&host=rt.com&uri=/politics/ww2-poland-hitler-britain/comments/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
“In 1939 Poles assumed they were able to attack Berlin”
Published: 01 September, 2009, 11:10
Edited: 30 April, 2010, 22:46
Poland wanted to believe it could defeat Germany, even though the intelligence they were being supplied with suggested something very different, believes WWII historian Professor Richard Overy.
It was obvious immediately after the battle of Kursk (summer 1943) that Germans were to lose the war. All German officers and military personnel knew that very well already in autumn 43' and the D-day took place only 12 months after that. Therefore, it was indeed Russia that really defeated Hitler and the western allies arrived only in the concluding stage to prevent the whole of Europe to become communistic.
But without allied help Vladimir USSR could not sustain german offensive.
@from Poland Of course everyone fought hard. Of course Western nations helped a lot and endure a lot. Just remember, Soviets were the only ones to face the Einsatzgruppen, who followed the main army lines, killing all the people they could, "all potential leaders of society (meaning to wipe out the intelligentsia), all communists, Jews, Gypsies, guerrillas, saboteurs and those capable of resistance." on June 22, 1941. Which turned into a war of annihilation. The West was very fortunate not to face this type of war. The resources sent to Soviet Union helped, but wasn't the deciding factor as most tanks sent were incapable of facing German armor. The food was a variety to the soldiers meal. Soviet soldiers have fond memories of Spam. There were airplanes delivered. Of course it helped, but to claim that is why Soviet Union won is ludicrous. And USA and Soviet Union were only ones capable of winning such a war on their own, that's why a cold war followed as these two nations became suspicious afterwards of each other. And Poland got a very very bad deal during this war. Katyn woods is now mention a lot. It was a crime. Sad part of history. However, it is often used politically. Remember there was the Warsaw Uprising and the broken promises by the West of support that left 16,000 Polish underground fighters and nearly 200,000 citizens killed. Poland really got it bad. So their history needs to be respecting too. Peace everyone.
@Poland ... Without the help USSR you would be all sprechen Deutsch now .. including america
Professor Richard Overy remains close to the Western view of World War 11 by repeating falsifications and omitting major factors. Of the former I will mention only one: the long delay in Germany's starting an offensive was due partly to requests by the German High Command to Hitler; the generals wanted more time for troop preparation and the development, as we now know, of what became the world's first electronic warfare through radar and missiles. Hitler had no wish to invade Britain and hoped that Britain would ally herself with him. He waited for nine months before launching the blitzkrieg which Western historians use to START their evocations of the war; but in that time the British waged a naval war with vicious deliberation; then, when sinking and bombing Nazi naval vessels and an assault on a German naval base did not arouse Hitler's military response, Churchill staged a fatuous and futile invasion of Norway to further provoke a German offensive in Europe. It must not be forgotten that Britain declared war and Britain was the aggressor, although Western historians, by selective information, make the pompous little country appear the passive, and innocent, victim. Of Professor Overy's omissions I merely reiterate a well-known Soviet viewpoint about the Munich Agreement of 1938: the agreement permitted continual war production from the Skoda armaments factories; this added to Nazi weaponry and therefore increased the military threat to the Soviet Union. The Western strategy was to force a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Ultimately it succeeded, but not in the way the planners expected.
A very nice article, indeed. The poles had vastly overestimated their military capabiliies and were completely taken by surprise by the ruthless efficiency of the Nazi war machine. This was the Nazi juggernaut, that continued for so long, until derailed and finished off, after immense allied effort, with the Soviet Union taking a huge hit, to beat the Nazis on the ground. The only issue I would have with the article is to deal with the Chamberlain appeasement in a passive sense. This is the western propaganda representation. The Chamberlain appeasement was the Munich pact, its intention was 'to bring peace in our time'. This pact was everything other than passive, signed by the Nazis,British, French and Italians. Indeed it was an imperative active pact to strip Czechoslovakia of land to give to Nazi Germany, to try to avoid war. It was an instrument with ruthless consequences, ordering the removal of Czechs from their own territories, whilst leaving infrastructure intact and in the end leading ultimately to the breakaway and creation of the Slovakian state. The intention to try to avoid war is well understandable, it was the motive behind many efforts at the time. It was however, not a passive effort , but an active one with real consequences for the Czech people. It was a sign of the times.