What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

World War II (4 Viewers)

I'm no scholar of this period, but what is the documentary foundation of some of the assertions that you are making? You've said repetedly that your narrative is bassed on Manchester's book, and obviously on Churchill's. Churchill obviously had politifal scores to settle with Chamberlain and so some of his assertions need to be read with that in mind. But did Manchester go to primary sources? Have you? Or is it all secondary sources?

The historiography of this is not inconsequential.

 
What Chamberlain had in mind was something far different from war: another peace conference. But first the Germans would have to withdraw from Poland. He telephoned Bonnet and Daladier in Paris, and they delightedly agreed. Henderson was then instructed to approach Ribbentrop with the followng proposal:

First, the Germans would withdraw from Poland.

Then, there would be a conference in Germany in which all the powers would consult over territorial disputes.

The fact that for several hours German troops had been ripping into Polish territory, killing thousands of people along the way, was completely ignored by Chamberlain. The fact that, as we shall see, this day was the ONE opportunity remaining for France to avoid losing the war by risking all in an attack against Germany was ignored by the French. They both clung to the idea of a peaceful settlement, even at this point.

But not the House of Commons. They were ready for war. Chamberlain addressed them that evening, and the MPs were waiting and eager for a belligerent, war like speech. Instead, Chamberlain told them that he was hoping to convince the Germans to withdraw, after which there might be a peaceful settlement. No declaration of war was forthcoming. The House was shocked.

The next speaker was a Laborite, and this is when Leopold Amery made history. Amery was a backbencher conservative ally of Churchill, long an opponent of appeasement. In 1939 he was an old man, nearly ready for retirement. He feared that the Labor speaker, a man named Greenwood, would deliver a partisan speech in opposition to the Conservatives, and that was not what was needed in this critical hour. As Greenwood approached the podium, Amery rose to his feet and shouted, "Speak for England!". The MPs as one roared in approval. Greenwood immediately changed his remarks and stated that the only honorable action now was to declare war. At that point, Chamberlain finally realized that he had to declare war or he might be removed from office. However, he continued to hope for some sort of positive message from Berlin first.

 
I'm no scholar of this period, but what is the documentary foundation of some of the assertions that you are making? You've said repetedly that your narrative is bassed on Manchester's book, and obviously on Churchill's. Churchill obviously had politifal scores to settle with Chamberlain and so some of his assertions need to be read with that in mind. But did Manchester go to primary sources? Have you? Or is it all secondary sources?

The historiography of this is not inconsequential.
It's a fair question, DC. Most of the narrative I have been relating here (the two weeks leading up to war, and the start of war) come directly from Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. He, in turn, used primary sources. I am also using Manchester's The Last Lion for details about Chamberlain, Churchill, and Henderson. There may be other historians that dispute Shirer and Manchester. A lot of this is of course based on their interpretation of events. But I personally am not aware of any major disputes. That doesn't mean they don't exist. For accuracy, let's say that these narratives of mine are MY interpretation of the books I have read and listed, so you can take them at that value. Fair enough?

 
Great thread, although I would like to hear more about the military "hardware" for each country. Although I know most of it being a WWII buff, I always love to read/learn more about it. But I am enjoying the actual history part too. :thumbup:

 
Great thread, although I would like to hear more about the military "hardware" for each country. Although I know most of it being a WWII buff, I always love to read/learn more about it. But I am enjoying the actual history part too. :thumbup:
I admit, I'm more knowledgeable about overall history and strategic thinking. When we get to the hardware and battles (as we will shortly) I would appreciate whatever help I can get.
 
What Chamberlain had in mind was something far different from war: another peace conference. But first the Germans would have to withdraw from Poland. He telephoned Bonnet and Daladier in Paris, and they delightedly agreed. Henderson was then instructed to approach Ribbentrop with the followng proposal:First, the Germans would withdraw from Poland.Then, there would be a conference in Germany in which all the powers would consult over territorial disputes.The fact that for several hours German troops had been ripping into Polish territory, killing thousands of people along the way, was completely ignored by Chamberlain. The fact that, as we shall see, this day was the ONE opportunity remaining for France to avoid losing the war by risking all in an attack against Germany was ignored by the French. They both clung to the idea of a peaceful settlement, even at this point. But not the House of Commons. They were ready for war. Chamberlain addressed them that evening, and the MPs were waiting and eager for a belligerent, war like speech. Instead, Chamberlain told them that he was hoping to convince the Germans to withdraw, after which there might be a peaceful settlement. No declaration of war was forthcoming. The House was shocked.The next speaker was a Laborite, and this is when Leopold Amery made history. Amery was a backbencher conservative ally of Churchill, long an opponent of appeasement. In 1939 he was an old man, nearly ready for retirement. He feared that the Labor speaker, a man named Greenwood, would deliver a partisan speech in opposition to the Conservatives, and that was not what was needed in this critical hour. As Greenwood approached the podium, Amery rose to his feet and shouted, "Speak for England!". The MPs as one roared in approval. Greenwood immediately changed his remarks and stated that the only honorable action now was to declare war. At that point, Chamberlain finally realized that he had to declare war or he might be removed from office. However, he continued to hope for some sort of positive message from Berlin first.
The most interesting point of Amery speach was the clear implication that Chamberlain's speech did not speak for England coming from a member of his own party. Amery also has one other big role to play in the future but I am certain you will get to that.ETA - I also wouldn't call him a backbencher though not in the Cabinet he was a former first lord of the admirality and would be in Churchill's cabinet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great thread, although I would like to hear more about the military "hardware" for each country. Although I know most of it being a WWII buff, I always love to read/learn more about it. But I am enjoying the actual history part too. :eek:
I admit, I'm more knowledgeable about overall history and strategic thinking. When we get to the hardware and battles (as we will shortly) I would appreciate whatever help I can get.
I do not have the time (or I suppose to choose to make the time right now) to go into an organized and systematic approach that you are attempting here tim. I will, as I have, jump in when I feel I can add something. I think you are doing a great job of giving structure to the discussion and a solid foundation for further discussion to feed off of. Keep it up.
 
Glad to see lots of you seem to get as much a kick out of this as I do. Let's continue:

Henderson attempted to see Ribbentrop, to no avail. In anguish, Bonnet, the French foreign minister, sought out Count Ciano, who was Mussolini's nephew and foreign minster of Italy. Bonnet hoped Mussolini would intercede with Hitler. Mussolini was not opposed to this idea- he believed himself to be a great diplomat and peace maker. But he told the French that their idea of Germany withdrawing from Poland was complete nonsense, and he would not approach Hitler with such a silly proposal. In desperation, Bonnet suggested the idea of a "symbolic" withdrawal- and Ciano threw this note in the wastebasket, without even telling Mussolini.

Forced into a corner, the two western democracies finally issued an joint ultimatum to Germany on September 2nd: either withdraw by the morning of September 3, or there would be war. Thus, over 60 hours would pass before the invasion of Poland actually became World War II. By that time, the Germans were deep into Polish territory and there would be little the French and English could do to actually help them.

A shaken Ribbentrop delivered the British/French ultimatum to Hitler. He had promised Der Fuehrer over and over that there would be no greater war over Poland. He had assured Hitler that the British would never do this. Hitler himself was stunned. He had gotten away with every territorial demand, every land grab he had attempted since taking power. Now for the first time, the other Great Powers were standing up to him. He turned to glare at his Foreign Minister. "What now?" he asked.

 
I'm no scholar of this period, but what is the documentary foundation of some of the assertions that you are making? You've said repetedly that your narrative is bassed on Manchester's book, and obviously on Churchill's. Churchill obviously had politifal scores to settle with Chamberlain and so some of his assertions need to be read with that in mind. But did Manchester go to primary sources? Have you? Or is it all secondary sources?

The historiography of this is not inconsequential.
It's a fair question, DC. Most of the narrative I have been relating here (the two weeks leading up to war, and the start of war) come directly from Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. He, in turn, used primary sources. I am also using Manchester's The Last Lion for details about Chamberlain, Churchill, and Henderson. There may be other historians that dispute Shirer and Manchester. A lot of this is of course based on their interpretation of events. But I personally am not aware of any major disputes. That doesn't mean they don't exist. For accuracy, let's say that these narratives of mine are MY interpretation of the books I have read and listed, so you can take them at that value. Fair enough?
Fair enough. I don't want to beat this horse too much.However, this is from the Wiki on Rise & Fall... so take it with the usual caveats on Wiki scholarship...

Content and themes

Rise and Fall was the first book to present a comprehensive synthesis of the Nazi era.[2] Shirer argued for the view that German history proceeded logically from "Luther to Hitler"[3], seeing Hitler's rise to power as an expression of German character, rather than of the international phenomenon of totalitarianism.[4][5][6] Shirer encapsulated this view with the passage, "...the course of German history... made blind obedience to temporal rulers the highest virtue of Germanic man and put a premium on servility."[7] This point of view (known as the Sonderweg thesis to historians) was widespread in the United States at the time, but critics of the book generally considered this interpretation of Nazism to be its worst flaw.[8]

While it is criticized for not being academic enough for purposes of academic research, the text does include extensive references and footnotes. The book also includes several speculations (clearly marked as such), such as a footnote that theorizes that Heinrich Müller, an SS chieftain, later went to serve in the NKVD, for which Shirer had no evidence at all.

[edit] Criticism

Whereas nearly all American journalists praised the book, academics were split. Some of these acknowledged Shirer's achievement, but most condemned it.[14] The harshest criticism tended to come from those who disagreed with the Sonderweg or "Luther to Hitler" thesis mentioned above.

Klaus Epstein listed "four major failings": a crude understanding of German history; a lack of balance, leaving important gaps; no understanding of a modern totalitarian regime; and ignorance of current scholarship of the Nazi period.[13]

Elizabeth Wiskemann stated in a 1961 review that the book was "not sufficiently scholarly nor sufficiently well written to satisfy more academic demands ... It is too long and cumbersome... Mr Shirer, has, however compiled a manual ... which will certainly prove useful."[16]

Richard J. Evans concedes that Rise and Fall is a "readable general history of Nazi Germany" and that "there are good reasons for [its] success." His issue with Shirer is that he worked outside of the academic mainstream, and that his account was not informed by the historical scholarship of the time (1960).[17]

In West Germany, the "Luther to Hitler" interpretation was almost universally rejected in favor of the view that Nazism was an instance of totalitarianism, which arises in various countries. Rise and Fall was unanimously condemned, and considered dangerous to relations between America and West Germany, as it could inflame anti-German sentiments in the US[18

 
The "Luther to Hitler" argument is made in the early section of Shirer's book, which deals with the intellectual roots of the Third Reich. He actually admits that this part of the book is somewhat conjecture. Beginning with the section entitled "The Road To War" and continuing through the end of the book, Shirer relies almost exclusively on captured German papers.

 
The Invasion of Poland Part One

All along the border with Germany, the Polish Ulany calvary eagerly waited. They had been radioed the news that the Germans had crossed the border, and now the Poles were eager for combat to finally arrive. They positioned themselves in classic tactical positions, at the top of hills, or in forests, ready to charge when they saw the troops coming.

The first thing they saw was airplanes overhead. But in most cases these flew right past them. The stupid Germans! Now they would see what it was like to face true soldiers! Next came groups of tanks: ugly little machines which crawled on the ground. The calvarymen were confused. Were these really paper mache, as their commanders had assured them? Well, there was only one way to find out...

Boldly they strapped on their gleaming helmets. Raising their shining sabres in one hand, and their pistols in the other, these men, decked out in bright beautiful uniforms screamed out their joyous battle cries and came charging down the hill at the ugly beasts. J.E.B. Stuart would have been proud!

300 meters...200 meters... on they came...100 meters....BOOM ! The cannon from the tanks went off. First smoke, then screams. Dead horses everywhere. Dead men everywhere, their body parts scattered over the plain of battle. In desperation the remaining horsemen fired their pistols and rifles. But the tanks were made of metal after all. The bullets bounced harmlessly off them, and they continued to move forward.

What usually happened next was either suicidal stupidity or great bravery, depending on your viewpoint. The Polish calvarymen would regroup and charge again. BOOM! went the cannons, and now very few horsemen were left. Those that were fled in chaos and confusion.

This scenario was repeated countless times during the first few days of battle.

 
2. Being Jewish, my whole family has always assumed that Charles Lindbergh was anti-Semtic. I myself am not so sure. He was certainly isolationist and very nearly pro-German. Henry Ford's views were not at all influential during the late 1930's. And Father Coughlin's day had passed around 1936. America in 1939 was not especially anti-Semitic, from what I've been able to raad.
From the Widipedia entry on Father Coughlin...On November 20, 1938, two weeks after Kristallnacht, when Jews across Germany were attacked and killed, and Jewish businesses, homes and synagogues burned, Coughlin said "Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted."[17] After this speech, and as his programs became more antisemitic, some radio stations, including those in New York and Chicago, began refusing to air his speeches without pre-approved scripts; in New York, his programs were cancelled by WINS and WMCA, leaving Coughlin to broadcasting on the Newark part-time station WHBI. This made Coughlin a hero in Nazi Germany, where papers ran headlines claiming "America Is Not Allowed to Hear the Truth". On December 18, 1938 two thousand of Coughlin's followers marched in New York protesting potential asylum law changes that would allow more Jews (including refugees from Hitler's persecution) into the US, chanting, "Send Jews back where they came from in leaky boats!" and "Wait until Hitler comes over here!" The protests continued for several months. Donald Warren, using information from the FBI and German government archives, has also argued that Coughlin received indirect funding from Nazi Germany during this period.[18]

After 1936, Coughlin began supporting an organization called the Christian Front, which claimed him as an inspiration. In January 1940, the Christian Front was shut down when the FBI discovered the group was arming itself and "planning to murder Jews, communists, and 'a dozen Congressmen'"[19] and eventually establish, in J. Edgar Hoover's words, "a dictatorship, similar to the Hitler dictatorship in Germany". Coughlin publicly stated, after the plot was discovered, that he still did not "disassociate himself from the movement", and though he was never linked directly to the plot, his reputation suffered a fatal decline.[20]
I was going to post that but didn't want Timmy to get all defensive.
 
The Invasion of Poland Part One

All along the border with Germany, the Polish Ulany calvary eagerly waited. They had been radioed the news that the Germans had crossed the border, and now the Poles were eager for combat to finally arrive. They positioned themselves in classic tactical positions, at the top of hills, or in forests, ready to charge when they saw the troops coming.

The first thing they saw was airplanes overhead. But in most cases these flew right past them. The stupid Germans! Now they would see what it was like to face true soldiers! Next came groups of tanks: ugly little machines which crawled on the ground. The calvarymen were confused. Were these really paper mache, as their commanders had assured them? Well, there was only one way to find out...

Boldly they strapped on their gleaming helmets. Raising their shining sabres in one hand, and their pistols in the other, these men, decked out in bright beautiful uniforms screamed out their joyous battle cries and came charging down the hill at the ugly beasts. J.E.B. Stuart would have been proud!

300 meters...200 meters... on they came...100 meters....BOOM ! The cannon from the tanks went off. First smoke, then screams. Dead horses everywhere. Dead men everywhere, their body parts scattered over the plain of battle. In desperation the remaining horsemen fired their pistols and rifles. But the tanks were made of metal after all. The bullets bounced harmlessly off them, and they continued to move forward.

What usually happened next was either suicidal stupidity or great bravery, depending on your viewpoint. The Polish calvarymen would regroup and charge again. BOOM! went the cannons, and now very few horsemen were left. Those that were fled in chaos and confusion.

This scenario was repeated countless times during the first few days of battle.
I will give my two cents on the Polish military since I think describing cavalry charges does not describe the Polish military or its position at the time. In fact there is very little evidence this was the Polish plan or strategy or that it even happened to a great extent. In fact, the Polish cavalry was really designed to be infantry with mobility. In that they would be able to move to a location fast but fight dismounted as regular infantry. The experiences of the Civil War and WWI had shown that cavalry charges were useless and the Poles never intended and rarely fought that way. Given that Poland could not afford an advanced mobile units using horses to create mobile units should not be surprise given that the Wehrmacht during WWII was never a mobile army and itself was dependent on the horse for mobility throughout the entire war. Only the Panzer divisions and the SS were ever truly mobile units as we view them now and they were always a small portion of the army. The Polish army really made a few critical mistakes that brought the war to a quick end even if the Russians had never jumped into the fight two weeks into the conflict.

1) In 1939 the Polish army numbered about 1 million soldiers. However, at the outbreak of war less than half were mobilized and concentrated to fight. Basically meaning many units never had a chance to join the fight. So while on paper the 1 million man polish army seemed to stand a better chance against the 2 million man Wehrmacht the odds were really much greater. The Poles like the West really did not believe armed conflict would begin so quickly. While we can blame the West for a 3 day delay before giving a real ultimatum by looking through a rearview mirror I think 3 days for a government to respond is not really as horrible as has been conveyed. The mistakes France and England made had been done years before when they allowed the Rhine to be remilitarized, Anschluss to occur and the debacle at Munich. Of course Chamberlain would never really show any backbone even going forward.

2) The Poles suffered from the same tactical error the rest of the West suffered in the beginning of the War, which was the belief that the tank was best used to support infantry and not as separate mobilized units. While Poland's armor did not nearly match the 2,500 German tanks unleashed on Poland they had some decent tanks that could stand up to even Panzer IV but they were never massed as a fighting unit and were destroyed piecemeal. France and England would repeat this mistake.

3) The Poles attempted to fight at the border believing the west would attack Germany. This was a mistake even if the West did immediately attack Germany which of course never happened since it allowed many immobile Polish units to be surrounded and captured by the advanced Panzer units. It should be noted that much of industrialized Poland was located near the German border so Poland felt compelled to defend it since they envisioned a lengthy conflict.

4) One last point is that the Polish air force was out extremely obsolete at the start of the war. Polish fighters were so outclassed that they could not keep up with German bombers let alone attempt to fight modern German fighters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread is great...and welcomed.
Agreed great thread and really appreciate that Timmy is taking the time to set up a timeline and guide the discussion. I will add my thoughts but will probably focus mostly on the fight in the East since that is what interests me the most and few people know anything about it.
 
Blitzkrieg

The term Blitzkrieg "lightning war" first came into use during the invasion of Poland. It is thought to have been popularized by a Time magazine journalist, and it gave the impression of an incredible industrial machine winning battles with an avalance of tanks and airplanes. However, there is quite a bit of modern debate among military historians as to whether or not this invasion really represented what we have come to know as the Blitzkrieg. Many believe that in fact the tanks in Poland were used very conservatively as compared to France. One would have to really study the details of this invasion to know. Most of the books I have read on this subject are over 20 years old and do not suscribe to this modern interpretation, so I really don't know.

Here's what I do know about the classic blitzkrieg: the planes and tanks would come in first, with the horse drawn infantry lagging up the rear. Even more than the tanks, the planes were key to success because they would take control of the air. Poland had over 600 modern airplanes, and some very fine pilots (these would prove themselves later in the Battle of Britain.) Because of the surprise attack, none of these planes managed to take off; they were all destroyed on the ground. This ended any resistance that the Poles could put up in the air.

During the invasion of Poland and later France, the infantry managed to stay not too far behind the tanks. This conservative advice was not followed in Russia (partly because the roads were so difficult) and Russian troops were then able to move behind the tanks and trap them, at which point the Blitzkrieg lost it's glamor. But in the fall of 1939 the word was new and chilling, and gave the world the impression that the Nazis were invincible.

The Stuka

The crooked wing Stuka (Junkers Ju 87) was a nod to the American designed Helldivers (F8C Falcon), It's basic use was to spread terror. It had a loud shrill horn attached which added even more terror whenever it swooped down to fire it's guns. In the undefended skies of Poland, it was extremely effective.

I wrote earlier that Ribbentrop was careful to point out that the Luftwaffe were only hitting military targets. His definition of a "military target" was anything that moved. The Stukas hit women, children, cattle, and barns as often as they attacked actual soldiers. However, these activities were defended by Luftwaffe generals at Nuremberg. They were designed to demoralize the Polish population, and also to force refugees to swarm on the roads which would impede troop movements. Therefore, they argued, this was all sound strategy.

This is a thorny issue, one of the thorniest issues to come up at Nuremberg. How can one prosecute the Nazis for deliberately attacking civilians, yet excuse the United States and British for doing the same? The bombings of Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths even without the atomic bombs. Guernica aside, the issue of strategic bombing, and moral vs. immoral bombing, began with the Luftwaffe in 1939.

 
Redwes25, thanks for your input. Of course I'm going with the traditional view of the battle. Yours is probably more realistic. But there were calvary charges, and there is a certain deadly romance to them, IMO. Agreed though, that is not the reason they lost the war.

 
Tim, The South is always ready for a scrap, and deserves much credit for the expansion and preservation of these United States
I think you're referring to my earlier commentary about the United States Army having lots of Southerners in it. This is absolutely true, and in World War II their contributions are ones you can be proud of.But perhaps not their statements at the time. For instance, in 1942 the state of South Carolina passed a unanimous resolution declaring that "This war is being fought in order to preserve white supremacy and Christianity."

But they were brave, that's for sure.
Wow, I've never heard this before. Source?
The Glory And The Dream by William Manchester
Sorry, but you have to do better than that. I ran several different google searches and couldn't come up with anything close to that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Invasion of Poland Part One

All along the border with Germany, the Polish Ulany calvary eagerly waited. They had been radioed the news that the Germans had crossed the border, and now the Poles were eager for combat to finally arrive. They positioned themselves in classic tactical positions, at the top of hills, or in forests, ready to charge when they saw the troops coming.

The first thing they saw was airplanes overhead. But in most cases these flew right past them. The stupid Germans! Now they would see what it was like to face true soldiers! Next came groups of tanks: ugly little machines which crawled on the ground. The calvarymen were confused. Were these really paper mache, as their commanders had assured them? Well, there was only one way to find out...

Boldly they strapped on their gleaming helmets. Raising their shining sabres in one hand, and their pistols in the other, these men, decked out in bright beautiful uniforms screamed out their joyous battle cries and came charging down the hill at the ugly beasts. J.E.B. Stuart would have been proud!

300 meters...200 meters... on they came...100 meters....BOOM ! The cannon from the tanks went off. First smoke, then screams. Dead horses everywhere. Dead men everywhere, their body parts scattered over the plain of battle. In desperation the remaining horsemen fired their pistols and rifles. But the tanks were made of metal after all. The bullets bounced harmlessly off them, and they continued to move forward.

What usually happened next was either suicidal stupidity or great bravery, depending on your viewpoint. The Polish calvarymen would regroup and charge again. BOOM! went the cannons, and now very few horsemen were left. Those that were fled in chaos and confusion.

This scenario was repeated countless times during the first few days of battle.
Complete bunk.
 
Sorry, but you have to do better than that. I ran several different google searches and couldn't come up with anything close to that.
Page 243. It reads:They had no answer, but if one had been from South Carolina, he could have pointed out that the legislature there had passed a resolution declaring that American troops were "fighting for white supremacy."

Later on the same passage discusses "Christian only" discrimination, so I confused the two; Christianity was not part of the South Carolina resolution. Also, I should not have written that it was unanimous- faulty memory on my part- it'sbeen years since I read this. But despite these minor changes, the quote is accurate enough.

The source notes refer to Time Magazine, October 28, 1940.

 
The Invasion of Poland Part One

All along the border with Germany, the Polish Ulany calvary eagerly waited. They had been radioed the news that the Germans had crossed the border, and now the Poles were eager for combat to finally arrive. They positioned themselves in classic tactical positions, at the top of hills, or in forests, ready to charge when they saw the troops coming.

The first thing they saw was airplanes overhead. But in most cases these flew right past them. The stupid Germans! Now they would see what it was like to face true soldiers! Next came groups of tanks: ugly little machines which crawled on the ground. The calvarymen were confused. Were these really paper mache, as their commanders had assured them? Well, there was only one way to find out...

Boldly they strapped on their gleaming helmets. Raising their shining sabres in one hand, and their pistols in the other, these men, decked out in bright beautiful uniforms screamed out their joyous battle cries and came charging down the hill at the ugly beasts. J.E.B. Stuart would have been proud!

300 meters...200 meters... on they came...100 meters....BOOM ! The cannon from the tanks went off. First smoke, then screams. Dead horses everywhere. Dead men everywhere, their body parts scattered over the plain of battle. In desperation the remaining horsemen fired their pistols and rifles. But the tanks were made of metal after all. The bullets bounced harmlessly off them, and they continued to move forward.

What usually happened next was either suicidal stupidity or great bravery, depending on your viewpoint. The Polish calvarymen would regroup and charge again. BOOM! went the cannons, and now very few horsemen were left. Those that were fled in chaos and confusion.

This scenario was repeated countless times during the first few days of battle.
Complete bunk.
Described in The Last Lion. But as I wrote earlier, this view has been contested.
 
Blitzkrieg

The term Blitzkrieg "lightning war" first came into use during the invasion of Poland. It is thought to have been popularized by a Time magazine journalist, and it gave the impression of an incredible industrial machine winning battles with an avalance of tanks and airplanes. However, there is quite a bit of modern debate among military historians as to whether or not this invasion really represented what we have come to know as the Blitzkrieg. Many believe that in fact the tanks in Poland were used very conservatively as compared to France. One would have to really study the details of this invasion to know. Most of the books I have read on this subject are over 20 years old and do not suscribe to this modern interpretation, so I really don't know.

Here's what I do know about the classic blitzkrieg: the planes and tanks would come in first, with the horse drawn infantry lagging up the rear. Even more than the tanks, the planes were key to success because they would take control of the air. Poland had over 600 modern airplanes, and some very fine pilots (these would prove themselves later in the Battle of Britain.) Because of the surprise attack, none of these planes managed to take off; they were all destroyed on the ground. This ended any resistance that the Poles could put up in the air.

During the invasion of Poland and later France, the infantry managed to stay not too far behind the tanks. This conservative advice was not followed in Russia (partly because the roads were so difficult) and Russian troops were then able to move behind the tanks and trap them, at which point the Blitzkrieg lost it's glamor. But in the fall of 1939 the word was new and chilling, and gave the world the impression that the Nazis were invincible.

The Stuka

The crooked wing Stuka (Junkers Ju 87) was a nod to the American designed Helldivers (F8C Falcon), It's basic use was to spread terror. It had a loud shrill horn attached which added even more terror whenever it swooped down to fire it's guns. In the undefended skies of Poland, it was extremely effective.

I wrote earlier that Ribbentrop was careful to point out that the Luftwaffe were only hitting military targets. His definition of a "military target" was anything that moved. The Stukas hit women, children, cattle, and barns as often as they attacked actual soldiers. However, these activities were defended by Luftwaffe generals at Nuremberg. They were designed to demoralize the Polish population, and also to force refugees to swarm on the roads which would impede troop movements. Therefore, they argued, this was all sound strategy.

This is a thorny issue, one of the thorniest issues to come up at Nuremberg. How can one prosecute the Nazis for deliberately attacking civilians, yet excuse the United States and British for doing the same? The bombings of Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths even without the atomic bombs. Guernica aside, the issue of strategic bombing, and moral vs. immoral bombing, began with the Luftwaffe in 1939.
But for deadly effect, nothing matched the ####ers. Even today, they are banned from the FFA.
 
Sorry, but you have to do better than that. I ran several different google searches and couldn't come up with anything close to that.
Page 243. It reads:They had no answer, but if one had been from South Carolina, he could have pointed out that the legislature there had passed a resolution declaring that American troops were "fighting for white supremacy."

Later on the same passage discusses "Christian only" discrimination, so I confused the two; Christianity was not part of the South Carolina resolution. Also, I should not have written that it was unanimous- faulty memory on my part- it'sbeen years since I read this. But despite these minor changes, the quote is accurate enough.

The source notes refer to Time Magazine, October 28, 1940.
:lmao:
 
Sorry, but you have to do better than that. I ran several different google searches and couldn't come up with anything close to that.
Page 243. It reads:They had no answer, but if one had been from South Carolina, he could have pointed out that the legislature there had passed a resolution declaring that American troops were "fighting for white supremacy."

Later on the same passage discusses "Christian only" discrimination, so I confused the two; Christianity was not part of the South Carolina resolution. Also, I should not have written that it was unanimous- faulty memory on my part- it'sbeen years since I read this. But despite these minor changes, the quote is accurate enough.

The source notes refer to Time Magazine, October 28, 1940.
:thumbdown:
Why? I said the legislature passed a law declaring themselves fighting for "White supremacy". Why does this bother you? The southern legislatures of the prewar years were quite racist. That's simply fact. I'd be surprised if it wasn't unanimous, even though I don't know. Also, though they didn't use Christianity in this instance, the term was thrown around a lot in those years. All of this is historical fact. You act like I'm deliberately misrepresenting information to create a false impression. I haven't.
 
Sorry, but you have to do better than that. I ran several different google searches and couldn't come up with anything close to that.
Page 243. It reads:They had no answer, but if one had been from South Carolina, he could have pointed out that the legislature there had passed a resolution declaring that American troops were "fighting for white supremacy."

Later on the same passage discusses "Christian only" discrimination, so I confused the two; Christianity was not part of the South Carolina resolution. Also, I should not have written that it was unanimous- faulty memory on my part- it'sbeen years since I read this. But despite these minor changes, the quote is accurate enough.

The source notes refer to Time Magazine, October 28, 1940.
:thumbdown:
Why? I said the legislature passed a law declaring themselves fighting for "White supremacy". Why does this bother you? The southern legislatures of the prewar years were quite racist. That's simply fact. I'd be surprised if it wasn't unanimous, even though I don't know. Also, though they didn't use Christianity in this instance, the term was thrown around a lot in those years. All of this is historical fact. You act like I'm deliberately misrepresenting information to create a false impression. I haven't.
There's too much information out there for you to pass on that can be verified in multiple sources for you to go down this path.
 
Tim, I think this is a fascinating thread when you're telling the story, but it loses something when you start embellishing the commentary. As you're aware, you do have a bit of a tendency to overdo stuff a bit and use the superlative too often. You might want to dial it back a bit. Just a thought from an interested reader.

 
Blitzkrieg

The term Blitzkrieg "lightning war" first came into use during the invasion of Poland. It is thought to have been popularized by a Time magazine journalist, and it gave the impression of an incredible industrial machine winning battles with an avalance of tanks and airplanes. However, there is quite a bit of modern debate among military historians as to whether or not this invasion really represented what we have come to know as the Blitzkrieg. Many believe that in fact the tanks in Poland were used very conservatively as compared to France. One would have to really study the details of this invasion to know. Most of the books I have read on this subject are over 20 years old and do not suscribe to this modern interpretation, so I really don't know.

Here's what I do know about the classic blitzkrieg: the planes and tanks would come in first, with the horse drawn infantry lagging up the rear. Even more than the tanks, the planes were key to success because they would take control of the air. Poland had over 600 modern airplanes, and some very fine pilots (these would prove themselves later in the Battle of Britain.) Because of the surprise attack, none of these planes managed to take off; they were all destroyed on the ground. This ended any resistance that the Poles could put up in the air.

During the invasion of Poland and later France, the infantry managed to stay not too far behind the tanks. This conservative advice was not followed in Russia (partly because the roads were so difficult) and Russian troops were then able to move behind the tanks and trap them, at which point the Blitzkrieg lost it's glamor. But in the fall of 1939 the word was new and chilling, and gave the world the impression that the Nazis were invincible.

The Stuka

The crooked wing Stuka (Junkers Ju 87) was a nod to the American designed Helldivers (F8C Falcon), It's basic use was to spread terror. It had a loud shrill horn attached which added even more terror whenever it swooped down to fire it's guns. In the undefended skies of Poland, it was extremely effective.

I wrote earlier that Ribbentrop was careful to point out that the Luftwaffe were only hitting military targets. His definition of a "military target" was anything that moved. The Stukas hit women, children, cattle, and barns as often as they attacked actual soldiers. However, these activities were defended by Luftwaffe generals at Nuremberg. They were designed to demoralize the Polish population, and also to force refugees to swarm on the roads which would impede troop movements. Therefore, they argued, this was all sound strategy.

This is a thorny issue, one of the thorniest issues to come up at Nuremberg. How can one prosecute the Nazis for deliberately attacking civilians, yet excuse the United States and British for doing the same? The bombings of Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths even without the atomic bombs. Guernica aside, the issue of strategic bombing, and moral vs. immoral bombing, began with the Luftwaffe in 1939.
This is another fallacy of the war with Poland. In fact much of the Polish aircraft was able to get off the ground. However, they were outclassed in the air as I mentioned above. The two biggest miconceptions about the War in Poland is that cavalry charges were prevelant rather than the rare exception and the polish airforce was destroyed on the ground in the first few days.

 
There's too much information out there for you to pass on that can be verified in multiple sources for you to go down this path.
I disagree. The racism of the South during the war years, and how the war affected that, is part of the story I eventually plan on telling, hopefully. I have never known William Manchester to be a poor source. He is usually very accurate. I certainly am not out to attack any region of the United States. As I wrote, the military valor of Southerners who fought and died in World War II is beyond question and to be celebrated. At some point I hope to relate the incredible tale, for instance, of Texas' Lost Battalion.
 
Tim, I think this is a fascinating thread when you're telling the story, but it loses something when you start embellishing the commentary. As you're aware, you do have a bit of a tendency to overdo stuff a bit and use the superlative too often. You might want to dial it back a bit. Just a thought from an interested reader.
Thanks. I know it's a weakness of mine. I'll try to do as you ask.
 
This is another fallacy of the war with Poland. In fact much of the Polish aircraft was able to get off the ground. However, they were outclassed in the air as I mentioned above. The two biggest miconceptions about the War in Poland is that cavalry charges were prevelant rather than the rare exception and the polish airforce was destroyed on the ground in the first few days.
Wow. I don't doubt what you're saying is true. Just to defend myself (so that this doesn't add to the criticism I'm getting from Christo here) I didn't make that passage up. I've read from several sources both about the calvalry charges and about the airforce being destroyed on the ground. I'm glad to be corrected here.
 
This is another fallacy of the war with Poland. In fact much of the Polish aircraft was able to get off the ground. However, they were outclassed in the air as I mentioned above.

The two biggest miconceptions about the War in Poland is that cavalry charges were prevelant rather than the rare exception and the polish airforce was destroyed on the ground in the first few days.
Wow. I don't doubt what you're saying is true. Just to defend myself (so that this doesn't add to the criticism I'm getting from Christo here) I didn't make that passage up. I've read from several sources both about the calvalry charges and about the airforce being destroyed on the ground. I'm glad to be corrected here.
Good luck with that, regardless of what you say.
 
The Invasion of Poland Part One

All along the border with Germany, the Polish Ulany calvary eagerly waited. They had been radioed the news that the Germans had crossed the border, and now the Poles were eager for combat to finally arrive. They positioned themselves in classic tactical positions, at the top of hills, or in forests, ready to charge when they saw the troops coming.

The first thing they saw was airplanes overhead. But in most cases these flew right past them. The stupid Germans! Now they would see what it was like to face true soldiers! Next came groups of tanks: ugly little machines which crawled on the ground. The calvarymen were confused. Were these really paper mache, as their commanders had assured them? Well, there was only one way to find out...

Boldly they strapped on their gleaming helmets. Raising their shining sabres in one hand, and their pistols in the other, these men, decked out in bright beautiful uniforms screamed out their joyous battle cries and came charging down the hill at the ugly beasts. J.E.B. Stuart would have been proud!

300 meters...200 meters... on they came...100 meters....BOOM ! The cannon from the tanks went off. First smoke, then screams. Dead horses everywhere. Dead men everywhere, their body parts scattered over the plain of battle. In desperation the remaining horsemen fired their pistols and rifles. But the tanks were made of metal after all. The bullets bounced harmlessly off them, and they continued to move forward.

What usually happened next was either suicidal stupidity or great bravery, depending on your viewpoint. The Polish calvarymen would regroup and charge again. BOOM! went the cannons, and now very few horsemen were left. Those that were fled in chaos and confusion.

This scenario was repeated countless times during the first few days of battle.
Complete bunk.
Described in The Last Lion. But as I wrote earlier, this view has been contested.
I would not use a biography of Churchill to describe actions in the East other than big picture items. Sorry to pick on this point but the view of cavalry charges was conveyed as propaganda by both the Germans and the Brits so it has become what many think what happend. The Brits used it as a rallying cry to say we should defend the brave Poles who were outclassed. Germans said the same thing to show the might of Germany. Either way both sides were full of #### at the time and they knew it and it has been repeated by many authors who never bothered to check.
 
This is another fallacy of the war with Poland. In fact much of the Polish aircraft was able to get off the ground. However, they were outclassed in the air as I mentioned above. The two biggest miconceptions about the War in Poland is that cavalry charges were prevelant rather than the rare exception and the polish airforce was destroyed on the ground in the first few days.
Wow. I don't doubt what you're saying is true. Just to defend myself (so that this doesn't add to the criticism I'm getting from Christo here) I didn't make that passage up. I've read from several sources both about the calvalry charges and about the airforce being destroyed on the ground. I'm glad to be corrected here.
No you are not it is a very common misconception I explained in another post which crossed with yours.
 
I would not use a biography of Churchill to describe actions in the East other than big picture items. Sorry to pick on this point but the view of cavalry charges was conveyed as propaganda by both the Germans and the Brits so it has become what many think what happend. The Brits used it as a rallying cry to say we should defend the brave Poles who were outclassed. Germans said the same thing to show the might of Germany. Either way both sides were full of #### at the time and they knew it and it has been repeated by many authors who never bothered to check.
A Clash at Krojanty

In the early morning hours of September 1, 1939, military forces of Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Later that day, events unfolded that would lead to one of the most fanciful and enduring legends of World War II.

The Polish 4th Army, or Army Pomorze, had been placed in the Pomeranian area known as the Polish Corridor to prevent Hitler from taking this northwest section of Poland unopposed as he had done in the Czech Sudetenland a year earlier. However, since a full-blown war had broken out, the Army Pomorze was in the process of withdrawing while continuing to oppose the German advance.

By late afternoon of that first day, the German 20th Motorized Infantry Division was approaching the city of Chojnice, in the Tuchola Forest, about 165 miles northwest of Warsaw, and it was threatening a key railroad junction in the village of Krojanty about four miles northeast of Chojnice. Army Pomorse forces in this area consisted primarily of the 18th Lancer Regiment of the Pomorska Cavalry Brigade, commanded by Colonel Kazimierz Mastelarz.

Having been ordered to hold the area, Colonel Mastelarz decided to take the regiment’s 1st and 2nd Squadrons through the forest and attempt to attack the German infantry positions from the rear. That evening, Mastelarz’s two cavalry squadrons surprised a German infantry battalion in an open area.

Ordinarily, after cavalrymen had arrived at a battle area, they would dismount and use their rifles and other weapons to engage the enemy. However, in this case, Mastelarz had the advantage of both surprise and mobility, so he ordered a mounted saber attack against the German infantry.

The 1st and 2nd Squadrons, a force of about 250, charged out of the forest across an open area and into the German formation. With only a few casualties, the Poles quickly gained the advantage during the close-in fighting, and the Germans started falling back.

Just when it looked like the Poles were going to win the skirmish, several German armored cars equipped with machine guns and automatic cannon appeared and opened fire on the Polish cavalry who then broke off the attack and retreated from the battle scene. Losses to the Polish squadrons were about 20 killed, including Colonel Mastelarz, and an unknown number, probably about 60, wounded or captured. This was the first cavalry charge of World War II.

A MYTH IS BORN

Two days later, General Heinz Guderian, commander of the 19th Corps, of which the German 20th Motorized Division was a part, wrote that, “…we succeeded in totally encircling the enemy on our front in the wooded country north of Schwetz and west of Grudziadz (German name: Graudenz). The Polish Pomorska Cavalry Brigade, in ignorance of the nature of our tanks, had charged them with swords and lances and had suffered tremendous losses.”

The incident was not unlike other reported occasions where Polish cavalry, rather than surrendering, attempted to break through the encircling German forces giving Guderian’s troops the impression that the Poles were attacking the tanks rather than trying to dash between them.

Afterwards, German military officials brought war correspondents William L Shirer and Indro Montanelli to the scene, and told them that the carnage they saw before them was the result of Polish cavalry attacking German tanks. Neither reporter witnessed the actual battle, so they could only report what they were told and the aftermath that they saw. From this, and the report of General Guderian, came the myth of the Polish Cavalry charge against German tanks that was to endure to this very day.

Shirer mentioned his experience in his 1941, “Berlin Diary.” Then, in his 1959 book, “The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich,” he wrote: “Horses against tanks! The cavalryman’s long lance against the tank’s long canon! Brave and valiant and foolhardy though they were, the Poles were simply overwhelmed by the German onslaught.”

References to the legendary charge occurred repeatedly since then in books, magazines, and so-called documentaries that included staged scenes of Polish cavalry charging German tanks. As recently as 2007, a World War II Magazine Special Collector’s Edition article entitled “Blitzkrieg” contained a photograph of the Pomorska Cavalry Brigade on maneuvers, taken before the war began. It was captioned: “The Pomorska Cavalry Brigade gallops to the front wielding sabers and lances like their medieval forebears.”

FAR FROM MEDIEVAL

The myth led to the belief that the Poles had no armored vehicles, and that they were so primitive that they thought military tanks could be attacked and destroyed with saber and lance. The truth, however, is quite the opposite. Polish cavalry units were trained and equipped to combat both tanks and infantry.

Polish cavalrymen were essentially mounted infantrymen using their horses to move quickly from one location to another, and the weapons that they normally used against enemy infantry were their rifles. Sabers and lances were seldom used in combat except for close-in fighting from horseback where they were more effective than rifles with affixed bayonets.

However, there was no need for the Polish cavalry to use sabers or lances against German tanks. Each cavalry battalion carried deadly Swedish Bofors 37mm anti-tank guns and Polish-designed Maroszek WZ 35anti-tank rifles for use against enemy tanks. A projectile from the Polish anti-tank rifle, with a muzzle velocity of over 4000 feet per second, could penetrate the armor of any German tank in the field. Polish anti-tank rifles were so effective that hundreds of them captured by Germany were reissued to German military units that then used them against French tanks when Germany invaded that country in 1940.

Nor was there reason to believe that the Poles were ignorant of the nature of tanks. In 1939, Poland had more than 600 tanks. Most of them were small tankettes armed with only machine guns. In addition to these, Poland fielded 38 British-built Vickers 6 ton tanks and 135 7TP tanks of Polish design based on the Vickers tank. Each single-turret version of these Polish 7TP tanks carried a 37mm main gun and up to 17mm of armor plate. They were superior in both armor and armament to most of the invading German tanks, and they were the world’s first diesel powered tanks to see action.

Another, perhaps less-familiar, fact regarding Polish knowledge of tank technology is that the rotating Vickers Tank Periscope used in 40,000 allied tanks during the war was originally called the Gundlach Peryskop obrotowy and was invented in Poland in 1936. It was the first periscope to provide a tank commander a 360-degree view without turning his head.

CAVALRY VERSUS TANKS!

While the battles at Krojanty and Grudziadz (Graudenz) ended badly for the Polish cavalry, this was not always the case. On September 1, the same day of the Battle of Krojanty, the German 4th Panzer Division clashed with the Polish Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade at the village of Mokra, about 126 miles southwest of Warsaw. The German 4th Panzer Division lost over 100 armored fighting vehicles including at least 50 tanks. During the thirty-six day 1939 campaign against Poland, Germany lost 674 tanks and 319 armored cars.

However, the mechanized German war machine did prevail over Poland’s mounted cavalry, but it was not because the Poles were ignorant of the nature of tanks or that they could not design a suitable tank.

To view Poland’s cavalry from an historical perspective, it should be pointed out that all of the other major combatants also deployed mounted cavalry during World War II including Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States, whose last horse-mounted cavalry charge took place near Morong, the Philippines, on January 16, 1942. Contrary to the myth that the entire German army raced across Europe on modern vehicles, most of Germany’s ammunition and equipment was transported by the Third Reich’s 2,750,000 horses and mules.

Early successes with its tanks prompted Germany to start dismantling its cavalry force. However, after 1942, the German army started increasing the number of its mounted cavalry units for some of the same reasons that Poland had initially employed its cavalry—insufficient industrial production capability, and the need to fight the Soviet Union on the great trackless wasteland, impassable marshes, and forests of Eastern Europe.

Ironically, as Germany was rebuilding its cavalry in Europe, the Poles were in Great Britain rebuilding their tank force. Ultimately, tankers of the Polish 1st Armored Division fought their way from Normandy to Wilhelmshaven where they entered the German port city on May 5, 1945. There they accepted the surrender of its German garrison and naval fleet of over 200 warships and vessels.

The myth of Polish cavalry attacking German tanks was also propagated through the Communistic propaganda after the war to show that the Polish government was inadequately prepared for the war.
http://www.polishsite.us/history-and-peopl...rman-tanks.html
 
There's too much information out there for you to pass on that can be verified in multiple sources for you to go down this path.
I disagree.
You made it up and put it in quotes then tried to justify it because of your perception about what was going on.
I didn't make anything up.
:unsure:
Page 243. It reads:

They had no answer, but if one had been from South Carolina, he could have pointed out that the legislature there had passed a resolution declaring that American troops were "fighting for white supremacy."

Later on the same passage discusses "Christian only" discrimination, so I confused the two; Christianity was not part of the South Carolina resolution. Also, I should not have written that it was unanimous- faulty memory on my part- it's been years since I read this. But despite these minor changes, the quote is accurate enough.

The source notes refer to Time Magazine, October 28, 1940.
 
I didn't make that quote up, Christo. It's in the The Glory And The Dream on pg 243, just as I said. I didn't get it exactly right the first time I quoted it, because it was from memory, but I didn't get the gist of it wrong either.

 
I didn't make that quote up, Christo. It's in the The Glory And The Dream on pg 243, just as I said. I didn't get it exactly right the first time I quoted it, because it was from memory, but I didn't get the gist of it wrong either.
This is what you wrote:
But perhaps not their statements at the time. For instance, in 1942 the state of South Carolina passed a unanimous resolution declaring that "This war is being fought in order to preserve white supremacy and Christianity."
Are you saying what's in the quotes is a direct quote from the book? If not, you made it up.
 
The French

We now must turn to the French response, or lack of it, because there is serious question as to whether or not they could have made a difference here. Several German generals have pointed out that it was a lucky stroke for them that France did not attack. Alfred Jodl at the Nuremberg Trials said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."

(I'm not quite sure how accurate this comment is in regards to British divisions; the bulk of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) did not arrive in France until October and November.)

Many excuses have been given as to why the French did not attack, but what it boils down to is that they were scared. It would take far too long for me here to describe in the necessary detail the deterioration of France between the wars. For those who are interested, I recommend The Collapse of The Third Republic by Shirer. And I have already described what sort of commander Gamelin was, though I did not focus on his duplicity, though I shall now:

Beginning on September 7, the French began what is known in history as The Saar Offensive. 40 divisions were sent against the Siegfied Line. However, on Gamelin's orders, the troops halted within one kilometer of the line. There was no fighting. However, Gamelin informed the beleaguered Polish government that at least half his troops were engaged in combat. After a few days, Gamelin ordered the retreat of his troops back to the safety of the Maginot line.

This turned out to be the only French offensive of the Second World War.

According to German papers, even this weak move caused panic in German military circles. They simply did not have the manpower to stop a concerted French attack. Everything was in Poland. Once the Polish campaign was over, then the Germans could deal properly with France. But for now, there was a real oppurtunity for the French. And the refused to take it.

 
I didn't make that quote up, Christo. It's in the The Glory And The Dream on pg 243, just as I said. I didn't get it exactly right the first time I quoted it, because it was from memory, but I didn't get the gist of it wrong either.
This is what you wrote:
But perhaps not their statements at the time. For instance, in 1942 the state of South Carolina passed a unanimous resolution declaring that "This war is being fought in order to preserve white supremacy and Christianity."
Are you saying what's in the quotes is a direct quote from the book? If not, you made it up.
I've explained myself twice now Christo. I think it's close enough. You believe what you want; let's move on.
 
I didn't make that quote up, Christo. It's in the The Glory And The Dream on pg 243, just as I said. I didn't get it exactly right the first time I quoted it, because it was from memory, but I didn't get the gist of it wrong either.
This is what you wrote:
But perhaps not their statements at the time. For instance, in 1942 the state of South Carolina passed a unanimous resolution declaring that "This war is being fought in order to preserve white supremacy and Christianity."
Are you saying what's in the quotes is a direct quote from the book? If not, you made it up.
I've explained myself twice now Christo. I think it's close enough. You believe what you want; let's move on.
Can't wait to see what you make up next :popcorn:
 
I would not use a biography of Churchill to describe actions in the East other than big picture items. Sorry to pick on this point but the view of cavalry charges was conveyed as propaganda by both the Germans and the Brits so it has become what many think what happend. The Brits used it as a rallying cry to say we should defend the brave Poles who were outclassed. Germans said the same thing to show the might of Germany. Either way both sides were full of #### at the time and they knew it and it has been repeated by many authors who never bothered to check.
A Clash at Krojanty

In the early morning hours of September 1, 1939, military forces of Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Later that day, events unfolded that would lead to one of the most fanciful and enduring legends of World War II.

The Polish 4th Army, or Army Pomorze, had been placed in the Pomeranian area known as the Polish Corridor to prevent Hitler from taking this northwest section of Poland unopposed as he had done in the Czech Sudetenland a year earlier. However, since a full-blown war had broken out, the Army Pomorze was in the process of withdrawing while continuing to oppose the German advance.

By late afternoon of that first day, the German 20th Motorized Infantry Division was approaching the city of Chojnice, in the Tuchola Forest, about 165 miles northwest of Warsaw, and it was threatening a key railroad junction in the village of Krojanty about four miles northeast of Chojnice. Army Pomorse forces in this area consisted primarily of the 18th Lancer Regiment of the Pomorska Cavalry Brigade, commanded by Colonel Kazimierz Mastelarz.

Having been ordered to hold the area, Colonel Mastelarz decided to take the regiment’s 1st and 2nd Squadrons through the forest and attempt to attack the German infantry positions from the rear. That evening, Mastelarz’s two cavalry squadrons surprised a German infantry battalion in an open area.

Ordinarily, after cavalrymen had arrived at a battle area, they would dismount and use their rifles and other weapons to engage the enemy. However, in this case, Mastelarz had the advantage of both surprise and mobility, so he ordered a mounted saber attack against the German infantry.

The 1st and 2nd Squadrons, a force of about 250, charged out of the forest across an open area and into the German formation. With only a few casualties, the Poles quickly gained the advantage during the close-in fighting, and the Germans started falling back.

Just when it looked like the Poles were going to win the skirmish, several German armored cars equipped with machine guns and automatic cannon appeared and opened fire on the Polish cavalry who then broke off the attack and retreated from the battle scene. Losses to the Polish squadrons were about 20 killed, including Colonel Mastelarz, and an unknown number, probably about 60, wounded or captured. This was the first cavalry charge of World War II.

A MYTH IS BORN

Two days later, General Heinz Guderian, commander of the 19th Corps, of which the German 20th Motorized Division was a part, wrote that, “…we succeeded in totally encircling the enemy on our front in the wooded country north of Schwetz and west of Grudziadz (German name: Graudenz). The Polish Pomorska Cavalry Brigade, in ignorance of the nature of our tanks, had charged them with swords and lances and had suffered tremendous losses.”

The incident was not unlike other reported occasions where Polish cavalry, rather than surrendering, attempted to break through the encircling German forces giving Guderian’s troops the impression that the Poles were attacking the tanks rather than trying to dash between them.

Afterwards, German military officials brought war correspondents William L Shirer and Indro Montanelli to the scene, and told them that the carnage they saw before them was the result of Polish cavalry attacking German tanks. Neither reporter witnessed the actual battle, so they could only report what they were told and the aftermath that they saw. From this, and the report of General Guderian, came the myth of the Polish Cavalry charge against German tanks that was to endure to this very day.

Shirer mentioned his experience in his 1941, “Berlin Diary.” Then, in his 1959 book, “The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich,” he wrote: “Horses against tanks! The cavalryman’s long lance against the tank’s long canon! Brave and valiant and foolhardy though they were, the Poles were simply overwhelmed by the German onslaught.”

References to the legendary charge occurred repeatedly since then in books, magazines, and so-called documentaries that included staged scenes of Polish cavalry charging German tanks. As recently as 2007, a World War II Magazine Special Collector’s Edition article entitled “Blitzkrieg” contained a photograph of the Pomorska Cavalry Brigade on maneuvers, taken before the war began. It was captioned: “The Pomorska Cavalry Brigade gallops to the front wielding sabers and lances like their medieval forebears.”

FAR FROM MEDIEVAL

The myth led to the belief that the Poles had no armored vehicles, and that they were so primitive that they thought military tanks could be attacked and destroyed with saber and lance. The truth, however, is quite the opposite. Polish cavalry units were trained and equipped to combat both tanks and infantry.

Polish cavalrymen were essentially mounted infantrymen using their horses to move quickly from one location to another, and the weapons that they normally used against enemy infantry were their rifles. Sabers and lances were seldom used in combat except for close-in fighting from horseback where they were more effective than rifles with affixed bayonets.

However, there was no need for the Polish cavalry to use sabers or lances against German tanks. Each cavalry battalion carried deadly Swedish Bofors 37mm anti-tank guns and Polish-designed Maroszek WZ 35anti-tank rifles for use against enemy tanks. A projectile from the Polish anti-tank rifle, with a muzzle velocity of over 4000 feet per second, could penetrate the armor of any German tank in the field. Polish anti-tank rifles were so effective that hundreds of them captured by Germany were reissued to German military units that then used them against French tanks when Germany invaded that country in 1940.

Nor was there reason to believe that the Poles were ignorant of the nature of tanks. In 1939, Poland had more than 600 tanks. Most of them were small tankettes armed with only machine guns. In addition to these, Poland fielded 38 British-built Vickers 6 ton tanks and 135 7TP tanks of Polish design based on the Vickers tank. Each single-turret version of these Polish 7TP tanks carried a 37mm main gun and up to 17mm of armor plate. They were superior in both armor and armament to most of the invading German tanks, and they were the world’s first diesel powered tanks to see action.

Another, perhaps less-familiar, fact regarding Polish knowledge of tank technology is that the rotating Vickers Tank Periscope used in 40,000 allied tanks during the war was originally called the Gundlach Peryskop obrotowy and was invented in Poland in 1936. It was the first periscope to provide a tank commander a 360-degree view without turning his head.

CAVALRY VERSUS TANKS!

While the battles at Krojanty and Grudziadz (Graudenz) ended badly for the Polish cavalry, this was not always the case. On September 1, the same day of the Battle of Krojanty, the German 4th Panzer Division clashed with the Polish Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade at the village of Mokra, about 126 miles southwest of Warsaw. The German 4th Panzer Division lost over 100 armored fighting vehicles including at least 50 tanks. During the thirty-six day 1939 campaign against Poland, Germany lost 674 tanks and 319 armored cars.

However, the mechanized German war machine did prevail over Poland’s mounted cavalry, but it was not because the Poles were ignorant of the nature of tanks or that they could not design a suitable tank.

To view Poland’s cavalry from an historical perspective, it should be pointed out that all of the other major combatants also deployed mounted cavalry during World War II including Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States, whose last horse-mounted cavalry charge took place near Morong, the Philippines, on January 16, 1942. Contrary to the myth that the entire German army raced across Europe on modern vehicles, most of Germany’s ammunition and equipment was transported by the Third Reich’s 2,750,000 horses and mules.

Early successes with its tanks prompted Germany to start dismantling its cavalry force. However, after 1942, the German army started increasing the number of its mounted cavalry units for some of the same reasons that Poland had initially employed its cavalry—insufficient industrial production capability, and the need to fight the Soviet Union on the great trackless wasteland, impassable marshes, and forests of Eastern Europe.

Ironically, as Germany was rebuilding its cavalry in Europe, the Poles were in Great Britain rebuilding their tank force. Ultimately, tankers of the Polish 1st Armored Division fought their way from Normandy to Wilhelmshaven where they entered the German port city on May 5, 1945. There they accepted the surrender of its German garrison and naval fleet of over 200 warships and vessels.

The myth of Polish cavalry attacking German tanks was also propagated through the Communistic propaganda after the war to show that the Polish government was inadequately prepared for the war.
http://www.polishsite.us/history-and-peopl...rman-tanks.html
Thanks that lines up with my other post about the myth of polish cavalry charging into the field. Though I was not sure on the exact history on how the myth developed as I had read it came from propoganda.
 
tim, thanks for this thread. This pissing match that Christo is firing up is losing me though. Agree to disagree and move or do you plan to refute every single thing tim brings up? I'm not saying don't contest a point but jeez, let it ####### go already. I live in SC and I can honestly say I could give a #### less what they thought 60+ years regarding entry into WWII.

 
The Leaflets

In England, Winston Churchill was made First Lord of The Admiralty. This was the position he had last served in 1915, when he had been forced to resign over the Dardanelles fiasco (which incidentally was not his fault.) A three word message was wired to the fleet: "Winston Is Back!" According to his memoirs, when Churchill arrived at Admiralty House he went right to his old offices and pulled open a secret compartment in the wall. There appeared a map showing naval positions of the opposing forces in 1915; it had not been discovered or altered since then.

From the moment Churchill took over, he was immediately facing a U-Boat threat. Also he had to coordinate a naval blocade of Germany, no small task. A few hours after war was declared, the passenger ship Athenia was sunk. This was a mistake by the Germans- at that time in the war, the U-Boat captains were under strict orders only to attack military shipping. The U-Boat commander got confused and fired. Among the dead were 29 Americans. (A side note to this story: Ambassador Joseph Kennedy had young son John calm down the survivors.) Goebbels immediately accused Churchill of sinking the ship himself so as to try to get America into the war. Churchill always stoutly denied this.

The first British War Cabinet met that same evening September 3. Churchill wanted immediate bombing of Germany as the best means to help the Poles. The rest of the cabinet were shocked and horrified by this idea. They still clung to the fear of "The Bomber Will Always Get Through"- they thought the Germans would retaliate and destroy London. The limited range of bombers was apparently not discussed.

It was decided instead to drop leaflets instead of bombs. The idea behind these were that Chamberlain believed the German people weren't really behind Hitler. If he could give them convincing arguments as to how evil Hitler was, surely they would revolt. With Churchill clearly disgusted, it was ordered that leaflets arguing the British position would be dropped into Germany. This was the "aid" that Britain was offering Poland.

 
Could y'all start a separate thread for the pissing match?
:banned:
tim, thanks for this thread. This pissing match that Christo is firing up is losing me though. Agree to disagree and move or do you plan to refute every single thing tim brings up? I'm not saying don't contest a point but jeez, let it ####### go already. I live in SC and I can honestly say I could give a #### less what they thought 60+ years regarding entry into WWII.
:banned: give it a rest Christo - no need to ruin this thread for the masses...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top