POLAND SAVED GREAT BRITAIN DURING WORLD WAR II

Loses(KIA,WIA,MIA):
Soldiers - Tanks/Armored vehicles - Aircrafts

Poland: 200 000 - 755 (100%) - 300
Germany: 44 000 - 993 - 564
Russia: 10 000/20 000 - 471 - 15
(1939)

 

Thanks for sharing mate!

 

Again. I don't know where are you getting your info from... But those figures are very exaggerated...

In 1939 Poland had 1.750.000 men in her armed forces —including the reserves not yet mobilised—, 935 planes and 500 tanks —most of them obsolete. Not to mention the lack of AT and AA guns.

They were fighting 1.516.000 Germans soldiers —ground forces included only—, consisting in 44 divisions —6 of them armoured— which were much better trained, strategically, tactically and technologically much more superior, along with 2.000 modern planes and 1.700 tanks —not at all good or adequate tanks, but perfectly used.

Not to mention that on September 1st roughly a million Poles were mobilised —general mobilisation "would have provoked Hitler", thought the Polish leaders— and were defending their 2.800 kilometres of frontiers. And of course, Poland's industry could not provide the basic supplies for such a war for more than three weeks. Supplies would have to travell more than 4.000 kilometres from France and England to reach Poland; the Channel Gibraltar, Marseille, the Aegean, the Black Sea, a Romanian port and then 800 kilometres by rough roads and railways...

The Red Army was far larger than 1,5 million men and Great Britain had an Army —effective in Europe— of 400.000 men.

Five million men in France's Army? Five million were mobilised but many of those were auxiliar troops and her number of divisions never exceeded 120 —which cannot be 5 million.

 

Again. I don't know where are you getting your info from... But those figures are very exaggerated..</font>[/QUOTE]From this webpage:
http://www.kampania.digimer.pl//l_porow.htm

Sources of that webpage:

1. Wojna Obronna Polski 1939, pod red. E.Kozlowskiego,WIH, Warszawa 1979
2. Wielkie Dni Malej Floty, J.Pertek, Wydawnictwo Poznanskie, Poznan 1990
3. Encyklopedia II Wojny swiatowej, WMON, Warszawa 1975
4. Polskie Samoloty Wojskowe 1919-1939, A.Morgala, WMON, Warszawa 1972
5. Armia Krakow, Wladysław Steblik
6. Armia Modlin 1939, Tadeusz Jurga
7. Armia Poznan, Waldemar Rezmer
8. Wrzesien 1939 w relacjach i wspomnieniach
9. Armia Lodz, Jan Wroblewski
10. Armia Prusy, Jan Wroblewski
11. Kampania Wrzesniowa 1939, Wincenty Iwanowski
12. Obrona Polski 1939, Tadeusz Jurga
13. Wojsko Polskie 1936-1939, Eugeniusz Kozlowski
14. Sily lotnicze Polski i Niemiec 1939, Jerzy Cynk
15. Artyleria polska 1914 - 1939, R. Los
16. Bron strzelecka i sprzet artyleryjski formacji polskich i Wojska Polskiego 1914-39,A. Konstankiewicz
17. Artyleria dwudziestego wieku, I. Hogg
18. Armata przeciwpancerna wz. 36, A. Konstankiewicz, W. Slupczyński

 

That's a relief ! Just for a moment there, I thought the sources might be biased toward Poland ...

 

Nobody knows better the history of Poland and Poles like the Poles by them self (except Norman Davies ).

And the "Polish Campaign 1939" is a part of Polish history.

If you have any suggestions or questions, write to the Webmaster:

http://www.kampania.digimer.pl/english.htm

 

That's exactly what I though when that bibliography was posted, Martin...

Not necessarily. And when you want to have a clear insight in let's say, the Holocaust then you don't use only German or Jewish sources. You use both! And to be more precise you add American, British and Soviet studies made when the camps were liberated and use some investigation by the International Red Cross. That's what historians make.

Therefore, if you want to make an investigation about the Polish campaign of 1939 you use Polish, German and Soviet sources. And some modern studies made by Americans, British, French or whoever would help a lot.

But I guess that non-Polish historians don't know anything...

 

"14. Sily lotnicze Polski i Niemiec 1939, Jerzy Cynk"

Is that Polish or a poor attempt at English?

No.9

 

You don´t belive in any source that i have posted here. (even the English "Times")
So i guess that Polish historians don´t know anything...

 

Air Forces of Poland and Germany 1939
Author: Jerzy Cynk

Some of his books are translate in English:
BookButler - Jerzy Cynk

[ 28. January 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Wojtix ]

 

A final post to end my participation on this useless thread...

An article in the British "Times" is not what you can be considered a very serious and professional investigation to use as a source when you want to reach a maximun of historical accuracy in an investigation.

And no, I won't believe any sources you have posted for the following reasons:

</font>

• Those are ONLY Polish sources —which mean a partial point of view</font>
• The statement about "Poland saving Britain during WWII" is an insult to History</font>
• The claim that a couple hundred Polish pilots won the battle of Britain by shooting down 15% is not true at all</font>
• Saying that Poland had a major contribution to the allied cause is not true either</font>
• Germany having 4.800 planes in 1939 is a lie, since the number was perhaps one time smaller...</font>

That is why I don't believe almost anything you've said.

 

Show me your sources

British and French - who try to minimize Polish (not only Polish) role in the WWII

German and Russian - Gobbels and Stalins propaganda.

 

Here's multiple statistics and their sources

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm

 

You're welcome Kai!

 

*YAAAWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN* (wipes his eyes) are you guys still here?

 

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,

 

A very good essay on the writing of history Andy!

 

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

 

An excellent post Andy, well up to your usual high standard
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

 

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. (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.

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.