Some remarks:

1.) woitix, please don't post in German,even if it's easier for me an you. If you want to discuss with me in German or more private you can pm me.

This is a public board and my point is not to convince you, but to discuss it openly and letting have all the others draw their own conclusions on what we post here. 99% of those frequenting this board will be more happy to read our crunchy, raped, hardly-english two-liners, compared to excellent, detailled and lenghthy postings in german, polish whatever.

Your German is very good, btw.

2.) ALL, you can’t dismiss sources (in this case better a book reference) just because you can’t or didn’t or haven’t read it or because it is consisting primarily from one nation or of one language. Using Polish history books as a basis for information on the Germo-Polish war is per se as valid and necessary as using a German history book as a “basis”. There is no such thing as a “national political correctness” in history science, a small essay on the Germo-Polish war written by an, let’s say, Italian in 1982 may have a 100% more historic value compared to "Polands official history of WW II", filling 15 volumes, written in maybe 1965 under Soviet rule with a “socialist histography” approach, not mentioning Katyn and the Hitler-Stalin pact at all. If so, you just can use the 1963-book to sort out the “hard facts”, but not to get a fair view of the real picture.

2.) In history, “truths” and facts are not necessarily what really happened, but what is “accepted” to be a fact or having happened.

A simple example: We all know that the, let’s say T-34 never had a 45 mm gun (hopefully ). Now let’s say AndyW is digging out a primary source from 1942 (a document), showing (in Russian) that 2,456 of those 45mm-T-34s had been built and delivered. I write an essay „The T–34/45 in Action 1942“ and publish in a periodical or a book. Now, the CONTROVERSITY can begin, a scholarly discussion with all the pros and cons, validating all the existing evidence in place. Most possible the historic community will rip me into pieces, claiming that the „45mm“ is a typo in my documents. „My“ T-34/45 will not be accepted as „current historical knowledge“ because of lack of sufficient documentary evidence: No matter if that T-34/45 had REALLY existed or not.
N
ow if I pull out more and more reliable primary sources, photos, Vets remembering etc. this T-34/45 will suddenly become an accepted fact in history. The (hypothetical) vintage year 1955 standard history book “ALL Tanks of WW II” was not incomplete until 2004, when AndyW convincingly proofed that there were thousands of T-34/45’s, and it is STILL a standard work, but yet outdated.

But you ALWAYS have to carefully look onto any piece of information and check if it is in accordance to what is called “the current state of history scholarship” or rather selective in an attempt to serve the bias of the author before taking it for face value. Contradicting and selective basis information (not: in the interpretations or conclusions drawn out of ) in different history books of the same area are always a sign that there is a problem.

I’d say 99% of all the history books I have read are biased, either out of

a) idological reasons (the perversion of history done under "Socialist histography" was never near to the pro-western bias, btw.)
b) national pride,
c) Appologization or mythbuilding (memoirs!)
d) the authors attempts to be “original” or “pacemaking”, hoping his study/book is gaining reputation or becoming THE standard work
e) to serve the audience = selling good

3.) If you ever try to come near to the „truth“ or the „real events“, the „exact number“, good luck. Best you get is the best current available and commonly accepted information by reading, reading, reading, the more broad the better. Periodicals and reviews are VERY helpful.

I can go and read dozens or dozens of books describing the bombing of Germany from the German POV, but a substantial part of information is missing as long as I didn't have read at least a few books dealing with the issue from the English or American POV. This works vice versa. Now, language skills are ONE restriction in getting all the info you want to have, (think about the PTO and the almost complete absence of having the Japanese POV in the discussion), TIME is the other. I guess only 1 % of the Polish books about the Gemo-Polish war are making it into German translation, and I’m afraid it isn’t quite different vice versa. The more necessary is this board.

4.) WRT the strength numbers discussed above: With the info I have at hand, I can only comment fairely on the German numbers, and, with even more limitations, on the Polish numbers, and I did so. It is clear that the German strength numbers presented are party incomparable to the Polish strength numbers presented, because they either include German forces / equipment deployed on the Western Front, non-operational equipment, etc.

I’m not interested in a “big Dick”-contest to “downsize” or “upsize” the quantitative numbers of either force to boost my or degenerate any other’s national ego. I want to make the numbers at least quantitative comparable by comparing apples with apples and not apples with oranges. This quantitative “getting the numbers straight” is only a “tool” of discussion, it does not include quality, strategy, doctrine, tactics, politics: In the tank numbers, 1 Pz. III is equal to 1 TKS.

5.) Friedrich, AFAIK, woitix never claimed that the Germans had 4,800 planes in 1939, or did I missed that?

6.) It’s always a good idea to keep in mind that the guy on the other side of the web shares so much with you: Interested in WW II (!), sitting on a keyboard, maybe hasseling around with the language, loosing 90% of the info he wants to communicate, with a limited knowledge due to the sheer amount of info available and the restrictions (time and language-wise) to adequately deal with this info.

And the guy you're discussing with is ALWAYS just the same “I-knew-it-better-than-him”-jackass as I pretend to be.

Cheers,

__________________
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
(President Merkin Muffley in "Dr. Strangelove")

A very good essay on the writing of history Andy!

__________________
This information has been posted for non-commercial, educational, and research purposes.
- - - -
"The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here." - Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 19, 1863
- - - -
"The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past." - William Faulkner

No problem I send my reply (in German) on pm.

An excellent post Andy, well up to your usual high standard [img]smile.gif[/img]
On an amusing note, while I have no evidence that the Soviets had a T-34 with a 45mm, how about a T-34 with a 57mm gun
Check it out
http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_57.html

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Great post Andy, I especially like your comments on the big kahuna syndrome, I think this very thing might be causing this thread to go to a point of no return with good facts being lost in a mire of testosterone spraying, patriotism and language/translation difficulties. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img] (me being as guilty as the rest)

Might I suggest you assist our Polish friend here by translating what he has PM'd you (with is permission of course) as I for one now feel that he may be getting a bit of a "dressing down" here, perhaps due to his english really being misunderstood. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I am also keen to hear from the Forum Starter, as we have made quite a few points that seem to run counter to his original arguement of "Poland won the war for the British" (perhaps another translation mistake?) which he has not the courtesy to respond to. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
Der große Stoß Büstenhalter auf Ihrem Kopf!!

I promised not to respond this thread anymore, but Andy's post was very good and I must congratulate him.

2800 + 2000 = 4800

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Quote:

Originally posted by Wojtix: Soldiers - Artillery - Tanks -Fighter/Bombers Poland: 950 000 - 4500 - 700 - 400 Germany: 1 800 000 - 11 000 - 2800 - 2000 UdSSR: 1 500 000 - 13 500 - 6000 - 1800 France: 5 000 000 - 11 000 - 2600 - 2800 Great Britain: 890 000 - 2600 - 1150 - 1900 (Europe 1939)

2800 + 2000 = 4800

</font>[/quote]Unless the Nazis hadn't flying tanks, (wonder weapons against Poland?) I read:

Soldiers - Artillery - Tanks -Fighter/Bombers
1 800 000 - 11 000 - 2800 - 2000

or

1 800 000 Soldiers
11 000 Artillery
2800 Tanks
2000 Fighter/Bombers

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

Now as we repeated the numbers so often ,they MUST be true.

Cheers

__________________
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
(President Merkin Muffley in "Dr. Strangelove")

Quote:

Originally posted by Wojtix: Soldiers - Artillery - Tanks -Fighter/Bombers Poland: 950 000 - 4500 - 700 - 400 Germany: 1 800 000 - 11 000 - 2800 - 2000 UdSSR: 1 500 000 - 13 500 - 6000 - 1800 France: 5 000 000 - 11 000 - 2600 - 2800 Great Britain: 890 000 - 2600 - 1150 - 1900 (Europe 1939)

2800 + 2000 = 4800

</font>[/quote]2800 Tanks - 2000 Aircrafts

New "Wunderwaffe", the flying tanks

From now on I'll wear my glasses every time I post in this forum... [img]redface.gif[/img]

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

[ 29. January 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

In respect of ‘history’ books, there are a few more considerations, I would saw, to be taken into account.

Those written shortly after the event.
Those written from the ’I was there’ perspective, even if 100% accurate and truthful without coloration, cannot tell anything but the view from one man and probably immediate colleagues. Even if a man is writing about a battle he was in, he obviously only saw it from where he was.

Example: The objective is a large fortified farmstead, located just on the edge of a village and close to a moderate cliff overlooking a beach and the sea. Behind the farm is woodland and the approach from the opposite side to the village is a meandering road along the cliff top with open fields on its land side. The assault requirements will be different from each approach and if there is a multiple assault from different directions, the assault will be different for each unit. A man in a frontal amphibious assault party cannot personally describe what it was like to be a paratrooper who was dropped inland and had to navigate the woodland. Each man can tell you how ‘they’ captured the farmstead but only how they saw the engagement.

In respect of those who were not necessarily there but are relying on official records, it must be remembered that at the time of a plan and for some time after, much of the information will be embargoed and confidential. They therefore only have access to official records released for public knowledge. Even if they know more, they are prohibited for disclosure as this could be tantamount to treason. Even with released data such as War Diaries, they are not free from coloration or omissions. They should not be fundamentally wrong or even partially wrong, but at the end of the day it is up to the author how he tells the chiefs something went wrong or didn’t happen, and how well the men did in achieving what did.

Example from a real War Diary: “From the beachhead all sections advanced towards the road and found a house in darkness. The house was quickly and quietly cleared. No prisoners were taken.” Hmm, worth a scene in a Hollywood epic, throats cut, necks broken etc. In reality the report is truthful in what is says (and no doubt pleased the chiefs), but omits to say this was all achieved because the house was deserted! Who says it was empty? – Every man I’ve ever spoken to who was on the assault and went into the house.

The ‘facts’ in books
Andy has pointed out a number of reasons why a book may not be accurate. Overall, unless some marketing person has decided they can sell a book on a particular subject and commissions someone to write one to their specifications, a person undertakes a book because they believe there is a story to be told or to be told better than it already has been. You also get a combination of the two where a writer who started out by wanting to tell (or retell) a story (i.e. something they believe in), now finds themselves influenced by the desire to write more but also to sell more. Hence research short-cuts can start to emerge (or emerge to a greater extent), and coloration to increase the appeal of the book.

Proper research is usually costly and always very time consuming! There will be a number of points an author is not expert on. If they then turn to an earlier work of someone else who themselves had to make an approximation or guess because specific facts were embargoed at the time, they will copy on this partial story and perpetuate it. It may well be the case that the first writer came to the wrong conclusion out of ignorance. Hence that error is now perpetuated and thereafter may be thought to actually be the truth because it is quoted in 2 or more books!

Beware the revelationists
Let’s say you want to write a book about Dieppe. You go to a publisher and ask them to publish your book. The publisher points to his shelves and 14 books about Dieppe, and asks why would anyone be interested in yours? Saying it is well written and well researched isn’t going to persuade him. So you say ”mine is different, it has ‘new’ details not known before!”. It’s a marketing fact that interest is always keenest when something is ‘New’. Hence we see old detergents which have been around for ages suddenly appear as ”New and improved” or ”Best formula yet”, etc. History is history, if the full, story has been accurately and concisely told, it has been accurately and concisely told. Therefore, if there is nothing new or major significance to say, some either make it up, or present a distorted case based on selective analysis. Another favourite is to claim (by the author) ”personal knowledge” which turns out to be by men who are now dead!

As Emperor Rosko used to say in my days of radio listening; ”Kick out the jams brothers and sisters”, or as Sgt. Joe Friday used to say in Dragnet; ”Just the facts please”. In other words Mr Author, say what you know and why you know it, say what you've been told and who told you, and say when you're guessing and what your reasoning is!

No.9

[ 29. January 2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: No.9 ]

Well said No. 9!

__________________
This information has been posted for non-commercial, educational, and research purposes.
- - - -
"The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here." - Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 19, 1863
- - - -
"The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past." - William Faulkner

Probably like many others here Crapgame, I find historical research fascinating and frustrating. Especially when you think you have something pegged, then discover something to make you think again.

I don’t even think the answer can be found in Sherlock Holmes’s famous quote; ”when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”, unless of course if you take the ”however improbable” to possibly mean that a venerated and respected author is simply……wrong!

No.9

Interesting. For such a provoking title we got some excellent answers by Andy and No9. Thank you Guys for the responses!

__________________

This thread has been suitably buried, as well it should, and I didn’t really want to resurrect or bump it, but, in looking for something completely different I found the full Victory parade schedule – to be precise; ‘THE OFFICIAL PROGRAMME of the VICTORY CELEBRATIONS,
8th June 1946 - in London, England’

So I’m reading through this fascinating list which includes the world and his wife down to the Pay Corps, the FANY’s and even the Mauritius Women's Volunteer Corps. Then, as my eyes tripped along, I saw ‘Poland’! Not only in the Army sector but also the Air Force!!!

What was the opening gambit of this inaccurate and inflammatory thread;
”And immediately after W.W.II when the Victory parade was held Polish pilots and all Polish soldiers couldn't take part in the parade ecause of Stalin. Quote from "A Question Of Honor"***"as the parade was going by one young polish pilot was standing at the sidewalk, when he turned back to walk away an older woman asked: Why are you crying young man?"
I think we could ask for a "Excuse us" from the British gov, couldn't we???.......”

I think if this did take place, the answer was probably that he was p/ssed as a f@rt, stank like a skunk, looked like a pile of sh/t and his Sergeant Major told him to Polski off because he wasn’t going on parade in that state!!! Should have twigged it earlier actually as in Britain 'sidewalk' is a silly dance crabs and slappers on high-heels do!


Then I started looking around for this Queens' speech of 1996, and I found the full version which was written and delivered in English as Queen Liz don’t do Polack.

Our Polish flamer said;
"...If Poland wouldn/t stand by us at that time the candle of freedom would be snuffed out."

What Liz said while addressing Polish government during her goodwill visit was;
” If Poland had not stood with us in those days, who knows - the candle of freedom might have been snuffed out?”

In anticipation, please spare me the ”Engrish I speak not soo gud” because there’s plenty of Polish sites with the full speech in the Queen’s English it was written in!

As I said much earlier on, she’s on diplomatic duties, what do you expect her to say? Do you think if she meets Chief Mapopotabongo she greets him with; “Hello you old Ostrich blood sucker, machetied any babies lately or stoned any women to death?”

However, apparently the 1996 Polish visit didn’t go to everyone’s satisfaction;
”Jozef Oleksy. The former prime minister and current leader of the Socialdemocratic Party, was not invited for the breakfast at Warsaw's Bristol Hotel nor for the reception at the Grand Theatre. Oleksy described the incident as an unpleasant affront. "I don't know why the British acted in this way. After all I'm a party leader" commented Oleksy. Jerzy Szmajdzinski, the Sejm leader of the Democratic Left Alliance group of Sejm Deputies announced his party, the Socialdemocratic Party, will hold an inquiry into the reasons, why Poland meekly decided to tolerate the offending British behaviour.”

http://kronika.sejm.gov.pl/kronika/ss-114.htm

So, me thinks we’ve all been duped for taking the premise that posters here are genuine?

Well Wally777, perhaps you’d care to jump on your Arkys & Romet and

No.9

oh…..nearly forgot, the full 1946 parade list, both parts, is below - enjoy [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2VictoryParade1.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2VictoryParade2.htm

Ok - what is your point about not inviting Oleksy by the Queen. He was an soviet agent in Poland (what is well known) as far as I know the Queen habitualy not to meet with soviet agents. Am I wrong. As to the thread and your answer - you are right - when somebody quotes somebody should have done it properly. My opinion is the topic is out of sence. It should be something like - 'contribution of Polish pilots to winning the BoB' or something like that. All in all,it is a nonsence claiming that they saved Britain. It must be mentioned however, they CONTRIBUTED to the victory.

I dont know if it is possible to change the topic of the thread? If it is so, do it Kwaq777. The sooner the better.

Best regards!

[ 12. February 2004, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Fredd ]

Fredd, before Wally777 came along, if you asked anyone on this forum about Polish servicemen, they would have told you they served in the Army, Navy and Air Force, did a very good job on the whole and were very welcomed. If Wally had come along and said he wanted to remind everyone of Poland’s contribution, or, asked people to tell him what they knew of Polish servicemen, he would have got a plentiful and positive response. However, he devised a lot of nonsense which didn’t do him any favours and got people to point out several things about Poland which show, as a political entity and to be frank, they were not that nice!

I’m sure everyone would like to go back to mentioning the instances during the war which involved the Polish role among the Allies.

In respect of the extract about Oleksy, not only did I not previously know the Queen went to Poland in 1996, I have not attempted to follow events behind the Iron Curtain since it dissolved. I found it after reading the section on the Queen’s speech. If Poland wants to be Republican, Democrat, Socialist or Communist, they are now a free society so can chose for themselves. In respect of vists or meetings our Queen is involved in, on almost every instance the format and script is drawn up for her by our Foreign Office.

No.9

Ok thanks - my idea is 'lets bury this thread'. It doesn't deserve to be continued. Personally, I like more specific thread when we talk about specific event or person.

Best regards!