Shoveler said:
So far you've been dishonest and marginalized your countries patriots. Nice work.
Except I have done no such thing.
Somebody should have told this guy that: Henryk Dobrzański
Again the dishonesty proven:
"In March 1940, a partisan unit of the first guerrilla commanders in the Second World War in Europe under Major Henryk Dobrzański "Hubal" completely destroyed a battalion of German infantry in a skirmish near the village of Huciska. A few days later in an ambush near the village of Szałasy it inflicted heavy casualties upon another German unit. To counter this threat the German authorities formed a special 1,000 men strong anti-partisan unit of combined SS–Wehrmacht forces, including a Panzer group. Although the unit of Major Dobrzański never exceeded 300 men, the Germans fielded at least 8,000 men in the area to secure it."
Just one instance, knocked out quite a few Germans. The Germans committed quite a few resources to stop them. Another victory in and of itself. After all, I'm pretty sure he used weapons, not books and letter services.
First of all, you should stop cherry picking sentences and creating straw men. It's bad form. As is your inane thread title, which is completely at odds with what I'm actually saying.
And, again, he was not a resistance fighter. He was a soldier of the Polish Army who continued to carry out his duties as a Polish soldier, in the name of the Polish state and nation. See, the big difference being that the Polish state never ceased to exist. The Germans occupied the territory, but never managed to destroy the government or shut down the Polish state.
Let me rephrase it for you, in big ol' words you will likely understand:
1. There were no resistance fighters in Poland in the classic sense.
2. There were legitimate military units organized into a chain of command subordinated to the legitimate Polish government and Polish military leadership temporarily located in London.
That's the big point. Actions carried out by what you consider guerrillas were military operations carried out with the sanction of the Polish government and military leadership. As such, these were not guerrilla fighters, but legitimate combatants. Hell, the single largest military operation of World War II that can be classified as performed by the resistance, the Warsaw Uprising, ended with Home Army combatants being formally recognized by the Germans as soldiers and prisoners of war under international war. Which was not done with usual resistance forces.
The French did this too, and they were called: The French Resistance. Among other names.
No, they did not. Read up on history. No nation in Europe had anything comparable to the Polish underground state. You know, a legitimate continuation of the pre-War country.
No romanticisms here, two tours in combat zones knocked that out of me at an early age.
Important maybe, but not going to drive anyone out of Poland at all. Guns will though.
That would have been the fate of pretty much any country under the boot of the Nazis. Probably bad for the Poles either way though, stuck between the Germans and Soviets at the time.
Your ignorance is staggering, as is your fixation on guns.
The military operations against the occupation of Poland and the continued operation of civilian agencies and public services were inseparable, since they formed a single plan for the continued existence of the Polish nation both in wartime and after Germany/Soviets were defeated. Since you're allegedly a soldier, you should be aware that preserving resources and protecting the civilian population are vital elements of strategy and long term planning in warfare.
In Poland, the value of underground universities and education cannot be overstated. Since both the Germans and the Soviets aimed to destroy the Polish nation by effectively lobotomizing it. Look up Soviet massacres, like the one in Katyń, or German actions against the Polish people, like AB Aktion. The common denominator is that they targeted the elite parts of society, intellectual and otherwise, that would be capable of leading the nation and upholding its cultural legacy. We were to be made a nation of slaves.
I'm not sure why you're arguing that
making sure there is a nation to fight for is not important.
Wait, you said there was no armed resistance earlier.
I did not. You sure you didn't take a blow to the head during your two combat tours?
Maybe not, but no occupier is going to be afraid of you attending your classes. They will fear the business end of a weapon though, if not at first, they'll quickly learn to be.
The Germans were afraid of smart Poles, as were the Soviets. That's why the aforementioned massacres occurred.
Furthermore, you sure you're qualified to talk about history? I'm not particularly sure, since you seem to have very little knowledge of what actually happened. Indiscriminate resistance with no overarching plan hurts the occupied nation much more than inactivity. If you attack the occupier, you invite retaliation. As such, attacks have to be weighed against the costs to civilians.
Take, for example, the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, which resulted in displacement of over ten thousand Czechs and the deaths of at least 1300, for practically zero gain. That's bad planning.
If stating the obvious makes you feel good go ahead. However, the insurgency in Afghanistan has been raging for 20 of the last 30 years, against two of the worlds most advance super powers. They're still operating. They don't have to "win", their existence on a daily basis is "winning" to them. If they get a few kills in the process, all the better.
Except Afghanistan is not the United States and does not have a surveillance network in place. The fact that they survived the onslaught and rendered attempts to destroy the organization ineffective, as well as drew the U.S. into a protracted campaign that has had a consistent negative effect on the economy of the West (all aspects considered, not just war spending of the U.S. alone) shows that they've already won.
If 1776 is in play maybe I should mention some of "Europes" transgressions since then. Hmmm. For now I'll hold off.
Missing the point, are we?
You've danced like Ricky Martin at the Latin Grammys so far. You can't admit there were Resistance Fighters in Poland. The American could never be right after all.
I've been consistently arguing that there were legitimate Polish military forces subordinated to the legitimate Polish government, operating as part of the Polish underground state. They were not resistance fighters, since they were, formally and in practice, the legal army of the Polish state. Organizations that could be classified as resistance fighters were a minority, mostly subordinated to legitimate Polish authorities as well.
The American can't be right when he isn't right. Sorry.
You've used a crap load of broad generalizations. I'll point a few out.
Actually, I don't think you're that aware. You don't want them brought up because they're indefensible.
That the U.S. has, at points, committed war crimes? I figured since that was common knowledge it would go without saying. However, that said, I don't feel I have distance myself from it like Germans/some Europeans do. Slavery is a part of our past, with repercussions still today. Fact. We've committed war crimes in pretty much every conflict we fought. Fact. The list goes on. I don't blame that on "those" Americans, they are part of us. What makes us a whole. The Good (usually), the bad (sometimes), the ugly (once in a while). It doesn't mean we're less. You learn, evolve, change as a country. At least that's the idea.
You keep using that argument. How am I not aware of the horrible parts of European history? Is that the fact that I don't accept them as normal? That I recognize the difference between Germany of the 1930s/1940s (a fascist country with a nationalist, racist regime in place that caused the most devastating war in the history of the continent) and the Germany of 2000s/2010s (a multicultural society that is the driving force of the European Union)? The Germans of the first half of the century are not the Germans of modern Europe, just like the Swiss, Poles, Hingarians, Englishmen, the French, Spaniards, and every other nation of Europe. We evolved, we have changed, and we are currently much different than our ancestors.
Now, if you feel you haven't changed enough from the 19th century to put you on different footing than Americans from that period (and scores of immigrants that came to the country, unamericanized), feel free to argue that.
No it isn't, is implanted in the German psyche. As well as other large portions of Europe.
And so far you haven't provided a single piece of evidence, except for arguing that "Europe doesn't have widespread ownership, because they've lost the war." You're consistently relying on sophism and rhetoric, rather than facts. And since you made that claim, the burden is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove.
Civil wars are not the same as foreign invaders. If we want to go a few rounds with our brothers, then that's how it goes.
Your argument was that the United States did not experience war, which was false. Don't move the goalposts when proven wrong.
See, that's a broad generalization. There's others. Now in response, tell me what is "Insane" about owning a gun. To even use the word "Insane" in reference to guns implies fear.
You should stop cherry picking. I've referred, specifically, to gun culture, not gun ownership. Switzerland, which has a very high level of gun ownership, doesn't have the levels of gun violence and crime the United States does. Maybe that's because the gun culture is greatly infuenced by mandatory military service and the military doctrine of Switzerland. Y'see, Swiss gun ownership isn't the result of a legal document giving every civilian the right to own guns.
All of the above, and more. I guess that you can't rationalize that though can you. The American can't possible understand EUROPEAN history, oh wait, it's intertwined in the history of the U.S. too.
When said American consistently shows ignorance, fails to respond to points raised, and when he does, he misses every single point raised by me, then said American can't possibly understand history in general, much less the complex history of Europe.
You stated Germany has a powerful military, I said they don't and provided information to back that. All you did was SAY they were powerful again. Nice argument. Keep saying it and it'll be true!
You provided a link to an arbitrary ranking working out military power through arithmetic, rather than actual analysis of military power. Sorry for disregarding bullshit. Comparing the militaries
Truth of the matter is this. The German military could not stand on its own. Germany has a small military on purpose, it was intentional on the part of the Allies to control the German military in all ways. Particularly it's size and scope, which extends even to this day. Again not because of German enlightenment. Sorry.
First, the Allies first intended to disarm and pastoralize Germany (nearly killing Europe in the process, but I digress), but when the Cold War became obvious, Germany was permitted to remilitarize and rearmed, by the Allies. You're ignorant of that, aren't you? The United States did not plan to fight the Soviets in Europe alone. The original plan aimed for 250,000 soldiers in the Army and a strong tank corps (the expected main fighting force of Cold War gone hot). By 1982, that meant a total of 3,800 main battle tanks, with a grand total (all tanks) of nearly 5,000, forming the single largest European military. Within the NATO, only the United States had greater numbers of tanks.
The fact that the German Heer nowadays is small is irrelevant. It's a military on a peacetime footing. The calculation you included were completely arbitrary because they completely ignore the
potential. The German economy is the largest in Europe, ahead of Great Britain and France. If switched to a wartime footing, the military power of Germany would spike and develop sharply.
If you want a comparable example, then maybe instead of arguing on a forum on topic you know little about, maybe you should pick up a history book. The United States was not a military power at the outset of World War II. But in 1940, the economy switched to wartime mode and started pumping out ordnance. That means producing nearly 1500% more tanks (330 -> 4100) by the end of 1941, 200% more planes (13000 -> 26000), and 500% more warships (0 -> 5), and that was just the start. By 1944, the ordnance output of the United States was ridiculously big. As Davies put it, a tank every five minutes, a plane every thirty, a carrier every week.
But, by your logic and your sources, the U.S. was not a military power because its peacetime military was very small and limited.
And that's ignoring the technological refinement, where Germany is one of the leaders (it's hard to rank, since tech is generally very good).
We wouldn't, that why we're awesome. Next round of Spatan's on you guys.
You mean Franklin Roosevelt did not sell Eastern Europe to Stalin during World War II, thus screwing over the fourth/fifth largest member of the Allied forces? Cool, didn't know that. I expect some lame excuse to be placed here, but fact is: Roosevelt fucked up, believed a mass murdering tyrant worse than Hitler on his word, and screwed over Poland alongside every single nation in Eastern Europe.
And then there's Vietnam. But you probably know all about that.
Oh look another broad generalization by Tagz. Speaking for the entirety of Europe might be a bad idea. Ahem, Libya. If you say Libya didn't happen, I'll laugh, I swear I will!
Look, Europe/Germany has done so may horrible things over the centuries, that you won't possibly own ever. Those were "other" Germans, you know the ones that do bad stuff, not us! Again, "those" Germans helped shaped (unintentionally I'm sure) the Germany of today. That is a fact. Why is that a fact? Because past actions help shape ALL countries. We don't have slaves here in the U.S. any more. A lot of bad shit had to happen to get to this point. I'm thankful it finally did. I can't fathom the thought process of owning other humans, but it happened.
You can try to paint me an uneducated, gun toting American. But it's just not the case. My tours in combat, my 4 and half years stationed in Germany, my being German American, and having family currently living in Germany have all shaped my view point. I've traveled dozens of countries, and most of Europe. And have ran into plenty of people whom have the same mentality as you of the U.S., Americans, and guns in general. And it's all based in knowing less than they think about the U.S.
I'm not going to change your mind, nor you mine. At this point neither of us will gain. If it's any consolation, my 2 days in Poland were nice. Wish I could have had a few more.
For every Libya there's a third world country the U.S. invaded or forced into submission. Beating Europe over the head with Libya when the U.S. has adventured quite a bit more in the twentieth century is about as hypocritical as it gets. And beside the point of this discussion.
Furthermore, I'm not sure why you insist Germans of today are the same as Germans of World War II. Gee, either I'm blind, or there's simply no brown-shirted mooks stomping down alleys, Nazi flags hanging from windows, and Slavic countries invaded and beaten into submission. Your idea of total determinism is ridiculous. The past shapes the future to a degree, but nowhere near the extent you claim it does. Every generation's actions are its own. Everyone's decision is theirs and theirs alone. That's why modern Germans are different than their ancestors. I'm no more similar to a 19th century Polish insurgent than you are to a Union soldier from Gettysburg. The social, cultural, and economical circumstances alone are different. That's the point you keep missing and, I'm afraid, you will keep on missing, insisting on taking everything personally and trying to defend yourself against imagined ad hominems (which only started appearing when you started making asinine remarks about me and my approach to the history of my own country).
If you think everything you do is determined by society and your environment, feel free to do so. I, relying on my own experience, research, and education, will not. If your theory applied, then I'd be a deeply religious conservative. I'm an atheist lieberal. While my family and environment played a role, the decisions I made were mine and mine alone, and I take full responsibility for them.
And last, you being German American and having family in Germany is irrelevant, as are your travels. I've traveled to a fair few countries myself, I have family in Mexico, Australia, friends all over the world, yet I'm not going to claim that because of this I'm an expert on the history of countries I've visited, or Mexico, or Australia. I can, however, pool information, find studies done by experts, analyze statistical data, read on the history of the countries and nations... Basically, do my research.
Bottom line: Meeting individual people doesn't make you an expert on a country, just like eating kebab doesn't make you an expert on Turkish cuisine.
j/k), when Poland was invaded by Germany, Polish men, women and children resisted German occupiers. They resisted in any way possible. Supply line disruption, all out attacks, what ever it takes. This is what people do when their home is being over run. What ever it takes. This doesn't mean victory, it means trying.
