How did Poland hold out longer than France.

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Wrong - communists were never nationalists. Being nationalist or being communist is like being water or being fire...

Yes I just said that. Did you even read what you quoted?

 

[Masada]

Wrong - communists were never nationalists. Being nationalist or being communist is like being water or being fire...

Wait, what.

 

[GoodGame]

A true communist would be one of the internationale though is what I think Cheezy means (if I remember his old politics right).

 

[Masada]

I don't know how you prove what a 'true' Communist is.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actually I didn't really have a point. I was simply saying that between 1917 and around the mid-1930s, the Soviets exhibited a unique kind of national pride; it was sort of like nationalism, but not really, since it was pride in the society they were creating because they believed it to be morally superior than what existed elsewhere (because, as Domen et al have pointed out, Marxist communists are internationalists, which the Bolsheviks certainly were). So I guess my "point," if you wanted to find one, would be that this "social pride" was swallowed up by old Russian nationalism because the old Russian empire was the only remaining socialist stronghold by that point. That nationalism has always been a force even after the Revolution, but internationalism generally prevailed in the 1920s; its victory was sealed by the time of the Second World War because of the "Great Patriotic" nature of the conflict, plus what I have already described. A truly regrettable, yet also somewhat understandable, outcome.

 

[Domen]

Today is the anniversary.

The battle of Westerplatte (4:45 1st of September 1939 - 10:35 7th of September 1939) is sometimes considered the first battle that started in WW2. Westerplatte was ordered and supposed to hold on for 12 hours. It was fighting for the whole week:

"Westerplatte" - Polish war movie from 1967 (91 minutes) + English subtitles:

Part 1:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=dFLB9j5LGVo

Part 2:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=lcCz-NQ5zdU

Part 3:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=mz6iysn6Gpg

Part 4:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=X43-iZ2cNT0

Part 5:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=yqjAu5wj1Nk

Part 6:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=lp-9wL3As0w

Part 7:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=LnxYLo3ao9w

Part 8:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=d2IFH4bdH3M

Part 9:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lb4goWnzIA

Part 10:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=T0PbHVJrh6E

 

[Domen]

217 tanks destroyed

(...)

839 panzers destroyed

Incorrect - these numbers can't be compared because they concern two different categories of tank losses.

The first number concerns only "total write-offs" (and without command tanks and Czechoslovakian models).

The 2nd one concerns not just total write-offs but all tanks "deleted from the armament" and all models.

The Polish army inflicted almost as heavy losses on these Panzers as combined Allied armies one year later. We should distinguish the so called "total losses" from the so called "total write-offs", which are too often mixed up - especially while comparing losses in France and in Poland.

Here are the proper definitions of both terms:

"Total losses" = complete "losses" / deleted from the armament = in German: Totalausfalle / Totalverluste / Abgang. This category includes all scrapped tanks but also tanks sent for long-term repairs or rebuilding in factories, transfered for modernization or reconstruction, sold abroad or decommissioned.

It also includes tanks sent for long-term storage and thus deleted from the armament.

"Total write-offs" = complete "write-offs" = in German: Totalschaden. This category includes exclusively scrapped tanks. So this category is just part of the "total losses" category. Tanks which were "total write-offs" were not only deleted from the armament but all of them were scrapped.

And now let's see what does Pier Paolo Battistelli ("Panzer Divisions: The Blitzkrieg Years 1939–40") write about it:

"Serious losses were incurred during the campaign in Poland: up to 10 October 1939 these amounted to 320 PzKpfw I (of which 89 were write-offs), 259 PzKpfw II (83 write-offs), 40 PzKpfw III (26 write-offs), 76 PzKpfw IV (19 write-offs), 77 PzKpfw 35 (t) (7 write-offs, according to certain sources only), 7 PzKpfw 38 (t) (all written off) and 13 PzBefh (5 write-offs). Looking at the write-offs alone, total losses amounted to between 229 and 236 tanks, 8,8 per cent of the grand total."

In fact the number of written-off PzKpfw 35 (t) wasn't smaller than 3 (so 232 - 236 tanks).

"Thus, according to these figures, during the campaign in the West the Panzerwaffe suffered the following losses: 182 PzKpfw I, 241 PzKpfw II, 135 PzKpfw III, 97 PzKpfw IV and 98 PzKpfw 35/38 (t) - a total of 753 tanks lost. Figures given by Hahn present some differences: 240 as opposed to 241 PzKpfw II lost, 45 PzKpfw 35 (t) and 54 PzKpfw 38 (t) lost, plus 69 PzBefh lost, thus bringing the grand total to 822 tanks (Jentz's figures only differ for the PzKpfw 35, giving a total of 62 lost). Taking into account the three different figures given above, during the May-June 1940 campaign in the West the Panzerwaffe lost something between 31.6 and 31.9 per cent of its tanks, clearly demonstrating it was not the 'cake walk' many believed."

Thus we've got during the Polish Campaign:

"Serious losses were incurred during the campaign in Poland: up to 10 October 1939 these amounted to... "

And - while taking into consideration only write-offs:

"Looking at the write-offs alone, total losses amounted to between 229 and 236 tanks, 8,8 per cent of the grand total."

Compared to the French Campaign (here he doesn't write anything about write-offs, just about losses):

"During the campaign in the West the Panzerwaffe suffered the following losses... Taking into account the three different figures given above, during the May-June 1940 campaign in the West the Panzerwaffe lost something between 31,6 and 31,9 per cent of its tanks."

So as you can see "total losses" in Poland amounted to 792 tanks, while in France to between 822 and 840 tanks. At the same time "total write-offs" in the Polish Campaign amounted to between 229 and 236 tanks ouf of those 792 which were "total losses".

And the number of tanks completely scrapped ("write-offs") due to the French campaign is not provided. But for example if it comes to Pz-35(t) - only 3 were scrapped (and 11, according to certain sources only), as many as in Poland or slightly more (in case if we accept 7 and 11 figures - but most Czech sources say 3 and 3).

Anyway - I'm just writing this because people often wrongly compare these numbers - 229 - 236 for Poland with 822 - 840 for France - which cannot be compared because they refer to different categories of losses. Numbers which should be compared are around 792 (however, there may be a typo regarding Pz-35(t) losses - maybe there should be 11 or 17 or 37 instead of 77 - but the grand total remains more than 700) for Poland with 822 - 840 for France.

By comparison German losses in terms of Totalverluste (deleted from the armament) during the Fall Barbarossa amounted to:

June 41: 118
July 41: 732
August 41: 638
September 41: 257
October 41: 337
November 41: 382
December 41: 375
January 42: 415

These figures do not include losses of Pz-35(t) model (I'm also not sure if they include Pz-Bef vehicles).

Anyway - this results in 3254 tanks - or 90 - 95% of all tanks with which they started the campaign.

But the number of "written-off" tanks (Totalschaden) was 2,5 - 3 times smaller than this number.

For example until August 13 of 1941 they lost about 465 scrapped tanks according to Stolfi.

 

[Domen]

Btw - if someone wants to play the campaign in Poland, there is a board strategic game released by "Taktyka i Strategia" (Tactics and Strategy):

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

I've got it and I must say it's quite realistic, however German armoured divisions should be stronger in this game, in my opnion. And also some rules should be changed IMHO. But they also included Soviet and Slovakian forces in the game. They have also released "Barbarossa 1941" recently.

Both games are in divisional / brigade / regimental scale. Smaller units are rarely present.

"Barbarossa" is even more realistic thanks to "special rules" weakening the Soviets. Without these special rules the Soviets would probably destroy the entire German invasion force and they would do it quite quickly, giving the ratio of forces alone.

In "Polska 1939" it is very hard but not impossible to stabilize the frontline along the Vistula river while playing the Poles.

Conditions of victory are simple - if a German player advances faster than in reality (captures certain cities earlier than in reality), he is the winner. If his achievements are less spectacular, the Polish player wins. So it is necessary to play as aggressively as possible while playing Germans.

Some cities have got "required capture dates" earlier than in reality. Mainly those which defended very stubbornly or were never captured by the Germans in real history. For example Gdynia. Or Lwow - which in reality was never captured by the Germans during their campaign in Poland.

 

[globaooba]

Because the French taunted the Germans too much. He was most angry about his mother being called a hamster.

 

[Domen]

and 'only' 1 million German ground troops were committed against Poland

Army Group "North" - 630,000; including:

3. Army - 320,000 *
4. Army - 230,000
AG and OKH Reserves - 80,000

Army Group "South" - 886,000; including:

8. Army - 180,000
10. Army - 300,000 **
14. Army - 210,000
AG and OKH Reserves - 196,000

AG and OKH Reserves during the campaign were attached directly to Armies and after completing their tasks were returning back to Reserves.

In total 1,516,000

* Some sources say that even more - 360,000
** Some sources say that even more - 380,000

In total some 1,500,000 - 1,600,000 soldiers in regular ground forces alone.

Luftwaffe commited against Poland - ca. 200,000
Kriegsmarine commited against Poland - ca. 50,000

I know some sources say 1 million, but I can't argue that they are more reliable. The point of bringing it up, which I think you know, was that these comparisons on the basis of numbers or how many days don't tell the whole story of how committed the defense was, they confirm how hopeless it was. Even 1 million ground forces was easily enough if they had air and mechanized superiority and advanced tactical doctrine, it's not to take anything away from Poland's struggle.

Proportionately speaking, the battle for Norway inflicted 4-5% casualties on the invading Germans, the same as Poland. Only about 15,000 of their peacetime strength were under arms when the attack struck, and some were scattered in detachments along the coast. (Then of couse there was Quisling but lets not go there). The Germans concentrated in coherent force at a few key points, but the small forces bely the fact that it was essentially a large scale commando operation. Still the Kriegsmarine got a bloody nose there, even before the British arrived.

The number of German regular ground forces strength in Poland as 1,500,000 - 1,600,000 is certainly much more correct than 1,000,000.

Especially that German divisions alone numbered over 1,000,000. I have exact data for numerical strenhgth of every German division on the Polish front.

And here is what my calculator says:

44 infantry divisions* - 757,880
3 mountain divisions - 59,332
4 motorized divisions - 61,935
4 light armoured divisions - 45,676
7 panzer divisions - 78,397
1 flieger division - 5,000**

*There was also 1/3 of 22nd Inf.Div. (one infantry regiment + some artillery + part of services and supply units) and it is not included.

And when it comes to brigades there were infantry brigades "Lötzen" and "Goldap", 1. Kavallerie Brigade and 6th SA-Brigade "Danzig". Brigades "Lötzen" and "Goldap" were part of Group "Brand" (Corps "Brand"), which was also sometimes called Division "Brand".

1. Kavallerie Brigade numbered 6,684 soldiers.

** 7th Flieger-Division (gen. Kurt Student) consisted of 5,000 men in five battalions of Fallschirmjägers (I., II., III./FJR.1 and I., II./FJR.2).

It is not well known but Fallschirmjägers actively took part in combats in Poland. For example:

1. On 14.09.1939 and 15.09.1939 III./FJR.1 fought in Forest Sucha north of Zwolen against some small elements of Polish 3rd infantry division.
2. On 24.09.1939 II./FJR.1 and III./FJR.1 fought near Wola Gulowska against remnants (without guns) of II. battalion of 1st heavy artillery regiment.
3. On 15.09.1939 I./FJR.2 captured a Polish airfield in Dęblin and then it was defending it and completing secuirty tasks there.

Combats in forest Sucha north of Zwolen:

Map "Withdrawal of Army Prusy behind the Vistula line since 09.09.1939" - the area of forest Sucha surrounded by the green lines:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Short description of combats near Sucha:

III./FJR.1 was ordered to protect the command post of the commander of VIII. Fliegerkorps - gen. Wolfram von Richthofen - in the village Sucha near Radom. Von Richthofen ordered the commander of the battalion - Oberstleutnant Sydow - to surround and clear the forest (forest Sucha) without previous reconnaissance. Two platoons from the company of Leutnant Dunz encountered superior enemy forces. Just at then beginning of the fight Leutnant Dunz was seriously wounded. Two platoons from another company were sent with relief, but encountered heavy resistance and suffered bloody losses. In the end Fallschirmjägers had to retreat with heavy losses (Fallschirmjägers reported that 39 of their men were lost - probably this refers only to dead, without wounded).

And here description of combats near Wola Gulowska from Eric Queen's "Red Shines the Sun..." (it is based entirely on German point of view):

On September 22 1939 ,II/FJR1 was ordered by the 7.Flieger Division to proceed to the airbase at Ulenz(at the Demblin-Brest crossroads) 19km east/northeast of Demblin.Its mission was to secure valuable war equiment that had been left behind and to clean out the surrounding forests of any remnants of the Polish army.The airbase was 9 km in front of the army's(IR 93) security line...a reconnaissance team had reported that there was a Polish force near Lendo..an attempt to intercept these troops failed,the Poles had withdrawn towards Walentinow,one hour before the battalion arrived..Near Leopoldow,8 km northwest of Ryki,the battalion captured a freight train full of war equipment..in the afternoon of the 23rd,an ethnic German from the German settlement of Jozefow(5km northeast of Adamow)..reported there were 500 men (Polish artillery and cavalry) in the forest east of Okrzeja.

Realising that the presence of Polish forces only 12 km from his location posed a great threat,in the evening of September 23rd,Hauptmann Prager ordered his company commanders to surround the forest east of Okrzeja and clean out the Polish troops...the start of the attack was set for 11.30am,the morning of the 24th..there was a Polish captain in the village(Wota Gulowska) standing in an open area without any weapons,in front of the church.Olt.Bohmler took him prisoner and ordered him to get into the vehicle.Suddenly,the Polish captain gave a sign by lifting his arms several times.Directly afterwards Bohmler and his men began taking small arms fire from all sides..the Polish captain was shot and in a matter of moments,there were three dead from Bohmler's group and eight injured(two of them died soon afterwards).

At 9.15am upon being informed of the situation,Hauptmann Prager decided immediately to turn west and enter Wola Gulowska...they came under small arms fire from the church tower and surrounding houses as they entered the village..the garden next to the church and some of the surrounding houses were cleared out with grenades...the fighting was over 15 minutes after the battalion arrived.Soon after the regimental commander Oberst Bruno Brauer,arrived in Wola Gulowska to inform Hauptmann Prager that the 3rd Battalion was on its way.They arrived around noon.Oberst Brauer then ordered both formations to do a thorough search of the entire forest.

In total the 2nd Battalion suffered 21 casualties; 8 dead and 13 wounded.Total Polish losses were 58 dead,35 wounded,266 taken prisoner,167 horses captured,and 12 vehicles(with weapons and equipment) seized.

Aditionally German 3rd Battalion lost probably 19 dead or wounded (because total losses of Fallshirmjagers in that combat are given at 40 casualties; some sources say 8 dead and 32 wounded - this would mean 3rd Battalion suffered only 19 wounded and zero dead; or that losses of 2nd Battalion were in fact bigger - 32 wounded instead of 13).

It seems German sources greatly exaggerate Polish losses in that combat near Wola Gulowska, because Polish sources give Polish casualties during that combat as just 11 dead (surnames of all of them are known, all of them are buried in the cemetery in Wola Gułowska) - including 2 captains:

kan. Bryłka
plut. Jan Dmitryszyn
kpt. Jan Zdzisław Hennig, commander of 5 battery.
kan. Jan Matuszkiewicz,
plut. Michał Michalczuk,
ppor. rez. Józef Walenty Piaskunowicz,
bomb. Leon Raflaski,
kan. Antoni Rastenis,
kpt. Józef Sobczak, commander of 6 battery.
kan. Józef Sobiecki,
kan. Marian Trzaska

In total 11 dead from II. battalion of 1st heavy artillery regiment.

As well as:

- 30 wounded (including heavily wounded commander of II./1. PAC - kpt. Zbigniew Bolesław Mokrzycki - who died of wounds on 27.09.1939).
- 140 Polish soldiers were captured

 

[Domen]

No, he just made it look that way because it's a great way to get viewers. In reality, life wasn't that simple.

No, he is a pretty intelligent and reasonable guy. And I enjoyed the series.

Terry Jones' Barbarians - the Celts:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5738673982827673282

Enjoy!

 

[Dachs]

That's actually the one I saw. It's a laundry-list of Stuff That Looks Cool, the usual Revisionism for Revisionism's Sake, some sloppy us-vs-them characterizations about Roman 'brutality' and Celtic supposed lack thereof, and a refusal to actually redefine the terms of the debate, even if there is one. Arguments about who was really the barbarian miss the point and don't teach anybody anything except how to have crummy Internet debates.

 

[Lord Baal]

But having crummy internet debates is basically my entire social life right now Dachs. Are you saying you want me to be miserably and lonely for my entire existence? You're a monster.

 

[Masada]

Well baby should be familiar with the computer as early as possible, this will allow her to make a rapid transition to CFC if/when she turns out to be a prodigy.

 

[Lord Baal]

Well baby should be familiar with the computer as early as possible, this will allow her to make a rapid transition to CFC if/when she turns out to be a prodigy.

I've already read her first book to her; Heir to the Empire. My fiancee is horrified.

 

[Masada]

I'm still thinking what I want to open with.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's actually the one I saw. It's a laundry-list of Stuff That Looks Cool, the usual Revisionism for Revisionism's Sake, some sloppy us-vs-them characterizations about Roman 'brutality' and Celtic supposed lack thereof, and a refusal to actually redefine the terms of the debate, even if there is one. Arguments about who was really the barbarian miss the point and don't teach anybody anything except how to have crummy Internet debates.

Well, to be fair, when it's a popular history made for people who are presumably used to the "Romans = civilised, Celts = barbarian hordes" narrative, you might have to go a bit overboard contradicting them, just to get people thinking.
That said, I'm not sure how much weight that narrative actually posses these days; certainly, in Scotland, the narrative of "Celts = noble savages, Romans = proto-Nazis" is the dominant one, for reasons which are presumably obvious.

 

[Karalysia]

Actually I didn't really have a point. I was simply saying that between 1917 and around the mid-1930s, the Soviets exhibited a unique kind of national pride; it was sort of like nationalism, but not really, since it was pride in the society they were creating because they believed it to be morally superior than what existed elsewhere (because, as Domen et al have pointed out, Marxist communists are internationalists, which the Bolsheviks certainly were). So I guess my "point," if you wanted to find one, would be that this "social pride" was swallowed up by old Russian nationalism because the old Russian empire was the only remaining socialist stronghold by that point. That nationalism has always been a force even after the Revolution, but internationalism generally prevailed in the 1920s; its victory was sealed by the time of the Second World War because of the "Great Patriotic" nature of the conflict, plus what I have already described. A truly regrettable, yet also somewhat understandable, outcome.

Ho Chi Minh can certainely be qualified as a socialist nationalist.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ho Chi Minh can certainely be qualified as a socialist nationalist.

Ho was heavily influenced by Mao's thought on national liberation. He's part of a different wave of revolutionaries than the original Communists, one with a particular emphasis on nationalism and anti-Colonialism (noting that certain elements of this had been predicted in earlier activism, such as the Connollyite faction during the Easter Rising and Irish War of Independence, or Maclean's Scottish Workers Republican Party).

 

[ParkCungHee]

How about the INLA?