polish victories

[iowa]

1939
Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
polish soldiers died 100000

1944
Polish resistance *ROTFL* smashed from Wermacht during Warsaw uprising.
German casualties 5000 polish casualtie 60000

Polish glorious and strong armed forces *ROTFL*

[Ed Majden]

"iowa" > wrote
> 1939
> Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
> polish soldiers died 100000
>
> 1944
> Polish resistance *ROTFL* smashed from Wermacht during Warsaw uprising.
> German casualties 5000 polish casualtie 60000
>
> Polish glorious and strong armed forces *ROTFL*
>
I wonder how you would make out fighting a modern equipped army with
antiquated weapons and half starved as was the case in 1944. A horse back
cavalry is no match for a tank! The Poles, more than held their own during
the Battle of Britain and later with ground forces in Europe along with the
other Allied armies. Records should be set strait in this regard.

[Yann D]

Polish pilots fought with the Armée de l'Air in 1940 (some became aces)
then, with the RAF.
So did Czech pilots.
....
Did someone said they stood a chance against the germans in 1939 ?
They did what they had to which is not that bad.
What about Belgium, Netherlands ?

> 1939
> Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
> polish soldiers died 100000
>
> 1944
> Polish resistance *ROTFL* smashed from Wermacht during Warsaw uprising.
> German casualties 5000 polish casualtie 60000
>
> Polish glorious and strong armed forces *ROTFL*
>
>

[Ed Majden]

"Yann D" ...
> Polish pilots fought with the Armée de l'Air in 1940 (some became aces)
> then, with the RAF.
> So did Czech pilots.
> ...
> Did someone said they stood a chance against the germans in 1939 ?
> They did what they had to which is not that bad.
> What about Belgium, Netherlands ?
>
> > 1939
> > Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
> > polish soldiers died 100000
> >
> > 1944
> > Polish resistance *ROTFL* smashed from Wermacht during Warsaw uprising.
> > German casualties 5000 polish casualtie 60000
> >

For a detailed review of Poland during WW-II go to:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/9764/warpoland.html I suggest doing some
research before posting nonsense and racial views to this newsgroup! Also
search for Polish Squadrons during WWII or the Battle of Britain, etc. The
Poles fought with valour during WW-II.

[B2431]

>From: "iowa"

<snip>
>
>1944
>Polish resistance *ROTFL* smashed from Wermacht during Warsaw uprising.
>German casualties 5000 polish casualtie 60000
>
>Polish glorious and strong armed forces *ROTFL*
>
Let's look at the uprising, shall we? The Poles were under armed, not recent
combat veterans and living on limited food rations. Most had never served in
the military. Stalin refused to let British or U.S. flights over Warsaw to land
in the Soviet Union since the uprising was on behalf of the government in exile
in England. Stalin saw the uprising as a drain on Nazi combat forces which it
was. Stalin saw the uprising as a way to eliminate potential opposition to his
postwar puppet government. Stalin finally "relented" just before the collapse
of the uprising, when the battle was doen to a very small area, and dropped
arms over Warsaw. Most of said arms landed into Nazi territory.

Had you been in Warsaw, been oppressed for several years, been promised outside
support and seen the Nazis as being distracted by losses on the eastern front,
what would you have done? How would you have fared against a better armed,
better trained and better fed army?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Now do some research on Polish history and you will find they were a fairly
typical European country constantly squabbling with neighbours. They won a few
and lost a few.

[iowa]

Poland: half to Germany and half to Russia
Polish: annihilated

This is in my opinion a good solution of the polish problem

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:iDVjb.115348$6C4.42440@pd7tw1no...
>

> I wonder how you would make out fighting a modern equipped army with
> antiquated weapons and half starved as was the case in 1944. A horse back
> cavalry is no match for a tank! The Poles, more than held their own during
> the Battle of Britain and later with ground forces in Europe along with
the
> other Allied armies. Records should be set strait in this regard.
>
>

The Poles were extraordinarily brave soldiers, when everyone
else had failed to take Monte Cassino it was the poles who
finally did the job at a terrible price, they left 1100 dead
and 3000 wounded on the mountainside.

As one of the Canadian soldiers who witnessed the attack
said, "for us it was just another attack, to the Poles it was
personal"

Keith

[Llama Thumper]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:18:51 GMT, iowa > wrote:

> Poland: half to Germany and half to Russia
> Polish: annihilated
>
> This is in my opinion a good solution of the polish problem
>
you look like the problem to me mate...
and as for 1939 you forget the 'valuable' 'assistance' (=stab in the back)
the Russians 'gave' invading together with the Germans.

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:18:51 GMT, iowa > wrote:
>Poland: half to Germany and half to Russia
>Polish: annihilated
>
>This is in my opinion a good solution of the polish problem

IMO killfiles are a good solution ot the idiot-on-Usenet problem.

*plonk*

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Micha³ £o¶]

U¿ytkownik "Ed Majden" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:iDVjb.115348$6C4.42440@pd7tw1no...
>
> "iowa" > wrote
> > 1939
> > Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
> > polish soldiers died 100000
> >
> > 1944
> > Polish resistance *ROTFL* smashed from Wermacht during Warsaw uprising.
> > German casualties 5000 polish casualtie 60000
> >
> > Polish glorious and strong armed forces *ROTFL*
> >
> I wonder how you would make out fighting a modern equipped army with
> antiquated weapons and half starved as was the case in 1944. A horse back
> cavalry is no match for a tank! The Poles, more than held their own during
> the Battle of Britain and later with ground forces in Europe along with
the
> other Allied armies. Records should be set strait in this regard.
>
>
Polish Cavalry was the modern part of our army. Attack with sabres on tanks
is a myth!!!
They have modern antitank guns 37mm bofors (this gun could destroy all
german tanks in this time, and probably all tanks on the world), antitank
rifle Ur.They fought on "foots", horses was only to move to longest
distance.
We lost, becouse, our strategy was "out of date" (german blitzkrieg was to
fast) (France had bigger army, and they lost faster)
In 1944 in Warsaw we had only light weapon (hand guns, rifle, MP). German
army had tanks, planes, guns (even Karl, 600mm mortar) and they fought over
2 months!
They couldn't stop this wave of steel.
If Polish soldiers had better weapon, they was almost invincible (BoB,
Falais, Monte Casino, Market-garden, Tobruk)
look how they fought in 1939 on Hel or Westerplatte
--
pzdr
Micha³ £o¶
(sorry if my English is not perfect )

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> 1939
> Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
> polish soldiers died 100000
>

1940
35,000 UK troops roll up over 200,000 italian "soldier" in north africa.
Capturing most.






--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[John Keeney]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:18:51 GMT, iowa > wrote:
> >Poland: half to Germany and half to Russia
> >Polish: annihilated
> >
> >This is in my opinion a good solution of the polish problem
>
> IMO killfiles are a good solution ot the idiot-on-Usenet problem.
>
> *plonk*

Good, but not perfect: he changes the "from address" and you
have to filter on something else.

[B2431]

>From: Tank Fixer

<snip>

>1940
>35,000 UK troops roll up over 200,000 italian "soldier" in north africa.
>Capturing most.

Don't knock the Italian soldiers, they did the best they considering their poor
leadership, being over extended and being less well equipped than the British.

Bear in mind Italy was not prepared to take North Africa and KEEP it. Their
resupply system wasn't very good so not all of their equipment combat losses
were replaced by the time the British showed up.

Another thing to keep in mind is most of the war in North Africa was within a
few kilometers of the Mediterranian coast. Also Tobruk was a thorn in the
Italian's side. This means the Italian army was for all intents and purposes
one long line of men from Lybia westward with a bunch of men tied up at Tobruk.
They kept most of their heavy stuff at Tobruk and in Lybia. Once the British
punched through the lines in Lybia they came across very little serious
opposition.

The Italian leadership flubbed the job. The average Italian soldier was just as
brave as any other soldier.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> > 1939
> > Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
> > polish soldiers died 100000
> >
>
> 1940
> 35,000 UK troops roll up over 200,000 italian "soldier" in north africa.
> Capturing most.
>

Indeed, my father was with the Western Desert force at the time and
his squad was seriously hindered when an entire batallion of
Italians gave themselves up . He wondered at the time how often
a Colonel had surrendered to a corporal with 6 men.

Keith

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:09:18 -0400, John Keeney > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:18:51 GMT, iowa > wrote:
>> >Poland: half to Germany and half to Russia
>> >Polish: annihilated
>> >
>> >This is in my opinion a good solution of the polish problem
>>
>> IMO killfiles are a good solution ot the idiot-on-Usenet problem.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
>Good, but not perfect: he changes the "from address" and you
>have to filter on something else.

Fortunately, slrn has a wide range of filtering options.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
> Poland: half to Germany and half to Russia
> Polish: annihilated
>
> This is in my opinion a good solution of the polish problem


Italy

Give the northern part to Austria and let Sicily go independent.

The rest we give over to a giant new EuroDisney.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> >From: Tank Fixer
>
> <snip>
>
> >1940
> >35,000 UK troops roll up over 200,000 italian "soldier" in north africa.
> >Capturing most.
>
> Don't knock the Italian soldiers, they did the best they considering their poor
> leadership, being over extended and being less well equipped than the British.
>
> Bear in mind Italy was not prepared to take North Africa and KEEP it. Their
> resupply system wasn't very good so not all of their equipment combat losses
> were replaced by the time the British showed up.
>
> Another thing to keep in mind is most of the war in North Africa was within a
> few kilometers of the Mediterranian coast. Also Tobruk was a thorn in the
> Italian's side. This means the Italian army was for all intents and purposes
> one long line of men from Lybia westward with a bunch of men tied up at Tobruk.
> They kept most of their heavy stuff at Tobruk and in Lybia. Once the British
> punched through the lines in Lybia they came across very little serious
> opposition.
>
> The Italian leadership flubbed the job. The average Italian soldier was just as
> brave as any other soldier.


I knew that, I was wondering if our "iowa" 1D1OT knew.

IIRC didn't the RN bury those killed in the chariot attacks with honors ?



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Marc Reeve]

Micha" £o¶ > wrote:
> U¿ytkownik "Ed Majden" > napisa" w wiadomo¶ci
> news:iDVjb.115348$6C4.42440@pd7tw1no...
> >
> > "iowa" > wrote
> > > 1939
> > > Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
> > > polish soldiers died 100000
> > >
> > > 1944
> > > Polish resistance *ROTFL* smashed from Wermacht during Warsaw
> > > uprising. German casualties 5000 polish casualtie 60000
> > >
> > > Polish glorious and strong armed forces *ROTFL*
> > >
> > I wonder how you would make out fighting a modern equipped army with
> > antiquated weapons and half starved as was the case in 1944. A horse
> > back cavalry is no match for a tank! The Poles, more than held their own
> > during the Battle of Britain and later with ground forces in Europe
> > along with the other Allied armies. Records should be set strait in
> > this regard.
> >
> >
> Polish Cavalry was the modern part of our army. Attack with sabres on tanks
> is a myth!!!
> They have modern antitank guns 37mm bofors (this gun could destroy all
> german tanks in this time, and probably all tanks on the world), antitank
> rifle Ur.They fought on "foots", horses was only to move to longest
> distance.

True enough. I used to have a page bookmarked (3 jobs ago, sadly) that
detailed the incident that led to the myth of "horse cavalry vs. tanks".

The summary, as I recall it, is that a cavalry regiment was busily
wiping out a German infantry unit (footsoldiers vs. cavalry) when a
couple of armored cars (not! tanks!) showed up and chewed up the horse
soldiers with their mounted 20mm cannon. When reporters arrived, the
dead Germans had been removed, and the head of the press escort said
something about "horses vs. panzers *shrug*" and thus was the myth
begun.

> We lost, becouse, our strategy was "out of date" (german blitzkrieg was to
> fast) (France had bigger army, and they lost faster)

People also forget the backstab by the Soviet Union. The Poles were
holding their own against the Blitzkrieg, despite losing ground (but did
they ever make the Germans pay for that ground), until the Red Army came
across the eastern border.

> In 1944 in Warsaw we had only light weapon (hand guns, rifle, MP). German
> army had tanks, planes, guns (even Karl, 600mm mortar) and they fought over
> 2 months!

Yep. Anyone who says the Warsaw uprising shows the Poles couldn't fight
is talking out of their ass.

Had the Poles had a fully mechanized army in 1939 (that is, equivalent
to the Wehrmacht) I suspect they still would have lost, but the Germans
and Soviets would have paid a far heavier price.

ObTex: But what does this have to do with military aviation?

-Marc

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Rob van Riel]

(Marc Reeve) wrote in message >...
> People also forget the backstab by the Soviet Union. The Poles were
> holding their own against the Blitzkrieg, despite losing ground (but did
> they ever make the Germans pay for that ground), until the Red Army came
> across the eastern border.

Shouldn't we make that a double? As I recall, in '44 (or was it '45)
the Russians halted their advance just outside Warsaw to give the
Germans time to wipe out the Poles. They knew these were the very
Poles that would cause trouble later on when they occupied Poland
themselves, and would just as soon see them all dead.

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

"iowa" > wrote in message >...
> 1939
> Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
> polish soldiers died 100000
>
> 1944
> Polish resistance *ROTFL* smashed from Wermacht during Warsaw uprising.
> German casualties 5000 polish casualtie 60000
>
> Polish glorious and strong armed forces *ROTFL*

Actually, this is funny. At some point during the middle ages, it was
a Polish army that turned back the hordes of muslim invaders that
threatened to completely overrun Europe. If it hadn't been for the
Poles, we might all have been the very Arabs that many people now love
to hate.

Rob

[Chasm]

"Yann D" > wrote in message >...
> Polish pilots fought with the Armée de l'Air in 1940 (some became aces)
> then, with the RAF.
> So did Czech pilots.

IIRC there were 2 Belgian RAF squadrons, several ground-units & a lot
of merchant ships in service of the British.

> ...
> Did someone said they stood a chance against the germans in 1939 ?
> They did what they had to which is not that bad.
> What about Belgium, Netherlands ?
>
> > 1939
> > Germany invades poland in less than a month almost without casualties,
> > polish soldiers died 100000
> >
> > 1944
> > Polish resistance *ROTFL* smashed from Wermacht during Warsaw uprising.
> > German casualties 5000 polish casualtie 60000
> >
> > Polish glorious and strong armed forces *ROTFL*
> >
> >

[Ed Majden]

> "Yann D" > > Polish pilots fought with the Armée de l'Air in 1940 (some
became aces)
> > then, with the RAF.
> > So did Czech pilots.
>
RAF Squadron No. 303 was manned by Poles. It ended the Battle of
Britain with 126 victories, the highest of any RAF squadron.

Ed

[Marc Reeve]

Rob van Riel > wrote:

> (Marc Reeve) wrote in message
> >...
> > People also forget the backstab by the Soviet Union. The Poles were
> > holding their own against the Blitzkrieg, despite losing ground (but did
> > they ever make the Germans pay for that ground), until the Red Army came
> > across the eastern border.
>
> Shouldn't we make that a double? As I recall, in '44 (or was it '45)
> the Russians halted their advance just outside Warsaw to give the
> Germans time to wipe out the Poles. They knew these were the very
> Poles that would cause trouble later on when they occupied Poland
> themselves, and would just as soon see them all dead.
>
True dat, but I was confining my remarks to the initial invasion in
1939.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m