How did Poland hold out longer than France.

[Verbose]

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.

Ah bon? So why do we get your little American goat oh so terribly?

But we are after all talking about the role of the Soviet Union. Of course we could also talk about the rather protracted period of US WWII fence-sitting? And we are talking about Germany, still the worlds greatest exporting nation, and the world's 4th largest GDP. And France is still today apparently jockeying for position 6 and 7 with the UK. Italy is in 8.

Are we allowed to talk about the top 10 nations in GDP as significant enough? (A generous top 20 might even make my little no-consequence Sweden fair game.)

If you want to make it merely about present population, we sure should be talking a lot more about Nigeria and Bangladesh for instance.

And that's entirely aside from the complete anachronism of talking about historical importance based on the present day socio-economic spread.

Going by 1940 figures little Poland itself had the world's 9th highest GDP and was the 13th most populous country.

Possible umbrage over the US momentarily not being the exclusive focus of attention we can't do too much about however.

 

[Domen]

Going by 1940 figures little Poland itself had the world's 9th highest GDP and was the 13th most populous country.

And after all in 1939 Polish army was probably stronger than American army.

And in Europe Polish ground army was probably the 4th strongest army - after the , France and Italy.

Unlucky enough that both strongest military forces of Europe were Poland's neighbours.

 

[nonconformist]

It's just the Yanks are so ashamed they were late for the lasty two world wars, they're pretty determined to be early for the next one.

 

[vogtmurr]

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


.

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.

 

[Domen]

I know some sources say 1 million, but I can't argue that they are more reliable.

Figures that I quoted seem to be more reliable as they originally come from Franz Halder's War Diary and Oberkommando des Heeres documents.

====================================================================================

It it is possible to establish estimated value of each army's "relative performance" against the German army.

This "relative performance" doesn't say us which army performed better, but it says us which army performed better under certain circumstances and with certain ratio of forces (which is not equal to simple ratio of manpower). Thus it says us which army would probably perform better under same circumstances and with same forces against ditto strong enemy forces.

This "relative performance" (combat effectiveness in proportion to available resources versus the available resources of the enemy) is called the Combat Effectiveness Value - it's more or less the ability to produce fighting power out of available manpower taking into account available resources and circumstances.

This is called CEV ("Combat Effectiveness Value").

There is also the "Relative Personnel Effectiveness Equivalence Value" (EV), which is - contrary to CEV - not a factor in measuring "pure" combat efficiency, more of a measure of per capita military productivity. It's because EV doesn't take into account such things like firepower gap, technological gap, ratio of available amount of weapons and their lethality values. That's why the army with larger quantity of equipment per capita and more lethal and more modern equipment will always have a better EV than the opposite army, unless it has a very poor CEV compared to the opposite army.

Measuring "combat effectiveness value" is somehow complicated:

From:

http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/5439/1/weerasinghe_chalinda_d_200312_ms.pdf

Chapter 4:

Page 50, definition 1:

"Available Combat Potential (ACP) is the latent capacity of a force to achieve useful results in combat with its existing organization, training, equipment, support, motivation, and leadership."

Page 51, definition 3:

"Combat Power (CP) is the realized capability of a force at any instant of time to achieve results in combat in furtherance of a particular mission against a specific enemy force in a specific combat environment."

Pages 57 - 58:

CP = S * V; where:

S = Force Strength, it is being established basing on the Operational Lethality Index (OLI); S = "the sum of the OLIs for the weapons inventories, after having been modified by these weapons effects variables (variable factors that determine the effectiveness of weapons, such as weather, terrain, season, ammunition supplies, etc.)".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see S is not being established basing on the number of men involved but basing on the number of weapons of each category and type involved and taking into account OLIs of these weapons.

Counting men would only be correct if both forces had same weapons in same amounts with same OLIs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V = variables affecting the employment of the force under the circumstance existing at the time of the battle of engagement; "those variable factors affecting the force as a whole, rather than just the weapons."

It is necessary to establish the exact CP of a certain force first, to be able to establish its CEV later:

Page 54, definition 5:

"The Combat Effectiveness Value (CEV) of a relative force in a certain engagement is defined as the ratio of the relative results of that battle for that force versus the other force at that given engagement, over the ratio of the relative CPs of that force versus the other force at that given engagement."

Page 58:

There are also 3 criteria of combat effectiveness:

1) Mission effectiveness
2) Spatial effectiveness
3) Casualty effectiveness

All of them taken together denote R (The Result Value). R = "the ratio of the actual battle outcomes."

Pages 59 - 62:

Many variables comprise the CEV (Combat Effectiveness Value).

Among these variables that comprise the CEV are for example (these are considered most important):

1) Operational Variables:

a) Factor Values not established:

- Logistical Capability
- Intelligence Service
- Command and Control
- Communications
- Momentum
- Initiative
- Time and Space
- Chance
- Friction
- [maybe also Luck ?]

b) Factor Values established:

- Posture and Fortifications
- Mobility
- Vulnerability
- Air Superiority
- Surprise
- Fatigue
- Weapon Sophistication
- [what about Military Doctrine ?]
- [what about Military Strategy ?]
- [what about Military Tactics ?]

2) Environmental (all Factor Values established):

- Terrain
- Weather
- Season
- Day/Night

3) Behavioral (all Factor Values not established):

- Leadership
- Training
- Experience
- Morale
- Manpower Quality
- Third Party Intervention ("stab in the back" or something like this)

 

[aelf]

I ignore trolling, aelf and Dachs.

You can't handle the truth!

 

[Domen]

The diagrams posted below show the ratio of forces between the Polish Army and the ground forces of Wehrmacht in Poland in 1939. Superiority it manpower was like 1,5 : 1 but in weaponry it was much bigger. Of course only part of the Polish army was concentrated along the border on 01.09.1939 and Germans concentrated most of their forces along directions of main attacks so real German numerical superiority both in manpower and in equipment in certain areas was even bigger.

One diagram shows how many German weapons of each type were available on average per each 3800 German soldiers involved in the campaign. The other diagram shows how many Polish soldiers and equipment were available per each 3800 German soldiers and equipment available for them:

As you can see the German numerical superiority was roughly:

1) In men slightly over 1,5 to 1
2) In grenade launchers ca. 1,2 to 1
3) In infantry mortars over 2,5 to 1
4) In machine weapons over 2 to 1
5) In anti-tank guns around 6 to 1
6) In field and infantry artillery over 3 to 1
7) In armoured vehicles around 5 to 1

Plus the Germans had great numerical superiority in the air, but the diagrams don't show it.

Plus their artillery was of heavier calibres than Polish artillery.

Plus in some cases the Germans fired much more ammunition of a certain type during the campaign in Poland than the entire Polish ammunition stocks (large part of which was often captured or destroyed either by Soviet or German forces before it even reached the frontline and was fired by units) of this type were (this was the case for example when in comes to ammunition for Anti-Tank guns as well as ammunition for infantry mortars and grenade launchers).

Germans were commonly using their AT guns for anti-infantry and anti-fortifications purposes (as well as to destroy buildings with enemy soldiers inside during urban combats), mainly due to lack of proper "hard targets" for most of them, because the Polish army had so few armoured vehicles available.

 

[Forty-Two]

How did Poland hold out longer than France.

Because it's France. The following video should help clarify that.


Link to video.

 

[Verbose]

Because it's France. The following video should help clarify that.


Link to video.

Americans, always late - both when at war AND with regards to the last sell by date of their attempts at humour.

 

[Domen]

Well it wasn't so. The French generally speaking fought as bravely as the Poles.

Let's quote Kielmansegg, "Panzers zwischen Warschau und Atlantik", he describes combats near Sedan:

12th of May:

"French artillery fires well and precisely, every smallest target in its field of vision is under enemy fire. French soldiers are desperately defending behind improvised, quickly built obstacles and in strong blockhauzes."

13th of May:

"At midday motors of first German bombers and Stukas rumble above Sedan. More than 500 planes squash enemy lines and the town of Sedan to the ground. This huge, overpowering show lasts for four hours... French artillery becomes silent... Together with the last explosions, before the raised clouds of dust were even able to fall on the ground, our first pontoons reach the enemy riverside... French resistance is still flashing, many bunkers are desperately defending, enemy artillery once again starts to fire... One after another one, step by step, enemy nests of machine guns, posts of AT guns and bunkers are being destroyed... At 6:30 PM we reach the road Sedan-Bellevue, our assault is now directed towards the main French defensive line... At 12:00 PM our most forward units reached the locality of Chehery and the area east of it - over one kilometre from the place of the breakthrough."

14th of May:

"Here French forces are counterattacking with full energy... After two hours of fierce combats French soldiers are giving away some ground and retreating, leaving 20 knocked out tanks behind them... Our attack towards Vendresse, next locality west from Malmy, was repulsed by the enemy who has got strong AT defense there... Our enemies are completely exhausted and overtired. German losses are not imperceptible, but French casualties must be much greater..."

 

[Domen]

Well, France has a right to insane nationalism. They created the political aspect of the Dual Revolution and they also gave birth to Nationalism.

Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744 - 1803) and Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762 - 1814) are considered as first Nationalists.

Any of these surnames doesn't really sound French...

 

[Dachs]

Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744 - 1803) and Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762 - 1814) are considered as first Nationalists.

Any of these surnames doesn't really sound French...

Stein, Fichte, and Herder were well and good, but they only developed a strand of thought that had kind of existed for a very long time. You can see elements of nationalism in the Hellenic attitude towards barbaroi, or Romanitas, for instance. What the Revolutionaries did was make nationalism, in its modern, accepted form, popular outside a relatively small literate elite. And German nationalism, although there were elements of it going as far back as the TYW, let alone Fichte and Herder, didn't really get going until after the French Revolution. This is not seriously debated...

 

[cool3a2]

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.

I know that this has been posted two weeks ago and that my answer is rather offtopic, but I simply have to answer. The US is certainly important if it's about economics and such, but considering cultural aspects... well, let's agree on that there are more advanced countries on earth in this category. Use your food as example. Anything american that comes to my mind is fast food making your cuisine even less developed then the english (sorry, England, but marmide is simply disgusting ) Honestly, your cuisine is fighting for not being on the last place world-wide. If I'd argument in a that arrogant way as you did, I could say that you are nothing but a mix of emmigrants that has a history of at most 400 years. Now consider peoples like French, Poles or Hungarians that have a history of 1000 years or such and developed their own traditions. Any of them is superiour to your country if it's about cultural things. Note: I'm not going to use your arrogance, hence I won't argument this ways. Instead, Im glad to see there was nobody else that second your foolish nonsense. In any case, our traditions make as unique within the EU which is about nothing else then money as well. So, good nationalism is nothing but caring for them and let us survive as peoples in the chaos of globalization. Honouring the ones that have given their lives, such as Polands soldiers in WWII, to protect their countries culture and tradition is nothing but justified.

 

[Domen]

Stein, Fichte, and Herder were well and good, but they only developed a strand of thought that had kind of existed for a very long time. You can see elements of nationalism in the Hellenic attitude towards barbaroi, or Romanitas, for instance. What the Revolutionaries did was make nationalism, in its modern, accepted form, popular outside a relatively small literate elite. And German nationalism, although there were elements of it going as far back as the TYW, let alone Fichte and Herder, didn't really get going until after the French Revolution. This is not seriously debated...

Yes, I agree - but I was talking only about modern nationalism. Not about Roman "nationalism" or any other ancient "nationalism".

And when it comes to modern nationalism Germany was the country where nationalistic beliefs were superior in 19th century.

While in 19th century France different forms of liberalism with more or less conservative components always predominated.

You can see elements of nationalism in the Hellenic attitude towards barbaroi, or Romanitas, for instance.

Yes it is quite similar to Fichte's concept of "Normalvolk" - Germans being an ideal nation, superior to every other nation.

But ancient "nationalism" of Greeks and Romans never transformed from the idea that their nations have some civilization mission among "barbarians" to complete, into the extremely radical form of nationalism which was developed in Prussia and Germany in late 19th and early 20th century.

Similar was British imperialism, which justified British colonial expansion calling it a "civilization mission" among less developed nations.

While the German nationalism of 1870s - 1940s was probably the only one which ever adopted so radical shapes.

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.

Isn't this statement a really nationalistic one if spoken by an American?

I mean - it sounds like:

"I never understood the right of Poles, French, etc. to speak about anything Polish, French, etc. You are second rate nations. The world is my nation and my country (and also China and a few others, but this is irrelevant). Nobody else matters."

It really sounds funny when a person who thinks about other nations as "second rate", accuses anyone of nationalism.

It sounds more or less like Hitler accusing Jews of antisemitism or black people of racism.... *

* Apart from the fact that racism among black people is nothing rare and I can also show examples of Jewish antisemites.

 

[innonimatu]

Yes it is quite similar to Fichte's concept of "Normalvolk" - Germans being an ideal nation, superior to every other nation.

But ancient "nationalism" of Greeks and Romans never transformed from the idea that their nations have some civilization mission among "barbarians" to complete, into the extremely radical form of nationalism which was developed in Prussia and Germany in late 19th and early 20th century.

Similar was British imperialism, which justified British colonial expansion calling it a "civilization mission" among less developed nations.

While the German nationalism of 1870s - 1940s was probably the only one which ever adopted so radical shapes.

No. Every nation which has had "success" (in empire-building) has also had the idea of the superiority of its people (and its institutions) spread among its population. Not just the elites, but all the population - the hellenes did consider themselves superior to the barbarians, and so did even the plebeians of Rome. The idea that success was an indication of virtue was not a protestant invention.
And about radicalism: long before modern germans were busy working their "inferior kinds" to death, romans were enslaving and working to death the people they defeated. And so did other empires before and later, openly, right until the recent British Empire which you mentioned.

The real difference compared to modern nationalism was in other thing: the idea that a nation/people was superior even despite not having had any success! The plebeians of Rome at least had privileges (during the Republic/early Empire) to feel superior about. But many of those 19th century nationalists? Hah!
Modern nationalism convinced even the losers to feel superior to their neighbors across the border!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Perhaps a better summary is that pre-French-Revolutionary nationalism was pridefulness, post-Revolutionary is chauvinism.

Though a unique kind of "nationalism" came into being for a few years in Russia, post-1917: pride in the society they were building. But that very quickly became tied to Russian nationalism, with the collapse of outside socialist movements, and was lost entirely by the time of the Second World War.

 

[Domen]

the hellenes did consider themselves superior to the barbarians

The Greeks in the pre-hellenian era also, while they never built an empire.

romans were enslaving and working to death the people they defeated.

Yeah, there was a nice documentary series about it on Discovery - "Terry Jones' Barbarians".

In which Terry Jones proved that most of "barbarians" were in fact much less barbarous than Romans themselves.

By the way - the Romans also considered themselves as superior to the Greeks, at least at the beginning.

No. Every nation which has had "success" (in empire-building) has also had the idea of the superiority of its people (and its institutions) spread among its population.

Actually this idea was also (mainly?) born among those nations which were not really successful at the time when it was born - Germany and Italy (both fragmented, the 2nd one under strong influence of Austria, the 1st one after military defeats in confronation against Napoleon and also jealous of British powerful colonial empire and other British and French achievements), Greece (occupied by Turkey), Poland (occupied by Russia, Prussia, Austria), Russia (a quite backward country in 19th century compared to others, with great difficulties repulsed Napoleon, while they wanted to be "the fourth Rome" and they wanted to "liberate" all Slavonic nations in Europe - especially from the Turkish rule). For example one of the most important Italian Nationalists (Mazzini) considered Italian nation as better than other nations. Mazzini considered Italians as the only nation combining the best "national features" of British, German and Polish people.

While in those successful in empire-building nations, imperialism and racism was much more popular than nationalism.

Imperialism is a nationalistic doctrine, but it is quite different from the "classic" nationalism.

And imperialism often existed together with racism.

Modern nationalism convinced even the losers to feel superior to their neighbors across the border!

Because nationalism was the reaction and "cure" (according to Nationalists themselves) for failures, not successes.

German nationalism was born when they were defeated by Napoleon and failed to re-unite Germany. But they considered themselves as the "chosen nation" (Fichte's "Normalvolk") and explained their failures by the fact that they are not united and such things (corruption, crisis, oblivion of ancient German ideals, etc.).

The real difference compared to modern nationalism was in other thing: the idea that a nation/people was superior even despite not having had any success!

Wrong - not despite "not having had any success", but despite not having any success at present.

That's why for example German nationalists liked to recall the early Medieval Holy Roman Empire or Germanic tribes conquering Rome. At the same time Russian nationalists considered Russia as heiress of Byzantine Empire. Polish nationalists recalled the times of 15th - 17th century when Poland was powerful. Greek nationalists remembered the times of Alexander the Great. Italian ones considered themselves desdendants of ancient Romans.

Etc., etc. ...

Nationalism is not the same as early and mid 19th century Romantism, but it partially originated from Romantism.

And Romantism proclaimed the right of oppressed or fragmented nations to free or reunite themselves - which was good, btw.

Though a unique kind of "nationalism" came into being for a few years in Russia, post-1917: pride in the society they were building.

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

 

[Sofista]

For example one of the most important Italian Nationalists (Mazzini) considered Italian nation as better than other nations. Mazzini considered Italians as the only nation combining the best "national features" of British, Germans and Polish.

Translating from wiki.it:

The second objective would then be Humanity, which would be realized through the association of free peoples on the basis of common European civilization in what Mazzini called the table of sister Nations. So, a very different objective compared with the Eropean confederation as imagined by Napoleon, where France was to exert an egemonic primacy as Grande Nation. The future European unity is not to be achieved through a competition of nationalisms, but through a noble emulation of free peoples to build a new liberty.
...
In this process of European unification Italy is tasked with a high mission: that of reopening, regaining her freedom, the way of human evolution ... The Italian initiative that will be grounded in the brotherhood of nations and not claiming an egemony, as France had done, will so result in an example for the fight leading to the demise of the pillars of Reaction.

 

[Domen]

Mazzini considered Italians as the only nation combining the best "national features" of British, Germans and Polish.

Sorry, not British but French.

Mazzini considered that Italians combine the following features: "act" (ability of French), "idea" (ability of Germans) and "freedom" (feature of Poles). He also wanted Europe to be a federation with capital city in Rome ("Fate of Italy is the fate of world" - he said).

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, there was a nice documentary series about it on Discovery - "Terry Jones' Barbarians".

In which Terry Jones proved that most of "barbarians" were in fact much less barbarous than Romans themselves.

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

And Romantism proclaimed the right of oppressed or fragmented nations to free or reunite themselves - which was good, btw.

It has created one of the greatest threats to peace in the history of mankind. If you consider that "good", well, whatever.