The Poles held out longer by using their gun instead of dropping it on the ground. 
How did Poland hold out longer than France.
- Thread starter cubsfan6506
- Start date
Thanks. You made my day.
Don't forget the Finns!
Actually, the real point with France isn't whether it took a week more or less than Poland. The point is, they were militarily equal with Germany (unlike Poland) and got crushed. Due to political and military incompetence. The Germans invade, and the head of the French civilian government and highest ranking general resign?
The French recognized the problem of the Maginot line not extending further north. They knew what had happened in WWI. However, going further north would have run into the high water table. Doable, but much more difficult and the French were paralyzed by political fighting.
I have to wonder why the French didn't fortify that border, after Germany used it to attack them. Twice.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Now I'm not an expert on this period of military history, so if what I've heard is loony, then go ahead and correct me; but I've read that the purpose of the Maginot Line was not to be France's shell per se, but to force Germany to go through neutral Belgium, thus (a) making Germany appear as lawless aggressors again and theoretically winning critical support from Britain and the U.S.; (b) protecting France's vital coal industry in Alsace-Lorraine; and (c) making a choke-point out of the German offensive, which gives an advantage to the Allies [anticipating to be defenders], especially since they wanted to wait for either a Soviet offensive or an American mobilization.
The grave error not being the Maginot Line in itself, but rather placing the worst divisions at Sedan, not scouting for a German offensive through the Ardennes, and then not counter-attacking when Guderian zipped toward the Channel leaving his flanks undefended. Though nobody nowadays is going to argue that the graver error wasn't choosing to turtle in Western Europe, at the expense of occupying Germany's industrial areas while the Western Front had almost nothing defending it.
It's quite easy to condemn the French High Command knowing what we do now, but a lot of their errors seemed sensible at the time. For instance, it wasn't readily apparent that the Belgian KW-line was an insufficient defense against mechanized divisions.
The grave error not being the Maginot Line in itself, but rather placing the worst divisions at Sedan, not scouting for a German offensive through the Ardennes, and then not counter-attacking when Guderian zipped toward the Channel leaving his flanks undefended. Though nobody nowadays is going to argue that the graver error wasn't choosing to turtle in Western Europe, at the expense of occupying Germany's industrial areas while the Western Front had almost nothing defending it.
It's quite easy to condemn the French High Command knowing what we do now, but a lot of their errors seemed sensible at the time. For instance, it wasn't readily apparent that the Belgian KW-line was an insufficient defense against mechanized divisions.
rilnator
Emperor
The Maginot line doesn't ring any bells with you?
I know of the Maginot Line. I was referring to the fact that it did not extend far enough up the Franco-Belgian border to prevent Germany from invading France that way. But LightSpectra's answer was probably correct.
They didn't fortify it because it would be a clear signal to the Belgians that they were on their own...which was politically impossible even if logically speaking, it was inevitable.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
LOL.
1) Norway was invaded by what?
Norway was invaded by 5 infantry divisions, two regiments (2/3) of 3. Mountain Division and later (in May) another mountain division joined. In total 6 and 2/3 divisions. This was supported by just one tank battalion. In total some 100,000 German soldiers invaded Norway.
2) And Poland was invaded by what?
Poland was invaded by 61 German divisions (of which 7 armoured, 4 light armoured, 4 motorized), several brigades and many smaller units on Corps and Army level - in total some 1,500,000 German soldiers in ground forces alone. Further 600,000 Soviet soldiers invaded Poland on 17.09.1939 or crossed the border soon after that. If it comes to tank force for example, in Poland Germans had got 34 tank battalions (2 of them independent) compared to their 1 tank battalion in Norway.
3) And who defended Norway?
Some 60,000 Norwegian soldiers + 25,000 British and French soldiers + 5,000 Polish soldiers of the Polish Highland Brigade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Independent_Highland_Brigade
4) And who defended Poland?
950,000 Polish soldiers in 37 divisions and over a dozen brigades. And nobody was helping them, unlike Norwegians.
5) Which navy defended the coast of Norway?
Mostly British and French with only some support of weak Norwegian navy.
6) And what were casualties of German ground forces (Heer) in Norway? They were between:
923 - 1166 killed and 916 - 1091 missing and 1338 - 1548 wounded (with higher versions of figures more probable)
Out of those missing majority were sunk by British and French navy at sea before even reaching the coast of Norway. And this also explains why the number of wounded was so relatively low - sinking people with their ships at sea doesn't produce wounded but only produces killed.
7) And what were German ground forces (Heer + SS) casualties in Poland?
Heer - 16,843 killed + 320 missing + ca. 35,000 wounded
SS (Waffen SS and Allgemeine SS) - ca. 800 killed and missing + ca. 1600 wounded
Various other units (including paramilitary & sabotage) - at least ca. 2000 killed
Add to this casualties of Soviet ground forces in Poland:
Ukrainian Front - at least some 1137 killed or missing and 2708 wounded
Belarusian Front - at least some 557 killed or missing and 1125 wounded
Border Guard - some 30 killed and 60 wounded.
And Slovakian (Axis Slovakia) ground forces casualties in Poland:
46 killed or missing, 114 wounded
Not mentioning German equipment casualties, which were much many times higher in Poland than in Norway.
The Finns fought against the Red Army not against the Wehrmacht. And in a very favourable for the defenders terrain and weather.
The Red Army was a poor opponent at that time, quite large quantity but very poor quality and organization and command.
Had Poland been invaded only by the Red Army instead of mainly by Germany, it would have performed much better than against Germany.
Especially that most powerful of Polish fortifications were - paradoxically - along the Polish-Soviet, not Polish-German, border.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
It's almost as if that post was intended as a joke or something.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Trader/warrior's post or which one?
It was. At least, I certainly assume so. I liked it.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Well, probably that post was indeed ironic. I didn't get it at first. ^^
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
The Finns still survived being Zerg-rushed by the country that basicaly invented Zerg-rushing. If you have a problem, throw crap at it. If the problem still exists, throw more crap at it. Repeat until problem goes away.Domen said:
I never understood the overwhelming nationalism from Poles, French, etc.
You're second rate nations, unless you consider yourselves part of the EU. The whole world does not want to hear you rage about how glorious you are.
The world is USA, EU, China, Japan, Russia. Nobody else matters. Leave the biased nationalist rage off the World History forum.
You're second rate nations, unless you consider yourselves part of the EU. The whole world does not want to hear you rage about how glorious you are.
The world is USA, EU, China, Japan, Russia. Nobody else matters. Leave the biased nationalist rage off the World History forum.
Racsoviale
Smoke me a kipper!
Hah, you sniveling poles, norwegians and french, we were never fully occupied, even though we didnt have an army at that time.
We pulled the AI surviving on god forsaken ice and tundra island card suckers
We pulled the AI surviving on god forsaken ice and tundra island card suckers
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
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
Losses of ground forces were such as I posted according to Fritz Hahn (higher numbers) and some shortly post-campaign German reports (lower numbers).
To this we must add losses of Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe in Norway.
But numbers which I quoted for the Polish campaign also doesn't include losses of Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe. In the Polish campaign also Luftwaffe airborne units suffered some casualties as well as Anti-Aircraft ground artillery, which was considered part of Luftwaffe. Also 3. Marinesturmkompanie (German marine infantry) which stormed the Polish defensive post at Westerplatte suffered heavy losses and they are included in the losses of Kriegsmarine.
And Luftwaffe losses in Poland were still almost as high as in Norway. In Poland Luftwaffe lost 612 killed or missing (including approximately 200 in ground units and Anti-Aircraft artillery units) and 549 wounded (many from ground and AA artillery units). In Norway Luftwaffe lost 789 killed or missing and 341 wounded.
Kriegsmarine losses in Norway were very heavy - 289 killed, 560 missing and 223 wounded. Kriegsmarine in Poland lost 77 killed, 3 missing and 115 wounded, vast majority of wounded and large part of killed were those suffered by the 3. Marinesturmkompanie in ground combats for Westerplatte.
===========================
When it comes to these above posted OT posts and trolling on this forum (which is "World History" as far as I know):
Yeah. The whole world wants to hear Americans rage about how glorious they are.
And - by the way - discussing about history except for American history should be banned.
As far as I kno this is "World history" section. Not "Our very short history of the USA" section or "Our
ing American imperialism and ignorance towards other nations and their history" section. When France was the most populous country in Europe and Poland-Lithuania the biggest - the USA didn't even exist.By the way - which countries form the EU? Because as far as I know there are 26 of them.
And France + Poland are among several countries of the EU which are the biggest and most important.
If Poland is so unimportant then why does that stupid US government always want us to fight for them in Iraq and Afghanistan, LOL.
Btw I don't support Polish participation in these wars - we're fighting there because of
which your stupid government started and we receive nothing from your government in return. America started this so America should now eat this entire on her own.And we are the "bad guys" - occupiers - there, while majority of Afghan rebels are just freedom fighters and have nothing to do with terrorism.
Similar threads
