR in the first place to give Poland independence from Czar's Russia but that is besides the point.


Yes, By sending Budionny to Warsaw to congratulate :)


The simple truth is that if USSR cared, whatever happened in Poland would end up same way as it did Checoslovakia and other places that weren't happy with the communism and Walensa probably be explaining his political views to the bears in Siberia. Does abreviation "ZGV" ( zapadnaya gruppa voisk) tell you anything?

rofl rofl rofl rofl, USSR was colos on ceramic legs, theye were white from fear that this can happen In USSR, they cared but were afraid that invasion can make bigger **** than was then.


jeee and ****heads from moscow now cry for our carots and ships and are scared if we find other sources of oil....

The statement above hints me that either you or Poland as a whole suffer from the bitternes and a small country/penis inferiority complex... Let me see if I got it right, if it is not for Poland then Russian economy would cease to exist and its population will be sentenced to endure the lack of vitamins and eventualy die from starvation... yeah right man, whatever you say :roll:


Don't start penis size contest, maybe they wouldn't die from starvation, but they would eat grass :) joke


I'll do you a favor and let you on a terrible secret: somehow I think that if tommorrow Poland disappears from the face of the Earth, 99.9% of russians won't even notice it, just ask any of them on this message board. Just make a post, who will care if the Poland in no longer...

Now yes, no one would see the difference but then, it would be big problem for USSR, with couldn't buy anything from free part of world b/c of lack of US $ :)

[perdurabo]

joke:
Mao calls to Stalin:
-Hey comrades can you send us 1bilion$?
-of coz not a problem
few weeks leater same phonecall
-hey can you send us 1milion tons of coal
-of coz not a problem
another call from Pekin to Moscow
-can you send us 1milion tons of rice?
-no! i understand dollars, i understand coal but where from the poor Gierek(Polish first secretary) gets rice?

other one:
Thankfullnes of Moscow:
We send them ships and in favour they take our coal

[GazB]

"LOL Rusians NEVER change! look at Kursk how they treated familys members of crew now under Putin rule they will go further in lies and other ****:]"

What lies?

"Russians tried to make all nations around them to be like them "

You mean like the US makes the central and south american countries around them? Oops, no, your dictators were no where near as brutal as some of them.

"I have never made a statement that he was career spetsnaz officer. I was talking about his time with "spetsnaz GRU""

He was in the GRU, he just wasn't in Spetsnaz... he was an officer in GRU... ie Soviet military intelligence service.

[Maciek]

"Russians tried to make all nations around them to be like them "

You mean like the US makes the central and south american countries around them? Oops, no, your dictators were no where near as brutal as some of them.



We did not have a dictator but a first secretary :bash: , thers is a little difference(very little)
Its not brutality that is important but the way of slaverying people.
The Russians wanted to make all nations around them to be like them fore ther own safety, to be sure that the people wont revolt, when they see people beter live in other country.

[GazB]

"The Russians wanted to make all nations around them to be like them fore ther own safety, to be sure that the people wont revolt, when they see people beter live in other country."

Do you think the US interferes in the countries near it because it wants to help them? An opposition government in central america could be more fascist than mussolini but as long as those they were fighting were called communists the US would jump into bed with them.

[Maciek]

You are right

What are we talking about any way???

[GazB]

We don't seem to be talking about the invasion of Poland anymore...

Almost back on topic, one of the effects of Stalins agreement with Hitler to divide Poland has been suggested as one of the reasons Japan didn't open a second front on the Soviets during WWII. I heard that the Japanese thought that Hitler double dealing behind their backs with what they perceived as their enemy meant that they no longer trusted Hitler.

Of course they needed oil more than they needed to hold vast areas of tundra but what do you guys think about this?

[Maciek]

Are some Japanese on this forum?

Yes but they needed oil and steel and some other metals.
They think that China and Korea will be easy targets

[GazB]

...and rubber and quite a few other necessities.

[L J]

@GazB:

I think You are absolutely right there. These things are totally subjective. For example: there are a few historians who proposed that the war now known as the 7 years war could be termed the first World War, since it was fought in Europe, the Americas and Asia. But, well, it is not termed thus, we usually call it the 7 years war...
And of course: We tend to emphasize the European/American view of things, simply because Europe and the US were dominant during the last 200 years. This was not always so. And perhaps will change in the future again.
Its all convention. But we should stick to it for the time being, so that we know what we are talking about! The great war in the middle of the 20th century is WWII not WWIII...and it went from 1939 to 1945...


;)
I like asking provocative questions :) :Everybody is taling about WW II,but was WW II a WW ? It started as an European war ,untill june 1940 there was no fighting outside Europe and after june 1940 ? There was no fighting in the western hemisphere (exception :the Aleoutians ),there was little fighting in Africa (Tunesia and Libya ),no fighting in the Middle East,in Asia:the occupation of Indonesia,the Philippines and Malaya and the Atols of the Pacific;the war in China started in 1937,but the declaration of war was only after Pearl Harbour . Most Latin American countries did not participate in the war .Most destruction and loss of human lives was in Europe . The same can be said of WW I,who received that name only after WW II .Any-friendly please -comments ?

[shadowsrider]

Just a matter of naming. Some historians say that beginning of WW2 was in 1931 with Japanese invasion of China.

[L J]

We don't seem to be talking about the invasion of Poland anymore...

Almost back on topic, one of the effects of Stalins agreement with Hitler to divide Poland has been suggested as one of the reasons Japan didn't open a second front on the Soviets during WWII. I heard that the Japanese thought that Hitler double dealing behind their backs with what they perceived as their enemy meant that they no longer trusted Hitler.

Of course they needed oil more than they needed to hold vast areas of tundra but what do you guys think about this?You are right,let's say 49;9% :) Off course,the Japanese were angry,the government fell . In april 1941 they concluded a treaty with the USSR ,but that had nothing to do with the pact Ribbentrop-Molotov ;Japan was an underdevelopped country and did not have the means for a war in the Far East ,there was nothing valuable in East Siberia,no oil exploitation in 1940 !,and with the oil embargo of the USA any war with the USSR would be a waste of scarce resources . The pact with the Sovjet union was to prevent a war on two fronts if ...there would be a war with the USA .For Japan the embargo was a declaration of war ,it would mean economic collapse and military helplessness (navy and aircraft immobile;the USA could shell Tokyo ). Japan did not understand the embargo,because till 1941 they were waging war in China with oil ....selled by the USA !(money does not stink ,even after the rape of Nanking )Nationalist China did not receive much help from the USA,but even in 1939 Germany was selling weapons to Chang Kai Shek and a German ship with weapons en route to China was unhampered by the British .

[jklv]

Or perhaps Versailles in 1919 ;) .

Winner!!!
Congrats.

[DS73]

The problem with the "european" view of things is that it is biased.
The problem with your view is it's retarded.

If you are going to standardise history then you need to look at all sides and not agree on anything... otherwise all you'll have is bollocks.
There is no such thing as "standard" history. History deals with finding events in our (humanity) past and with interpreting them. Hence discussions and POVs.

Ask an American or a Brit what the high point of WWII was than they'd say D-Day or some such thing. Ask a Russian and they'll say something completely different. Are either of them wrong? Of course not... for each front there is a clear high point, just as there is a clear low point, and a strange bit where nothing is happening.
As a POV yes. But when they unite and make a common interpretation we (new generations) end with "established" descriptions.
For example 1939 is taken as start because it was the start of war between one union (France&UK=CW) and Axis. World war is war of unions of countries. Not some individual skirmishes.

As someone who is interested in the non-western bits of the war, the 1939-45 thing is rubbish.
Someone who is interested in non-western "bits of the war" can come to this conclusion. Someone who is interested in history wouldn't.

As far as the Russians are concerned their official war with Japan didn't start till 1945 when they opened a second front. But it could be argued that in the late 30s when there were skirmishes on borders with the Japanese and the Japanese were soundly thrashed by Georgi Zhukov was also part of WWII.
No, because as you write yourself, the russians haven't been in the state of war with Japan until 1945.

[DS73]

I like asking provocative questions :) :Everybody is taling about WW II,but was WW II a WW ? It started as an European war ,untill june 1940 there was no fighting outside Europe and after june 1940 ? There was no fighting in the western hemisphere (exception :the Aleoutians ),there was little fighting in Africa (Tunesia and Libya ),no fighting in the Middle East,in Asia:the occupation of Indonesia,the Philippines and Malaya and the Atols of the Pacific;the war in China started in 1937,but the declaration of war was only after Pearl Harbour . Most Latin American countries did not participate in the war .Most destruction and loss of human lives was in Europe . The same can be said of WW I,who received that name only after WW II .Any-friendly please -comments ?
Let me guess you are chines right?
WW2 is world war 2. This term (ww2) unites events that assemble one continuous chain of events connected between them. These events can be operationally, geographically or temporally separated but there should be clear political connection. Attack on Poland pushed UK&France to declare war on Germany. War with France pushed Italy to interfere. Later came Balkans, and Russia. Later the italian actions in Africa pushed the germans to participate outside of Europe as well. War at Sea started in 1939 and continued until the final end pretty much everywhere in blue waters. All these events are clearly and obviously connected.
In the same time Finish war was the war fought exclusively by Russia&Finland. It's outcome didn't really change the situation in the world. Japanese occupation of Manchuria is pretty much the same. Isolated regional event concerning directly only fighting sides.

[L J]

Let me guess you are chines right?
WW2 is world war 2. This term (ww2) unites events that assemble one continuous chain of events connected between them. These events can be operationally, geographically or temporally separated but there should be clear political connection. Attack on Poland pushed UK&France to declare war on Germany. War with France pushed Italy to interfere. Later came Balkans, and Russia. Later the italian actions in Africa pushed the germans to participate outside of Europe as well. War at Sea started in 1939 and continued until the final end pretty much everywhere in blue waters. All these events are clearly and obviously connected.
In the same time Finish war was the war fought exclusively by Russia&Finland. It's outcome didn't really change the situation in the world. Japanese occupation of Manchuria is pretty much the same. Isolated regional event concerning directly only fighting sides.
My Chinese is as my wallet,after paying taxes to the politicians :-( ,in fact I am Belgian :-(:-(:-(

[widi243]

My Chinese is as my wallet,after paying taxes to the politicians :-( ,in fact I am Belgian :-(:-(:-(

Good for you that you are Belgian. :)
It was world war. There were figths on three continents and two oceans.
So it was absolutly II World War.

[DS73]

My Chinese is as my wallet,after paying taxes to the politicians :-( ,in fact I am Belgian :-(:-(:-( Sorry, didn't notice "sovjet" and "WW I,who" in your text. While first is generally dutch the second is more of a Flemish mistake.
It's just hard to imagine there is somebody interested in history and does not know about Yamato, Zeroes etc. "Underdeveloped Japan" exists only in chinese and russian history "manuals". They did have an Empire and have being one of key signatories in many international treaties.

Btw. Did you notice that you've resurrected dead, though interesting, thread? Last post was in 2003.

[Domen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzYf-Uk5Dkk

------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting account of German soldier - Werner Flack - from Infanterie-Regiment 49. from Breslau (28. Infanterie-Division). His division fought some very heavy battles at the beginning of the campaign (battle of Mikolow - Wyry - Zwakow 01.09.1939 - 02.09.1939) and during the third and fourth weeks of the campaign (battles for the river Tanew, near Tomaszow Lubelski and near Zamosc since 15.09.1939 until 27.09.1939) and lost 579 KIA and 863 WIA soldiers during the campaign in Poland according to Bernhard Kranz, "Geschichte der Hirschberger Jäger".

Between these heavy battles, 28. Infanterie-Division was involved in heavy marches, trying to chase withdrawing units of Polish Army "Cracow", which desperately tried to be faster than German armoured-motorized units which were chasing them (mainly 5. Panzer-Division and XVIII Panzer Korps - during the campaign quickly redesignated to XXII Panzer Korps).

These fragments from Werner Flack's book will refer to the first heavy battle (Wyry - Mikolow - Zwakow - Gostyn) and to the further heavy marches (which became even more horrible for Werner due to the "views of war" he saw). The first account follows - sorry for mistakes if there are any, because this part of Werner's book is my translation to English:

1st of September 1939:

(...) German Infanterie-Regiment from Breslau, as the forward unit of the division, enters the Polish Upper Silesia at sunrise on 01.09.1939. Soon at the head of the division German heavy machine guns start to fire. Poles respond. In the German column there is an alarm caused by some soldier who fired a [signal] rocket meaning the assault of Polish tanks. When it turns out, that the alarm was false, Germans crawl out of houses and ditches where they have concealed themselfes. Machine gun fire stops, but from the head of the division we can hear thunders of artillery fire. The most forward III. battalion of the regiment encountered heavy Polish resistance near the village Gostyn. It seems that Poles were withdrawing because they wanted to put up fierce resistance on stronger positions located along the hills near Mikolow. At 5:00 PM the regiment starts the assault. In some moment a Polish airman, despite violent German fire, carries out a reconnaissance of German columns while they are preparing themselfes for the attack. With great difficulty Germans advance through the sandy forests, to the accompaniment of Polish machine guns playing at their head. Soon after that, near the entrance to the village Gostyn, Polish harassing artillery fire annoys them. At 16:40 AM during the march of the main forces of the regiment across the village Gostyn, Polish shooters who were lying in wait there, open heavy fire, causing heavy casualies to the dense column and slowing down its march until the dusk. (...)

(...) In the meantime battalions of the first line try to attack. The enemy is sitting on the trees, in houses, in cellars, in ruins of destroyed buildings, in thickets and bushes - he masked himself, dug shooting ditches in places, which have got the best view of the terrain. He placed machine guns, artillery guns and mortars. Poles know perfectly every place which the Germans could use for their advance, they are sending series after series of bullets from their machine weapons, magazine after magazine. They seem to be saying: "Up to here and not a single step further". They know well, that during the night Germans will not be able to break through. The area in front of our forces is full of houses. Every farmstead is a blokhaus - in each of them invisible shooters stick. These shooters let the attackers to pass themselfes, and then open fire at their rears. In front of our forces there are a lot of bushes. In almost every single shrub there are shooters with lots of ammunition. (...)

(...) General wanted to personally recognize the situation of our battalions - intense Polish fire forced him to retreat. Communication is broken. Lasting out until the night, frayed regiments and battalions withdraw, to give up place for the fresh ones. Casualties are very heavy. Medical orderlies are constantly running. Artillery combat is still in progress. (...)

Night from 1st to 2nd of September 1939:

(...) Forward battalions get stuck. Report to the regiments: “the assault is not advancing!”. Order of the commander: “attack!”. Once again battalions are jumping out of their shooting niches. Poles organize a barrage in front of their well developed positions. Reports to the regiments, that the assault has decisively got stuck. The order: “dig in and wait until the daybreak”. The fire is falling and increasing again, like a wave breaking on the shore. Suddenly lightnings pierce the dark. Tremendous howling in the air, then a powerful crash. Yet once again it is flashing, thundering, the ground is shaking. Like a swarm of dangerous birds missiles of German artillery fly over heads of their soldiers. The assault got stuck at the foot of the hills of Mikolow. Now these hills and these fortifications are being bombed by German artillery. Hundreds of lightnings pierce the darkness. In some moments it is like it was thundering constantly. There – where Poles are lasting inside these gloomy forests – hundreds of detonations are flashing, clods of ground are flying in the air, trees are crumbling. German shooters are lying stick out far away ahead of the main position. They dug out shooting niches for themselfes, placed MGs at their posts and are waiting. The night is terribly dark. Bright lightnings of German artillery shots behind the backs are brightening the horizon for a second. Rockets are breathing with strong light. But on the side of the enemy nothing can be seen – no any outlet fire, no any human shapes, nothing. Like evil insects enemy rifle bullets are continuosly buzzing. (...)

(...) A rifleman is constantly staring at the darkness with his tired eyes. He has got an impression, that some shapes has suddenly revived inside the bushes. After a moment he realizes, that these were probably imaginations. Phantoms has disappeared, but a rifleman can see, that he has almost run out of ammo. (...)

2nd of September 1939:

(...) On 02.09.1939 at 2:30 PM a leftwing regiment of the division slided out its I battalion towards the extreme left wing at a height of the III battalion, which was involved there since the beginning. Both battalions were located in the forest east of the locality Gostyn. At sunrise, after strong artillery preparation, I battalion was ordered to carry out a strong assault to relieve the III battalion, which was squashed to the ground by enemy fire. Portable radio stations of the regiment and 3 artillery observers with their radio stations are going to the headquarters of the command of the I battalion. (...)

(...) The frontline has calmed down. Only from time to time some bullets are fired and here and there missiles are flying. The command of the I battalion is located in the forest. Soldiers, wrapped in tent sheets, are lying in niches which they have previously dug out. They had got a very hard night. The enemy is around them. They were being under enemy fire from all sides and they couldn’t move. (...)

(...) Meanwhile the sunrise has come. German artillery is still silent. The morning fog is so thick, that visibility is not farther than 100 steps. The enemy is silent. There are some rumours that Poles have retreated. Suddenly a whistle from between the trees, yet closer to our heads. Somewhere near, from the front, from the left, a Polish MG is barking. After a moment they are fireing a little bit more to the right, and finally from the left side. The command of the battalion is forced to hide itself immediately. Polish machine guns are hurtling around with a stunning noise, sending their destructive beams into the forest. It looks like blows of a whip were hitting the trees. Enemy flank fire from the right side is giving the posts of the I battalion a thrashing. From the left side a machine pistol is fireing. Young German soldiers sweat from fear. In the face of the downpour of fire and lack of visibility of the enemy our own rifles are useless. But in the end grenades of German artillery are howling in the air. The nearbyhood, in which Polish shooters are sticking, turns into one big surface of explosions. It adds uplift to the German soldiers, especcialy that Polish HMGs are silent. The worse our disappointment is, when immediately after the German heavy weapons has stopped fireing, a Polish HMG from the left at a slant once again rattles. Fortunately its bullets are flying too high. It seems that the enemy is heavilly shaken after our powerful artillery bombardment. In this moment the commander of the battalion using a trumpet signal rouses the battalion to the assault. Command of the battalion together with 1st company manage to get to the edge of the forest without casualties. Poles are still firing too high. The assault raises spirits of German soldiers. But the fact that suddenly for no reason a scream: “gas, gas alarm!” comes into being, is the evidence of their moods. Everyone put on gas masks only to take them off after some time, because there is no gas at all in the air. Meanwhile over the green meadow, which was reached by German soldiers, the sun rises and disperses the thick fogs. (...)

(...) 100 metres before some abandoned farmstead the assault gets stuck. Fire of invisible enemy shooters increases to such extent, that there are no chances for further advancing. 1st company tries to break through, but without success. Report to the regiment: “the assault got stuck!”. The strike, which was to relieve the III battalion has failed. The enemy once again dug in and masked himself. Preparatory fire of our artillery struck too far. Fog made the proper observation impossible. Likewise in the section of I battalion, the assault got stuck along the whole frontline. (...)

(...) It is 10 o'clock in the morning. In the farmstead Polish sharpshooters are sitting. One of them, with the regularity of a clock, is shooting at the radio station service. One bullet pierces the radio station and hits the leg of a Leutnant who was lying nearby. The service is retreating behind a nearby mound but even there Polish bullets reach them. Two AT guns are standing near the mound. One of the radio operators spots something in a potato field, at a distance of around 100 metres. A brown helmet! AT guns immediately open fire. Rumble of shots causes panic among the Germans lying behind the mound. Commander of the AT platoon has to calm them down, telling them that these were their own AT guns, not Polish grenades. Guns are fireing one round after another, but Polish HMG which is under fire, shots a long series. Its bullets hit the shields of the AT guns. Service of the AT guns runs away: 20 people crowd behind the mound, they are surrounded by enemy fire: who has not die, is individually running towards the forest. Out of 20 men, only 7 reaches the forest. They are running backwards, spreading panic. Remnants of I battalion retreat along the whole frontline. (...)

(...) Meanwhile the III battalion is lying in the forest near the railway, anxiously waiting for the reliefing assault of the first battalion, knownig nothing about the failed assault. III battalion has already suffered heavy casualties during its own assault. Now it is no longer able of advancing forward – casualties very heavy, ammunition almost used up. In the opposite forest the death is lurking behind every tree and is lying in wait until some of the Germans pop round forward, to silece him forever. Polish defenders has grown into the forest and do not let anybody pass. Now Polish grenades are howling, exploding in the middle of squashed to the ground German lines. III battalion starts to understand, that it can no longer count on the attack of the I battalion. To make matters worse, puffing and gasping, a Polish armoured train is coming from afar along the railway. Polish armoured train is coming closer. It is 400 metres from the German positions. Panic seizes Germans. Adjutant of the battalion is KIA. In the last moment mortar fire forces the Polish train to temporary withdrawal. But it returns many times, destroying the battalion with its fire. Slightly wounded, pouring in to the regiment, report that I and III battalions have been literally pulverized by the Polish counterattack. Only one thought has remained - endure until the night, which enables withdrawal. (...)

Source:

Werner Flack, "Wir marschieren für das Reich. Deutsche Jugend im Kampferlebnis des polnischen Feldzuges", Stalling Verlag, Oldenburg, 1940, summary from pages 17 - 34.

On 2nd of September powerful groupings of German armoured and motorized forces supported by Luftwaffe broke through the Polish 1600-kilometres long defensive frontline in two places: near Pszczyna - Cwiklice and in the weakest section of the whole Polish frontline - near the "Czestochowa gap".

Polish counterattack near Pszczyna - Cwiklice failed. Near Czestochowa Poles did not have even enough forces to carry out any counterattack - the enemy had got a crushing superiority there (7 armoured-motorized + several infantry divisions VS 1 infantry division and 1 cavalry brigade).

Due to these facts, during the night from 02.09.1939 to 03.09.1939 Polish units in the area Wyry - Mikolow - Zwakow were ordered to withdraw from their defensive positions to avoid being outflanked or encircled. Army "Cracow" abandoned its defensive positions.

The battle of Wyry - Mikolow - Zwakow came to an end.

Here is the map of this area:

The battle was fought between two German divisions (8. Infanterie-Division and 28. Infanterie-Division) and parts of two Polish divisions (major part of 55. Reserve Infantry Division and part of 23. Infantry Division). Maps come from the attachment to the book "Army Cracow" by Wladyslaw Steblik (former H.Q. officer of Army "Cracow"):

Situation on 31.08.1939 in the evening:

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/8026/sytuacjaarmiikrakowwdni.jpg

Operational situation on 02.09.1939 in the evening:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8026/sytuacjaarmiikrakowwdni.jpg

The description quoted above covers only combats of Infanterie-Regiment 49. from 28. Infanterie-Division during that battle (particularly combats near Zwakow and Gostyn) - the battle in general was the German failure, but Infanterie-Regiment 49. took most probably the greatest beating of all German units.

Operational situation on 03.09.1939:

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8026/sytuacjaarmiikrakowwdni.jpg

And the second account follows - chasing the Polish army - this fragment was translated by R. Hargreaves and comes from his excellent book:

Richard Hargreaves[/B]"]To infantryman Werner Flack, this campaign seemed to be a great drama played out against a fiery backdrop. As night fell in Upper Silesia, he was mesmerised by the death waltz of Gostyn, a small village southwest of Katowice.

"Eerie ruins rise up from the ground and the ruins smoulder; the smoke is blacker than night; it licks with ravenous greed and bright flames, crackles and pops, hisses and stews. Sparks fly up into the grey sky; beams moan, groan, ache in the heat and collapse and a swarm of sparks rise up like a living soul. The horror peers out of houses which line the road through broken and smashed windows, while the flames of neighbouring fires play their game of sparks against panes which have remained intact. We don’t want to believe our eyes. We never saw such a scene. Or had we only dreamed of such scenes in war? It’s almost too much for today! We look and stare; we listen for the confusing sounds of burning barns and houses and think for a second: the harvest is in. But where there was grain is now a black pile which flames leap from, and white smoke rises like poisonous steam. And close to the flickering house there’s a black figure lying on the half-burned floor amid the smoke and soot of the smouldering fire: a bundle of singed clothes perhaps? And yet it lies there so stretched out, strangely alive yet rigid." [Flack, pages 33 - 4, 82]

As the campaign progressed, Flack’s bloodlust and exuberance were tempered by the sights of battle. The scars of war became ever more apparent: scraps of uniform and bloodstained bandages lying in ditches, discarded cooking dishes, caps, steel helmets, a spade with a bullet hole, a canteen, a wrecked field gun, the trunks of trees spilt down the middle by shells.

"Our eyes move wearily from scene to scene and the further we march, words become less frequent,’ Flack wrote. 'In the tops of unharmed, the birds sang. It is a tragic contrast,’ the soldier observed. ‘The birdsong doesn’t capture the face of this world. The reality is bloody traces of the battle which has passed." [Flack, page 64]

Source:

This time I didn't have to translate it on my own as Richard Hargreavesquotes these fragments (+ his comments quoted above) already translated to English in his excellent, very recent book, titled "Blitzkrieg Unleashed".

By the way - today is the 70th anniversary of Ribbentrop - Molotov Pact (+ the Secret Protocol) of 23.08.1939.

---------------------------

Soldiers of Polish 16th Infantry Regiment, 2 battalions of which were counterattacking near Pszczyna - Cwiklice on 02.09.1939:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/6637/jjjjft5.jpg

Some accounts concerning combats near Pszczyna - Cwiklice on 02.09.1939 can be found here:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=162303&page=3

-----------------------------------


and during the third and fourth weeks of the campaign (battles for the river Tanew, near Tomaszow Lubelski and near Zamosc since 15.09.1939 until 27.09.1939) and lost 579 KIA and 863 WIA soldiers during the campaign in Poland according to Bernhard Kranz, "Geschichte der Hirschberger Jäger".

The battle for the river Tanew near Podsosnina Lukowska and Lukowa between 15.09.1939 and 17.09.1939:

"The battle of Łukowa [15.09.1939 - 17.09.1939] was fought by Polish 6. Infantry Division from Operational Group "Bielsko" under command of brigadier general Bernard Mond. On 14.09.1939 Polish division occupied the new defensive lines along the river Tanew: from Osuchy across Podsośnina, Szostaki up to Pisklaki. On 15.09.1939 in Łukowa, to the west from the church, a Polish patrol fired at a German car. Several wounded German officers died immediately. Germans accused civilian population for that attack. They gathered inhabitants of Łukowa in the church. Those, who did not go inside the church, were kept in the square. Near the church Germans placed their heavy artillery, directing guns towards the forest of Solska Primeval Forest, Podsośnina, Osuchy. Inhabitants were exposed for missiles of Polish artillery. According to the relation of a soldier - participant of those combats, Poles knew about hostages and did not shoot.

Fierce combats also took place on 15.09.1939 between Szostaki and Pisklaki in the meadows called "Glinsko". In the place, where German units were trying to cross the river Tanew, Poles organized an ambush. Germans were forced to retreat from the hill Borsuczyna. At the same time another German unit attacked Podsośnina from the direction of Łukowa. Eastern part of the village burned down (western part was destroyed yet on 14.09.1939). Due to the heavy pressure of Polish soldiers, the enemy retreated towards Łukowa. German attacks on Podsośnina lasted for the whole day. All of them were repulsed despite the predominant strength of the enemy.

But after the next German attack on Polish positions [on 16.09.1939] soldiers had to withdraw from the hill Borsuczyna behind the river Tanew. German artillery was constantly fireing at the whole Surowy Forest (forest located north from the village Szostaki, 400 metres from the river Tanew), nearby meadows and Aleksandrow. The line of the river Tanew was hold by Poles until 17.09.1939 (Sunday morning). Also Polish units in Podsośnina were forced to retreat, they marched deeply into the Solska Primeval Forest. Whereas 117 soldiers fallen during that battle remained in the parish cemetery in Łukowa":

http://lukowa.pl/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10050/normal_kwatery.jpg

From:

http://lukowa.pl/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=31

[L J]

Sorry, didn't notice "sovjet" and "WW I,who" in your text. While first is generally dutch the second is more of a Flemish mistake.
It's just hard to imagine there is somebody interested in history and does not know about Yamato, Zeroes etc. "Underdeveloped Japan" exists only in chinese and russian history "manuals". They did have an Empire and have being one of key signatories in many international treaties.

Btw. Did you notice that you've resurrected dead, though interesting, thread? Last post was in 2003.If one is comparing Japanese,US and German war production,sould one nor be rightfully speak of an underdevelopped Japan ? And the yamato ,maybe a bad exemple ? Waste of scarce raw materials ?

[L J]

Sorry, didn't notice "sovjet" and "WW I,who" in your text. While first is generally dutch the second is more of a Flemish mistake.
It's just hard to imagine there is somebody interested in history and does not know about Yamato, Zeroes etc. "Underdeveloped Japan" exists only in chinese and russian history "manuals". They did have an Empire and have being one of key signatories in many international treaties.

Btw. Did you notice that you've resurrected dead, though interesting, thread? Last post was in 2003. From 'The rise and the Fall of the Great Powers' 1937:National Income of the USA :68 billion $ ;for defense 1,5 % Italy 6billion For defense 14.5 % Japan 4 billion for defense :28.2 %

[shadowsrider]

From 'The rise and the Fall of the Great Powers' 1937:National Income of the USA :68 billion $ ;for defense 1,5 % Italy 6billion For defense 14.5 % Japan 4 billion for defense :28.2 %

This is off topic discussion but such numbers out of context make no sense.
First in 37 US economy was not in war mode, the army counted 170,000 troops number of planes and tanks was very small so it it obvious that they were spending not much for defense.
While Japan was in war since many years already.

Second: claim that Japan was underdeveloped is undefendable. At first stages of war they had definite technological superiority in airplanes and warships quality. The industry was very strong in comparision to country size and airplanes designs produced by constructor until end of war were amazing simply industry was not already able to produce them.
Japan's main weakness was the small output of military schools which effected in unsufficient numbers of well trained crews that could not use the capabilities of new warplanes that emerged in later stages of war.
And of course lots of other mistakes.

[widi243]

"German invasion began with an air raid on undefended city of Wielun at 4:40am. Over 1200 people were killed in first warcrime of World War II. "

Is wrong for a start. You don't actually believe the Nazis were nice to the Czechs and Slovaks, or even the Austrians that didn't support their annexation. On the Pacific front the Japanese were already doing lots of bad things to the Chinese etc. (Just because the Commonwealth joined the war with the invasion of Poland doesn't mean that was the start of WWII any more than December 7th 1941 was the start of the Pacific war.)
Sorry I misreaded! You have right that Japan i China was verry activ earlier. But when invasion of Poland start in 1 september and when England and France declered war to Germany and Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East it was beginig of large scale global conflict.
Japas actions in China at thet moment seemed to be loclal character and not lead to the global conflict.
Edited

[shadowsrider]

what is wrong in here?? It's pure historical fact!! `Start trolling !:bash:?

The interpretation of Wielun bombing is not clear. Emmerling (somewhat Germany biased) claims that there was a report of cavalry brigade stationing in the city based on fact that some reconeissance cavalry of infantry division was seen there.
Personally I agree with this interpretation: simply Germans would not send a strike force on major advance route just to bomb a city - it would be a waste of resources.

But there was another pure Luftwaffe crime: Frampol - town just used to test carpet bombing.

[L J]

This is off topic discussion but such numbers out of context make no sense.
First in 37 US economy was not in war mode, the army counted 170,000 troops number of planes and tanks was very small so it it obvious that they were spending not much for defense.
While Japan was in war since many years already.

Second: claim that Japan was underdeveloped is undefendable. At first stages of war they had definite technological superiority in airplanes and warships quality. The industry was very strong in comparision to country size and airplanes designs produced by constructor until end of war were amazing simply industry was not already able to produce them.
Japan's main weakness was the small output of military schools which effected in unsufficient numbers of well trained crews that could not use the capabilities of new warplanes that emerged in later stages of war.
And of course lots of other mistakes.
Out of context ? Facts are facts .The Japanese BNP per capita was a third of that of Italy;at first stages of war ,they had NO superiority in airplanes and warships quality,but their aircraft an warships were good(an important nuance )but 6 months after Peral Harbour ? At Midway,they lost the few good pilotes,aircraft and warships they had ,and afterwards their navy and air force were losing every day,although they were producing a lot of aircraft of low quality and in the end they had to use the Kamikazes(not something own to an industrialized society )

[-Julik- 4.GdKp]

Poland accepted the rules of the game by inveding Czechoslovakia, so dont whine.

[Drako]

Poland accepted the rules of the game by inveding Czechoslovakia, so dont whine.

Yeah, it was terrible invasion indeed :roll: Geez, how it is that we've solved that matter with Chechs but anyway someone from other country, who does not even know the background for that "invasion" brings the matter up? No to mention the fact it is completely irrevelant to the subject of this thread.

[widi243]

Poland accepted the rules of the game by inveding Czechoslovakia, so dont whine.

Really?? About what rulez have you talking about?? It's only thing what wee can ecpekted from Hitler's countryman??
Mybe read some books about both befor e post somethong stiupid.:bash:
Edited

[Switek]

An interesting info about probably first fallen soldier in WW2 (http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80269,6963402,Zapomniany_zolnierz___pierwsza_polska_ofiara_II_wojny.html)

Rest In Peace Corporal Piotr Konieczka

[-Julik- 4.GdKp]

Yeah, it was terrible invasion indeed :roll: Geez, how it is that we've solved that matter with Chechs but anyway someone from other country, who does not even know the background for that "invasion" brings the matter up? No to mention the fact it is completely irrevelant to the subject of this thread.

Just so,bcs you poles like to whine around with your 'our country was divided by germany and the SU'...

[-Julik- 4.GdKp]

Really?? About what rulez have you talking about?? It's only thing what wee can ecpekted from Hitler's countryman??
Mybe read some books about both befor e post somethong stiupid.

I think you are the one wich should read some books...oh and it's not ruleZ, but rules.

[Switek]

Just so,bcs you poles like to whine around with your 'our country was divided by germany and the SU'...:cantbeli:

Ekhm, what? The difference is we do not deny the hostile act done against Czechoslovakia in 1938 (what you can find in appropriate thread on mp.net) while your biased, uninformed and uneducated friend deny basic facts. Fvck off this thread and go trolling somewhere else...

:bash:

[shadowsrider]

Let's not spoil the thread by discussing with idiots.

[shadowsrider]

Out of context ? Facts are facts .The Japanese BNP per capita was a third of that of Italy;at first stages of war ,they had NO superiority in airplanes and warships quality,but their aircraft an warships were good(an important nuance )but 6 months after Peral Harbour ? At Midway,they lost the few good pilotes,aircraft and warships they had ,and afterwards their navy and air force were losing every day,although they were producing a lot of aircraft of low quality and in the end they had to use the Kamikazes(not something own to an industrialized society )

I would gladly discuss this with you, because this is a very interesting topic but maybe start a new thread?

[widi243]

I think you are the one wich should read some books...oh and it's not ruleZ, but rules.

I deffinitly think that was stupid idea to retake Zaolzie, but there is no coparation to this stupib and blindless action and fullscale invasion with massive murders of civilians/ And I don't remember if somebody in polish authorithies give orders to kill any civilian without mercy like it Hitler did.
I made my lesson well and for me this comparation is abus and insult.
I know that is very emotional case by our Czech neighbours. And this action was reaction for Chechoslovak's actions in 1920 when we have war with Soviets and could defend Zaolzie.
So just don't post b*****t post especialy when it is a high chance that your ancestors could take a part o agression for my coutry. Becaus its insulting me.

[Flamming_Python]

I have 2 questions:

Firstly, why aren't the Czechs and Slovaks ranting at modern Poland as much as the Poles are ranting at modern Russia?

Secoundly, why does Stalin collaborating with Hitler over the invasion of Poland make him as bad as him and an equal belligerent of WW2; while Poland collaborating with Hitler doesn't make Poland as bad as Hitler and a fellow belligerent of WW2?

[widi243]

I have 2 questions:

Firstly, why aren't the Czechs and Slovaks ranting at modern Poland as much as the Poles are ranting at modern Russia?

Secoundly, why does Stalin collaborating with Hitler over the invasion of Poland make him as bad as him and an equal belligerent of WW2; while Poland collaborating with Hitler doesn't make Poland as bad as Hitler and a fellow belligerent of WW2?

"Stalin=Hitler" it's not only Poles opinion but in our country sounds louder as I see. I won't guess If I say that many of people in former Warsaw Pact countries have similar feeling about Soviet Union and Stalin.
Because Soviet Union robed every of these coutries from chance to rapid deevelopment and better standards of living.

[widi243]

I have 2 questions:

Firstly, why aren't the Czechs and Slovaks ranting at modern Poland as much as the Poles are ranting at modern Russia?

Secoundly, why does Stalin collaborating with Hitler over the invasion of Poland make him as bad as him and an equal belligerent of WW2; while Poland collaborating with Hitler doesn't make Poland as bad as Hitler and a fellow belligerent of WW2?

About your secound question tru natere regime of Stalin and Soviet Russia make them as bad as Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Both have blood milions on his hands. Both of them were unhuman annd treat people like cattle. Both of them commited terrible war crimes.

[Flamming_Python]

Because Soviet Union robed every of these coutries from chance to rapid deevelopment and better standards of living.

That's speculation. There is no guarantee that these countries would be better developed; especially in terms of education levels and urbanisation, if they maintained their neutrality or became part of the American sphere of influence after WW2. After all; the rapid development of Western Berlin was part of a propaganda operation conducted by America, in order to convince East Germans that living standards were better on the other side; but that only actually became reality probably in the 70's.

Some countries like perhaps the Czech Republic, were already industrialised and developed; being part of the Soviet sphere probably held them back; but countries like Bulgaria and Romania probably benefited; they didn't become rich by Western standards perhpas, but became industrialised, urban societies with a large amount of specialists and educated people; whereas before WW2 they were agrarian societies on par with many countries in Asia and the Middle East today .

[Flamming_Python]

About your secound question tru natere regime of Stalin and Soviet Russia make them as bad as Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Both have blood milions on his hands. Both of them were unhuman annd treat people like cattle. Both of them commited terrible war crimes.

Actually America and Britain also commited terrible war crimes; the Europeans had colonies whose populations they were brutally exploiting, etc... I'm pretty sure that people in Africa and Asia were also treated like cattle by the European colonial regimes there. Stalin, as bad as he was, didn't try to genocidaly exterminate whole peoples, including the Slavic race; that's to say Poles, Russians, etc...

That's what puts Hitler a notch above Stalin and everyone else.

[Drako]

Firstly, why aren't the Czechs and Slovaks ranting at modern Poland as much as the Poles are ranting at modern Russia?

Secoundly, why does Stalin collaborating with Hitler over the invasion of Poland make him as bad as him and an equal belligerent of WW2; while Poland collaborating with Hitler doesn't make Poland as bad as Hitler and a fellow belligerent of WW2?

Maybe because during Polish "invasion" not a single Czechoslovak soldier got killed? Maybe becuase Poland took just a tiny piece of land, not half of country, on which 80% of population was Polish? Maybe because Poles has let captured Czechs go home, not shot them in the back of their heads in the forest. Maybe because that piece of land had been taken by Czechoslovakia from Poland before? Maybe because Polish government doesn't negate that it was wrong to take Zaolzie? Maybe because Poland did not sign any pact with Nazis about dividing Czechoslovakia? Maybe because Poles and Czechs are able to talk about it without lies? Maybe because Poland doesn't defend itself by claiming that Czechoslovakia signed some misterious treaty with Hitler about attacking Poland together?

Is it enough of reasons?

[widi243]

That's speculation. There is no guarantee that these countries would be better developed; especially in terms of education levels and urbanisation, if they maintained their neutrality or became part of the American sphere of influence after WW2. After all; the rapid development of Western Berlin was part of a propaganda operation conducted by America, in order to convince East Germans that living standards were better on the other side; but that only actually became reality probably in the 70's.

Some countries like perhaps the Czech Republic, were already industrialised and developed; being part of the Soviet sphere probably held them back; but countries like Bulgaria and Romania probably benefited; they didn't become rich by Western standards perhpas, but became industrialised, urban societies with a large amount of specialists and educated people; whereas before WW2 they were agrarian societies on par with many countries in Asia and the Middle East today .


This speculation have solid basics. And now when our contries enjoying rapid development and standards of living are rising when we are anjoying peace and stability as part of EU and NATO we see what we lost when we wrere on the wrong side of Iron Courtain. And it's make us to conclusion that aliance with Russia sucks. It's not very innovate in order to state that our standards of living would be much similar to this what western Europe has been enjoed for ages. Scale of economical damages what Soviet did to Poland nad not only Poland after war was huge. I cannot say how could it be with Romania and Bulgaria because I'dont know theirs situatiom. Maybe some MPnet forumers from this countries cold say about it. I can speak about situation in what happen to Poland beacause I lived in Poland during COld War and I see differences. What make me to conclusion that friendship with Russia isn't good option. It's not mean that I want to my coutry to be Russias enemy. I dream that some day relations between our coutrise come's to warmer levels but if price of it will be worshiping some of most evil political systems in Earth history becauseRussians loving it I say deffinitly no. And toe clear I don't have grudges to any single Ivan who lived in Soviet Russia. I feel sorry for them becase they were much more hurt from this criminal unhuman system.
So I can't understand theirs grandchildren who's living in Russia now and worshiping opressors of thier fathers.

[Switek]

I have 2 questions:

Firstly, why aren't the Czechs and Slovaks ranting at modern Poland as much as the Poles are ranting at modern Russia?

We both do not deny it happened but also consider it as hostile, unnecessary action what made us more problems and reason for shame. And the result weren't such significant... p-)

Secoundly, why does Stalin collaborating with Hitler over the invasion of Poland make him as bad as him and an equal belligerent of WW2; while Poland collaborating with Hitler doesn't make Poland as bad as Hitler and a fellow belligerent of WW2?

If we collaborated in a way you suggest we would probably join to Hitler plans and attack Russia altogether. :)

Our relations with Germany were normal like between states and were rather full of tensions during all period between the wars.

[Switek]

That's speculation. There is no guarantee that these countries would be better developed; ....:cantbeli:

Poland in 1939 represented the same level of development and average living standard like Grece and Spain... in 1989 we were third world league...

Now we need about 10 years to achieve Portugal level....

[Eye]

That's speculation. There is no guarantee that these countries would be better developed;
Just compare North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Volkswagen and Trabant etc. That comparison will show you efficiency of socialist economy.

[widi243]

Just compare North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Volkswagen and Trabant etc. That comparison will show you efficiency of socialist economy.

Or Dacia from the 80-ies with todays Dacia. Thats big difference.

[Linedoggie]

That's speculation. There is no guarantee that these countries would be better developed; especially in terms of education levels and urbanisation, if they maintained their neutrality or became part of the American sphere of influence after WW2. After all; the rapid development of Western Berlin was part of a propaganda operation conducted by America, in order to convince East Germans that living standards were better on the other side; but that only actually became reality probably in the 70's.

If the Soviet Union and Communism in the DDR were so great why then did people risk their lives, and many were shot trying to Leave such a paradise? I can think of no episode where someone was shot from the Western side trying to cross East.

[widi243]

If the Soviet Union and Communism in the DDR were so great why then did people risk their lives, and many were shot trying to Leave such a paradise? I can think of no episode where someone was shot from the Western side trying to cross East.

DDR was paradise compare to others Eastern block countries.

[Gawel1410]

I believe that we need more pics. Anyways keep up the good job posting, at least in the first few pages.

[Flamming_Python]

Maybe because during Polish "invasion" not a single Czechoslovak soldier got killed? Maybe becuase Poland took just a tiny piece of land, not half of country, on which 80% of population was Polish? Maybe because Poles has let captured Czechs go home, not shot them in the back of their heads in the forest. Maybe because that piece of land had been taken by Czechoslovakia from Poland before? Maybe because Polish government doesn't negate that it was wrong to take Zaolzie? Maybe because Poland did not sign any pact with Nazis about dividing Czechoslovakia? Maybe because Poles and Czechs are able to talk about it without lies? Maybe because Poland doesn't defend itself by claiming that Czechoslovakia signed some misterious treaty with Hitler about attacking Poland together?

Is it enough of reasons?

AFAIK all the Polish territory that was taken by the USSR became part of the Ukrainian and Belarussian SSRs and was majority ethnic Ukranian and Belarussian respectively. I never heard of the population there being 80% Polish. And today's Poland actually has no territorial claims on these territories.

As for the rest of the stuff; it's your sensationalist rhetoric "maybe because Poles and Czechs are able to talk about it without lies"; what is that supposed to mean?

[Flamming_Python]

We both do not deny it happened but also consider it as hostile, unnecessary action what made us more problems and reason for shame. And the result weren't such significant... p-)

If we collaborated in a way you suggest we would probably join to Hitler plans and attack Russia altogether. :)

It was a pecking order Czechoslovakia < Poland < USSR, and then Germany tried to pull a fast one :)

Our relations with Germany were normal like between states and were rather full of tensions during all period between the wars.

Our relations were terrible with Germany throughout the 30's

[Flamming_Python]

This speculation have solid basics. And now when our contries enjoying rapid development and standards of living are rising when we are anjoying peace and stability as part of EU and NATO we see what we lost when we wrere on the wrong side of Iron Courtain. And it's make us to conclusion that aliance with Russia sucks. It's not very innovate in order to state that our standards of living would be much similar to this what western Europe has been enjoed for ages. Scale of economical damages what Soviet did to Poland nad not only Poland after war was huge. I cannot say how could it be with Romania and Bulgaria because I'dont know theirs situatiom. Maybe some MPnet forumers from this countries cold say about it. I can speak about situation in what happen to Poland beacause I lived in Poland during COld War and I see differences. What make me to conclusion that friendship with Russia isn't good option. It's not mean that I want to my coutry to be Russias enemy. I dream that some day relations between our coutrise come's to warmer levels but if price of it will be worshiping some of most evil political systems in Earth history becauseRussians loving it I say deffinitly no. And toe clear I don't have grudges to any single Ivan who lived in Soviet Russia. I feel sorry for them becase they were much more hurt from this criminal unhuman system.
So I can't understand theirs grandchildren who's living in Russia now and worshiping opressors of thier fathers.

:cantbeli:

Poland in 1939 represented the same level of development and average living standard like Grece and Spain... in 1989 we were third world league...

Now we need about 10 years to achieve Portugal level....

GDP per capita was not a good measure of anything during communist times; I'm pretty sure that in terms of urbanisation, size of industrial economy, power/electricity generation, education & literacy levels, healthcare, mass housing, public transport and some other measures; Poland in '89 was higher than '89 Greece and Spain. But in terms of purchasing power, Poland was worse and the quality of consumer goods were low, the enterprises were less efficient, etc...

[Eye]

GDP per capita was not a good measure of anything during communist times; I'm pretty sure that in terms of urbanisation, size of industrial economy, power/electricity generation, education & literacy levels, healthcare, mass housing, public transport and some other measures; Poland in '89 was higher than '89 Greece and Spain. But in terms of purchasing power, Poland was worse and the quality of consumer goods were low, the enterprises were less efficient, etc...
It sounds for me like transmission from communistic party gathering in early 70's. Completely isolation from reality. I wonder why have you emigrated to poor western countries not to some well developed socialist like Cuba.

[Switek]

GDP per capita was not a good measure of anything during communist times; I'm pretty sure that in terms of urbanisation,

It's irrelevant factor

size of industrial economy,In 1989 we had developed heavy consuming a lot of energy, low efficient industry and total technological level was compared to Western European from mid 1960's

power/electricity generation, Can't compare but our based on coal power plants are backward

education & literacy levels, As for literacy, in fact communist did what what was planned by prewar government... in 1989 we had developed basic and professional education... true but secondary comprehensive and highest level by numbers were much lower than in the West. Another problem was that education system was based much more on theoretical aspects not appropriate in further professional activity.

healthcare, In number yes but it was backward and not efficient. The hospital network was not created by rational planning but for potential WW2 and in the West of Poland we have too much more hospitals while in the east too less. By numbers, after 1989 death of infants rate significantly decreased and life expectancy increased


mass housing, Problem with hosing has never been solved by commies after WW2. The quality of communist construction was so poor so there was implemented in the beginning of 90's a special law obliged owners for warming all buildings by putting special isolation.

public transport It was much more developed because of limited number cars. There was such demand that newly sold cars by state companies to private owners were worth double or triple on black market.

http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/PUBL_til_transport_wyniki_dzialalnosci_2008.pdf
page 75-76

and some other measures; Poland in '89 was higher than '89 Greece and Spain. But in terms of purchasing power, Poland was worse and the quality of consumer goods were low, the enterprises were less efficient, etc...I'm sorry but Grece and Spain were paradises for us bu not in climate terms, of course... In 1989 there was coupon system which limited the amount of meat, sugar, coffee, chocolate, (periodically alcohol, shoes, and some clothes, flour) what individual could buy in every month, Not mentioning that I used to eat bananas and oranges once, or twice a year in whole 1980's...

[DS73]

If one is comparing Japanese,US and German war production,sould one nor be rightfully speak of an underdevelopped Japan ? And the yamato ,maybe a bad exemple ? Waste of scarce raw materials ?
USA, USSR, and Germany were superpowers, and UK was fading one more appropriate to be in regional league. Japan, France, Italy were regional players. Don't mix them up.
Yamato was a waste because it was used against US fleet. Different scales.
With US neutral she would make everybody else sh*t breaks. All your other statements are clueless, educate yourself about japanes actions before Pearl Harbor and right after. While they used their force against opponents in their league, they were just fine.

[DS73]

this is Military History and Tactics subforum, can you move your discussion about Commies VS Capitalists in Rant section?
Also I ask polish members to be more mature and make a full stop. It's pointless to argue 1000s time using the same arguments over and over.
Those who want to believe in ivAl capitalists and "irrational hatred toward russians" will continue to do so, no matter what you say. Stop answering and participate in russian trolling.

Since both countries are NATO members only greece&turkey rants are appropriate :D.

[widi243]

GDP per capita was not a good measure of anything during communist times; I'm pretty sure that in terms of urbanisation, size of industrial economy, power/electricity generation, education & literacy levels, healthcare, mass housing, public transport and some other measures; Poland in '89 was higher than '89 Greece and Spain. But in terms of purchasing power, Poland was worse and the quality of consumer goods were low, the enterprises were less efficient, etc...

You are joking!! Right?? Becuas what you are writting here is pure b******t. It's not even lie it is stiupid and pathetic try to defence something what was terible tragedy for my country.

[InetWarrior]

You are joking!! Right?? Becuas what you are writting here is pure b******t. It's not even lie it is stiupid and pathetic try to defence something what was terible tragedy for my country.

You are so drama queen... Our roads are real tragedy, but we can blame only ourselvs for that...

[widi243]

this is Military History and Tactics subforum, can you move your discussion about Commies VS Capitalists in Rant section?
Also I ask polish members to be more mature and make a full stop. It's pointless to argue 1000s time using the same arguments over and over.
Those who want to believe in ivAl capitalists and "irrational hatred toward russians" will continue to do so, no matter what you say. Stop answering and participate in russian trolling.

Since both countries are NATO members only greece&turkey rants are appropriate :D.

This same we can say about some russian forumers what are writing here that white is black and black is white all the time.
And about "irrational hate" if it is it's verry rational. But it's not question of hate. It's a question of truth.

[Asheren]

Not to mention amout of stuff that soviets have pillaged from Polish territory during the war or just affter the war. Whole factories were pretty much picked clean and hauled to the east.
The main sin of the comies is exactly what you say python. They didnt feel bound by normal economy rules. This was one of main factors in colapse of soviet block. Also offen a decision of comunist dignitaries was a law even if it was completly stupid. The city of Tychy is a good example. After war development of the city was based on similiar plan made by germans. There was one difference location of the railroad line. The change is rummored to be done by a first secretary of polish communist party at that time. Instead of going past the edges of the town it was going straight through the middle. (So the workers wouldnt have to travel far.) It forced a massive and costly digs and demolitions in the city also hampering a development of several districts that last to this day because it would be necessary to basicaly rebuild a whole town to prevent that. Similiar things can be said about many other cities. Road network was also offen developed with military not a civilian goals. Many of the roads instead going in curves were build straigt at increased cost soo they could be used as an airstrip. Bridges were reinforced soo heavy russian tanks could use them. Its still a quite common sight on commie era roads going throu a forest areas: a long straight piece of road with a gentle turn at one end with a small parking lot just behind it. Schools and other public use buildings quite offen even a block of flats were build with a bomb shelter. I dont have to remind you that all this reniforced concrete and diging costs. The list of fail at economy by the commies is long and most propably we will never fully recover from their legacy. It would require to raze entire districts or in cease of many small towns whole town. But its what you get when you work along the rule "brain i dont need that i have an ideology" Poles also had to pay with $ for goods they bought from ZSRR while Russians were paying for ours in transfer rubles. Also all this quota bull**** was an asking for disaster. It was a common practice to use various tricks to make a quota and go above. Increasing amount of impurities in ore, adding rocks in to the coal, lowering quality to increase quantity etc. etc. A father of my friend was at some point a "przodownik pracy" in a mine. His wife was pregnant and her and his parents were living in small block of flats apparments. Soo his friends at the mine made a little deal(10 bottles of vodka and a LEGO box for that official son) with guy responsible for quota calculation. To substract some % from theirs and add it to his soo he would became "przodownik pracy" and could get a new apartment faster. Did someone cared that he wouldn't be able to do such quota? Nope. The housing problem after war was partialy solved by froced spliting of the homes. If you were living in "to large" hose or apartment they would force you to split it in to multiple smaller apartments. Building block of flats was never efficient enough to solve housing problems in Poland. We lack like 1 to 3 milion houses by now. Depending on estimates how many of those build by commies or managed by them we will be forced to raze in next 10 years. They were queues for pretty much anything from sugar to houses or telephone lines. Comies rule was a pretty much constant state of lack of everything. The only realy succesfull development program was a 3 year plan. It was basicaly a program to rebuild factories that were in best shape after war. It was a basicaly first and last project of the comies actualy aimed to improve living standards in Poland. The six years plan was aiming to develop heavy industry at the cost of other sectors and living standards. The first 5 year plan after it was aimed to solve problems caused by the six years plan like lack of food or underdeveloped light industry and lack of houses. Still in the middle comies decided to funel even more resouce in to heavy industry. The second 5 year plan was developing heavy industry even more at the cost of basicaly halting of living standard improvment. Same with the third 5 years plan. Fourth one was aimed to save a crumbling economy. It contained also a series of large and costly but completly dumb from economic view point investments. The last plan was a desperate last ditch effort to prevent a complete colapse of polish economy.

About ZSRR forcing a dependancy from itself. It is not a widely known fact that Marshall Plan offer was also directed towards soviet block countries. Chechoslovakia already submited their participation offer and Poles planed to do it. It was a personal Stalin decision to deny this chance to soviet block countries.

[widi243]

You are so drama queen... Our roads are real tragedy, but we can blame only ourselvs for that...

Yeap they are but our economics backwardness it is towards Western Europe it's Soviet Russia's policy after II WW fault.

[InetWarrior]

Yeap they are but our economics backwardness it is towards Western Europe it's Soviet Russia's policy after II WW fault.

Our economics backwardness predate WWII...
German idiom "polnishe wirtschaft" have nothing to do with "Soviet Russia's policy after II WW fault"

[Drako]

AFAIK all the Polish territory that was taken by the USSR became part of the Ukrainian and Belarussian SSRs and was majority ethnic Ukranian and Belarussian respectively. I never heard of the population there being 80% Polish. And today's Poland actually has no territorial claims on these territories.

As for the rest of the stuff; it's your sensationalist rhetoric "maybe because Poles and Czechs are able to talk about it without lies"; what is that supposed to mean?

I ment 80% in Zaolzie. And all the Polish territory taken by USSR became part of USSR. Population there was AFAIK in around 40% Polish.

As to the rest of stuff, you just can't take an attitude towards it and try to catch my words selectively. Somehow you ignored the most important part about not killing eachother and sticked to the "lies" part. But I'll answer you anyway: just read/watch latest informations spreaded by Russian TV or recent article posted on the Russian MOD website about the start of the WWII. If you still won't be able to smell lies, we have nothing to talk about.

[shadowsrider]

I join the request: this is Invasion of Poland thread, not modern Polish economy thread. Really the time of people reading the forum is limited and personally I hate reading threads full of off topic discusssions and personal remarks.

[Asheren]

Our economics backwardness predate WWII...
German idiom "polnishe wirtschaft" have nothing to do with "Soviet Russia's policy after II WW fault"

Actualy it has a LOT to do. After stalin death not that much directly but indirectly our entire country development from six years plan foward was influenced and aimed at serving a communist agenda and preparation to war with NATO.

[InetWarrior]

Actualy it has a LOT to do. After stalin death not that much directly but indirectly our entire country development from six years plan foward was influenced and aimed at serving a communist agenda and preparation to war with NATO.

Before WWII? Try reading with understanding, please...

[Flamming_Python]

Just compare North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Volkswagen and Trabant etc. That comparison will show you efficiency of socialist economy.

Compare '89 with Today's Ukraine, Moldova, most of Russia, Central Asia, South Caucasus.

[Flamming_Python]

As to the rest of stuff, you just can't take an attitude towards it and try to catch my words selectively. Somehow you ignored the most important part about not killing eachother and sticked to the "lies" part.

Na, that's also BS; the USSR acted more brutally I agree but on the map both Poland and Russia did the same thing, and with the same justifications.

Stalin of course killed many Polish officers, he also killed and purged many Russian, Ukrainian, etc... officers; you can't blame Russians for this.

[widi243]

Na, that's also BS; the USSR acted more brutally I agree but on the map both Poland and Russia did the same thing, and with the same justifications.

Stalin of course killed many Polish officers, he also killed and purged many Russian, Ukrainian, etc... officers; you can't blame Russians for this.

Nobody blame single Russian for this. I blame a Stalin and USSR ruled by them for his policy and his actions what was criminal charachtere in my and probably marjority of Poles. His Action cause a lot of damege to my coyntry but Russia had suffer under his regime to. What admit even historician in USSR during Gorbachev times.
And don't Poland and USSR didn't do the same thing. Russian accuse us that we sign non aggression agreement with Hitler (existing of secret protocols to it it's pure phantasy whta was invented in order to justify secret protocols to Ribentrop/Molotov pact). The same non agression agreement we had signed with USSR what was honoured by polish side till 17 semptember 1939 when USSR broked it.
Edited

[Switek]

Na, that's also BS; the USSR acted more brutally I agree but on the map both Poland and Russia did the same thing, and with the same justifications.

Stalin of course killed many Polish officers, he also killed and purged many Russian, Ukrainian, etc... officers; you can't blame Russians for this.

We can blame Russians only about persistent defense of Stalinist and Bolshevik arguments.

[widi243]

We can blame Russians only about persistent defense of Stalinist and Bolshevik arguments.

X2!! that is accurate.

[Drako]

Na, that's also BS; the USSR acted more brutally I agree but on the map both Poland and Russia did the same thing, and with the same justifications.

Stalin of course killed many Polish officers, he also killed and purged many Russian, Ukrainian, etc... officers; you can't blame Russians for this.

So you compare few square km taken by Poland to thousands taken by USSR? Don't be silly. More brutally? In comparision to Soviets Polish forces asked politely Czechs for Zaolzie. Same justifications? Since when 80% of population in eastern Poland was an USSR nationality? Wait, there was no such nationality at all! When did Poland signed a pact with Hitler about division of Europe? Your claims are inconsistent as hell.

And you can't blame Stalin only. True, he was giving orders, but others were following them without a question. There was whole political and military machine involved, what equals to thousands of responsible people. We don't blame Russians, we blame Russian government and those people who try to whitewash that machine and people involved.

[Asheren]

Before WWII? Try reading with understanding, please...

Inet sorry didn't noticed. Yes it was true that we were underdeveloped nation even before but it was a legacy of years of neglect during zabory. Zaborcy especialy the russians were never interested in a serious industrialisation and development of future polish territories. WWI and later pilaging armies of bolsheviks also didn't helped in that matter. I remmember reading some economist work that we would need over 10 years of peace, (Without any hostile neighbours) for our economy to balance, integrate and start rolling as it should. Even then we would be around 5 years behind other countries in europe. It was what comies were trying to do with their 6 year plan at the cost of imbalance bewen light and heavy industry. The next 5 years plan was a disaster becuase commies after intialy doing what economists suggested followed their ideolgical agendas and funelled even more resouces in to a heavy industry at the cost of droping living standards.

[DS73]

Us was NOT neutral ,we are talking about the war in the Pacific ,and in war there is no league . And their performances against the Russians in august 1939 ,and august 1945 and against the Chinese ? They had no chance to win against the USA and they knew it .
Dude learn history. And for CS strait up your head. It's messy.
Until Pearl Harbour USA were neutral and thanks to Congress stance they were going to stay that way until serious and direct provocation. You definitely have problem with comprehension of time. The WW2 didn't happen in one day. Just like Poland wasn't concurred in one day either.
Russia is superpower, USA is superpower. Obviously japanes had problems dealing with them. Different scales. Middle weight never win against heavy weight champion.
In the same time Japanese were doing in China whatever they wanted until direct involvement of american and british armies.
Japanes never intended to "win against" americans. Pearl Harbor was "point" they made after american ultimatum (Hull note). "Bargaining chip" of NK kind. They failed because they miserably misunderstood american cultural clichees and the way how american political system work (free sailing following outcries of "public opinion").

This same we can say about some russian forumers what are writing here that white is black and black is white all the time.
And about "irrational hate" if it is it's verry rational. But it's not question of hate. It's a question of truth.What is the point to recycle the same arguments? Russians have separated, detached from reality, ideological field they use to build national myths. You, polish, also have quite a few fantasy pieces btw. (like that dude who was claiming "super victories" in 16-17 century citing very strange numbers). Whatever arguments you use won't be heard as there is no intention to listen on the other side. Hence appeal to stop.
It's hard to argue with deaf.

[HOLLiS]

I join the request: this is Invasion of Poland thread, not modern Polish economy thread. Really the time of people reading the forum is limited and personally I hate reading threads full of off topic discusssions and personal remarks.


This is a really good suggestion.........

Stay on topic, or make a different thread in the right section of the forum, or....... earn some rewards.

[Gammelpreusse]

Can't complian lots of knowledge in this thread as well. Thanks to all participating, interesting perspectives and views here. Eastern European society and history are way too much neglected anyways. Especially nowadays with most having joined the EU.

[shadowsrider]

September 1st is coming so I hope for some interesting contribution and staying on topic.

Some interesting points I've recently read
- Keitel: after the campaign the ammo left was for 10-12 more days of fighting only and the stock of aerial bombs was for 2 weeks (so definitelly if Allies would strike Germany would run out of ammo)
- Pace of advance: Poland in first stages - 12 miles daily and in later stage of campaign a few miles, France: 20 miles and in later stage 35 miles
- Most unlucky German unit: 4th Panzer Division, starting the campaing with about 420 tanks being always in spearhead it finished the campaign with about 70 tanks left (many of them were later repaired - my remark)

[Eye]

Some interesting points I've recently read
- Keitel: after the campaign the ammo left was for 10-12 more days of fighting only and the stock of aerial bombs was for 2 weeks (so definitelly if Allies would strike Germany would run out of ammo)
- Pace of advance: Poland in first stages - 12 miles daily and in later stage of campaign a few miles, France: 20 miles and in later stage 35 miles
- Most unlucky German unit: 4th Panzer Division, starting the campaing with about 420 tanks being always in spearhead it finished the campaign with about 70 tanks left (many of them were later repaired - my remark)
So, we can assume that defence on the Romanian Bridgehead could had been successful if not soviet's attack on 17th september.
No WWII, no cold war etc.

[shadowsrider]

So, we can assume that defence on the Romanian Bridgehead could had been successful if not soviet's attack on 17th september.
No WWII, no cold war etc.

Just only in case Western Allies would strike.
Simply German industry was able to produce some ammo replacements while Poles could count on no production already just some transport through Romania. So it would end with disaster too, maybe prolong the agony. And still 2 weeks is a plenty of time.

[DS73]

Just only in case Western Allies would strike.
.
With what? Can you enumerate unites that were available and ready for offensive operations in 1939? Both french and british army please, to make this list really pathetic.

What would happen in a bit better world, is organized withdrawal of polish army in Russia for further fights. Without all this humiliation of prisoner camps, slave work, shooting officers etc. that did happen in reality.

It was amazing to read how surprised russian negotiators were, when the polish refused to fight war with them as integral unites of red army. Apparently all mentioned hardships were not big deal for russians of those times.

[Switek]

With what? Can you enumerate unites that were available and ready for offensive operations in 1939? Both french and british army please, to make this list really pathetic.

What would happen in a bit better world, is organized withdrawal of polish army in Russia for further fights. Without all this humiliation of prisoner camps, slave work, shooting officers etc. that did happen in reality.

It was amazing to read how surprised russian negotiators were, when the polish refused to fight war with them as integral unites of red army. Apparently all mentioned hardships were not big deal for russians of those times.:cantbeli:
Sure, esp. when we consider the fact of mass killing - more than 100.000 of Poles - Soviet Union citizens in 1937 or 38...

[shadowsrider]

With what? Can you enumerate unites that were available and ready for offensive operations in 1939? Both french and british army please, to make this list really pathetic.


Action with ANYTHING would have been succesful.... In western border there were 20 divisions most of them Landwehr. Even if Allied units were not fully ready they would smash this thin line. 12 of those German divisions were completly fresh and even did not have sharp shooting training.
As I wrote above Keitel said that Polish Campaign ultimately exhausted ammo stock, 1/3 of tanks were left somewhere on polish roads and needed repairs. So really ANY action against those poor 20 divisions would be succesful.

[Gammelpreusse]

Maybe of interest to some, here a decleration by german intellectuals towards the subject of the Polish history of WW2 in face of the 70th anniversary

http://www.23august1939.de/

[Telmar]

@shadowsrider

The French did push into the Saar region with no resistance. It was slow, and over-cautious.

As you say, the western defences of Germany were weak. But, and pardon me because I am no military expert, having hardware and troops ready does not seem enough to me.

Beyond the will that was lacking French and British leaders, there was also a strategy lacking. I can imagine an offensive needs to be planned, and the ressources allocated. We know now that the western defenses had been totally depleted, but I'm not sure it was that evident for military planners at the time. And with a large but untrained army, (probably) no plan or logistics to allow a "fast" invasion (or "blitzkrieg" I guess), the risk of being trapped in Germany probably seemed too big.

I would say the French and the Brits were not ready for war, and moreover even less to launch a full scale invasion of Germany, regardless of the opportunities provided to them.

[shadowsrider]

Well of course it is now easy to say. At the moment the Allies had no knowledge about state of German defences and also how exhausting Polish campaign was in terms of levels fuel, ammo and equipment consumption. Of course the main problem was lack of will for real action. I do not believe that offensive would be succesful but Wehrmacht would be pushed to transfer some units from eastern front and situation could be stabilized.
But if you are not willing nothing will help. I remember some Polish pilots memories who finally got to French air force that French pilots were really angry that Poles tried to attack German planes instead of avoiding them.

[Telmar]

Well of course it is now easy to say. At the moment the Allies had no knowledge about state of German defences and also how exhausting Polish campaign was in terms of levels fuel, ammo and equipment consumption. Of course the main problem was lack of will for real action. I do not believe that offensive would be succesful but Wehrmacht would be pushed to transfer some units from eastern front and situation could be stabilized.
But if you are not willing nothing will help. I remember some Polish pilots memories who finally got to French air force that French pilots were really angry that Poles tried to attack German planes instead of avoiding them.

I'm not going to argue about the "will" part. However, your statement in bold puzzles me, to say the least.

[Schmeiser]

I must say I am against all wars and I don't support nazis and what they do in Poland in 1939,but I must say when i watch movies from ww2 and invasion of Poland I'm impressed with German military operations and tactics in "blitzkrieg" the new army tactic ,in a rapid attack they won Poland in a very short time,I'm impressed by the German army speed and force,Polish soldiers are been paralyzed.

military operation and new very good war tactic "blitzkrieg" 10 points,nazis crimes and what they do after when they finish with Poland, 0 points...

[shadowsrider]

I must say I am against all wars and I don't support nazis and what they do in Poland in 1939,but I must say when i watch movies from ww2 and invasion of Poland I'm impressed with German military operations and tactics in "blitzkrieg" the new army tactic ,in a rapid attack they won Poland in a very short time,I'm impressed by the German army speed and force,Polish soldiers are been paralyzed.
military operation and new very good war tactic "blitzkrieg" 10 points,nazis crimes and what they do after when they finish with Poland, 0 points...

So again: Polish Campaign was of course the first campaign of Blitzkrieg. Due to that fact no all was working fine yet but of course it proven devastating power of combined arms: armour and strike planes, and fast maneuvres.

But what we are writing again and again and finally finds the way to consiousness of people in Western Europe or US it was not like in Gobbels propaganda.
This campaign was relatively harder than campaign in France, as I wrote some posts before the average advance of Wehrmacht equaled 12 miles daily in first 2 weeks and only a few miles next weeks while in France it was 20 miles and 35 miles in later stages of the campaign.

The campaign exhausted all the ammunition and caused severe damages to the equipment so Western Allies won time to spring next year to replace the missing elements. And also both French and Polish campaign lasted 5 weeks.

[mpingo]

Action with ANYTHING would have been succesful.... In western border there were 20 divisions most of them Landwehr. Even if Allied units were not fully ready they would smash this thin line. 12 of those German divisions were completly fresh and even did not have sharp shooting training.
If they only wished to do anything. "Why Die for Danzig?" asked French newspapers in 1939...

[widi243]

If they only wished to do anything. "Why Die for Danzig?" asked French newspapers in 1939...

They had quick replay in 1940.

[DS73]

Action with ANYTHING would have been succesful.... In western border there were 20 divisions most of them Landwehr. Even if Allied units were not fully ready they would smash this thin line. 12 of those German divisions were completly fresh and even did not have sharp shooting training.

So you are not going to present numbers. As expected....Did you ever bother to read about "funny war"? Anything beyond comics level booklets?

Even if what you stay is true (far from), what next? allies had no forces to make a deep trust. And they were painfully aware of that. And especially french had no desire for another positional war with no prospect for winning.

I have to remind that "Funny war" happened because allies were frantically producing weapons and reorganizing armies. Especially rearmament of France was impressive.

Most importantly they knew about their forces and had no clear information about capabilities of the Wehrmacht in west.
What you are writing in this thread is typical speculation, based on information known now. That is xx years after these events took place.


As I wrote above Keitel said that Polish Campaign ultimately exhausted ammo stock, 1/3 of tanks were left somewhere on polish roads and needed repairs. So really ANY action against those poor 20 divisions would be succesful.Can you provide source? "Keitel wrote" means nothing to me.

Anyway:
1/3 of tanks being lost on roads is pretty typical number no different from French or the beginning of russian campains. The complain about lack of material is generally the must for any self respecting administrator. Any of these numbers or claims have to be considered integrally and using multiple sources.

I am too lazy to search now but this claim of exhausted german army after Polish campaign was discussed already in special literature and was found bogus. The germans didn't use strategic reserves, they actually didn't use allocated resources for polish campaign completely, the army was expanding pretty successfully as well.
Since you write here, you can read english and hence are free to consult numerous english sources.

you also reproduce a number of polish propaganda claims. Boring.
For example, the consideration of army advances taken without taking into account army densities (starting with trivial front-line per division) is retarded.

EDIT: the complains about "funny war" are in the same basket with russian complains about "late second front".
The product of ignorance and national propaganda.

[Wojtop]

3 of tanks being lost on roads is pretty typical number no different from French or the beginning of russian campains. The complain about lack of material is generally the must for any self respecting administrator. Any of these numbers or claims have to be considered integrally and using multiple sources.

I am too lazy to search now but this claim of exhausted german army after Polish campaign was discussed already in special literature and was found bogus. The germans didn't use strategic reserves, they actually didn't use allocated resources for polish campaign completely, the army was expanding pretty successfully as well.
Since you write here, you can read english and hence are free to consult numerous english sources.

I am sorry DS but I don't think you are right. German PERMANENT losses of tanks in Polish campaign ammounted to ~500 pieces or 20%. Temporary losses+breakdowns were at least twice as big. So Germany had no more than 1500 tanks available for use late September 1939. Same about their airforce used against Poland - 20% write-offs and probably twice as much damaged. They had sufficient ammo stocks to carry on with the war but their army equipment was not exactly in the great shape after the Polish campaign. They repaired damaged material and built a vast number of new pieces so that German army in Spring 1940 was far stronger than late September 1939 - while still weaker (on paper) than the French.

Pure speculation but I bet if French chief of staff in 1939 had a mentality of De Gaulle France would invade Germany, SU would stay out of war and Berlin would fall by the end of 1939. The French had cruching local superiority permitting advance in German territory early september 1939, what they had not is a will to advance. Polish army around 7 -10 September was still in a shape to turn the tide and counterattack if part of German army was diverted towards Western Front so Germans couldn't really strip the Polish front off too many soldiers.

Well, that's science fiction, the lesson learned is not to put too much trust into alliances :)

[DS73]

I am sorry DS but I don't think you are right. German PERMANENT losses of tanks in Polish campaign ammounted to ~500 pieces or 20%. Temporary losses+breakdowns were at least twice as big. So Germany had no more than 1500 tanks available for use late September 1939. Same about their airforce used against Poland - 20% write-offs and probably twice as much damaged. They had sufficient ammo stocks to carry on with the war but their army equipment was not exactly in the great shape after the Polish campaign. They repaired damaged material and built a vast number of new pieces so that German army in Spring 1940 was far stronger than late September 1939 - while still weaker (on paper) than the French.
First of all, the obvious question: where these numbers come from?

And I am curious, why do you resist so much to present french&british armies in september of 1939? This data are available though probably have to be digged a bit. :D
Anyway, it is funny to read about "no more than 1500 available", no more in comparison with what army?:roll:


Pure speculation but I bet if French chief of staff in 1939 had a mentality of De Gaulle France would invade Germany, SU would stay out of war and Berlin would fall by the end of 1939. The French had cruching local superiority permitting advance in German territory early september 1939, what they had not is a will to advance. Polish army around 7 -10 September was still in a shape to turn the tide and counterattack if part of German army was diverted towards Western Front so Germans couldn't really strip the Polish front off too many soldiers.

Well, that's science fiction, the lesson learned is not to put too much trust into alliances :)Dude, you make russians look shy. What about to return back to earth? On a base of what even theoretically speaking weaker technologically, retarded politically pacifistic France would beat up Germany?:cantbeli: What "cruching local superiority" are you talking about?
May be 2000 french tanks, not designed for sustained operations, or better said anything more serious than quick skirmish? For how long can you
identify targets, load, aim, shoot? And do everything in the same time?
And that is exactly what was required from french tankers.
Or may be the total absense of adequate AT combined with general lack of support artillery unites? Or may be retarded aviation (that wasn't fixed even in 1940)? Or may be dysfunctional officers' corps, where entitlement (due to whatever reasons) was essential, merit criteria nonexistent and anything new harshly ridiculed?
Or may be the french had organizational superiority?rofl

Or maybe 160k british armed with dysfunctional weaponry would make a difference?
Polish had better weaponry and were better supplied than british, and I am not exaggerating here. Heck, Japan had better weaponry and overall better organized army than the british army mk. 1939.

It is not for nothing I ask to search for data about french&british armies in 1939. Because they were even not paper tigers, more of street kitties size.


I understand the history of 1930s is not really popular, because it makes look bad modern "disarmament" movements. It does show where the "pacification" ends if it's not universally accepted and is endorsed by everybody. But it's not like this part of history is banned, or hidden in any way.

[shadowsrider]

DS73, you are demanding sources for each statement while writing that you are too lazy to search. Sorry I am not sitting here with a list of French divisions. To be honest I don't know how many were mobilized in September 1939 but I am pretty sure you know and you can share this number. My claim is that more than German 20.

About Polish propaganda ok, we've got Polish propaganda vs Western propaganda which was initically saying that our planes were destroyed on ground and campaign lasted 2 weeks. Simply the campaign was harder that it was presented in popular view.

As for numbers of lost tanks and planes it is interesting topic which I was elaborating in details some year ago. Number of ultimatelly lost tanks is quite low, less that 300. So how is that possible? 4th Panzer Division from 420 initial tanks after several battles went into Battle of Bzura with 120 tanks loosing another 50 in this battle, so it lookes like this division alone lost more tanks than the whole Wehrmacht.
Well, many tanks were eliminated from combat but it did not meant final loss of the tank. Vast majority could be repaired and brought back to line.

"From about 2692 engaged German tanks 674 were knocked out in combat. German reports say that majority of them could be repaired after the campaign and about 275 vehicles were the final losses. Casaulties include also the number of 319 armoured cars - I've got no data how many were repaired.
German sources present following casaulties in aircraft. Engaged planes: about 2000. 285 planes shot down by Polish fighters and air defense (147 by fighters) and about 270 damaged from which 70 could be repaired."

[Wojtop]

First of all, the obvious question: where these numbers come from?
After digging through Wehrmaht archives Jentz writes about 420 German tanks destroyed in combat. This data is probably not complete.
As for the planes - Shores - 564 write-offs from Luftwaffe.
Germans also lost a considerable number of other equipment like trucks, horses etc. Some of these losses have been covered by captured Polish weapon - but it was available only after Polish army was defeated.

And I am curious, why do you resist so much to present french&british armies in september of 1939? This data are available though probably have to be digged a bit. :grin:British army is negligable as it was in GB at the time. As for the French army
it was capable of collecting 31 first-line divisions to launch a half-hearted attack on Saar region and Germany had only 17 reserve divisions to defend that area. Considering French superiority in all kind of weapons including tanks, and cruhing domination in artillery they had a capability to break German defences from purely military point of view. But they gave up after first clashes.

You criticize French army, i never read anything particularly about them so i won't argue except for one point - artillery was the foundation of their military doctrine so i believe it was at least equal to what Germans had. As for your other claims - can you provide sources cause what you write about French tanks sounds just funny.

Note that in September 1939 Wehrmaht was still an unexperienced force equiped mostly with Pz-I and Pz-II tanks. What is more important is that these tanks along with a bulk of infantry, artillery and airforce were tied in Poland till mid-September and transporting them to French border was pretty much out of question if German wanted to quickly win the campaign. French intervention at this point could possibly end the war in no time if not for their defensive military doctrine.

[Telmar]

...

Note that in September 1939 Wehrmaht was still an unexperienced force equiped mostly with Pz-I and Pz-II tanks. What is more important is that these tanks along with a bulk of infantry, artillery and airforce were tied in Poland till mid-September and transporting them to French border was pretty much out of question if German wanted to quickly win the campaign. French intervention at this point could possibly end the war in no time if not for their defensive military doctrine.

What kind of intervention? Going to Berlin without a plan?

[shadowsrider]

And I forgot, 1 shot down Slovak airplane :)
Slovaks shot down 2 Polish

[InetWarrior]

39And I forgot, 1 shot down Slovak airplane :)
Slovaks shot down 2 Polish

As i said before I wait for Slovak apology for their invasion of Poland in september 1939

[Telmar]

39

As i said before I wait for Slovak apology for their invasion of Poland in september 1939

It might take a while.:)

[shadowsrider]

As for sources:
Thomas Jentz "Panzertruppen": 236 tanks definitelly lost in combat but total 419 when included tanks "impossible to repair"; those losses are sufferen until September 25th

Fritz Hahn „Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945” "Polen 1939": combat tank casaulties until October 10th: 792 tanks
Pz I – 320
Pz II – 259
Pz III – 40
Pz IV – 76
Pz 35(t) – 77
Pz Bef III - 13
Pz Bef 38(t) – 7

But as some historians comment those losses does not include 5th Pz Div and some other units.

(this is my opinion): these are the numbers of tanks hit and out of action during the combat.I base this opinion on data that I've got data that 69 Pz35s were rebuilt in period Oct39-Aug40 (of 77 lost).
So it seems that in combat 792 tanks (+ tanks lost in not included units) were somehow eliminated, hit or damaged. From them there were 236 immediate write-offs. Many of them were rebuilt in next months period, but some were impossible to repair and final write-offs included 419 tanks.


So those numbers show that propably at the end of the campaign Germans had some 1800-2000 operational tanks.

[Atlantic Friend]

Regardless of the number of divisions available at the declaration of war.

French population 1939 : 39 million
German population 1939 : 77 million

In WW1 to defeat the Central Powers, the Western Allies had to marshal France, Britain, Russia, Italy, the United States, Japan, Belgium, Serbia, and various others.

In 1939 of this grand Alliance only France and Britain remain. Italy and Japan are openly hostile, Belgium, Yugoslavia and the the US are neutral, Russia is supporting the German war effort and aims at eliminating Poland as an independent state. With Austria and Czechoslovakia absorbed, the Third Reich more or less represents the entire industrial/military power of the Central Powers in Europe. Britain enters the war with a handful of divisions.

And it does surprise anyone that the French High Command remained determined to fight a defensive war? Sure, the French Army could have overrun the forces defending the Siegfried line and re-occupy much of Rhineland. And then what? With Poland out of the picture, the Wehrmacht can do an about face and engage the French units in a much broader, unfortified front. Expecting the French Army to march in Berlin unopposed seems a bit unrealistic.

[shadowsrider]

Good to know that France was 39 million at the time, almost same was Poland, this means we would had also some 60+ millions of citizens today if not WW2.

I agree that such attack was risky and had no chance to get to Berlin.
Although if France would strike on September 15th as agreed Germans had all Panzer forces engaged in Battle of Bzura and there was still front on Vistula river and some 25 Polish active divisions fighting.
So getting Wehrmacht in 2 fronts war was propably better than being beaten alone in 1940.

Of course it is easy to be "smart after".

[Atlantic Friend]

I would have preferred France to strike in the Rhineland, perhaps seizing it as a negotiation token, but I don't think it would have saved Poland in time.

The sitzkrieg was not just leadership blindness. It was a consequence of military factors as well, such as waiting for the mobilization of more British divisions (a look at the number of battle-ready UK divisions in 1939 leaves one happy the Channel was that wide and that deep and that crowded with British ships), deploying more tanks, planes (the French aerospace industry was being reorganized at full speed) and guns, the fear to fritter away the Army in futile offensives as in 1914.

And well, the battle plan wasn't either that bad - from a purely Franco-British perspective of course. For all his faults, Gamelin had devised a plan that was spot on the money - the German thrust was supposed to be met in Belgium by the finest Franco-British mechanized forces, and that is what would have happened had von Manstein not interfered.

[shadowsrider]

It might take a while.:)

Apologies! NOW!
If we don't have them from Putin lets concentrate on Slovakia :hug:

BTW 3 high Slovak officers were awarded with Iron Crosses, Slovak force consisted of 50.000 troops.
There were some skirmishes and Slovaks lost some 70 people killed wounded and missing plus one plane.

The "air war" was quite funny. Single Polish observation plane was patrolling over Slovak forces and attacked them once causing some casaulties. Slovak Jagdgruppe was searching for it several days and finally was shot down.

Slovaks were offered by Hitler to take Zakopane but Slovakia denied making some small border changes.

[Telmar]

Apologies! NOW!
If we don't have them from Putin lets concentrate on Slovakia :hug:

Haha. I myself am preparing invasion of Warsaw next weekend with ze "wife".

Prepare Vodka Pole!:) And your finest!

Edit:Hitler told Slovak nationalists in 39 that if they did not secede from Czechoslovakia and form a nazi puppet state, Slovakia would be divided between Poland and Hungary. Treachourous SOB among other things.

[shadowsrider]

Prepare Vodka Pole!:) And your finest!


With pleasure but I am going for vacation to .... Slovakia :)

[Eye]

39

As i said before I wait for Slovak apology for their invasion of Poland in september 1939
Slovakia wasn't independent state that time, so they have nothing to be sorry.

[Switek]

Slovakia wasn't independent state that time, so they have nothing to be sorry.

It wasn't even widely internationally recognized IIRC...

[DS73]

DS73, you are demanding sources for each statement while writing that you are too lazy to search. Sorry I am not sitting here with a list of French divisions. To be honest I don't know how many were mobilized in September 1939 but I am pretty sure you know and you can share this number. My claim is that more than German 20.

There are not so many of sources you can consult :|.
I realise the combination of "I am lazy" and "can you find" is not friendly, my apology. I don't know if you have access to "The French army 1939-1940 – organization, order of battle, operational history" (volume 1 is sufficient). Or if you read french. The french used in historical books is heavy to read :(.
I have to add, I am amazed by how much crap is written about french army in english.

Anyway: France had twenty military regions. Every region had to support one division. Every division in case of mobilization had to split in three.
France had no war ready army, and 20 peace time "mobilization sources" infantry divisions of french BO. that much. Needles to say such divisions had zero military value per se.
Plus they had 2 armour divisions and two (three) cavalry divisions with few independent regiments in plus.
France needed mobilization time to get "Nation in arms".
Here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=112&t=70148
somebody presented how much french managed to amass before may 1940.

Some clarification: the french used "funny war" time to reorganize structure of their unites.


About Polish propaganda ok, we've got Polish propaganda vs Western propaganda which was initically saying that our planes were destroyed on ground and campaign lasted 2 weeks. Simply the campaign was harder that it was presented in popular view.
The same is true about all campaigns, " Desert storm" included.
People outside of any field, especially journalists, tend to underestimate complexity and cost of necessary efforts. It is true about science, education, law, and certainly it is true about military actions.

Anyway since cold war is over, the perception about all blitzkrieg campaigns is becoming depoliticized. Frankly I cann't remember any belittling of polish campaign anywhere outside of russian literature, but I prefer to look for fresh sources so maybe I just missed it.

Thanks for tank data, I will try to dig size of german army right after September 1939. I do remember it was discussed somewhere in decent way.

[DS73]

After digging through Wehrmaht archives Jentz writes about 420 German tanks destroyed in combat. This data is probably not complete.

Or have some doubles. Have you ever participate in collecting statistical data?
Anyway since war actions took some time, tanks were to be lost, repaired and lost another time. So the calculations are accurate only with using data of repair shops included in analysis.

It's not like I think the precise data are somehow important or they would change conclusions about blitzkrieg campaigns (Polald campaign barely fits Blitzkrieg description, but anyway...).
The question I asked, was due your rather strange conclusions about the strength of German army after campaign. If you compare data you wrote now with your initial estimation you would understand.


As for the planes - Shores - 564 write-offs from Luftwaffe.
Germans also lost a considerable number of other equipment like trucks, horses etc. Some of these losses have been covered by captured Polish weapon - but it was available only after Polish army was defeated.
They were also producing military equipment.

British army is negligable as it was in GB at the time. As for the French army
it was capable of collecting 31 first-line divisions to launch a half-hearted attack on Saar region and Germany had only 17 reserve divisions to defend that area. Considering French superiority in all kind of weapons including tanks, and cruhing domination in artillery they had a capability to break German defences from purely military point of view. But they gave up after first clashes.
This is mirror of what the russians write about polish campaign. And no less ignorant. Pity to see such posts here. "ASSumptions", overoptimistic "estimations" coupled with over generalisation coming from ignorance. For example having enough time to train and mobilise the french still never manage to get this alleged "chushing domination in artillery". What make you think they would have it in 1939? Where to get experienced gunners? from Mars?

French have lost in exactly the same way the polish had. Only against better organized, better equiped, more experienced and what is the most important bolder german army with commanders assigned basing on their war capabilities&achievements.

You criticize French army, i never read anything particularly about them so i won't argue except for one point - artillery was the foundation of their military doctrine so i believe it was at least equal to what Germans had. As for your other claims - can you provide sources cause what you write about French tanks sounds just funny.
Vast majority of french tanks had crew of two. "Commander" had to do everything. Though with much better armament and armour than Panzer I they are still in the same class. "training tanks" that were not really suitable for any long time operations. Great example is abortive character of de Gaull attacks in 1940. They were short.

Anyway it's common knowledge, that before suggesting-discussing anything it is usefull to collect sufficient information to stay informed and be capable to draw meaningful suggestions and conclusions. Hence my continous questions about BO and the strength of french army in 1939.

Note that in September 1939 Wehrmaht was still an unexperienced force equiped mostly with Pz-I and Pz-II tanks.
Lol, Wehrmaht was the only more or less experienced army in Europe in 1939. The only one trained for modern war.


What is more important is that these tanks along with a bulk of infantry, artillery and airforce were tied in Poland till mid-September and transporting them to French border was pretty much out of question if German wanted to quickly win the campaign. French intervention at this point could possibly end the war in no time if not for their defensive military doctrine.:cantbeli:. What do you know about first world war, say 1914 campaigns?
Germans'd succeeded* in 1914 to do exactly what you suggest, what makes you think that they would fail in 1939, in age of tanks and tracks?

*Germany has succeeded to halt Russia and destroy first wave french army in 1914.
I remind that unlike France in 1914, Poland didn't have sufficient reserves and space to stabilize frontline, so your country wouldn't manage any better than Romania in 1918.

[shadowsrider]

Anyway since war actions took some time, tanks were to be lost, repaired and lost another time. So the calculations are accurate only with using data of repair shops included in analysis.
.

Thanks for your replies.
I already gave the genesis of given numbers. I watched various discussions about those figures on Polish historical forums. So the differences come as I wrote what was considered as destroyed tank and how it was registered.
236 tanks until Sep 25th were immediate write-offs which meant that the tank exploded or was totally burnt and was not taken to service.
Many were taken to service and attempted to repair with good success. But some were impossible to repair and the number of totally lost tanks grew to 400+.

But the numbers of 700+ is the tanks that were somehow affected in combat: hit by antitank gun, partially destroyed etc. They were being repaired for several months period.
This number was received from reports of combat units. As I already wrote 4th Pz Division at the end of campaign was running with some 70 tanks of initial 400+. So it does not match the number of 236 lost tanks.

So final conclusion is: Polish Army hit or temporarily eliminated 700+ tanks plus 300 armoured cars. Those tanks in next months were taken from Polish territory back to workshops or factories and repaired/rebuilt. 300 with success, while about 150 without success while about 250 were not even tried.

[Samail]

As i said before I wait for Slovak apology for their invasion of Poland in september 1939
I also wait for apologies: from Poland for 1018, 1605, 1920 and from the Holy See for 1240 :roll: (it not the full list), … however, probably I will not wait. Nobody never brings apologies of Russia, but many demand annual apologies from Russia.

[Schmeiser]

little off,so much white people die in these stupid wars you can't believe...it is not surprising that one day we'll all die and all races will be mixed or black and yellow race will dominate...this is not racism, this is the fact...:-(

[KarlHungus]

little off,so much white people die in these stupid wars you can't believe...it is not surprising that one day we'll all die and all races will be mixed or black and yellow race will dominate...this is not racism, this is the fact...:-(

:cantbeli:

[shadowsrider]

I also wait for apologies: from Poland for 1018, 1605, 1920 and from the Holy See for 1240 :roll: (it not the full list), … however, probably I will not wait. Nobody never brings apologies of Russia, but many demand annual apologies from Russia.

Back to game... :)
Well... in 1018 it was not Russia but Kiev Rus... if I recall the language was closer to Belarussian and Ukrainian than to Russian. But Boleslav Chrobry who invaded Kiev was clearly a cruel butcher :)
For 1605: yes, I apology in the name of Vasa :)
For 1920: nope, see many threads about genesis of the war: both sides feel invaded here which is interesting

[Domen]

First of all - Slovakia wasn't independent when it invaded Poland.

If it comes to Jentz data - it is very incomplete as it does not list write-offs of XIX Panzer Korps (3., 10. Panzer-Divisions), as well as it does not list write-offs of 2. Leichte Division, it does not list write-offs of 5. Panzer-Division, 4. Leichte Division, and probably also I./Pz.Rgt.23 and I./Pz.Rgt.10.

How do I know that Jentz does not include casualties of these units - for example XIX Panzer Korps?

As you know - at the beginning of the campaign Guderian's XIX Panzer Korps was subordinated to 4. Army. But later in the campaign (since around 05.09.1939) it wasn't suboridinated to any army, but directly to Heeresgruppe Nord. That's why it wasn't reporting its casualties to AOK 4, but to Heeresgruppe Nord. This is the first evidence which proofs that Jentz doesn't include casualties of XIX Panzer Korps. The second evidence is a series of photos, which show completely destroyed Panzer IV from Panzer-Regiment 6. (3. Pz.Div.) near Plewno / Polskie Laki (it was destroyed there on 03.09.1939):

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6218/f37bb.th.jpg (http://img34.imageshack.us/i/f37bb.jpg/)

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/385/3copy147fw2.th.jpg (http://img142.imageshack.us/i/3copy147fw2.jpg/)

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/741/f35fo1.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/i/f35fo1.jpg/)

This is a clear total write-off, while according to Jentz AOK 4 didn't lost any Pz-IV (which is clear because 3. Pz.Div. as well as other units from Guderian's XIX Panzer Korps were reporting its casualties to Heeresgruppe Nord, not to AOK 4) and lost only 4 tanks in total, while according to Kenneth Macksey, "Guderian", pp. 88 and 92 - 3. Pz.Div. (with Pz-Lehr-Abt.) alone lost 217 tanks during the campaign - this includes also knocked out tanks, not only destroyed. 10. Panzer-Division until 17.09.1939 lost 75 tanks in total (so 50%) - this includes all not operational on 17.09.1939. Panzer-Division "Kempf" from AOK 3 lost 72 tanks on 01.09.1939 alone (this includes I. battalion - 39, including 7 completely destroyed; II. battalion - 33, including between 7 and 14 completely destroyed). Etc.

Jentz also doesn't include casualties of other units mentioned above (for example he doesn't include casualties of 5. Panzer-Division, because all casualty reports from 5. Panzer-Division were destroyed during the war as the result of fire of the archive in Freiburg, he also clearly does not include casualties of 2. Leichte Division, as he simply doesn't list casualties of this division in his casualty breakdown for divisions of AOK 10; et cetera, et cetera - as I wrote above)

The German report from 07.10.1939 - as I wrote before - lists 813 tanks written-off from the registry of Panzerwaffe (this includes both total write offs and tanks which had to be rebuilt in factories - so it was not possible to repair them in workshops).

Similar number of the Western Campaign in 1940 is 839 (including 649 in May and 190 in June) - this also includes both total write-offs and tanks written-off from the registry of Panzerwaffe but some part of them - after rebuilding - returned to units.

What should be noted is that tanks which were being rebuilt, were often included in the statistics of production of new tanks. It suggests that rebuilding was considered as almost the same as building new tanks. So tanks which could be rebuilt were in fact destroyed, as well as those which couldn't be rebuilt.

If it comes to casualties in general - around 1400 tanks were temporary knocked out during the campaign (and thus not operational), this can be compered to the similar number of around 1800 tanks knocked out during the Western Campaign (according to estimations by French author Lormier). Similar number for the Polish Campaign is 1400 according to my estimations - I base these estimations on various German sources which provide information what was the strength of individual German divisions by the end of the campaign (how many tanks were "Einzatsbereit" = operational in German armoured and light divisions then).

Here is the comparison of German losses (and characteristics of the nature of combat) in Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb and Fall Rot:

http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=5&p=1394775#p1393897

What is interesting is that in Fall Weiss armoured-motorized forces constituted 25% of all German forces (15 divisions + independent units), while in Fall Gelb they constituted only around 12% of German forces (16 divisions + independent units) and in Fall Rot - after suffering heavy casualties - even much less.

[InetWarrior]

First of all - Slovakia wasn't independent when it invaded Poland.




Excuses, excuses...

[Domen]

Excuses, excuses...

I am not Slovakian so this is rather understanding than excuses.

[shadowsrider]

The German report from 07.10.1939 - as I wrote before - lists 813 tanks written-off from the registry of Panzerwaffe (this includes both total write offs and tanks which had to be rebuilt in factories - so it was not possible to repair them in workshops).

Similar number of the Western Campaign in 1940 is 839 (including 649 in May and 190 in June) - this also includes both total write-offs and tanks written-off from the registry of Panzerwaffe but some part of them - after rebuilding - returned to units.

If it comes to casualties in general - around 1400 tanks were temporary knocked out during the campaign (and thus not operational), this can be compered to the similar number of around 1800 tanks knocked out during the Western Campaign (according to estimations by French author Lormier). Similar number for the Polish Campaign is 1400 according to my estimations - I base these estimations on various German sources which provide information what was the strength of individual German divisions by the end of the campaign (how many tanks were "Einzatsbereit" = operational in German armoured and light divisions then).

Here is the comparison of German losses (and characteristics of the nature of combat) in Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb and Fall Rot:


Very interesting post Domen. Although I've got several questions:

- What exact 7/10/39 German report do you mean (813 tanks lost : I see this number first time)
- How did you come to nr of 1400 tanks knocked out? I've never seen such big number before.... maybe you can elaborate on that or maybe some copy-paste?: I do not say I don't agree simply I would like to see it in more details

[Domen]

- What exact 7/10/39 German report do you mean (813 tanks lost : I see this number first time)

This report gives the same numbers as Fritz Hahn (Fritz Hahn writes about 792 tanks lost until 10.10.1939), but it provides 34 command tanks (Pz-Bef), instead of 13 from Hahn (that's why the total number is 813 noy 792 - more Pz-Befs), and also this report was written on 07.10.1939, not on 10.10.1939.

I don't have the original report yet, unfortunately - but it is mentioned in many publications. I would like to see the original report, however.

- How did you come to nr of 1400 tanks knocked out? I've never seen such big number before.... maybe you can elaborate on that or maybe some copy-paste?: I do not say I don't agree simply I would like to see it in more details


I came to this number by summing up casualties of different divisions (counting how many tanks from this division were knocked out during the campaign, or - if there was no such info - how many tanks from different divisions were not operational by the end of the campaign).

For example 4. Panzer-Division had got 341 tanks on 01.09.1939, and only around 110 - 100 tanks operational by the end of its operations in Poland.
So the conclusion is that it lost around 231 - 241 tanks eliminated / knocked out (most of them returned to service after repairs).

Etc.

Below is my bibliography:

Here are my sources concerning German tank losses in Poland, which I analysed and came to the above listed conclusions:

- Already mentioned German report from 07.10.1939
- Joachim Baschin, "Der Panzerkampfwagen 35(t)"
- Memories of Obstlt. Eberbach - "Sturmfahrt auf Warschau" and "Die Vernichtungsschlacht an der Bzura"
- H. Schaufler, "So Lebten und Starben Sie: Das Buch vom Panzer-Regiment 35", pages 15 – 22
- Detlev von Plato, "Die Geschichte der 5 Panzerdivision 1938 bis 1945"
- Kriegstagebuch of II. / Panzer-Regiment 3. (2. Panzer-Division)
- Janusz Ryt, "Bitwa Pszczynska 1939"
- Thomas Jentz, "Panzertruppen - The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force: 1933 - 1942", pages 104, 134 and 141 + the whole rest of the book
- Common work, "Wojna Obronna Polski 1939", pages 850 and 851
- T. Jurga, W. Karbowski, "Armia Modlin 1939"
- Kenneth Macksey, "Guderian", pages 88 and 92
- Lexikon der Wehrmacht - "Panzer-Regiment 8" and "Panzer-Regiment 7" articles
- Christoph Avender, "World War II day by day" - "Daily reports" and "Gliederungen" sections
- Accounts of Leutnant Bade – officer from 1. Leichte-Division
- F. J. Straus, “Die Geschichte der 2. (Wiener) Panzer Division”
- Piotr Saja, "Armia Lublin 1939"
- Rajmund Szubański, "Polska broń pancerna 1939"
- Jan Wróblewski, „Armia Prusy”
- Wojciech Zalewski, „Piotrków 1939”
- Jan Grzybowski, „40 PP Dzieci Lwowskich w obronie Warszawy”
- Tadeusz Tomaszewski, „Byłem szefem Sztabu Obrony Warszawy w 1939 roku'”
- "Einzelschilderungen aus dem Feldzug in Polen 1939'' in "Militaerwissenschafliche Rundschau'' from 1940
- Paul W. Thompson, “Modern Battle Units in action in the Second World War”, chapter “Tank action South of Kutno"
- Konrad Ciechanowski, “Armia Pomorze 1939”
- Fritz Hahn, Waffen und Geheimwaffen des Deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, page 196
- Ryszard Juszkiewicz, “Bitwa pod Mławą 1939”
- Vladimír Francev and Charles K. Kliment - “Československá obrněná vozidla 1918 – 1948”
- Frieser, „The Blitzkrieg Legend”, page 22
- M. Alexander, "The Republic in Danger: General Maurice Gamelin and the Politics of French Defence, 1933-1940”, page 334
- Heinz Guderian, “Memories of a Soldier”
- Kriegstagebuch des Generalkommando XIX AK – Feldzug in Polen.
- Pier Paolo Battistelli, “Panzer Divisions: The Blitzkrieg Years 1939-40”
- http://www.odkrywca-online.com/pokaz_watek.php?id=153997
- http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=141228&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

German wrecks 1939 (photographs) – parts 1, 2, 3, 4:

http://www.odkrywca-online.pl/pokaz_watek.php?id=88087
http://www.odkrywca-online.pl/panzer39-wraki-czesc-druga,303695.html#303695
http://www.odkrywca-online.pl/panzer39-wraki-czesc-trzecia,559785.html#559785
http://odkrywca.pl/panzer39-wraki-czesc-czwarta,644359.html

+ other threads from the Odkrywca forum (including „Niemcy w Mszczonowie” – „Germans in Mszczonow”):

http://www.odkrywca-online.com/niemcy-w-mszczonowie,320040.html#320040

Threads about the battle of Mszczonow on 11.09.1939 (+ many interesting photos of German Panzer wrecks in Mszczonow):

http://www.odkrywca-online.com/niemcy-w-mszczonowie,320040.html#320040
http://www.28pp.fora.pl/31-pulk-strzelcow-kaniowskich-1919-1939,26/31-psk-w-walkach-o-mszczonow-wrzesien-1939,1256.html

And the entire thread “Straty jednostek niemieckich IX 1939” (“Casualties of German units IX 1939”) from the DWS forum:

http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8860&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=1150#p1392687

-----------------------

Edit:

If you want, Shadowsrider, I can provide you some figures concerning losses of different units (tell me casualties of which armoured / light division you want to know, and I will tell you what I know about casualties of this unit - but often I have got only fragmentary data).

Btw - if it comes to total write-offs (destroyed tanks which even couldn't be rebuilt) - there were also much more of them than 236. 236 is the minimal number (maybe in fact it was more) of total write-offs in September of 1939 alone, while in October, November and December of 1939, January, February and March of 1940 - further tanks (a lot of further tanks) which had been destroyed in Poland in September / October 1939 were being written-off.

So - to summ up - Germans were writing-off their tanks due to the campaign in Poland for several months after the end of this campaign.

That's why the number of total write-offs in September alone does not represent factual German losses in Poland. See this discussion:

http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8860&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=475#p1343154

But - anyway - as I wrote above, rebuilding was almost equal to producing new tanks (sometimes it was even more protracted) - often tanks rebuilt were counted together with tanks newly produced - and rebuilding destroyed tanks was considerably delaying production of new tanks. That's why what was really important was the number of tanks written off from the registry of Wehrmacht (they had to be rebuilt).

Tanks which couldn't be repaired in workshops were not being written-off from the registry of Wehrmacht, as workshops belonged to Wehrmacht. While factories didn't belong to the Wehrmacht, thus tanks which required rebuilding were always being written-off.

Casualties of tanks which could be repaired in workshops were not even counted as losses. Only the number of "Einsatzbereit" - so "Operational" - tanks was being counted, as well as the total number of tanks available (both operational and not operational) - "Stärke an Panzern" - so "Strength in Tanks".

The "Starke an Panzern" was always smaller (it couldn't be bigger - it could only be equal) than "Einsatzbereit", because "Starke an Panzern" included all available tanks (also knocked out - but only if damages were enough not serious that such a tank could be repaired in workshops - so all tanks with pierced armour but not destroyed) and "Einsatzbereit" included only tanks which were fully in working order (not damaged / their armour was not pierced anywhere).

The difference between "Einsatzbereit" and "Starke an Panzern" represents all tank casualties (including tanks which could be repaired in workshops). The difference between "Starke an Panzern" at the beginning and "Starke an Panzern" by the end of the battle / campaign / operation - represents the number of tanks which were destroyed and written-off - and either had to be rebuilt in factories or were qualified as total write-offs (rebuilding in factories not possible).

The report from 07.10.1939 as well as the report from 10.10.1939 quoted by Fritz Hahn DO NOT show the difference between the number of "Starke an Panzern" and "Einsatzbereit", because this difference was always fluent (the process of repairing tanks in workshops usually lasted for between over a dozen and a few dozens days) and it was not even worth counting. Both of these reports represent the difference between "Starke an Panzern" on 01.09.1939 and "Starke an Panzern" on 07.10.1939 / 10.10.1939 - so tanks destroyed = written-off (from the registry of Wehrmacht).

[shadowsrider]

Ok now I know where nr of 813 tanks comes from.
And yes I know that 236 tanks is not total, I quoted the number of 400+ tanks as final write-offs.

So is your suggestion that 1400-813 = circa 600 tanks were somehow hit during combat but not registered?

Examply of 4th Pz division is not good: we all know this was most unlucky and heavy fighting Pz Div in Poland.

[shadowsrider]

Well also I think you cannot fully rely on difference between strength in tanks and operational tanks. If we follow this path then we have to assume that Serbs hit half of Americal AH-64s in Kosovo operation.

[Domen]

Examply of 4th Pz division is not good: we all know this was most unlucky and heavy fighting Pz Div in Poland.


From the sources quoted by me above, it seems, that it is a myth that 4. Panzer-Division had got the biggest casualties out of all Panzer and Leichte Divisions.

For example - at least one tank regiment from 2. Panzer-Division (Panzer-Regiment 3.) had got similar human casualties to tank regiments of 4. Panzer-Division (slightly bigger casualties than Pz.Rgt.36 and slightly smaller casualties than Pz.Rgt.35).

Remember that this regiment (as well as the whole 2. Panzer-Division) took part in many heavy battles during the campaign - this includes Jordanow - Wysoka; Biskupice Radlowskie; Tomaszow Lubelski.

I have German sources which confirm that German tank casualties near Jordanow - Wysoka were as high as according to Polish sources (or even higher) - namely KTB of II. / Panzer-Regiment 3.; history of 2. Panzer-Division by F. J. Straus and this photograph:

http://www.odkrywca-online.pl/forum_pics/picsforum16/l0307611.jpg

Casualties of 1. Leichte Division (if it comes to tank losses) were also very heavy - mainly during the battles in Puszcza Kampinoska in late September.

2. Leichte Division also suffered heavy casualties (Zarki, Radom, Ilza and other battles) as well as 5. Panzer-Division (mainly in early September).

Here is the combat road of 5. Panzer-Division in Poland in 1939:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=137378&start=15#p1316266

Casualties of 1. Panzer-Division in tanks were similar to casualties of 4. Panzer-Division (as you can see for example from Jentz) - it suffered very heavy losses during the battles of Piotrkow Trybunalski - Tomaszow Mazowiecki and later at the Bzura (the disaster near Kiernozia).

10. Panzer-Division lost 75 tanks until 17.09.1939 (and it fought also after 17.09.1939) - which is of course less than 4. Panzer-Division lost, but you should notice that 10. Panzer-Division had got only 150 tanks on 01.09.1939.

Panzerdivision "Kempf" - as I already wrote - also suffered huge casualties (for example battle of Mlawa, battle of Rozan and many further battles).

4. Leichte Division also had considerable tank casualties (despite the fact that it had got the smallest number of tanks out of all divisions) - just to mention all the combats against Polish 10. Motorized Brigade and the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski.

3. Leichte Division fought several heavy battles during the campaign too (Radom, Ilza, Samsonow - Krasna - Luta, Ciepielow, battle of Bzura).

In general it is a myth that 4. Panzer-Division had got the hardest time in Poland - in fact all German armoured divisions had a very hard time.

[shadowsrider]

I think you've got enough material for good book, I'm waiting for it :)
Please answer what about those 600 tanks...

[Domen]

circa 600 tanks were somehow hit during combat but not registered?


Yes. But they were not only hit but successfuly hit (armour was pierced) - but probably when you wrote "hit" you wanted to say this.

Moreover - out of some 54,000 casualties (killed / wounded) the Heer and the Waffen SS suffered in Poland, armoured-motorized units (which were around 24 - 25% of the whole Heer and the Waffen SS in Poland) suffered around 15,000 casualties (killed / wounded) - so around 28% of losses of German ground forces.

Considering that armoured and motorized divisions always suffer lower human losses than "horse-drawn" infantry during similar battles (similarly fierce battles against similarly strong enemy), it shows that armoured-motorized forces indeed fought the most (were the most important) during the campaign in Poland.

And one more thing - Germans deployed 15 fast (armoured, light, motorized) divisions against Poland - so it means that on average each of the fast divisions lost about 1,000 killed and wounded (as losses of fast units were ca. 15,000). This shows that casualties of German fast forces in Poland were heavy.


think you've got enough material for good book, I'm waiting for it :-)


I'm thinking about it, but somewhere in the future, not yet. :)


If we follow this path then we have to assume that Serbs hit half of Americal AH-64s in Kosovo operation


I don't know what were casualties of AH-64s in Kosovo operation, but I think that American system of reporting casualties is different than the German was. Also I don't think that the Kosovo operation can be even compared to the regular war on a much bigger scale which took place in Poland in 1939.

-------------------

Edit:

By the way - some German vehicles took part in the Invasion of Poland and it is not even registered (so if these vehicles suffered any casualties in Poland, it is most probably not registered too). Only from photographs we know that such vehicles participated in the campaign. For example:

The photo shows German workshop (for tank repairs) or storage of damaged tanks (waiting for repairs) in Opatow - all vehicles are from 5. Panzer-Division:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8311/wraki1beg8.jpg

"Officialy" Germans didn't take any Fahrschulewagen I to Poland in 1939 - and here such a surprise, in the middle of Poland!

Website with some pictures of this kind of vehicle:

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/1-Vehicles/Axis/1-Germany/07-Others/Panzer1/Fahrschulewagen1B.htm

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/1-Vehicles/Axis/1-Germany/07-Others/Panzer1/Fahrschulewagen1A.htm

[shadowsrider]

Ok I understand where you have those 600 tanks from but how did you come to conclusion that their armour was penetrated?

In my understanding into those 600 tanks you should also include temporary mechanical breakdowns, small damages eliminating tank for some time from service.

Analogy to AH-64 in Kosovo was not accidental, operational readiness was less than 50%: does it mean that 50% choppers were hit? No.

[Domen]

In my understanding into those 600 tanks you should also include temporary mechanical breakdowns, small damages eliminating tank for some time from service.


But take into consideration that repairing tanks damaged in combat (pierced armour) takes much longer than repairing tanks with mechanical breakdowns or small damages. That's why I assume that vast majority of these 600 tanks (which were still not operational by the end of the campaign - apart from these ca. 800 written-off tanks) were Panzers damaged in combat, because almost all mechanical breakdowns were already repaired.

If including also all mechanical breakdowns, the number of casualties would be even bigger than 1400.

But most of mechanical breakdowns were being repaired very quickly (probably after several hours since the moment when the breakdown happens).

------------------

Edit:

Here some photos of German wrecks in 1939 (apart from links given on the previous page):

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=42446&p=1375224#p1373926

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65775&page=40

As for the planes - Shores - 564 write-offs from Luftwaffe.

But this includes also damaged planes, not only shot down ones.

As for shot down planes, Emmerling gives the following number (in brackets number of victories achieved by Polish fighter planes on each day according to http://www.mysliwcy.pl/):

Marius Emmerling ("Luftwaffe nad Polska") writes that 247 Luftwaffe planes were "totally lost" - did not come back from the action.

Daily breakdown of these losses:

Unknown date - 6 (3)

1 IX - 44 (23)
2 IX - 14 (13)
3 IX - 22 (14)
4 IX - 19 (11)
5 IX - 13 (6)
6 IX - 18 (14)
7 IX - 8 (1)
8 IX - 6
9 IX - 14 + 1 Slovakian (4)
10 IX - 14 + 1 Slovakian (3)
11 IX - 14 (1)
12 IX - 5 (2)
13 IX - 6 (2)
14 IX - 8 (2)
15 IX - 5 (3)
16 IX - 4 (1)
17 IX - 9 (3 + 8 Soviet = 11)

Soviet invasion of Poland. Evacuation of Polish Air Force.

18 IX - 2
19 IX - 0
20 IX - 1
21 IX - 3
22 IX - 1
23 IX - 1
24 IX - 1
25 IX - 3
26 IX - 2
27 IX - 4

Emmerling doesn't write how many planes were lost between 28.09.1939 and 07.10.1939 (the end of the campaign) - maybe 0 ???

Total: 247 German + 2 Slovakian + 15 - 25 Soviet * (106 + 8 Soviet)

Moreover, Polish bombers gained 8 victories in combats against Luftwaffe.

Polish Anti Aircraft defence shot down at least over 110 Luftwaffe planes (the exact amount is not known). It also shot down some Soviet planes.

Additionally according to Jerzy B. Cynk there were 26 German planes which were not shot down, but were damaged in 60 - 100%, so they were also destroyed. Thus the total number of destroyed would be 273 Luftwaffe planes + of course Slovakian and Soviet planes (* most reliable estimations say about 15 - 25 Soviet planes "totally lost" - didn't return from action).

Additionally 263 Luftwaffe planes were damaged in 59% - 10% according to Cynk (other sources say about 279 or even 379); those damaged in less than 10% are not included in this number. So total Luftwaffe losses (without lightly damaged - below 10%) amounted to ca. 536 planes (if basing on Emmerling and Cynk).

Just to give you some example: completely destroyed engine = plane damaged in 60% (60% damages).

Out of these 263 planes damaged in 59% - 10% - according to Cynk - only around 50% were later repaired or reconstructed and came back to units.

According to some other sources only 70 out of those 263 damaged in 59% - 10% planes were possible to be repaired.

[shadowsrider]

Lets put Emmerling aside. BTW I know all his works and also Cynk's and where the differences come from.

Lets concentrate on tanks. I still do not get how did you come to hypothesis that those 600 tanks were hit. My knowledge in this topic does not match yours but in my humble opinion you should find stronger arguments that they were eliminated in combat not by breakdowns and other causes.
So to sum up: 800+ tanks were somehow destroyed, damaged and registered.
By analisysing units diaries you counted that additional 600 tanks were missing, propably in workshops etc. But I am not convinced that they were obviously hit and as you added with "armour penetration". Rather it could be smaller damages including breakdowns. I do not know what was average repair time and average combat readiness of typical Panzer division in this period. This can prove your thesis (or not).

[Domen]

Tomorrow I will write more about my counts and explain everything.

But I want you to know that 1400 is a quite old and cautious estimation - since then I managed to gather some more sources and some more information. Nowadays I would place my estimation even higher (I must count it more carefully - but it seems that at least 1600 is more correct than 1400).

Also you wrote in this thread that by the end of the Polish Campaign 4. Panzer-Division had got only 70 operational tanks (my previous estimation - part of this grand count which resulted in 1400 casualties - was ca. 100 operational tanks by the end of the campaign).

By the way - what is the source for this number (70 operational in 4. Pz.Div.)?

[shadowsrider]

Also you wrote in this thread that by the end of the Polish Campaign 4. Panzer-Division had got only 70 operational tanks (my previous estimation - part of this grand count which resulted in 1400 casualties - was ca. 100 operational tanks by the end of the campaign).

By the way - what is the source for this number (70 operational in 4. Pz.Div.)?

Bitwy Kampanii Wrześniowej

[shadowsrider]

Bitwy Kampanii Wrześniowej

It exactly says that before entering battle of bzura 4th Pz Div was in strength of 120 tanks and it is known it lost additional 50 tanks in the battle.

[shadowsrider]

but it seems that at least 1600 is more correct than 1400

Jeez... So these were old data? So the newer data will be that Poland won the war? :)

[Domen]

So the newer data will be that Poland won the war? :-)

I don't think so.

Note that in Western Campaign in 1940 they lost around 1800 tanks (according to Lormier) - so around 70% of all tanks - and still they won.

But the price for such heavy tank losses in Fall Gelb was considerable - in Fall Rot infantry had to fight much more (and suffered heavier losses).

In Polenfeldzug Germans used more tanks than in Westfeldzug.

---------------------------------------------

If it comes to German tank casualties in Poland, I have got for example the following data:

On 01.09.1939 German 1. Leichte-Division had got the following amount of tanks:

Pz.Rgt.11 - Pz II 45, Pz 35(t) 75, Pz IV 27 - 28, Pz Bef 35(t) 6 = 153 - 154
Pz.Abt.65 - Pz II 20, Pz 35(t) 37, Pz IV 14, Pz Bef 35(t) 2 = 73

1. Leichte-Division in total = 226 - 227 tanks

Casualties of II. battalion / Panzer-Regiment 11. were reported as:

"Starke an Panzern der II./Pz.Rgt.11 bei Beginn und Ende des Polenfeldzuges":

Starke an Panzern 01.09.1939 (Beim Ausrucken) / Starke an Panzern Beim Einrucken (including not operational tanks) / written-off (Totalverluste):

Pz 35(t):

Stabskompanie - 7 / 0 / 7
5. Kompanie - 17 / 14 / 3
6. Kompanie - 0 / 0 / 0
7. Kompanie - 17 / 11 / 6

Total: 41 / 25 / 16

Pz IV:

Stabskompanie - 0 / 0 / 0
5. Kompanie - 0 / 0 / 0
6. Kompanie - 14 / 10 / 4
7. Kompanie - 0 / 0 / 0

Total: 14 / 10 / 4

Pz II:

Stabskompanie - 0 / 0 / 0
5. Kompanie - 5 / 4 / 1
6. Kompanie - 5 / 5 / 0
7. Kompanie - 5 / 4 / 1

Total: 15 / 13 / 2

Altogether Pz 35(t) + Pz IV + Pz II: 70 / 48 / 22

PS:

5. Kompanie = Leichte Pz. Komp. Sd (Sonderes Ausfuehrung)
6. Kompanie = Mittlere Pz. Komp.
7. Kompanie = Leichte Pz. Komp. Sd

-----------------

I also have got a less detailed data concerning casualties of the whole 1. Leichte-Division (tanks written-off):

8 Pz-II, 77 Pz-35(t), 9 Pz-IV = 94 (this is according to Jentz).

But according to Leutnant Bade from 1. Leichte-Division casualties of his division amounted to "89 completely destroyed and 33 seriously damaged" tanks.

So I assume that casualties of this division were 94 written-off and 33 seriously damaged tanks.

It means that the division had not more than 100 tanks operational (and probably even fewer) by the end of the campaign.

By the way - 1. Leichte-Division was withdrawn from the front on 21.09.1939 because of heavy casualties of the last few days (combats in Kampinoska Forest against Operational Group of Cavalry under command general Roman Abraham).

More will follow soon.

[Domen]

If it comes to casualties of 2. Panzer-Division, I have got for example the following data:

Battle of Wysoka - Jordanow on 02.09.1939:

German casualties during the battles of Wysoka and Jordanów (in Jordanów region) on 2nd of September were around 50 - 60 tanks according to Polish sources. Two tank companies suffered the major part of these losses - 3. company and 1. company from I./Panzer-Regiment 3.

If it comes to men losses, at least around 40 KIA can be counted in photos which show German graves after the battle (I have got two such photos with two different groups of graves - in total I was able to count around 40 graves on both photos).

There are also some photographs showing tanks from 8. Kompanie of II./Pz.Rgt.3 knocked out near Wysoka:

http://img.odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum22/panz_wrak_4.jpg

http://img.odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum22/panz_wrak_2.jpg

http://img.odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum22/panz_wrak_3.jpg

http://img.odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum22/panz_wrak_1.jpg

http://img.odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum22/panz_wrak_5.jpg

Casualties of II. / Panzer-Regiment 3. during the battle of Wysoka - Jordanow on 02.09.1939 (according to Kriegstagebuch of II. / Panzer-Regiment 3.):


1. Tanks destroyed:

Btl. Stab - 3 PzKfw I
5. company - 5 PzKfw I / 3 PzKfw II
6. company - 1 PzKfw I
8. company - none (this means that none of the knocked out tanks which can be seen in the photos above - because all of them are from 8. company - were recognized as destroyed)

2. Tanks which required major repairs (or maybe rebuilding?):

Btl. Stab - 0
5. company - 1 PzKfw I
6. company - none
8. company - 1 PzKfw I / 2 PzKfw IV (in the photos above we cannot see any PzKfw IVs - so it seems that the photos above do not depict tanks which required major repairs but rather moderate repairs)

Other tank casualties (apart from destroyed / requiring major repairs) are not given.

To these numbers we must add also casualties of I. / Panzer-Regiment 3. which were much higher than casualties of II./Pz.Rgt.3 (companies no. 1. and 3. - which belonged to I./Pz.Rgt.3 - suffered the highest losses of all tank companies of 2. Panzer-Division during the battle of Wysoka and Jordanow) and losses of Panzer-Regiment 4. (if it suffered any during that battle).

Men casualties of 3. Kompanie from I./Pz.Rgt.3 amounted to:

http://www.odkrywca-online.pl/forum_pics/picsforum16/l0307611.jpg

2nd of September (Wysoka) - 11 KIA - including one of two Zugfuhrers - Leutnant von Ronne
8th / 9th of September - 1 KIA
11th / 12th of September - 2 KIA
24th of September - 3 KIA

-----------------------------

Battle of Biskupice Radlowskie on 08.09.1939 - casualties of II./Panzer-Regiment 3:

During the battle of Biskupice Radłowskie on 8th of September II. battalion of Panzer-Regiment 3. lost 18 KIA (including 2 officers - Oberst Herbert Baumgart, commander of the battalion, among them) as well as 2 or 1 MIA, 21 WIA and 7 POWs.

Commander of II./Panzer-Regiment 3. - Oberst Baumgart - was killed after his tank was hit by Polish direct artillery fire and AT guns fire for 3 times.

During that battle aide-de-camp of the battalion and commanders of 6. and 8. companies (Hauptmann Liese and Hauptmann Maerker) were very seriously wounded. 23 tanks (10 Pz-I, 9 Pz-II, 2 Pz-IV and 2 Pz-BefWg) from II./Panzer-Regiment 3. were completely destroyed during the battle of Biskupice - apart from these 23 completely destroyed tanks, some more were also knocked out.

[Keshik]

nice pictures ,some of them shows the effect of anti-tank riffles used by polish anti tank crews with solid results ,poland had a good riffle and good trained soldiers,also panzer 1 and sometimes 2 was on sides and rear penetrated from 12,7mm heavy mashine gunns,from close.

[Keshik]

also roles of panzer 3 and 4 changed ,panzer 3 was to charge and spearhead the attack and pz4 to attack stationary pillboxes and houses and had a short barrel like StuG.
however all tanks (or one tank) should be able to deal with most type of battlefield situations -that was the lesson (universal main battle tank theory).
after poland new turrets were designed from germans for pz3 , but panzer3 could not mount standard 75mm gunn so had the same caliber 56mm with a redesign longer barrel for better anti-tank use, they lost alot of time before they finnaly gave longer gunn to 75mm pz4G who cost just slightly more then pz3 and became main battle tank for germans.

[shadowsrider]

Good argumentation Domen on example of this unit.
I hope that I will see more effects of your work in near future.

[Domen]

By the way - here is an interesting quotation regarding tank losses:

Kill was reported after seeing a hit

Tank losses are more BS than aircraft losses, if possible. Many "destroyed tanks" were resurrected by both sides, since anything that wasn't totally burned out (heat destroys the integrity of armor) can be repaired, if you have the time, the desire and the parts! Missing a turret? Put a new one on if the chasis still works. Penetration to hull, slap a metal patch on it as long as the interior damage was fixable! Too many body parts and brain matter splattered inside the tank ? Clean the sucker out, patch it and put a new crew into it!

All armies in WWII did the same things, as long as they retained possession of the tank (or tank wreck) and as long as it wasn't burned out.


That's why even if the tank was completely destroyed (everything was scattered around, the whole tank was burst by explosions) - it could be, maybe not repaired, but at least rebuilt in factory - unless the integrity of armour was destroyed (I mean - the integrity of the whole armour; because if only the integrity of some part of armour was destroyed, then this particular part could be simply replaced by a new one). That's why it is not so easy to establish when we can speak about "repairing tanks", when we can speak about "rebuilding tanks" and when we can speak about "building new tanks". As I wrote - the difference between rebuilding tanks (screwing together all of the scattered and separated parts, replacing some old parts by newly produced parts, etc.) is almost the same as building new tanks - the only difference is that when rebuilding tanks we use some old parts, obtained thanks to so called "cannibalization" of tank wrecks (often one tank is rebuilt thanks to parts "cannibalized" from several different wrecks + of course a lot of new, newly produced or / and spare parts).

What in fact really matters during the battle (it shows the real amount of casualties suffered) is the number of tanks operational by the end of the battle.

------------------

And one more quotation:

M. Alexander, in his book titled: "The Republic in Danger: General Maurice Gamelin and the Politics of French Defence, 1933-1940", Cambridge 2003, on page 334 wrote:

"By mid-October the 2e Burreau was sharing its "high-grade intelligence indicating that [Germany's] armoured vechicles suffered severly in the Polish campaign, some having been destroyed in combat but many requires serious and protracted repairs"".

I think that Shadowsrider was already writing about this (that many German tanks required long repairs).

[shadowsrider]

Domen, BTW you provided number of German casaulties: 55000 while official archive is circa 45000.
I watched the discussion on forum you provided why this number should be bigger, members were comparing some databases...
Can you please tell the methodology used to conclude this number?
If this is an issue of comparing some web databases maybe I can write program for that :)

[Domen]

The so called "official" figures were changing several times when time was passing.

For example your figure (ca. 45,000) probably (?) comes from Hitler's speech in Reichstag on 06.10.1939. Hitler said that losses were 10,572 KIA, 3,409 MIA and 30,322 WIA, in total 44,303 including 13,981 KIA and MIA. But the report of Wehrmacht Zentralstatistik written on 30.11.1944 (BA-MA RH 7/653) provides casualties in Polenfeldzug of 1939 as 16,843 KIA and 320 MIA, in total 17,163 KIA / MIA. Moreover, the report states that these are only Heer casualties (without Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine). This report also does not provide the number of wounded anywhere (and after more careful counting it also increased).

This Wehrmacht Zentralstatistik report can be found, as I wrote above, in Bundes Archiv - Militar Archiv in Freiburg, signature BA-MA RH 7/653.

In fact the number of wounded which can be found on English wikipedia (for example), was established in a quite funny way. There is a barely readable copy of the Wehrmacht Zentralstatistik document mentioned by me above (BA-MA RH 3/134) - in this copy original "8" from the original document (BA-MA RH 7/653) looks like "3" - so the number of KIA looks like 16,343 instead of original 16,843. They simply added 16,343 KIA to 320 MIA = 16663 and then they simply subtracted 16663 from the number of casualties given by Hitler in his propaganda speech (44,303), receiving the number 27,640 WIA.

The factual number of wounded was of course higher than 27,640 and even higher than 30,322 - the book "Wojna Obronna Polski 1939" provides losses of each army if it comes to WIA (in total 33,729 WIA in Heer forces, but only in 3., 4., 8., 10. and 14. Armies - without Army Group units and XIX Panzer Korps).

As you noticed we also gathered a lot of info concerning casualties of individual German divisions during that discussion on DWS forum.

I made an attempt of summing up all of this info on page 47. Sometimes I had to estimate casualties, but in major part of cases such estimations are based on partial data (for example casualties of some sub-units of the division / casualties of the division during particular battles or periods) or on the number of KIA officers from individual units listed on our list of KIA German officers on Axis History Forum (here is the link to this list - it should be noted that it is not fully complete yet):

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=120220

Considering that there are so many KIA officers listed there (either KIA in Poland for sure or most probably / maybe - the last two categories - most probably and maybe - are listed in the Research Section), it seems that even the number of casualties given by Wehrmacht Zentralstatistik (17,163 KIA / MIA) is still not fully complete (probably real losses were slightly higher - up to around 19,000 - 19,500 KIA / MIA, in my opinion, as I assume that at least 950 and up to around 1000 German officers were killed during the Polish Campaign in total).

Here is my list of casualties of individual German units:

http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.phpf=5&t=8860&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=1150#p1392687

Wehrmacht Zentralstatistik report dated 30.11.1944 gives the losses of Heer as 16,843 KIA and 320 MIA (17,163).

My calculations result in a slightly higher figure - 17,729 KIA and MIA (plus 36,473 WIA). Plus of course Luftwafe and Kriegsmarine.

Luftwaffe lost 549 KIA / MIA plus 407 WIA and Kriegsmarine lost 77 KIA, 3 MIA (in total 80 KIA / MIA) and 115 WIA.

Also my wounded figure (36,473) is very close to the wounded data from "Wojna Obronna Polski 1939". In some cases number of wounded is higher, but this is compensated by the much lower number of wounded in 10. Army (despite my efforts I couldn't get close to the 13,096 WIA figure for 10. Army given by "Wojna Obronna" - my calculations resulted in 10,364 WIA lost by 10. Army). But there is a reasonable explanation - maybe I simply assigned too few divisions to 10. Army or I assigned some divisions wrongly - as you know armies and Army Group reserves were exchanging divisions during the campaign, some divisions started the campaign in Army Group reserves and ended as part of an army, some did inversely. I tried to assign as many divisions as I could to correct armies.

Some divisions of AOK 3 could have had bigger losses than according to my count (I was basing on the number of KIA officers from these divisions from our list, that's why I had to be fair and make proportional counts - while in fact some infantry divisions lost relatively few officers, suffering high losses among NCOs and men - e.g. 21. Inf.Div., which lost at least 278 killed including only 6 officers or 28. Inf.Div., which lost 579 killed - including 16 officers).

By the way:

My first count resulted in 18,930 KIA & MIA (Heer only) - which is close to my estimations based on officer casualties (19 - 19,500 killed including at least 950 - 1000 officers) - but I decided that maybe I overestimated or misinterpreted something and thus I decided to lower my estimations where only it was reasonable, just in order to get closer to the official data of Wehrmacht Zentralstatistik (although it should be noted that even this data may be incomplete).

So - to summ up - Wehrmacht casualties in Poland in 1939 should be estimated as between 18,350 and 19,550 KIA with between 37,000 and 37,500 WIA.

This of course does not include casualties of all non-Wehrmacht units (so for example all kinds of police, all paramilitary units, SS Totenkopf, all kinds of saboteurs and so called "V Column", volunteers, auxiliary units, etc., etc.). But there are also some sources concerning casualties of such units.


maybe I can write program for that :)


Well, it includes some comparisons of data, but rather "on lower level", not if it comes to general (total) casualties (for example if it comes to casualties of individual divisions, sometimes there are several sources available and each source provides different number of casualties suffered by this particular division).

But how would such a program work? :)

[Domen]

If it comes to the Slovakian Invasion of Poland in 1939:

Slovakia is not responsible for this invasion, as was confirmed yet on 01.09.1939 by Polish radio - listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_i_807Sw8E

[Domen]

Comparison of the speed of advance of German armoured-motorized units in different campaigns is interesting - in Poland they were advancing slower than in Westfeldzug and in the USSR during the "fast part" of Barbarossa. Moreover in Poland 1. Gebirgs Division (which encountered relatively weak forces and weak resistance before approaching the city of Lwow, where it finally met with strong resistance) was advancing faster than any armoured or motorized division until it reached Lwow. Also during the Balkanfeldzug of 1941 German speed of advance was of course faster (despite difficult terrain for armoured-motorized units).

[InetWarrior]

If it comes to the Slovakian Invasion of Poland in 1939:

Slovakia is not responsible for this invasion, as was confirmed yet on 01.09.1939 by Polish radio - listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_i_807Sw8E

Its laughable
Polish Radio give propaganda statement - thats all
Even Slovaks know their guilt. Today vicepremier of Slovakia Duçana Źaploviźa say sorry to Poland for 1939. I give them my forgivness now...

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75248,7083113,Slowacja_przeprasza_Polske_za_1939.html?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=4809280

[Eye]

He said sorry, but mentioned clearly that nowadays Slovakia isn't legal inheritor of "military state of Slovakia", co Domen's post is much more precise.

[InetWarrior]

He said sorry, but mentioned clearly that nowadays Slovakia isn't legal inheritor of "military state of Slovakia", co Domen's post is much more precise.


He said sorry and thats all what counts... We should say sorry for 1968 too, even when decision of our participation in Warsaw Pact operation was not taken in Warsaw...

[Eye]

I'm sorry for good start.

[Smok]

He said sorry and thats all what counts... We should say sorry for 1968 too, even when decision of our participation in Warsaw Pact operation was not taken in Warsaw...

Afaik Jaruzelski already said sorry.

[InetWarrior]

Afaik Jaruzelski already said sorry.

Yes and rightly so...

[Switek]

Afaik Jaruzelski already said sorry.

Operation Danube was condemned few times in the beginning of 3rd Republic

[Domen]

We should say sorry for 1968 too


And I'm also sorry for the invasion and occupation of Slovakia by Boleslav Chrobry at the beginning of 11th century. :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Polska_992_-_1025.png

[Telmar]

Slovakia chose the axis.

Maybe not the Slovak people, (we'll never know though), but the nationalists who had been dissapointed with their representation in Czechoslovakia.

When Tiso, who was leading the nationalists, met Hitler, he was told that Slovakia would be divided between Poland and Hungary, unless it proclaimed independence and allegiance to the axis.

It's a touchy subject. Apologists claim that there was no choice: it was that or full German occupation. And what makes it worse is that during wartime, Slovakia enjoyed a short period of prosperity, although the south of the country was occupied by Hungary.

IIRC Gasparovič (President of Slovakia) has taken responsibility for the Slovak State and its deeds (including its participation in the Holocaust) in 2004 I think, much to the distaste of the current nationalist party SNS.