Excellent documentary about Hitler, pathetic French, on History Channel tonight

[coolVariable]

In September 1939 bulk of the German forces were "tied up" in Poland. The west highly industrialized part of Germany (with critial coal mines, factories) was left open, exposed to an attack.

That is not true.
The "tied up" german troops waltzed right through poland.
And those 20 German divisions did a pretty good job at driving the 50 allied divisions out of mainland Europe ...
Don't forget that most of the time the balance of forces was 4 to 1 against the Germans and they still only barely lost.
The German war machinery was simply so much more advanced than everyone else's at that time.
It was almost like the US forces in the 2nd Gulf War in 91.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: coolVariable

In September 1939 bulk of the German forces were "tied up" in Poland. The west highly industrialized part of Germany (with critial coal mines, factories) was left open, exposed to an attack.

That is not true.
The "tied up" german troops waltzed right through poland.
And those 20 German divisions did a pretty good job at driving the 50 allied divisions out of mainland Europe ...
Don't forget that most of the time the balance of forces was 4 to 1 against the Germans and they still only barely lost.
The German war machinery was simply so much more advanced than everyone else's at that time.
It was almost like the US forces in the 2nd Gulf War in 91.

That was the Second Gulf War? When was the first?

 

[etech]

The German war machinery was simply so much more advanced than everyone else's at that time.

That's a popular misconception, but it is not the whole story by any means. France had the equipment in the D.520 , the Souma S35 and Hotchkiss H39 to hold the Germans. They did not have the leadership to make use of their weapons or troops.

 

[coolVariable]

Iran-Iraq War is officially called the first Gulf War ....

But the uneducated masses don't know, which is why we have another 2nd Gulf war coming up.
Stupid media!


Quick search on google found this:

http://home.socal.rr.com/epigraf/hiddenwarscom/public_html/gulfwar.htm

Commonly referred to as "Gulf War" in the West, actually "2nd Gulf War" after the 1st Gulf War opposed Iraq to Iran from 1980 to 1988 at the cost of about half a million dead on both side, the Gulf War happened from January 17, 1991 till February 28, 1991. It

The German war machinery was simply so much more advanced than everyone else's at that time.

Just do a quick search for production levels etc.
I am not talking about technology (which at the beginning of the war was also superior) but about the WAR MACHINERY!

 

[Atrail]

If you remember correctly, the US had to have a broomsitck shoved up its' rear for it to get fully involved in the war too...

 

[etech]

Just do a quick search for production levels etc.
I am not talking about technology (which at the beginning of the war was also superior) but about the WAR MACHINERY!

nope, not at that time period.

My reference, Blitzkrieg by Len Deighton, your reference is?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
Iran-Iraq War is officially called the first Gulf War ....

But the uneducated masses don't know, which is why we have another 2nd Gulf war coming up.
Stupid media!


Quick search on google found this:

http://home.socal.rr.com/epigraf/hiddenwarscom/public_html/gulfwar.htm

Commonly referred to as "Gulf War" in the West, actually "2nd Gulf War" after the 1st Gulf War opposed Iraq to Iran from 1980 to 1988 at the cost of about half a million dead on both side, the Gulf War happened from January 17, 1991 till February 28, 1991. It

OK

 

[etech]

coolVariable

True!
In fact it was chamberlains appeasement policy that gave england the CRUCIAL time it needed to build up its armed forces.
hitlers biggest mistake was not attacking sonner and harder! He probably would have waltzed any british resistance right into the atlantic.

That's an interesting statement. How do you reconcile the fact that Germany had rebuilt it's armed forces with the fact that those very armed forces were banned by the Versailles Treaty? Was it a case of doing nothing until Germany had built up it's forces and then having to deal with the results?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: etech
coolVariable

True!
In fact it was chamberlains appeasement policy that gave england the CRUCIAL time it needed to build up its armed forces.
hitlers biggest mistake was not attacking sonner and harder! He probably would have waltzed any british resistance right into the atlantic.

That's an interesting statement. How do you reconcile the fact that Germany had rebuilt it's armed forces with the fact that those very armed forces were banned by the Versailles Treaty? Was it a case of doing nothing until Germany had built up it's forces and then having to deal with the results?

Actually there is an easy answer to that. The Treaty also limited the military of France, Britain, United States, and Japan. Since Britain and France were obviously over their own military quota, they would look like jackasses to the world if they complained about Germany violating the treaty.

Also, machinery do not win the war. Its commanders that do. France was still in the trench warfare state of mind. Most of their officer corp were from World War I vets who did not understand how to use heavy armor and airplanes. German military was in the hands of younger officers who were into radiacal ideas with their new toys. Also, they had the Spanish Civil war to test and hone those skills.

In regards to appeasement by the French and British before WWII, where was the United States? Japan takes over most of Asia and the US does crap. Germany invades Poland, occupies France, Austria, Czech, etc, and America does nothing. Heck even the Soviet Union sent supplies to the leftists in the Spanish Civil War to fight the facists (with the very few liberals that joined the volunteer ranks from Britain, US, France). Some historians had said that if Germany and Italy did not declare war on the United States (after Japan attacked), the US would have never even gotten involved in WWII Europe.

 

[etech]

Actually there is an easy answer to that. The Treaty also limited the military of France, Britain, United States, and Japan.

I'm aware of the Naval Treaty limits. I was not aware that Britain's and France's land or air forces were limited.
Do you have a reference?

I'll agree that France's military leaders were a major if not the major reason it fell so quickly.

The US was playing isolationists. That was pretty much the last time that we have tried that. It got so messy back then.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
The Japanese army invaded Manchuria in 1931, the Italians invaded Ethiopia in 1935. What could we have done to prevent that?

league of nations blew ass

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Troll.

Wow, that was rudest and stupidest response I've read in awhile. Derek makes an insightful observation, and that's the best response you could come up with?!?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Troll.

Wow, that was rudest and stupidest response I've read in awhile. Derek makes an insightful observation, and that's the best response you could come up with?!?

No, Derek made an inflammatory, immature, and baseless remark regarding the culture of some of the founding cultures of the modern western world. I could come up with a much better response, but I have other research to be doing.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Troll.

Wow, that was rudest and stupidest response I've read in awhile. Derek makes an insightful observation, and that's the best response you could come up with?!?

That remark was pretty much on the point.
Why don't YOU troll somewhere else?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Troll.

Wow, that was rudest and stupidest response I've read in awhile. Derek makes an insightful observation, and that's the best response you could come up with?!?

That remark was pretty much on the point.
Why don't YOU troll somewhere else?

See my remarks one post above yours.

 

[freegeeks]

I also watched that documentary. It was on the Redneck Channel right after the weekly program "Humping sheep or cows -- style and technique"

djjeezzzes

when I see all these France bashing posts lately I'm truly convinced that the cattlehumping trailerparktrash crowd has a serious obsession with anything that has to do with France.

 

[adlep]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 1939 bulk of the German forces were "tied up" in Poland. The west highly industrialized part of Germany (with critial coal mines, factories) was left open, exposed to an attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is not true.
The "tied up" german troops waltzed right through poland.
And those 20 German divisions did a pretty good job at driving the 50 allied divisions out of mainland Europe ...
Don't forget that most of the time the balance of forces was 4 to 1 against the Germans and they still only barely lost.
The German war machinery was simply so much more advanced than everyone else's at that time.
It was almost like the US forces in the 2nd Gulf War in 91.

Correction:
The Germans had lost substantial number of troops, tanks, and planes in Poland.
Most likely if the Poles would know that France and GB is fighting on the other side of Germany, they would come up with some sorth of contr-offensive to try to help allies on the second front.....
Comparision of the armed forces in 1939:
.....................Poland..................... France.......................Great Britain............................... Germany
Soldiers:.......950.000.....................5.000.000 🙂Q).........890.000......................................1.850.000
Artillery:.........4500..........................11.000.....................2600..............................................11.000
Tanks:..........700............................2600.........................1150...............................................2800
Planes:.........400............................2800.........................1900 (Good planes)......................2000

German looses in Poland durring the three weeks of fight (Poland was also invaded by the Soviets on Sept 17th 1939):
50.000 killed
993 tanks lost or heavly damaged
564 planes lost or damaged
370 artillery pieces lost or damaged
Once again in 1939 the bulk of the German Forces was tied up in Poland. The foces left in Germany werent that good at all.
You have to also remeber that the famous German panzers werent that modern or good too, most of them were: PzKpfw I
and PzKpfw II!
It wouldnt be an easy victory for the Germans at all (5.000.000 French troops:Q)
Germans didnt "waltzed right through poland" at all. And if the Soviets wouldnt invade Poland from the east, the "fall weiss" campaign would take much, much longer...
Also beware of the statements like: "not true"...😉
Polish campaingn summary
Nice but slow Polish site with a lot of nice pictures

 

[freegeeks]

Correction:
The Germans had lost substantial number of troops, tanks, and planes in Poland.
Most likely if the Poles would know that France and GB is fighting on the other side of Germany, they would come up with some sorth of contr-offensive to try to help allies on the second front.....
Comparision of the armed forces in 1939:
.....................Poland..................... France.......................Great Britain............................... Germany
Soldiers:.......950.000.....................5.000.000 ().........890.000......................................1.850.000
Artillery:.........4500..........................11.000.....................2600..............................................11.000
Tanks:..........700............................2600.........................1150...............................................2800
Planes:.........400............................2800.........................1900 (Good planes)......................2000

German looses in Poland durring the three weeks of fight (Poland was also invaded by the Soviets on Sept 17th 1939):
50.000 killed
993 tanks lost or heavly damaged
564 planes lost or damaged
370 artillery pieces lost or damaged
Once again in 1939 the bulk of the German Forces was tied up in Poland. The foces left in Germany werent that good at all.
You have to also remeber that the famous German panzers werent that modern or good too, most of them were: PzKpfw I
and PzKpfw II!
It wouldnt be an easy victory for the Germans at all (5.000.000 French troops)
Germans didnt "waltzed right through poland" at all. And if the Soviets wouldnt invade Poland from the east, the "fall weiss" campaign would take much, much longer...
Also beware of the statements like: "not true"...
Polish campaingn summary
Nice but slow Polish site with a lot of nice pictures

numbers mean nothing if you are using the wrong tactics. There are reports of Polish cavalry units engaging tanks :Q
I think at that time the PzKpfw Iand PzKpfw II were the most advanced tanks. Do you know about allied tanks that were more advanced in 1939-1940 AND were available in large numbers (so T-34 prototypes doesn't count even when they would be available to Poland, France, ...).

to put it simple.

Poland, France, Great-Britain, ... were still using WW I tactics (static war)
German was using new advanced tactics
close air support with Stuka's,
using the tank as a main assault weapon in concentrated numbers and not as a piece of artillery on tracks like the allies did

more important, they had brilliant commanders (Guderian, Rommel, ...) who used these new tactics and weapons in the most efficient way

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: derek2034
If you want me to tell you Iraq is parrallel to WWII, well I can't. What I can say, however, is how pathetic it is that the focus of the anti-war crowd is how EVIL AMERICA is, and NOT how Saddam is a very bad bad man. When Iraq says they won't allow a part of the inspections, a response closer to "How about 1,000 nuclear bombs up your a$$?" would be more appropriate than "NO WAR FOR OIL!".

Do you all get my drift?

All propaganda aside, the US has 150 thousand troops poise to invade Iraq, In this situation whose is the aggressor?

 

[adlep]

freegeeks, and what should I do with you?

numbers mean nothing if you are using the wrong tactics. There are reports of Polish cavalry units engaging tanks

Ans:
From the link I have provided
Polish Campaign is surrounded by numerous myths such as the destruction of Polish Airforce in the opening hours of the invasion and Polish Cavalry charges against German armored units. Both myths are creations of German and even Italian propaganda and are very far from truth. Polish cavalry was active during the campaign and acted as horse mounted infantry. One of the most successful cavalry charges took place at Krojanty, where elements of 18th Uhlans Regiment attacked and destroyed German infantry battalion only to be counterattacked by German armored unit. Uhlans attempted to withdraw and suffered heavy losses. This event lead to the story of Polish cavalry charges on panzers....
freegeeks you became a next victim of the Nazi propaganda......😉

think at that time the PzKpfw Iand PzKpfw II were the most advanced tanks. Do you know about allied tanks that were more advanced in 1939-1940 AND were available in large numbers (so T-34 prototypes doesn't count even when they would be available to Poland, France, ...).

here is the one exaple, French S-35
From the web site:
Was considered the best tank faced by the Germans in the invasion of France. By mid-1941 many were issued to German units. From 1941-1944 many were used by training units. Used by the 211th Panzerabteilung in Finland in June 1941. Also in Normandy in June 1944. They were used in Panzer detachments along with the H-38. The commanders being given the S-35s. Several hundred were given to Italy.
They had total of 260 these tanks...
Another deacent one
Next one