POLAND SAVED GREAT BRITAIN DURING WORLD WAR II

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

2800 + 2000 = 4800

 

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



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

Cheers

 

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...

 

[ 29. January 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: The_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!

 

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

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!

 

The one thing that comes to mind that the Polish people have to be commended for, is the invention of the Enigma.

I brutally cannot think of anything else, and this is NOT meant as an insult either.

 

An interesting discussion.

Let's dissect the logic.

141 Polish pilots save the United Kingdom against certain defeat. Presumably the rest of the RAF are sitting back and sipping tea?

In 1939, Poland fielded an army of 30 divisions. On mobilisation, Poland had 39 Infantry divisions, 3 mountain brigades, 2 motorised armoured brigades, 10 cavalry brigades, and artillery. German claims of 3214 artillery field pieces captured so the Polish artillery was modern and well equiped. Poland also had a good supply of Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft guns and Swedish 37mm anti-tank guns. Polish cavalry were well trained in use of their 75mm FG's for anti-tank use, better trained than in most other armies of the time.
In all, Poland fielded an army of 2 million men.

The only way that Germany could come close to matching this was to cut all defensive forces to the bone. Even so, German strength in the east was not more than 1,516,000 men.

In addition, Germany maintained 500,000 men in fixed fortifications in the west. These were largely complete and effective.

Poland fielded some 700 tanks. Almost 50% the strength in numbers but in most cases better armed and more than capable of dealing with the German 'tanks' which for the most part were PzI's and therefore little more than armoured machine gun carriers.

The numbers speak volumes.

If the Polish pilots were so effective in defeating the German invaders in 1940, why were they so ineffective when defending their own country in 1939?

The difference is not in tactical might, or numbers of men or machines but in simple will.

In 1940 Britain had the will to resist. In previous encounters against the Germans, nations had forgone that will.

Of course, the English Channel helped but every nation made plans to defend their territory using the terrain and fortifications. Polish fortifications were hardly insignificant and French and German fortifications were very solid.

The British defensive system worked the best.

[ 23. March 2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Major Destruction ]

 

Yes, Major Destruction,

and one of the main instruments was the radar system that made it possible to send the fighters to attack the right places at the right time.

 

A word of caution members! remember onbe thing, Britain went to war to remove the scourge of the Nazi regime. We could have satn here and let them get on with it But no...We fought it out. after the Victory we never coveted any mans land. and left the population to govern themselves, something that does not happen often. As to the Polish saving Great Britain?

COme off of it lads, for heavens sake where did you get that from? They helped and were much appreciated for their contribution,brave lads... but as to saving us? That honestly is utter crap.
I should know as I am old enough and took part in those traumatic times, And I may add, paid the price.
Sapper.

 

It would be a lot easier to argue that everyone played their part and without the contribution from the whole, the battle could have been lost and be happy with that. However, believing that had one group, especially such a small one, 'saved' anyone from defeat is hard to buy.

 

Please either close this thread or don't reply - it's completely out of sense to put things that way - I am Pole but I never have been thinking we save any country. My countrymen fight bravely with Britons against Germans - thats all.

Give this thread a decent funeral