This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I added on administrative regions.-- Molobo ( talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is a myth. While the other statements are indeed false and should be debunked, the question on whether Germans used or not the blitzkrieg strategy in Poland seems to be part of an ongoing academic debate. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, this is an encyclopedia; not snopes. Stick to the facts.-- 209.89.155.96 ( talk) 19:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Completely not true with this statement about dispersed Panzerdivisions.
See my posts here and here (I'm Domen):
http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9183&start=150
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=273070&highlight=France+1940
Guderian XIX Corps consisted of 2 Panzer (3. and 10.) and 2 Motorisiert (2. and 20.) divisions.
1. Panzer-Division and 4. Panzer-Division were gathered together in one (XVI) Corps during the campaign, and operated together - especially during the battles of Piotrkow Trybunalski and Tomaszow Mazowiecki and later also during the battle of Bzura - during both of these battles they had got the same specific main target and were both directed towards it.
2. Pz.Div. and 4. lei. Pz.Div. were also part of one and the same Corps (XXII) and strictly cooperated during the campaign.
Similar situation was with 2. lei. Pz.Div., 3. lei. Pz.Div. and 29. Motorisiert Division which were gathered in one Corps (XV) during the campaign, while 1. lei. Pz.Div. cooperated with 13. Motorisiert Division (as parts of XIV Corps) and later also with 29. Mot. Div. (as part of XV Corps this time) during the battle in Kampinoska Forest west of Warsaw and Modlin.
At the end of the campaign 13. and 29. motorized divisions were once again subordinated to the same Corps (XIV - 29. division was moved from XV to XIV Corps once again) and fought together during the battle of Kock.
So you have got at least 6 different groups dedicated to large mechanized operations beyond the tactical level (apart from the fact that even a single Panzer-Division is dedicated to operations beyond the tactical level ).
Of course this is not the whole story yet because also different Corpses were cooperating with each other.
For example XIV Corps was attacking next to XV Corps and next to XVI Corps while fighting against Polish Army "Prusy".
XXII Corps was cooperating with 5. Panzer-Division in Silesia.
5. Panzer-Division was also cooperating with XV Corps (2. and 3. Leichte, 29. Motorisiert) during the campaign, when attacking towards Radom.
During the battle of Bzura 3. Leichte was attacking Polish rears, while other fast divisions were fighting from the front.
Also 2. Leichte was supporting other fast units at the Bzura, fighting near Sochaczew and in the western part of Kampinoska Forest.
Moreover:
Have you ever heard about the "Fall 5 September"? - this was a huge and major outflanking operation (which failed - by the way - because of fierce Polish resistance, mainly near Chelm Lubelski and Wlodzimierz Wolynski) of encircling Polish forces and cutting them off from the territory of Eastern Poland by attacking along the Bug river. This operation was carried out by two huge German armoured-motorized groups - XIX Corps which was attacking from the north and XXII Corps which was attacking from the south. So you cannot say that these two huge armoured-motorized groups were not directed towards a specific Schwehrpunkt of the front, because they were.
That Schwehrpunkt of the front was - in this case - the city of Wlodawa.
But units of Guderian's XIX Corps were repulsed by Poles north from Chelm Lubelski (near Sawin) and units of XXII Corps near Wlodzimierz Wolynski (at the river Bug) and the whole operation failed.
This statement about infantry playing the most important role during the German operations in Poland is also completely not true. Let's just compare it with the Battle of France in 1940. It should be noticed that in Polenfeldzug Germans had got 63 divisions including 15 fast divisions (Panzer, Leichte Panzer, Motorisiert), which means that 24% of all German divisions in Poland were fast divisions. While in Westfeldzug in 1940 Germans had got 136 divisions, including only 16 fast divisions - which means that only 12% of all Germans divisions used in Westfeldzug were fast divisions.
That's why in Poland infantry fought much less of the conflict than in Westfeldzug, and tanks fought much more.
Against Western countries in 1940 Germany deployed 10 Panzerdivisionen and 6 motorized infantry divisions : 2.ID (mot), 13.ID (mot), 20.ID (mot), 29.ID (mot), SS Totenkopf (mot), SS Verfügung (mot).
While against Poland Germany deployed: 7 Panzerdivisionen (1 - 5, 10, "Kempf"), 4 Leichte [Panzer] Divisionen (1 - 4), 4 motorized divisions (2, 13, 20, 29), independent SS motorized regiments and smaller units (regiments: Germania, Leibstandarte), 2 independent tank battalions and some smaller tank units (battalions: I./P.R.23 and I./P.R.10), independent reconnaissance battalion (ALA):
But let's compare number of Panzer-Motorisiert units in these divisions listed above deployed by Germany against Poland and against Western Europe:
I. Against Poland:
34 tank battalions (3. Pz.Div. - 5; 1., 2., 4., 5. Pz.Div. - 4 each; 10., "Kempf" Pz.Div. - 2 each; 1. Lei.Div. - 3; 2. Lei.Div. - 2; 3., 4. Lei.Div. - 1 each; indep. - 2)
33 companies of armoured cars
75 battalions of motorized infantry
7 mot. bat.
6 mot. heavy field artillery battalions
32 mot. light field artillery battalions
41 mot. AT companies
13 mot. AA companies
41 mot. sapper companies
14 mot. pontoon columns
II. Against Western Europe (including also SS Grossdeutschland regiment and smaller units - like in Poland):
35 tank battalions
29 companies of armoured cars
6 Stug companies
83 battalions of motorized infantry
9 mot. bat.
8 mot. heavy field artillery battalions
34 mot. light field artillery battalions
44 mot. AT companies
49 mot. sapper companies
19 mot. pontoon columns
The difference is:
"In plus" for Western Europe:
- 1 tank bat., 8 mot. infantry battalions, 2 mot. bat., 2 mot. heavy artillery bat., 2 mot. light artillery bat., 3 mot. AT comp., 8 mot. sapper comp., 6 Stug comp.
"In minus" for Western Europe:
- 4 armoured cars comp.
= an equivalent (more or less) of around one Leichte Division from 1939 "in plus" for Western Europe.
Thus both the statement that the tactics used in Poland was not Blitzkrieg and the statement that infantry played more significant role during the Polish campaign than fast units are completely not true.
Best regards, Peter558 ( talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Aftermath: Capture and transfer of German code engine begins the Ultra project which helped the Allies. This was the greatest loss the Germans had in the invasion of Poland. And they never knew it until after they were defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 ( talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
At least one reliable, though non specialist, source supports the "myth". http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/invasion_poland_05.shtml
Perhaps it would be best to state how many planes were destroyed on the ground, how many in the air and how many interned. It is otherwise a sterile comment, since it is obvious that no single event will explain what happened to Polish air forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.38.36 ( talk) 10:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead states that the country lost 20 percent of its population however the World War II casualties article claims 14.3% to 17.2% of its pre-war population and cites a pretty huge list of soures.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 11:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we translate the codenames of German and Polish military plans and operations to English ? Case White and Plan West or Fall Weiß and Plan Zachód ? This should be consistent across the article. -- Lysy talk 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Quotation:
"The claim that Polish air force inflicted "significant damage on the Luftwaffe" isn't supported by the citation provided (which actually says that the "Luftwaffe ruled the skies" from the start of the war."
Because Luftwaffe didn't rule the skies from the start of the war, but rather approximately from the beginning of the 2nd week of the war (although not completely).
The fact is that both in the Polish Campaign and later in Fall Gelb as well as in Fall Rot, Luftwaffe suffered over 50% of its casualties (Fall Weiss - 56%, Fall Gelb - 57%, Fall Rot - 56%) during the first 7 days of these campaigns. And the truth statement would be, that Luftwaffe ruled the skies from the second week of these campaigns, also in case of the Polish Campaign. Although in case of the Polish Campaign Luftwaffe gained complete domination in the air only after the withdrawal of Polish Air Force to Romania, on 18.09.1939. This evacuation was of course caused by the Soviet Invasion of Poland. And since then - since 18.09.1939 - Polish fighters didn't achieve any victories. All victories of Polish air force were achieved in period 01.09.1939 - 17.09.1939, majority in the first week.
To support my opinion I can say that Marius Emmerling (although I don't agree with his books in many cases) in his "Luftwaffe over Poland", also writes that Germans established domination over the Polish skies since approximately 07.09.1939. Domination in this case doesn't of course mean that the Polish Air Force was completely defeated (as I wrote, the last victories of Polish fighter planes were achieved on 17.09.1939, also some Russian planes were shot down by Polish fighters then - later that day Polish fighters were ordered to retreat to Romania, which took place on 18 IX).
In case of percentage of Luftwaffe casualties suffered during the first week, I am also basing on Emmerling (in case of the Polish campaign) - as he gives the breakdowns of casualties by day in his books (also breakdown by type of planes lost). In case of the Fall Gelb and Fall Rot I am basing on a forum statement of one French user, he was basing on a compilation of many reliable sources.
Peter558 ( talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
My sources concur with the point of air superiority being between the first and second weeks. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that we can agree that Luftwaffe gained almost complete air superiority somewhere between the first and second weeks. But if it comes to serious damage inflicted to Luftwaffe by Polish fighter planes, here are some opinions of Polish enemies about Polish fighters (mainly), quoted in the book "Behold! The Polish-Americans" by Joseph Wytrwal - in general they are praising Polish pilots:
http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=46647.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way:
Paying tribute to the Polish High Command for disorganization and the loss of communications is very accurate - it was, unfortunately, largely the credit of Polish High Command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Peter558 ( talk) 14:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"BTW it is not clear for me why the sections are named Phase 1: German invasion, Phase 2: Soviet invasion"
Well, to me it is also not clear. First of all - I would divide this campaign for much more than just 2 phases.
I would distinguish the following phases (although I am not sure how to name them, because most of them had got more than just one main, most important event / feature):
Phase I (01.09.1939 – 03.09.1939
Phase II (04.09.1939 – 07.09.1939)
Phase III (08.09.1939 – 12.09.1939)
Phase IV (12.09.1939 – 16.09.1939)
Phase V (17.09.1939 – 23.09.1939)
Phase VI (24.09.1939 – 30.09.1939)
Phase VII (01.10.1939 – 06.10.1939)
As you can see this includes 4 phases before the Soviet Invasion of Poland and 3 phases since the Soviet Invasion of Poland until the end.
Soon I will write more about these phases here (brief descriptions of each phase and explanations why in my opinion such a division is a very good idea).
Not only I would divide the campaign for these seven phases, but also for three "operational theatres" - Northern (German Army Group "North" and Polish forces fighting against it), Western (German 10. and 8. Armies from Army Group "South" and Polish forces fighting against them) and Southern (German 14. Army from Army Group "South" and Polish forces fighting against them). And of course since 17.09.1939 also for the Soviet theatre (or maybe even two - Northern, so Belarussian Front and Polish forces facing it; and Southern, so Ukrainian Front and Polish forces facing it).
But this last division (for theatres) is not so necessary, enough to describe events in this order (from the North to the South, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Peter558 ( talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
For example Janusz Piekalkiewicz in his "Polski Wrzesien [...]" divides the campaign into 8 phases (so close to my proposition of 7 phases). The only difference is that he uses a bit different time frames for each phase (1 - 3; 4 - 6; 7 - 9; 10 - 11; 12 - 14; 15 - 16; 17 - 18; 19 IX - 6 X). But I think that my proposition of time frames is better and as I wrote I will present brief descriptions of each phase here and you will conclude why such a division is good (or not, if you will not agree with me). Maybe I will do this during this week, if not then I will do this on this Friday / Saturday.
Peter558 ( talk) 21:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I changed my mind because I already have the initial version of this brief description (so there is no point in waiting until Friday / Saturday with posting it here, eventually I can add something on Friday / correct any mistakes then). Here it is:
Phase I is the bulk of the so called battle of the border (this includes the dash of Guderian and other German forces through the Corridor which resulted in some heavy fightings against Army “Pomorze”, this also includes the bloody battle for Polish fortifications near Mlawa, the battle of Ciechanow, battles near Czestochowa, battles for Silesia, initial combats in the Coastal region, initial battles of Army “Lodz” against German forces) – I say that it is the bulk of the battle of the border because in some places this battle lasted for longer than 3 days (but the rest of the story will be told in Phase 2).
Phase II is the ending phase of the battle of the border (in places where it lasted longer than 3 days) and the battle for the so called "main defensive line”, the collapse of the Polish frontline took place during this phase in several places. For example after defeating Northern Grouping of Army "Prusy" in a 4-days long battle of Piotrkow Trybunalski and Tomaszow Mazowiecki, Germans opened their way to Warsaw on 07.09.1939 and reached it in the evening on 08.09.1939, on the next day they - 4th Panzer-Division - attempted to capture Warsaw but were repulsed suffering heavy casualties. The failed attempt of capturing Warsaw marked the beginning of the battle for Warsaw, which lasted until 28.09.1939 (on 13.09.1939 Germans also reached Warsaw from the north-eastern side). Also in Southern Poland on 07.09.1939 German forces crossed the Dunajec and Nida rivers before Poles could organize an efficient defense there, on the next day the bloody battle of Biskupice Radlowskie took place in this area. In Northern Poland the end of this phase was marked by the capitulation of Westerplatte and in North-Eastern Poland combats for the river Narew took place during this phase.
Phase III is the Polish counteroffensive at the Bzura (which seriously shaken the German 8th Army and caused temporary but serious problems to the whole German plan of war against Poland), but not only, because at the same time important events also took place near Radom (Southern Grouping of Army "Prusy" was defeated, however the battles against Southern Grouping of Army "Prusy" which led to its defeat started yet during the 2nd Phase – namely on 05.09.1939), in North-Eastern Poland (the defence of the Bug river, German forces - Guderian's XIX. Panzer-Korps - broke through the Wizna position) and in Southern Poland (Polish Army "Cracow" started its withdrawal towards the river San in order to organize a further defensive line there, after the attempt of defending Nida and Dunajec failed, German armoured-motorized forces of 14. Army started their raid towards the San river, crossing the southern part of the San before the main forces of Army "Cracow" could get there and after a two-days long battle fought against Polish Group "Jaroslaw" and 10th Motorized Brigade on 10.09.1939 and 11.09.1939). By the end of Phase III German forces in Southern Poland also managed to reach Lvov, but were repulsed while trying to capture it on 12.09.1939 (which resulted in the battle of Lvov, lasting until 22.09.39 with participation of the Soviet forces in it since 19.09.1939).
The beginning of phase four is marked by the end of the Polish offensive at the Bzura and beginning of the German counteroffensive there (Germans managed to get the situation under control there). It is also marked by the Polish withdrawal from the line of the river Bug (marschall Rydz-Smigly ordered these forces to withdraw to the Romanian Bridgehead, the defense of which was also a newly born conception after all other plans failed), followed by bloody pursuit battles in that area. During this phase German forces managed to cross the river Vistula near Annopol and Solec against the resistance of Polish Army “Lublin” (this took place between 12 and 13.09.1939) and then advanced towards Lublin (which was captured after some heavy combats on 18.09.1939 in the morning). During this phase combats against remnants of Southern Grouping of Army “Prusy” were still in progress on the western bank of the Vistula river. Also combats against Army “Cracow” along the line of the northern part of the San river were in progress. In the Coastline region combats for Gdynia and Kepa Oksywska were still in progress and entered into their most bloody phase. Combats for Warsaw (including Praga – the district of Warsaw located on the eastern side of Vistula) were in progress, Germans were approaching fortress Modlin against heavy Polish resistance and then started its siege. Also during this phase heavy combats in North-Eastern Poland were in progress, this includes combats near Zambrow and Andrzejewo (during which Polish 18th Infantry Division was destroyed), combats for Fortress Brest Litovsk, which Germans were not able to capture for many days, combats for Kobryn (situation similar as with Fortress Brest), Bialystok and many others. Also heavy combats for Lwow and to the west and north from Lwow (including the battle of Przemysl) were in progress. In this phase of the campaign combats for Gdynia and Kepa Oksywska ended (on 19.09.1939).
The beginning of phase V is marked by one of the most important events of the Polish Campaign – the Soviet Invasion of Poland. During this phase the final stage of the battle of Bzura and Kampinoska forest also took place. In Southern Poland the second biggest battle of this campaign is fought – the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski. The first phase of this battle ends on 20.09.1939 together with capitulation of Army “Cracow” and the second phase of this battle starts practically on the same day – on 20.09.1939 – with an offensive of Polish Northern Front which was launched in order to help Army “Cracow”, but of course too late – as we can see. The second phase of the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski ended on 27.09.1939, although since 23.09.1939 Soviet forces entered this battle from the east and started to participate in it. 23.09.1939 was also the beginning of German counteroffensive near Tomaszow Lubelski (which was the turning point of this battle), to which Soviet forces soon joined from the east. Also during this period the battle of Lwow came to an end (Lwow surrendered to Russian forces on 22.09.1939) as well as combats in the area to the west from Lwow, where Germans and Soviets destroyed the Polish Operational Group “South” under command of general Sosnkowski after some heavy combats. During this phase the last combats of Guderian’s XIX. Panzer-Korps in Poland took place. He managed to capture Brest and he also managed to finally capture Kobryn – but in this last case he managed to capture Kobryn only thanks to the fact that Polish forces were ordered to withdraw from it due to the Soviet invasion of Poland. At the same time Guderian failed to capture Chelm Lubelski after being defeated during the battle of Sawin – Lowcza fought against elements of Polish Northern Front. During this period of the campaign Polish forces (including Air Force) in South-Eastern Poland are ordered to withdraw to Romania and Hungary and Polish government as well as High Command retreat to Romania on 18.09.1939. Phase V was also the period when major part of Polish vs Soviet Belarussian Front battles took place. This includes the three-days long defence of Grodno (20.09.1939 – 22.09.1939), the defence of Wilno (18.09.1939 – 19.09.1939) as well as big part of important operations of the Ukrainian Front.
During the Phase VI of the campaign the final stage of the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski came to an end. Simultaneously the battle of Rawa Ruska and the battle of Janow Lubelski came to an end, which ended major combats of German forces in South-Eastern Poland. During the same phase the final assault on Warsaw took place – the assault achieved only fragmentary successes, but despite that Warsaw surrendered on 28.09.1939 because its situation was very hard. Also the final assaults on Modlin took place and Modlin surrendered – part on 29.09.1939 and the remaining part on 30.09.1939. This marked the end of practically all major battles in Poland. The only resistance nest which was still resisting was the Hel Peninsula. There was also the Operational Group “Polesie” of general Kleeberg, it was involved in combats against the Soviets, but during the night from 01 to 02.10.1939 it started the last battle of the campaign against the Germans – the battle of Kock. Phase VI also includes the most important battles of the Ukrainian Front (including Tomaszow Lubelski, Szack, Wytyczno, Jablon, Milanow, Parczew, Borowicze – Nawoz - Husiatyn, etc.). Another considerable Polish force which was still continuing its resistance after the 6th Phase ended, was the Group of colonel Zieleniewski (which is often forgotten). It fought mainly against Soviet forces.
Phase VII is the “October part” of the “September” campaign – last combats against last remnants of Polish forces and only three battles against organized, strong Polish forces - combats against the Group of Zieleniewski (which surrendered to the Soviet forces in the evening on 01.10.1939, this group numbered around 15,000 soldiers according to Soviet sources and around 10,000 according to Polish), the last combats at the Hel Peninsula (which surrendered to the Germans on 02.10.1939) and of course the last battle of the campaign - the battle of Kock against SGO "Polesie".
Peter558 ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
from the article- "At the same time, the British and the Poles were hinting to Berlin that they were willing to resume discussions – not at all how Hitler hoped to frame the conflict. Thus, he wavered and postponed his attack until 1 September managing to halt the entire invasion "in mid-leap"." having just read Albert Speer's 'Inside the Third Reich', Speer (A member of Hitler's inner circle) is very sure that the pause is due to Mussolini revoking his promises to give Germany military support in the event of a European war (the Italian forces dressed it up as a complaint about lack of military resources being provided by Germany). Hitler had to ensure the Italians were back on side before committing his troops to Poland, and did not like the damage to morale that a further wait could cause. Furey x ( talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states: The German plan for what became known as the September Campaign was devised by General Franz Halder, chief of the general staff... However, I believe this to be incorrect, either wholly or in part. The operational plan for the invasion of Poland was created by Erich von Manstein and Günther Blumentritt. I can document this via several sources. I would simply change the text of the article, but I am unclear on Halder's involvement in creating the plan. He may have come up with the general strategy, while Manstein and Blumentritt planned the operational details. Can anyone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revcasy ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the fact that Poland declared war on September 1 be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.126.87 ( talk) 19:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's have a look on the infobox in Russian Civil War. There are 3 columns: Communists, Entente and Central Powers. Don cossacks are in the column of Entente, however they had strong Pro-German (Central Power) orientation and pro-Entente Whites (for example, Anton Denikin) tried to keep the distance of them. In Russian Wikipedia, infobox also has 3 columns, but in a little different way: Reds, Pro-German Whites, Pro-Entente Whites. Up your eyes, we see the quote 3 combatant division would be ridiculous because it would imply that Soviets and Germans fought against each other by User:Staberinde. But nobody cares, if English infobox of Russian Civil War imply that Don cossacks fought with Germany, nobody cares, if Russian infobox of the same article imply that Pro-German Whites (Krasnov) fought with Pro-Entente Whites (Denikin). Of course, Russian Civil War is much more complicated than invasion of Poland. However, we has a precedent: two sides didn't combat each other in some conflict, but they are in different columns cause they weren't allies. -- 95.52.89.126 ( talk) 05:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Warsaw1939parade.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
Shouldn't File:Second World War Europe.png and File:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg show Bohemia and Moravia as part of Germany, as they had actually been annexed, not merely occupied? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all - Blitzkrieg itself is not a myth. Russian historians found the best definition of German Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg (in its German version - because there was also a Soviet version of Blitzkrieg, the best example of which is the Vistula - Oder operation in September of 1945) is an elitaristic, bourgeois conception which relies on high combat value of well-equipped, elite units which constitute the minority of armed forces, not on massive mechanized armies as in the Soviet version (source: Christopher Duffy, "Red Storm on the Reich", page 64).
Secondly - Blitzkrieg in Poland happened and in some ways in Poland it happened more than anywhere else. The stupid myth that in Poland Panzer divisions operated separately and large concentrations of armour were not present can be found for example in "The Blitzkrieg Legend" written by Frieser, but this myth is completely false. On page 18 of "The Blitzkrieg Legend" we can find:
"[...] during the Polish campaign German armor was not yet employed independently on operational level either at the corps or army echelons. Instead the Panzer formations on the tactical level usually fought in a divisional framework." - both the claim that in Poland Germans didn't have armoured corps and the claim that Panzer division is a formation designed to work on tactical level (even single Panzer division is a formation clearly designed to complete operational tasks) are false. In fact Germans had got plenty of armoured-motorized Corps in Poland in 1939 - XIX., XVI., XV., XIV., XXII., some of them even cooperated with each other, for example XVI., XV. and XIV. or XIX. and XXII.
In Poland one of the biggest concentrations of armour per each kilometre of the frontline in WW2 took place (for example during the battles of Piotrkow Trybunalski - Tomaszow Mazowiecki, during the battle of Radom, during the initial German advance and battles near Czestochowa).
I explained it clearly in my (Domen121 / Domen123) posts on these forums:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=137912&p=1384598#p1384598
http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=25632&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105
Peter558 ( talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a copy of my response to this here as you seem to be doing the rounds of the various articles:
Peter, the dominant position in academic literature is it didn't exist. Infact the most ardent historians are Germans. To suggest Blitzkrieg existed it to proffer the now discredited theory that the Germans intended to achieve their total aims by a series of short campaigns. This was not the case. The websites you offer don't come close to being first class academic sources, and they are typical of the rubbish that exist on the internet. And I have the book by Frieser - he does not argue that Blitzkrieg was actioned in Poland - infact his whole thesis is that Blitzkrieg was a myth! He calls it a world-wide delusion. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There isn't much more to say on the subject. The Polish campaign did not see large concentrations of Panzerkorps bunched into armoured spearheads as was the case in 1940 - 1941. I must also add that Duffy's assertion that Soviet deep battle was influenced by or the same as the so-called Blitzkrieg method is totally false. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Peter, the dominant position in academic literature is it didn't exist.
What academic literature? Please provde some titles. And by the way - you are probably talking about Anglo-American academic literature only.
And I don't think that the Anglo-American academic literature stands on the highest level of all world's academic literatures... Especially if it comes to the Polish Campaign, hardly anything good and standing on a high factual level was produced on this subject by Anglo-American historians so far (with a very few exceptions from the rule).
The Polish campaign did see large concentrations of armour, but when comparing with the 1940 campaign you should remember about the compression of the theatre of war operations in 1940 (compare the length of the German-Franco frontline in Fall Gelb to this in Fall Weiss, and also take into consideration that in Fall Gelb both sides had got much bigger armies).
To suggest Blitzkrieg existed it to proffer the now discredited theory that the Germans intended to achieve their total aims by a series of short campaigns.
Blitzkrieg is not a matter of the speed of execution only, but rather a matter of "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" and other things.
The phenomenon of a Panzer-Division itself is a part of Blitzkrieg (a Panzer-Division is nothing else than realization of the "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" conception in practice - it consists of armoured vehicles, infantry and artillery - three completely different "Waffen" - in the best possible proportion).
The Soviet deep-battle was completely different than the German Blitzkrieg. The Soviet conception was in fact better (at least they had got huge reserves, while according to the German conception all forces should be sent on the first line at once), but resulted in similar results (see for example the Vistula - Oder operation in January of 1945 or the Manchurian Campaign also in 1945).
Peter558 ( talk) 21:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point of view (and I partially agree):
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=539043
"USSR have the deep battle and the Germans used blitzkrieg. What about the Western Allies? I searched online but I couldn't get straight answers."
"The Germans did not exclusively use Blitzkrieg. In reality, the operational doctrines of every nation were remarkably similar (Deep Battle is nothing more than "We have reserves" taken to a logical conclusion)."
Peter558 ( talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The text as it is currently presented focuses, almost strictly, on defending the Polish side. I believe most of the information is relevant but the method of presentation is lacking. In my view, the information would be best incorporated directly into the main body of the text with the individual myth paragraphs possibly serving as notes to provide context.
Thoughts? -- Labattblueboy ( talk) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Churchill - several of the "myths" can be found in Winston Churchill's "The Gathering Storm" (1948 edition) - such as cavalry lances & swords attacking tanks; many of the Polish planes being destroyed on the ground;characterization of the German campaign as Blitzkreig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.9 ( talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this entire "Blitzkrieg was first used in Poland" myth should be deleted.
By the way - during previous discussion (see points 2. and 9.) there were claims that "Blitzkrieg" did not exist at all (both in Poland and in all other campaigns).
If so - if Blitzkrieg did not exist at all - there is absolutely no need to repeat in this article, that it also didn't exist in Poland.
But my question is:
If not Blitzkrieg, then how can we call the actual German strategy of 1939 - 1941 campaigns? Maybe this entire argument has no purpose - it seems we are arguing only about pure terminology. Whether someone called the actual German strategy "Blitzkrieg" or "Coca Cola" or "Heyah Hoah" - doesn't really matter. :)
I mean - how can someone argue, that "Blitzkrieg does not exist", if "Blitzkrieg" is clearly nothing more and nothing less but the word invented in order to describe the actual and real German strategy implemented during their campaigns of 1939 - 1941, no matter what was the real nature of that strategy?
Peter558 ( talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If this article is to exemplify the "best of Wikipedia," the first item on the agenda, in my opinion, is to correct the numerous infelicities of style and grammar which plague the writing. Some sections sound as if they were "Google-translated" and significantly slow down one's absorption and understanding of the article's substance. I have tried to start this process of revision with a few minor corrections, but it is a time-consuming activity which I can't see to its conclusion. There is much good information here, but it needs a better presentation. Drichter53 ( talk) 22:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drichter53 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
re this restore, it's per the source and does not misrepresent it. (See my talk.) The issue is that the quote itself does not directly indicate doubts although the author devotes considerable content to the question. The two don't necessarily need to be together in the article, so some copy editing might be worthwhile. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Instead of naming as "myths" certain widely-propagated falsehoods, which only serves to propagate them further and to use the word "myth" in a journalistic (not encyclopaedic) way, we should simply keep the text accurate and remove any widely-believed inaccuracies that are added. There is no need to single out a fate the Polish air force did not suffer and debunk it when the article could just tell us what actually happened to the Polish air force. 216.8.148.227 ( talk) 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
i agree.. no other invasion article contains 'myths' section
93.97.55.148 (
talk)
12:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)web
Yup. This kind of 'setting the facts straight' argument that is not really suitable for an encyclopedia entry -- there's too much of the whiff of historical revisionism about it.
It would make more sense to explore each of these either:
a) as an individual article, referenced as appropriate from this main article, or b) in the text of the article itself.
Either way, it should not be in this article.
I like the myths provides good information for people who don't know better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.216.162 ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
-- 75.101.102.22 ( talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC) TL 7-jan-2012
By that logic, anti-semitic tropes and the like should have zero mention on Wikipedia either, because hey, they're not true! therefore not notable! Just present the dry facts about the Jewish people and do your best to pretend all those messy lies never amounted to anything worth writing in an encyclopedia about. Readers can deduce everything by it's complete absence of mention.
Would that sound right to you? Treating pervasive distortions as non-notable on the grounds that they are untrue (thus not encyclopedic), strikes me as more biased and agenda-driven than mentioning and addressing them.
The section as it stands is rather ill-concieved, but deliberately hiding these notable distortions and how they compare to the actual facts strikes me as grossly inappropriate. Removing this content implies that the Wikipedia record raises no major objection to the Nazi propagandists' version of events.
This information needs to go somewhere. I'm not saying where or how but I am making clear there is no consensus for simply throwing it in the bin as long I have a say. Thanks for listening. -- 67.20.248.170 ( talk) 09:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Other articles on battles, invasions and wars make their casus belli clear. This one is vague though. Why? Here is Hitler in his own words in his own speeches explaining why he viewed the invasion as necessary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Q5AbhMPcM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9xCU-udM_8 This is not original research. 184.96.199.196 ( talk) 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(od) Alas, Lothar is correct, I was thinking of the invasion of Russia, not enough coffee this morning. (!) The "cause" was, in part, Hitler's correct assessment that Britain and France would not put troops on the ground to honor their treatment commitment and defend Poland. And so far, whatever Hitler had demanded, Hitler had received, only reinforcing his expansionist ambitions. Placating the schoolyard bully only guarantees more of the same.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK
02:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, my more general point was that in some circumstances it doesn't really make sense to ask "what was the real casus beli". Of course there were "official" ones, the 1 through 3 above. But basically, Hitler invaded Poland because he could. VolunteerMarek 02:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think this section about the casus belli really shows that the current article is allied war propaganda. The dispute about Danzig, the wish for a road connection to east prussia as well as the harrassment of the German and ukrainian minorities in Poland were the casus belli. There is no evidence whatsoever that "Lebensraum" was a motive for war. Nowhere does the article mention that Poland refused to negotiate about these topics. Instead Poland prepared for war after it had acquired the guarantees from France and Britain. Poland wanted war. Pilava ( talk) 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The USSR and the German Reich did not engage in combat during the invasion of Poland, granted, but to have them listed as allies in the infobox is imho totally misleading. The two were not allies or even co-belligerents - they were simply in military conflict with Poland at the same time. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did not conclude any formal alliance between the two powers or provide for any serious military collaboration between Germans and Soviets against Poland, it merely assured each power that the other would not oppose an acquisition of a defined share of Polish territory. (Though from a Polish perspective I can see how the two seem like the "evil alliance" against Poland.) I propose the Soviet union be placed as combatant3 in the infobox. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The new infobox looks good to me. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Herr DIREKTOR has not provided any sources to back up such claims like "The two were not allies or even co-belligerents" vs. well documented and verified Nazi Soviet alliance in 1939, the suggestion to add Soviet Union as combatant3 doesn't make much sense.-- Termer ( talk) 04:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you can't take a hint: please stop with the patronizing attitude, especially in light of your obvious bias and lack of knowledge in the subject. There are so many things so utterly wrong with your post... I'll answer your post completely so that these do not remain empty words:
Please, if you want to discuss, try to stick to the subject and avoid making remarks regarding your opponent. Do I tell you that you are biased, can't take a hint, have patronizing attitude, lack knowledge, are not "scientific" etc. ? In fact of your statements I very well could. Nevertheless, Soviet Russia's imperialistic strategy is well documented in history and was the major motion of Soviet international relations from the beginning. Cooperation with the Nazis was a great opportunity for the Soviets and they tried to took the advantage of that as much as they could. The facts are that in 1939 the Soviets and Nazis were allies and that it's not the Soviets but the Nazis, who refused an even closer pact in 1940. You can speculate on Stalin's cunning intentions, but the facts speak for themselves. -- Lysy talk 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Support: I found the 3 combatant division to be rather helpful in terms of organization. --
Labattblueboy (
talk)
14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
3 combatant division would be ridiculous because it would imply that Soviets and Germans fought against each other.-- Staberinde ( talk) 15:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that direktor, in spite of writting many posts, has failed to answer my main point and that is that nowhere did the infobox say that the Nazis and Soviets were in a military alliance but rather that they both fought against Poland. (As a minor point I'd also add that he went on that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a millitary alliance something which I didn't even claim, I only said there was an alliance). Anyway while I'd prefer the former version of the infobox, from my point of view the current solution is acceptable compromise, the line makes a clear distinction between the Nazi and the Soviet forces so... Loosmark ( talk) 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Interestingly, the same people who oppose the 3 combatant box here worked on the Estonian article. It looks like double standards.
I must note that such claim in a comment that was directly replying to me is a bit disturbing, considering that I have never edited
Estonia in World War II nor its talk page. I would appreciate that in future then directly replying to me you would either refrain from such accusations, or address them directly to appropriate people, instead of making generalized statements about "opposing side". That being said, I am personally not sure if article like Estonia in World War II should have such infobox at all, anyway there actually were clashes between pro-independence and German forces and they actually were mentioned on article's talk page in a comment to what you replied less than 2 months ago
[5]. But enough of this other article, 3 combatant infobox indicates that all 3 parties were actively fighting against each other, in current situation it would be simply misleading, also I would say that current solution(at the moment I am writing this comment) already suitably separates Germany-Slovakia and Soviet Union.--
Staberinde (
talk)
08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I see, in the talk to WW2InfoBox it was proved that USSR wasn't co-belligirent with Germany. There were used strict definitions of belligerent and co-belligerence. So, USSR should be moved to third column unless somebody show strategic cooperation between Wehrmacht and Red Army. -- 95.55.225.26 ( talk) 07:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Operational and tactical cooperation is not enough? Must be strategic?
Peter558 ( talk) 17:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.23.121 ( talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Mygawd, could this article be anymore biased than it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.183.6 ( talk) 08:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Quote from the article:
However, with the surprise signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August, the denouncement of secret Nazi-Soviet talks held in Moscow, Germany neutralized the possibility of Soviet opposition to a campaign against Poland and war became imminent. In fact, the Soviets agreed to aid Germany in the event of France or the UK going to war with Germany over Poland and, in a secret protocol of the pact, the Germans and the Soviets agreed to divide Eastern Europe, including Poland, into two spheres of influence; the western ⅓ of the country was to go to Germany and the eastern ⅔ to the Soviet Union.
I've never heard the highlighted claim before. It's not on the page for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and it's unsourced here. Does anyone know anything about it ? Pod ( talk) 15:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, in general I am working on the German Wiki, but: by accident I found out that the 8th army as part of the Army Group South ("Heeresgruppe Süd") is not listed in the legend of the map. So I redisigned the legend and uploaded an updated version of the map (now named: Poland1939_GermanPlanMap_with_8th-Army.jpg
I then replaced the map with mine but another wikipedian reversed this, because, he wrote, the subtitle of the legend reads: "mechanized units". Mechanized units according to him are only greater military units WITH tanks. I said on the contrary Okay the legend refers to mechanized units only but mechanized - so my argumentation - is not necessarily WITH tanks, as mechanized means mechanized and armoured means armourd. There are also mechanized infantry... I said that I'm still of the opinion that the 8th army in the map has been forgotten in the legend, be it mechanized or not. One could also make up a section in the legend for non-mechanized units (if the 8th army realy is not mechanized (in the sense of 'without any tanks' - what I still don't believe). In any way the legend is not complete what I tried to fix. Can somebody help? (link to the map on commons: Poland1939 GermanPlanMap with 8th-Army.jpg-- Dudy001 ( talk) 06:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody translate it (from German Wikipedia)-- Mullerkingdom ( talk) 22:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It is an absolute nosense to put Blitzkrieg as myth, when the overwhelming bulk of historians consider that the campaign of Poland was conducted under the parameters of the Blitzkrieg concept (it is absulutelly irrelevant if the word didn't exist then). A few, hand picked events of the campaign and the opinion of a handful of historians is not a solid base. In my opinion that part must be rewritten. -- 92.20.22.80 -- Bentaguayre ( talk) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)( talk) 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That Tarnow story is highly suspect, the person apprehended was actually a Pole that "confessed". Because he worked in Germany the connection was "established". -- 41.146.32.98 ( talk) 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to first address the fact that Danzig's annexation by Germany into the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia province isn't mentioned under the territorial changes part of the combat box chart. Why not? Danzig was a self governing, separate entity from Poland, so it's annexation isn't covered by the statement "Polish territory divided among Germany". Even under the "Location" part of the combat box Danzig is listed separately from Poland. An edit should be made here for the sake of accuracy and consistency.
Secondly, I argue that the Free City of Danzig should be list as a belligerent alongside Nazi Germany and Slovakia. The SS Heimwehr Danzig, an SS unit composed of Danzigers (don't know if that's the right term), and Danzig police officers assisted the Germans in expelling the Poles from within the Danzig Post Office and from the Westerplatte. I noticed editors did make the point that during the invasion the SS unit operated under German Army command, but it still doesn't account for the collaboration of the Danzig Police. The following photo shows the Danzig police with the German forces and the SS as the Polish postmen are lead away from their post office.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy beetle ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll set to work finding more reliable sources for the 2nd issue. And in regards to the first?
Indy beetle (
talk)
04:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This particular source (in German) http://www.deutscheundpolen.de/ereignisse/ereignis_jsp/key=polnische_post_1939.html is a project by some sort of media corporation made in conjunction with a TV documentary, designed to illustrate the history of Polish-German relations and whatnot. It states that Danzig authorities had planned on attacking Polish installations in the city in the event of a Polish-German War, and it says that the Danzig Police were the first to launch an attack on the city's Polish post office on September 1st.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Invasion of Poland. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I typed up the extensive quote below for a discussion on another Talk page, and it occurred to me that perhaps editors of this article would like to use it, since the discussion pertains to this topic.
The material cited is the excerpts from a conversation by two Luftwaffe men in British captivity in 1940; events described happened in Sept 1939. Their conversation were surreptitiously recorded by British intelligence:
Pohl: […] On the fourth day I was enjoying it. It was our before breakfast amusement to chase single soldiers through the fields […]
Meyer: But always against soldiers?
Pohl: People (civilians) too. We attacked the columns in the streets. […] We swerve to the left with all the machine guns firing like mad. You should have seen the horses stampede!
Meyer: Disgusting, that with the horses…
Pohl: I was sorry for the horses, but not at all for the people. But I was sorry for the horses up to the last day.
Meyer: One becomes dreadfully brutal in such undertakings.
Pohl: Yes, I’ve already said that on the first day it seemed terrible to me, but I said to myself: “Hell! Orders are orders.” On the second and third day I did not give a hoot, and on the fourth day I enjoyed it. But, as I said, the horses screamed. [….]
I was so annoyed when I was shot down; just before the second engine got hot, I suddenly had a Polish town beneath me. I dropped the bombs on it. I wanted to drop all the 32 bombs on the town. It was no longer possible, but 4 bombs dropped on the town. With 32 bombs, I would certainly have had 100 human lives on my conscience.
Meyer: Was there plenty of of traffic there?
Pohl: Chockablock. I wanted to drop a batch, because the whole place was full of people. […] It would have been great fun if it had come off. […] Sometimes I had 228 bombs, including 10kg bombs. We threw them into the midst of the people. And the soldiers. And incendiary bombs in addition.
Authors' commentary: “Pohl was taken out of the war long before the drastic escalation of violence that came with Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. […] He hunts down and kills people from the air, and he does not seem to be ideologically motivated when he describes bombarding cities and gunning down people. […] He enjoys killing and needs no other motivation. […] The senseless killing resembles a hunt, a sporting activity in which the only purpose is to be better than others, in this case, by hitting more people with bullets. That’s what angers Pohl about getting shot down. It spoiled the end of the hunt.”
Source:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Calistemon: More on the war crimes: up to 1942, it was not part of Luftwaffe's official doctrine to attack strictly civilian targets; so the airman above was committing a war crime, even by Wehrmacht's definition (cited via Soldaten). Separately, I randomly came across this 20-min interview with Neitze:
He addresses most of the question that you raised. Hope this helps. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
In the French and USSR campaigns, those taken prisoner for the defending side are clearly listed in the casualty boxes. But not for the Polish Campaign article. Would it not be better to make sure these articles are uniform? IIRC a POW is technically a casualty, so Polish POW during the campaign should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonnus ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Why did the British Empire and France only declare war on Germany? ( 165.120.157.246 ( talk) 22:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC))
Why did the British Empire and France only declare war on Germany, when it was a joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland? ( 109.147.136.10 ( talk) 17:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Obviously apologetic, has no place in an encyclopedia. The situation in 1939, attacked from both sides, was extremely dire for Poland, and they lost the defensive war. That's it, there is no reason to describe the outcomes of non-existing plans. (Also sounds slightly pathetic.)- 62.156.151.10 ( talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Weak point, obvious propaganda. The Polish Resistence Movement is legendary, but it shouldn't be part of this section.
Apply the same logic to WW II as a whole, and it's still going on. Nuts, change it.- 62.156.151.10 ( talk) 10:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Either move to the beginning or remove. Xx236 ( talk) 07:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Simple query that I would like answered. How much food production/consumption was there during this invasion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgchat ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Invasion of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Given that Estonia technically fought against Poland during the Orzel incident, shouldn't the Baltic country also be added to the infobox? Just a thought. 86.120.125.123 ( talk) 09:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I added on administrative regions.-- Molobo ( talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is a myth. While the other statements are indeed false and should be debunked, the question on whether Germans used or not the blitzkrieg strategy in Poland seems to be part of an ongoing academic debate. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, this is an encyclopedia; not snopes. Stick to the facts.-- 209.89.155.96 ( talk) 19:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Completely not true with this statement about dispersed Panzerdivisions.
See my posts here and here (I'm Domen):
http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9183&start=150
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=273070&highlight=France+1940
Guderian XIX Corps consisted of 2 Panzer (3. and 10.) and 2 Motorisiert (2. and 20.) divisions.
1. Panzer-Division and 4. Panzer-Division were gathered together in one (XVI) Corps during the campaign, and operated together - especially during the battles of Piotrkow Trybunalski and Tomaszow Mazowiecki and later also during the battle of Bzura - during both of these battles they had got the same specific main target and were both directed towards it.
2. Pz.Div. and 4. lei. Pz.Div. were also part of one and the same Corps (XXII) and strictly cooperated during the campaign.
Similar situation was with 2. lei. Pz.Div., 3. lei. Pz.Div. and 29. Motorisiert Division which were gathered in one Corps (XV) during the campaign, while 1. lei. Pz.Div. cooperated with 13. Motorisiert Division (as parts of XIV Corps) and later also with 29. Mot. Div. (as part of XV Corps this time) during the battle in Kampinoska Forest west of Warsaw and Modlin.
At the end of the campaign 13. and 29. motorized divisions were once again subordinated to the same Corps (XIV - 29. division was moved from XV to XIV Corps once again) and fought together during the battle of Kock.
So you have got at least 6 different groups dedicated to large mechanized operations beyond the tactical level (apart from the fact that even a single Panzer-Division is dedicated to operations beyond the tactical level ).
Of course this is not the whole story yet because also different Corpses were cooperating with each other.
For example XIV Corps was attacking next to XV Corps and next to XVI Corps while fighting against Polish Army "Prusy".
XXII Corps was cooperating with 5. Panzer-Division in Silesia.
5. Panzer-Division was also cooperating with XV Corps (2. and 3. Leichte, 29. Motorisiert) during the campaign, when attacking towards Radom.
During the battle of Bzura 3. Leichte was attacking Polish rears, while other fast divisions were fighting from the front.
Also 2. Leichte was supporting other fast units at the Bzura, fighting near Sochaczew and in the western part of Kampinoska Forest.
Moreover:
Have you ever heard about the "Fall 5 September"? - this was a huge and major outflanking operation (which failed - by the way - because of fierce Polish resistance, mainly near Chelm Lubelski and Wlodzimierz Wolynski) of encircling Polish forces and cutting them off from the territory of Eastern Poland by attacking along the Bug river. This operation was carried out by two huge German armoured-motorized groups - XIX Corps which was attacking from the north and XXII Corps which was attacking from the south. So you cannot say that these two huge armoured-motorized groups were not directed towards a specific Schwehrpunkt of the front, because they were.
That Schwehrpunkt of the front was - in this case - the city of Wlodawa.
But units of Guderian's XIX Corps were repulsed by Poles north from Chelm Lubelski (near Sawin) and units of XXII Corps near Wlodzimierz Wolynski (at the river Bug) and the whole operation failed.
This statement about infantry playing the most important role during the German operations in Poland is also completely not true. Let's just compare it with the Battle of France in 1940. It should be noticed that in Polenfeldzug Germans had got 63 divisions including 15 fast divisions (Panzer, Leichte Panzer, Motorisiert), which means that 24% of all German divisions in Poland were fast divisions. While in Westfeldzug in 1940 Germans had got 136 divisions, including only 16 fast divisions - which means that only 12% of all Germans divisions used in Westfeldzug were fast divisions.
That's why in Poland infantry fought much less of the conflict than in Westfeldzug, and tanks fought much more.
Against Western countries in 1940 Germany deployed 10 Panzerdivisionen and 6 motorized infantry divisions : 2.ID (mot), 13.ID (mot), 20.ID (mot), 29.ID (mot), SS Totenkopf (mot), SS Verfügung (mot).
While against Poland Germany deployed: 7 Panzerdivisionen (1 - 5, 10, "Kempf"), 4 Leichte [Panzer] Divisionen (1 - 4), 4 motorized divisions (2, 13, 20, 29), independent SS motorized regiments and smaller units (regiments: Germania, Leibstandarte), 2 independent tank battalions and some smaller tank units (battalions: I./P.R.23 and I./P.R.10), independent reconnaissance battalion (ALA):
But let's compare number of Panzer-Motorisiert units in these divisions listed above deployed by Germany against Poland and against Western Europe:
I. Against Poland:
34 tank battalions (3. Pz.Div. - 5; 1., 2., 4., 5. Pz.Div. - 4 each; 10., "Kempf" Pz.Div. - 2 each; 1. Lei.Div. - 3; 2. Lei.Div. - 2; 3., 4. Lei.Div. - 1 each; indep. - 2)
33 companies of armoured cars
75 battalions of motorized infantry
7 mot. bat.
6 mot. heavy field artillery battalions
32 mot. light field artillery battalions
41 mot. AT companies
13 mot. AA companies
41 mot. sapper companies
14 mot. pontoon columns
II. Against Western Europe (including also SS Grossdeutschland regiment and smaller units - like in Poland):
35 tank battalions
29 companies of armoured cars
6 Stug companies
83 battalions of motorized infantry
9 mot. bat.
8 mot. heavy field artillery battalions
34 mot. light field artillery battalions
44 mot. AT companies
49 mot. sapper companies
19 mot. pontoon columns
The difference is:
"In plus" for Western Europe:
- 1 tank bat., 8 mot. infantry battalions, 2 mot. bat., 2 mot. heavy artillery bat., 2 mot. light artillery bat., 3 mot. AT comp., 8 mot. sapper comp., 6 Stug comp.
"In minus" for Western Europe:
- 4 armoured cars comp.
= an equivalent (more or less) of around one Leichte Division from 1939 "in plus" for Western Europe.
Thus both the statement that the tactics used in Poland was not Blitzkrieg and the statement that infantry played more significant role during the Polish campaign than fast units are completely not true.
Best regards, Peter558 ( talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Aftermath: Capture and transfer of German code engine begins the Ultra project which helped the Allies. This was the greatest loss the Germans had in the invasion of Poland. And they never knew it until after they were defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 ( talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
At least one reliable, though non specialist, source supports the "myth". http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/invasion_poland_05.shtml
Perhaps it would be best to state how many planes were destroyed on the ground, how many in the air and how many interned. It is otherwise a sterile comment, since it is obvious that no single event will explain what happened to Polish air forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.38.36 ( talk) 10:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead states that the country lost 20 percent of its population however the World War II casualties article claims 14.3% to 17.2% of its pre-war population and cites a pretty huge list of soures.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 11:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we translate the codenames of German and Polish military plans and operations to English ? Case White and Plan West or Fall Weiß and Plan Zachód ? This should be consistent across the article. -- Lysy talk 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Quotation:
"The claim that Polish air force inflicted "significant damage on the Luftwaffe" isn't supported by the citation provided (which actually says that the "Luftwaffe ruled the skies" from the start of the war."
Because Luftwaffe didn't rule the skies from the start of the war, but rather approximately from the beginning of the 2nd week of the war (although not completely).
The fact is that both in the Polish Campaign and later in Fall Gelb as well as in Fall Rot, Luftwaffe suffered over 50% of its casualties (Fall Weiss - 56%, Fall Gelb - 57%, Fall Rot - 56%) during the first 7 days of these campaigns. And the truth statement would be, that Luftwaffe ruled the skies from the second week of these campaigns, also in case of the Polish Campaign. Although in case of the Polish Campaign Luftwaffe gained complete domination in the air only after the withdrawal of Polish Air Force to Romania, on 18.09.1939. This evacuation was of course caused by the Soviet Invasion of Poland. And since then - since 18.09.1939 - Polish fighters didn't achieve any victories. All victories of Polish air force were achieved in period 01.09.1939 - 17.09.1939, majority in the first week.
To support my opinion I can say that Marius Emmerling (although I don't agree with his books in many cases) in his "Luftwaffe over Poland", also writes that Germans established domination over the Polish skies since approximately 07.09.1939. Domination in this case doesn't of course mean that the Polish Air Force was completely defeated (as I wrote, the last victories of Polish fighter planes were achieved on 17.09.1939, also some Russian planes were shot down by Polish fighters then - later that day Polish fighters were ordered to retreat to Romania, which took place on 18 IX).
In case of percentage of Luftwaffe casualties suffered during the first week, I am also basing on Emmerling (in case of the Polish campaign) - as he gives the breakdowns of casualties by day in his books (also breakdown by type of planes lost). In case of the Fall Gelb and Fall Rot I am basing on a forum statement of one French user, he was basing on a compilation of many reliable sources.
Peter558 ( talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
My sources concur with the point of air superiority being between the first and second weeks. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that we can agree that Luftwaffe gained almost complete air superiority somewhere between the first and second weeks. But if it comes to serious damage inflicted to Luftwaffe by Polish fighter planes, here are some opinions of Polish enemies about Polish fighters (mainly), quoted in the book "Behold! The Polish-Americans" by Joseph Wytrwal - in general they are praising Polish pilots:
http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=46647.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way:
Paying tribute to the Polish High Command for disorganization and the loss of communications is very accurate - it was, unfortunately, largely the credit of Polish High Command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Peter558 ( talk) 14:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"BTW it is not clear for me why the sections are named Phase 1: German invasion, Phase 2: Soviet invasion"
Well, to me it is also not clear. First of all - I would divide this campaign for much more than just 2 phases.
I would distinguish the following phases (although I am not sure how to name them, because most of them had got more than just one main, most important event / feature):
Phase I (01.09.1939 – 03.09.1939
Phase II (04.09.1939 – 07.09.1939)
Phase III (08.09.1939 – 12.09.1939)
Phase IV (12.09.1939 – 16.09.1939)
Phase V (17.09.1939 – 23.09.1939)
Phase VI (24.09.1939 – 30.09.1939)
Phase VII (01.10.1939 – 06.10.1939)
As you can see this includes 4 phases before the Soviet Invasion of Poland and 3 phases since the Soviet Invasion of Poland until the end.
Soon I will write more about these phases here (brief descriptions of each phase and explanations why in my opinion such a division is a very good idea).
Not only I would divide the campaign for these seven phases, but also for three "operational theatres" - Northern (German Army Group "North" and Polish forces fighting against it), Western (German 10. and 8. Armies from Army Group "South" and Polish forces fighting against them) and Southern (German 14. Army from Army Group "South" and Polish forces fighting against them). And of course since 17.09.1939 also for the Soviet theatre (or maybe even two - Northern, so Belarussian Front and Polish forces facing it; and Southern, so Ukrainian Front and Polish forces facing it).
But this last division (for theatres) is not so necessary, enough to describe events in this order (from the North to the South, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Peter558 ( talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
For example Janusz Piekalkiewicz in his "Polski Wrzesien [...]" divides the campaign into 8 phases (so close to my proposition of 7 phases). The only difference is that he uses a bit different time frames for each phase (1 - 3; 4 - 6; 7 - 9; 10 - 11; 12 - 14; 15 - 16; 17 - 18; 19 IX - 6 X). But I think that my proposition of time frames is better and as I wrote I will present brief descriptions of each phase here and you will conclude why such a division is good (or not, if you will not agree with me). Maybe I will do this during this week, if not then I will do this on this Friday / Saturday.
Peter558 ( talk) 21:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I changed my mind because I already have the initial version of this brief description (so there is no point in waiting until Friday / Saturday with posting it here, eventually I can add something on Friday / correct any mistakes then). Here it is:
Phase I is the bulk of the so called battle of the border (this includes the dash of Guderian and other German forces through the Corridor which resulted in some heavy fightings against Army “Pomorze”, this also includes the bloody battle for Polish fortifications near Mlawa, the battle of Ciechanow, battles near Czestochowa, battles for Silesia, initial combats in the Coastal region, initial battles of Army “Lodz” against German forces) – I say that it is the bulk of the battle of the border because in some places this battle lasted for longer than 3 days (but the rest of the story will be told in Phase 2).
Phase II is the ending phase of the battle of the border (in places where it lasted longer than 3 days) and the battle for the so called "main defensive line”, the collapse of the Polish frontline took place during this phase in several places. For example after defeating Northern Grouping of Army "Prusy" in a 4-days long battle of Piotrkow Trybunalski and Tomaszow Mazowiecki, Germans opened their way to Warsaw on 07.09.1939 and reached it in the evening on 08.09.1939, on the next day they - 4th Panzer-Division - attempted to capture Warsaw but were repulsed suffering heavy casualties. The failed attempt of capturing Warsaw marked the beginning of the battle for Warsaw, which lasted until 28.09.1939 (on 13.09.1939 Germans also reached Warsaw from the north-eastern side). Also in Southern Poland on 07.09.1939 German forces crossed the Dunajec and Nida rivers before Poles could organize an efficient defense there, on the next day the bloody battle of Biskupice Radlowskie took place in this area. In Northern Poland the end of this phase was marked by the capitulation of Westerplatte and in North-Eastern Poland combats for the river Narew took place during this phase.
Phase III is the Polish counteroffensive at the Bzura (which seriously shaken the German 8th Army and caused temporary but serious problems to the whole German plan of war against Poland), but not only, because at the same time important events also took place near Radom (Southern Grouping of Army "Prusy" was defeated, however the battles against Southern Grouping of Army "Prusy" which led to its defeat started yet during the 2nd Phase – namely on 05.09.1939), in North-Eastern Poland (the defence of the Bug river, German forces - Guderian's XIX. Panzer-Korps - broke through the Wizna position) and in Southern Poland (Polish Army "Cracow" started its withdrawal towards the river San in order to organize a further defensive line there, after the attempt of defending Nida and Dunajec failed, German armoured-motorized forces of 14. Army started their raid towards the San river, crossing the southern part of the San before the main forces of Army "Cracow" could get there and after a two-days long battle fought against Polish Group "Jaroslaw" and 10th Motorized Brigade on 10.09.1939 and 11.09.1939). By the end of Phase III German forces in Southern Poland also managed to reach Lvov, but were repulsed while trying to capture it on 12.09.1939 (which resulted in the battle of Lvov, lasting until 22.09.39 with participation of the Soviet forces in it since 19.09.1939).
The beginning of phase four is marked by the end of the Polish offensive at the Bzura and beginning of the German counteroffensive there (Germans managed to get the situation under control there). It is also marked by the Polish withdrawal from the line of the river Bug (marschall Rydz-Smigly ordered these forces to withdraw to the Romanian Bridgehead, the defense of which was also a newly born conception after all other plans failed), followed by bloody pursuit battles in that area. During this phase German forces managed to cross the river Vistula near Annopol and Solec against the resistance of Polish Army “Lublin” (this took place between 12 and 13.09.1939) and then advanced towards Lublin (which was captured after some heavy combats on 18.09.1939 in the morning). During this phase combats against remnants of Southern Grouping of Army “Prusy” were still in progress on the western bank of the Vistula river. Also combats against Army “Cracow” along the line of the northern part of the San river were in progress. In the Coastline region combats for Gdynia and Kepa Oksywska were still in progress and entered into their most bloody phase. Combats for Warsaw (including Praga – the district of Warsaw located on the eastern side of Vistula) were in progress, Germans were approaching fortress Modlin against heavy Polish resistance and then started its siege. Also during this phase heavy combats in North-Eastern Poland were in progress, this includes combats near Zambrow and Andrzejewo (during which Polish 18th Infantry Division was destroyed), combats for Fortress Brest Litovsk, which Germans were not able to capture for many days, combats for Kobryn (situation similar as with Fortress Brest), Bialystok and many others. Also heavy combats for Lwow and to the west and north from Lwow (including the battle of Przemysl) were in progress. In this phase of the campaign combats for Gdynia and Kepa Oksywska ended (on 19.09.1939).
The beginning of phase V is marked by one of the most important events of the Polish Campaign – the Soviet Invasion of Poland. During this phase the final stage of the battle of Bzura and Kampinoska forest also took place. In Southern Poland the second biggest battle of this campaign is fought – the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski. The first phase of this battle ends on 20.09.1939 together with capitulation of Army “Cracow” and the second phase of this battle starts practically on the same day – on 20.09.1939 – with an offensive of Polish Northern Front which was launched in order to help Army “Cracow”, but of course too late – as we can see. The second phase of the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski ended on 27.09.1939, although since 23.09.1939 Soviet forces entered this battle from the east and started to participate in it. 23.09.1939 was also the beginning of German counteroffensive near Tomaszow Lubelski (which was the turning point of this battle), to which Soviet forces soon joined from the east. Also during this period the battle of Lwow came to an end (Lwow surrendered to Russian forces on 22.09.1939) as well as combats in the area to the west from Lwow, where Germans and Soviets destroyed the Polish Operational Group “South” under command of general Sosnkowski after some heavy combats. During this phase the last combats of Guderian’s XIX. Panzer-Korps in Poland took place. He managed to capture Brest and he also managed to finally capture Kobryn – but in this last case he managed to capture Kobryn only thanks to the fact that Polish forces were ordered to withdraw from it due to the Soviet invasion of Poland. At the same time Guderian failed to capture Chelm Lubelski after being defeated during the battle of Sawin – Lowcza fought against elements of Polish Northern Front. During this period of the campaign Polish forces (including Air Force) in South-Eastern Poland are ordered to withdraw to Romania and Hungary and Polish government as well as High Command retreat to Romania on 18.09.1939. Phase V was also the period when major part of Polish vs Soviet Belarussian Front battles took place. This includes the three-days long defence of Grodno (20.09.1939 – 22.09.1939), the defence of Wilno (18.09.1939 – 19.09.1939) as well as big part of important operations of the Ukrainian Front.
During the Phase VI of the campaign the final stage of the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski came to an end. Simultaneously the battle of Rawa Ruska and the battle of Janow Lubelski came to an end, which ended major combats of German forces in South-Eastern Poland. During the same phase the final assault on Warsaw took place – the assault achieved only fragmentary successes, but despite that Warsaw surrendered on 28.09.1939 because its situation was very hard. Also the final assaults on Modlin took place and Modlin surrendered – part on 29.09.1939 and the remaining part on 30.09.1939. This marked the end of practically all major battles in Poland. The only resistance nest which was still resisting was the Hel Peninsula. There was also the Operational Group “Polesie” of general Kleeberg, it was involved in combats against the Soviets, but during the night from 01 to 02.10.1939 it started the last battle of the campaign against the Germans – the battle of Kock. Phase VI also includes the most important battles of the Ukrainian Front (including Tomaszow Lubelski, Szack, Wytyczno, Jablon, Milanow, Parczew, Borowicze – Nawoz - Husiatyn, etc.). Another considerable Polish force which was still continuing its resistance after the 6th Phase ended, was the Group of colonel Zieleniewski (which is often forgotten). It fought mainly against Soviet forces.
Phase VII is the “October part” of the “September” campaign – last combats against last remnants of Polish forces and only three battles against organized, strong Polish forces - combats against the Group of Zieleniewski (which surrendered to the Soviet forces in the evening on 01.10.1939, this group numbered around 15,000 soldiers according to Soviet sources and around 10,000 according to Polish), the last combats at the Hel Peninsula (which surrendered to the Germans on 02.10.1939) and of course the last battle of the campaign - the battle of Kock against SGO "Polesie".
Peter558 ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
from the article- "At the same time, the British and the Poles were hinting to Berlin that they were willing to resume discussions – not at all how Hitler hoped to frame the conflict. Thus, he wavered and postponed his attack until 1 September managing to halt the entire invasion "in mid-leap"." having just read Albert Speer's 'Inside the Third Reich', Speer (A member of Hitler's inner circle) is very sure that the pause is due to Mussolini revoking his promises to give Germany military support in the event of a European war (the Italian forces dressed it up as a complaint about lack of military resources being provided by Germany). Hitler had to ensure the Italians were back on side before committing his troops to Poland, and did not like the damage to morale that a further wait could cause. Furey x ( talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states: The German plan for what became known as the September Campaign was devised by General Franz Halder, chief of the general staff... However, I believe this to be incorrect, either wholly or in part. The operational plan for the invasion of Poland was created by Erich von Manstein and Günther Blumentritt. I can document this via several sources. I would simply change the text of the article, but I am unclear on Halder's involvement in creating the plan. He may have come up with the general strategy, while Manstein and Blumentritt planned the operational details. Can anyone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revcasy ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the fact that Poland declared war on September 1 be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.126.87 ( talk) 19:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's have a look on the infobox in Russian Civil War. There are 3 columns: Communists, Entente and Central Powers. Don cossacks are in the column of Entente, however they had strong Pro-German (Central Power) orientation and pro-Entente Whites (for example, Anton Denikin) tried to keep the distance of them. In Russian Wikipedia, infobox also has 3 columns, but in a little different way: Reds, Pro-German Whites, Pro-Entente Whites. Up your eyes, we see the quote 3 combatant division would be ridiculous because it would imply that Soviets and Germans fought against each other by User:Staberinde. But nobody cares, if English infobox of Russian Civil War imply that Don cossacks fought with Germany, nobody cares, if Russian infobox of the same article imply that Pro-German Whites (Krasnov) fought with Pro-Entente Whites (Denikin). Of course, Russian Civil War is much more complicated than invasion of Poland. However, we has a precedent: two sides didn't combat each other in some conflict, but they are in different columns cause they weren't allies. -- 95.52.89.126 ( talk) 05:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Warsaw1939parade.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
Shouldn't File:Second World War Europe.png and File:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg show Bohemia and Moravia as part of Germany, as they had actually been annexed, not merely occupied? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all - Blitzkrieg itself is not a myth. Russian historians found the best definition of German Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg (in its German version - because there was also a Soviet version of Blitzkrieg, the best example of which is the Vistula - Oder operation in September of 1945) is an elitaristic, bourgeois conception which relies on high combat value of well-equipped, elite units which constitute the minority of armed forces, not on massive mechanized armies as in the Soviet version (source: Christopher Duffy, "Red Storm on the Reich", page 64).
Secondly - Blitzkrieg in Poland happened and in some ways in Poland it happened more than anywhere else. The stupid myth that in Poland Panzer divisions operated separately and large concentrations of armour were not present can be found for example in "The Blitzkrieg Legend" written by Frieser, but this myth is completely false. On page 18 of "The Blitzkrieg Legend" we can find:
"[...] during the Polish campaign German armor was not yet employed independently on operational level either at the corps or army echelons. Instead the Panzer formations on the tactical level usually fought in a divisional framework." - both the claim that in Poland Germans didn't have armoured corps and the claim that Panzer division is a formation designed to work on tactical level (even single Panzer division is a formation clearly designed to complete operational tasks) are false. In fact Germans had got plenty of armoured-motorized Corps in Poland in 1939 - XIX., XVI., XV., XIV., XXII., some of them even cooperated with each other, for example XVI., XV. and XIV. or XIX. and XXII.
In Poland one of the biggest concentrations of armour per each kilometre of the frontline in WW2 took place (for example during the battles of Piotrkow Trybunalski - Tomaszow Mazowiecki, during the battle of Radom, during the initial German advance and battles near Czestochowa).
I explained it clearly in my (Domen121 / Domen123) posts on these forums:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=137912&p=1384598#p1384598
http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=25632&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105
Peter558 ( talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a copy of my response to this here as you seem to be doing the rounds of the various articles:
Peter, the dominant position in academic literature is it didn't exist. Infact the most ardent historians are Germans. To suggest Blitzkrieg existed it to proffer the now discredited theory that the Germans intended to achieve their total aims by a series of short campaigns. This was not the case. The websites you offer don't come close to being first class academic sources, and they are typical of the rubbish that exist on the internet. And I have the book by Frieser - he does not argue that Blitzkrieg was actioned in Poland - infact his whole thesis is that Blitzkrieg was a myth! He calls it a world-wide delusion. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There isn't much more to say on the subject. The Polish campaign did not see large concentrations of Panzerkorps bunched into armoured spearheads as was the case in 1940 - 1941. I must also add that Duffy's assertion that Soviet deep battle was influenced by or the same as the so-called Blitzkrieg method is totally false. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Peter, the dominant position in academic literature is it didn't exist.
What academic literature? Please provde some titles. And by the way - you are probably talking about Anglo-American academic literature only.
And I don't think that the Anglo-American academic literature stands on the highest level of all world's academic literatures... Especially if it comes to the Polish Campaign, hardly anything good and standing on a high factual level was produced on this subject by Anglo-American historians so far (with a very few exceptions from the rule).
The Polish campaign did see large concentrations of armour, but when comparing with the 1940 campaign you should remember about the compression of the theatre of war operations in 1940 (compare the length of the German-Franco frontline in Fall Gelb to this in Fall Weiss, and also take into consideration that in Fall Gelb both sides had got much bigger armies).
To suggest Blitzkrieg existed it to proffer the now discredited theory that the Germans intended to achieve their total aims by a series of short campaigns.
Blitzkrieg is not a matter of the speed of execution only, but rather a matter of "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" and other things.
The phenomenon of a Panzer-Division itself is a part of Blitzkrieg (a Panzer-Division is nothing else than realization of the "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" conception in practice - it consists of armoured vehicles, infantry and artillery - three completely different "Waffen" - in the best possible proportion).
The Soviet deep-battle was completely different than the German Blitzkrieg. The Soviet conception was in fact better (at least they had got huge reserves, while according to the German conception all forces should be sent on the first line at once), but resulted in similar results (see for example the Vistula - Oder operation in January of 1945 or the Manchurian Campaign also in 1945).
Peter558 ( talk) 21:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point of view (and I partially agree):
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=539043
"USSR have the deep battle and the Germans used blitzkrieg. What about the Western Allies? I searched online but I couldn't get straight answers."
"The Germans did not exclusively use Blitzkrieg. In reality, the operational doctrines of every nation were remarkably similar (Deep Battle is nothing more than "We have reserves" taken to a logical conclusion)."
Peter558 ( talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The text as it is currently presented focuses, almost strictly, on defending the Polish side. I believe most of the information is relevant but the method of presentation is lacking. In my view, the information would be best incorporated directly into the main body of the text with the individual myth paragraphs possibly serving as notes to provide context.
Thoughts? -- Labattblueboy ( talk) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Churchill - several of the "myths" can be found in Winston Churchill's "The Gathering Storm" (1948 edition) - such as cavalry lances & swords attacking tanks; many of the Polish planes being destroyed on the ground;characterization of the German campaign as Blitzkreig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.9 ( talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this entire "Blitzkrieg was first used in Poland" myth should be deleted.
By the way - during previous discussion (see points 2. and 9.) there were claims that "Blitzkrieg" did not exist at all (both in Poland and in all other campaigns).
If so - if Blitzkrieg did not exist at all - there is absolutely no need to repeat in this article, that it also didn't exist in Poland.
But my question is:
If not Blitzkrieg, then how can we call the actual German strategy of 1939 - 1941 campaigns? Maybe this entire argument has no purpose - it seems we are arguing only about pure terminology. Whether someone called the actual German strategy "Blitzkrieg" or "Coca Cola" or "Heyah Hoah" - doesn't really matter. :)
I mean - how can someone argue, that "Blitzkrieg does not exist", if "Blitzkrieg" is clearly nothing more and nothing less but the word invented in order to describe the actual and real German strategy implemented during their campaigns of 1939 - 1941, no matter what was the real nature of that strategy?
Peter558 ( talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If this article is to exemplify the "best of Wikipedia," the first item on the agenda, in my opinion, is to correct the numerous infelicities of style and grammar which plague the writing. Some sections sound as if they were "Google-translated" and significantly slow down one's absorption and understanding of the article's substance. I have tried to start this process of revision with a few minor corrections, but it is a time-consuming activity which I can't see to its conclusion. There is much good information here, but it needs a better presentation. Drichter53 ( talk) 22:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drichter53 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
re this restore, it's per the source and does not misrepresent it. (See my talk.) The issue is that the quote itself does not directly indicate doubts although the author devotes considerable content to the question. The two don't necessarily need to be together in the article, so some copy editing might be worthwhile. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Instead of naming as "myths" certain widely-propagated falsehoods, which only serves to propagate them further and to use the word "myth" in a journalistic (not encyclopaedic) way, we should simply keep the text accurate and remove any widely-believed inaccuracies that are added. There is no need to single out a fate the Polish air force did not suffer and debunk it when the article could just tell us what actually happened to the Polish air force. 216.8.148.227 ( talk) 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
i agree.. no other invasion article contains 'myths' section
93.97.55.148 (
talk)
12:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)web
Yup. This kind of 'setting the facts straight' argument that is not really suitable for an encyclopedia entry -- there's too much of the whiff of historical revisionism about it.
It would make more sense to explore each of these either:
a) as an individual article, referenced as appropriate from this main article, or b) in the text of the article itself.
Either way, it should not be in this article.
I like the myths provides good information for people who don't know better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.216.162 ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
-- 75.101.102.22 ( talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC) TL 7-jan-2012
By that logic, anti-semitic tropes and the like should have zero mention on Wikipedia either, because hey, they're not true! therefore not notable! Just present the dry facts about the Jewish people and do your best to pretend all those messy lies never amounted to anything worth writing in an encyclopedia about. Readers can deduce everything by it's complete absence of mention.
Would that sound right to you? Treating pervasive distortions as non-notable on the grounds that they are untrue (thus not encyclopedic), strikes me as more biased and agenda-driven than mentioning and addressing them.
The section as it stands is rather ill-concieved, but deliberately hiding these notable distortions and how they compare to the actual facts strikes me as grossly inappropriate. Removing this content implies that the Wikipedia record raises no major objection to the Nazi propagandists' version of events.
This information needs to go somewhere. I'm not saying where or how but I am making clear there is no consensus for simply throwing it in the bin as long I have a say. Thanks for listening. -- 67.20.248.170 ( talk) 09:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Other articles on battles, invasions and wars make their casus belli clear. This one is vague though. Why? Here is Hitler in his own words in his own speeches explaining why he viewed the invasion as necessary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Q5AbhMPcM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9xCU-udM_8 This is not original research. 184.96.199.196 ( talk) 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(od) Alas, Lothar is correct, I was thinking of the invasion of Russia, not enough coffee this morning. (!) The "cause" was, in part, Hitler's correct assessment that Britain and France would not put troops on the ground to honor their treatment commitment and defend Poland. And so far, whatever Hitler had demanded, Hitler had received, only reinforcing his expansionist ambitions. Placating the schoolyard bully only guarantees more of the same.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK
02:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, my more general point was that in some circumstances it doesn't really make sense to ask "what was the real casus beli". Of course there were "official" ones, the 1 through 3 above. But basically, Hitler invaded Poland because he could. VolunteerMarek 02:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think this section about the casus belli really shows that the current article is allied war propaganda. The dispute about Danzig, the wish for a road connection to east prussia as well as the harrassment of the German and ukrainian minorities in Poland were the casus belli. There is no evidence whatsoever that "Lebensraum" was a motive for war. Nowhere does the article mention that Poland refused to negotiate about these topics. Instead Poland prepared for war after it had acquired the guarantees from France and Britain. Poland wanted war. Pilava ( talk) 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The USSR and the German Reich did not engage in combat during the invasion of Poland, granted, but to have them listed as allies in the infobox is imho totally misleading. The two were not allies or even co-belligerents - they were simply in military conflict with Poland at the same time. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did not conclude any formal alliance between the two powers or provide for any serious military collaboration between Germans and Soviets against Poland, it merely assured each power that the other would not oppose an acquisition of a defined share of Polish territory. (Though from a Polish perspective I can see how the two seem like the "evil alliance" against Poland.) I propose the Soviet union be placed as combatant3 in the infobox. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The new infobox looks good to me. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Herr DIREKTOR has not provided any sources to back up such claims like "The two were not allies or even co-belligerents" vs. well documented and verified Nazi Soviet alliance in 1939, the suggestion to add Soviet Union as combatant3 doesn't make much sense.-- Termer ( talk) 04:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you can't take a hint: please stop with the patronizing attitude, especially in light of your obvious bias and lack of knowledge in the subject. There are so many things so utterly wrong with your post... I'll answer your post completely so that these do not remain empty words:
Please, if you want to discuss, try to stick to the subject and avoid making remarks regarding your opponent. Do I tell you that you are biased, can't take a hint, have patronizing attitude, lack knowledge, are not "scientific" etc. ? In fact of your statements I very well could. Nevertheless, Soviet Russia's imperialistic strategy is well documented in history and was the major motion of Soviet international relations from the beginning. Cooperation with the Nazis was a great opportunity for the Soviets and they tried to took the advantage of that as much as they could. The facts are that in 1939 the Soviets and Nazis were allies and that it's not the Soviets but the Nazis, who refused an even closer pact in 1940. You can speculate on Stalin's cunning intentions, but the facts speak for themselves. -- Lysy talk 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Support: I found the 3 combatant division to be rather helpful in terms of organization. --
Labattblueboy (
talk)
14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
3 combatant division would be ridiculous because it would imply that Soviets and Germans fought against each other.-- Staberinde ( talk) 15:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that direktor, in spite of writting many posts, has failed to answer my main point and that is that nowhere did the infobox say that the Nazis and Soviets were in a military alliance but rather that they both fought against Poland. (As a minor point I'd also add that he went on that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a millitary alliance something which I didn't even claim, I only said there was an alliance). Anyway while I'd prefer the former version of the infobox, from my point of view the current solution is acceptable compromise, the line makes a clear distinction between the Nazi and the Soviet forces so... Loosmark ( talk) 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Interestingly, the same people who oppose the 3 combatant box here worked on the Estonian article. It looks like double standards.
I must note that such claim in a comment that was directly replying to me is a bit disturbing, considering that I have never edited
Estonia in World War II nor its talk page. I would appreciate that in future then directly replying to me you would either refrain from such accusations, or address them directly to appropriate people, instead of making generalized statements about "opposing side". That being said, I am personally not sure if article like Estonia in World War II should have such infobox at all, anyway there actually were clashes between pro-independence and German forces and they actually were mentioned on article's talk page in a comment to what you replied less than 2 months ago
[5]. But enough of this other article, 3 combatant infobox indicates that all 3 parties were actively fighting against each other, in current situation it would be simply misleading, also I would say that current solution(at the moment I am writing this comment) already suitably separates Germany-Slovakia and Soviet Union.--
Staberinde (
talk)
08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I see, in the talk to WW2InfoBox it was proved that USSR wasn't co-belligirent with Germany. There were used strict definitions of belligerent and co-belligerence. So, USSR should be moved to third column unless somebody show strategic cooperation between Wehrmacht and Red Army. -- 95.55.225.26 ( talk) 07:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Operational and tactical cooperation is not enough? Must be strategic?
Peter558 ( talk) 17:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.23.121 ( talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Mygawd, could this article be anymore biased than it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.183.6 ( talk) 08:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Quote from the article:
However, with the surprise signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August, the denouncement of secret Nazi-Soviet talks held in Moscow, Germany neutralized the possibility of Soviet opposition to a campaign against Poland and war became imminent. In fact, the Soviets agreed to aid Germany in the event of France or the UK going to war with Germany over Poland and, in a secret protocol of the pact, the Germans and the Soviets agreed to divide Eastern Europe, including Poland, into two spheres of influence; the western ⅓ of the country was to go to Germany and the eastern ⅔ to the Soviet Union.
I've never heard the highlighted claim before. It's not on the page for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and it's unsourced here. Does anyone know anything about it ? Pod ( talk) 15:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, in general I am working on the German Wiki, but: by accident I found out that the 8th army as part of the Army Group South ("Heeresgruppe Süd") is not listed in the legend of the map. So I redisigned the legend and uploaded an updated version of the map (now named: Poland1939_GermanPlanMap_with_8th-Army.jpg
I then replaced the map with mine but another wikipedian reversed this, because, he wrote, the subtitle of the legend reads: "mechanized units". Mechanized units according to him are only greater military units WITH tanks. I said on the contrary Okay the legend refers to mechanized units only but mechanized - so my argumentation - is not necessarily WITH tanks, as mechanized means mechanized and armoured means armourd. There are also mechanized infantry... I said that I'm still of the opinion that the 8th army in the map has been forgotten in the legend, be it mechanized or not. One could also make up a section in the legend for non-mechanized units (if the 8th army realy is not mechanized (in the sense of 'without any tanks' - what I still don't believe). In any way the legend is not complete what I tried to fix. Can somebody help? (link to the map on commons: Poland1939 GermanPlanMap with 8th-Army.jpg-- Dudy001 ( talk) 06:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody translate it (from German Wikipedia)-- Mullerkingdom ( talk) 22:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It is an absolute nosense to put Blitzkrieg as myth, when the overwhelming bulk of historians consider that the campaign of Poland was conducted under the parameters of the Blitzkrieg concept (it is absulutelly irrelevant if the word didn't exist then). A few, hand picked events of the campaign and the opinion of a handful of historians is not a solid base. In my opinion that part must be rewritten. -- 92.20.22.80 -- Bentaguayre ( talk) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)( talk) 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That Tarnow story is highly suspect, the person apprehended was actually a Pole that "confessed". Because he worked in Germany the connection was "established". -- 41.146.32.98 ( talk) 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to first address the fact that Danzig's annexation by Germany into the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia province isn't mentioned under the territorial changes part of the combat box chart. Why not? Danzig was a self governing, separate entity from Poland, so it's annexation isn't covered by the statement "Polish territory divided among Germany". Even under the "Location" part of the combat box Danzig is listed separately from Poland. An edit should be made here for the sake of accuracy and consistency.
Secondly, I argue that the Free City of Danzig should be list as a belligerent alongside Nazi Germany and Slovakia. The SS Heimwehr Danzig, an SS unit composed of Danzigers (don't know if that's the right term), and Danzig police officers assisted the Germans in expelling the Poles from within the Danzig Post Office and from the Westerplatte. I noticed editors did make the point that during the invasion the SS unit operated under German Army command, but it still doesn't account for the collaboration of the Danzig Police. The following photo shows the Danzig police with the German forces and the SS as the Polish postmen are lead away from their post office.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy beetle ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll set to work finding more reliable sources for the 2nd issue. And in regards to the first?
Indy beetle (
talk)
04:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This particular source (in German) http://www.deutscheundpolen.de/ereignisse/ereignis_jsp/key=polnische_post_1939.html is a project by some sort of media corporation made in conjunction with a TV documentary, designed to illustrate the history of Polish-German relations and whatnot. It states that Danzig authorities had planned on attacking Polish installations in the city in the event of a Polish-German War, and it says that the Danzig Police were the first to launch an attack on the city's Polish post office on September 1st.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Invasion of Poland. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I typed up the extensive quote below for a discussion on another Talk page, and it occurred to me that perhaps editors of this article would like to use it, since the discussion pertains to this topic.
The material cited is the excerpts from a conversation by two Luftwaffe men in British captivity in 1940; events described happened in Sept 1939. Their conversation were surreptitiously recorded by British intelligence:
Pohl: […] On the fourth day I was enjoying it. It was our before breakfast amusement to chase single soldiers through the fields […]
Meyer: But always against soldiers?
Pohl: People (civilians) too. We attacked the columns in the streets. […] We swerve to the left with all the machine guns firing like mad. You should have seen the horses stampede!
Meyer: Disgusting, that with the horses…
Pohl: I was sorry for the horses, but not at all for the people. But I was sorry for the horses up to the last day.
Meyer: One becomes dreadfully brutal in such undertakings.
Pohl: Yes, I’ve already said that on the first day it seemed terrible to me, but I said to myself: “Hell! Orders are orders.” On the second and third day I did not give a hoot, and on the fourth day I enjoyed it. But, as I said, the horses screamed. [….]
I was so annoyed when I was shot down; just before the second engine got hot, I suddenly had a Polish town beneath me. I dropped the bombs on it. I wanted to drop all the 32 bombs on the town. It was no longer possible, but 4 bombs dropped on the town. With 32 bombs, I would certainly have had 100 human lives on my conscience.
Meyer: Was there plenty of of traffic there?
Pohl: Chockablock. I wanted to drop a batch, because the whole place was full of people. […] It would have been great fun if it had come off. […] Sometimes I had 228 bombs, including 10kg bombs. We threw them into the midst of the people. And the soldiers. And incendiary bombs in addition.
Authors' commentary: “Pohl was taken out of the war long before the drastic escalation of violence that came with Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. […] He hunts down and kills people from the air, and he does not seem to be ideologically motivated when he describes bombarding cities and gunning down people. […] He enjoys killing and needs no other motivation. […] The senseless killing resembles a hunt, a sporting activity in which the only purpose is to be better than others, in this case, by hitting more people with bullets. That’s what angers Pohl about getting shot down. It spoiled the end of the hunt.”
Source:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Calistemon: More on the war crimes: up to 1942, it was not part of Luftwaffe's official doctrine to attack strictly civilian targets; so the airman above was committing a war crime, even by Wehrmacht's definition (cited via Soldaten). Separately, I randomly came across this 20-min interview with Neitze:
He addresses most of the question that you raised. Hope this helps. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
In the French and USSR campaigns, those taken prisoner for the defending side are clearly listed in the casualty boxes. But not for the Polish Campaign article. Would it not be better to make sure these articles are uniform? IIRC a POW is technically a casualty, so Polish POW during the campaign should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonnus ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Why did the British Empire and France only declare war on Germany? ( 165.120.157.246 ( talk) 22:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC))
Why did the British Empire and France only declare war on Germany, when it was a joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland? ( 109.147.136.10 ( talk) 17:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Obviously apologetic, has no place in an encyclopedia. The situation in 1939, attacked from both sides, was extremely dire for Poland, and they lost the defensive war. That's it, there is no reason to describe the outcomes of non-existing plans. (Also sounds slightly pathetic.)- 62.156.151.10 ( talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Weak point, obvious propaganda. The Polish Resistence Movement is legendary, but it shouldn't be part of this section.
Apply the same logic to WW II as a whole, and it's still going on. Nuts, change it.- 62.156.151.10 ( talk) 10:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Either move to the beginning or remove. Xx236 ( talk) 07:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Simple query that I would like answered. How much food production/consumption was there during this invasion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgchat ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Invasion of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Given that Estonia technically fought against Poland during the Orzel incident, shouldn't the Baltic country also be added to the infobox? Just a thought. 86.120.125.123 ( talk) 09:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)