Existence of WWII-Era Polish Resistance Fighters Denied

Shoveler

Still Mildly Glowing
I followed you, right up until you mentioned foreign invaders. Listen, disorganized civilian rabble with automatic weapons is not a challenge for any army that can invade the United States and defeat its conventional forces. Really.

I never said that civilians would win. But the alternative is doing nothing, I've put too much love, time and effort into my family to just see them butchered with no effort to stop it on my own. Not to mention I implied that event was unlikely.

Additionally, having one of the largest militaries in the world also provides a large number of former service members in the community. We wouldn't be disorganized for very long. Like I said, in the unlikely event that should happen.

I don't, and have never owned assault rifles, but I do have rifles. I work and live in the city, shirt, tie the works. I'm far from a redneck, however, my land, and my families land is way out in the sticks. It's like a second home to me.

My brother in law is German, lives in Augsberg. To show you the emphasis of the psyche, there is NO reason good enough for him to own a gun. No reason. Even hunting. Basically it comes down to fear of guns even on the most base level. Many Americans, probably the majority, don't have this fear. Guns are a tool, guns are recreation, guns are for safety. There is no fear of what the gun can do. The psyche is just different.

You can blame the cop, maybe he killed in cold blood. The drug testing and the trial will tell. Deciding now what happened seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Finally: Look man, you say you're Polish (insert joke here, :P 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.
 
The key difference being that the Polish state never ceased to exist. The government was safely evacuated to Great Britain, along with the high command, while the military and public services went to the ground and established an entire underground state, complete with universities, postal services, and a standing army. The Home Army wasn't a resistance force; it was the de facto military of the Republic of Poland.

If the theoretical aggressor is capable of wiping out conventional American forces, I doubt very much they'd have problems wiping out pockets of resistance. I'm not sure why you're assuming an invader would automatically start to brutalize the civilian population. Did the United States automatically start ravaging the civilian populations of Iraq and Afghanistan? That's ignoring the fact that guerrillas can provoke reprisals and actually lead to brutalizing because of their actions.

As for the "gun is a tool" mentality, you're still skirting around the facts. Germany's mindset might be anti-gun, but that resulted in minimal firearm use by policemen. Compare that to the United States, where the NYC alone had more incidents than the entire Germany. I much prefer European thinking to the one the States have. Which, by the way, isn't fear of gun. It's no need of a gun. Big difference.
 
Tagaziel said:
The key difference being that the Polish state never ceased to exist. The government was safely evacuated to Great Britain, along with the high command, while the military and public services went to the ground and established an entire underground state, complete with universities, postal services, and a standing army. The Home Army wasn't a resistance force; it was the de facto military of the Republic of Poland.

Wow, to hear you tell it, Poland was a mid-war paradise. You marginalize the resistance efforts. I guess the mass executions of Polish civilians we'll ignore for now, because it goes against your lovely view of things during that period.


Tagaziel said:
If the theoretical aggressor is capable of wiping out conventional American forces, I doubt very much they'd have problems wiping out pockets of resistance.

Firstly who said the conventional American forces were wiped out? The U.S. is large my friend, all areas covered all the time isn't practical or logical, you should know that. And as far as I can tell the Jihadists are still fighting. You just won't accept examples of resistance fighting being logical. Even when presented with modern examples.

Tagaziel said:
I'm not sure why you're assuming an invader would automatically start to brutalize the civilian population.

Because, generally through out history they have.


Tagaziel said:
Germany's mindset might be anti-gun

Assume that Germany had won WWII, they would not be anti-gun today. They're anti-gun because they fear what happened before, many view guns/militarization for their predicament directly after the war. All major cities leveled, and life generally crappy. It's a logical conclusion to come to no doubt, but one based in fear and necessity since their guns were taken from them.


Tagaziel said:
It's no need of a gun. Big difference.

Only in the mind of Germans. Like I said, because they lost a major war. It's changed their mind set forever. And, it's based in fear of what happened in the past.

If you spent some time with some "Gun Toting" Americans you'd see that for the most part they're not slavering "take my guns from the cold dead hands" types. They're just regular people.
 
Shoveler said:
Wow, to hear you tell it, Poland was a mid-war paradise. You marginalize the resistance efforts. I guess the mass executions of Polish civilians we'll ignore for now, because it goes against your lovely view of things during that period.

Did I write that? No, I didn't. In fact, I underscored the achievements of my nation, which gave birth to the largest and most significant wartime resistance movement, which was, in theory and in practice, an underground state with a standing army, continuing from the Second Republic.

Firstly who said the conventional American forces were wiped out? The U.S. is large my friend, all areas covered all the time isn't practical or logical, you should know that. And as far as I can tell the Jihadists are still fighting. You just won't accept examples of resistance fighting being logical. Even when presented with modern examples.

Construct strawmen all you wish. I never denied the existence or effectiveness of resistance efforts. What I am denying is your ridiculous claims that American resistance can make a difference because guns, ignoring a fuckton of factors, the most important of which is it being a first world nation, complete with extensive surveillance infrastructure.

Plus, the theoretical aggressor is an entity capable of invading, defeating, and controlling the United States. Since control is established, the implication is that the U.S. conventional forces have been neutralized (how is a separate matter discussed in the other topic).

Because, generally through out history they have.

It's "throughout."

And "generally" you shouldn't generalize. Because that can apply to American forces as well. I don't recall the U.S. purposefully brutalizing the populations of countries they invade (apart from the campaigns against Japan and Germany, which would be classified as war crimes if the U.S. did not win the war).

Assume that Germany had won WWII, they would not be anti-gun today. They're anti-gun because they fear what happened before, many view guns/militarization for their predicament directly after the war. All major cities leveled, and life generally crappy. It's a logical conclusion to come to no doubt, but one based in fear and necessity since their guns were taken from them.

Only in the mind of Germans. Like I said, because they lost a major war. It's changed their mind set forever. And, it's based in fear of what happened in the past.

Uh-huh. Then why isn't Great Britain, France, Russia, or Spain so gun happy? Your theory has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese treated with machine gun fire, not the least of which is the fact that modern Germans are not Germans from World War II. It also doesn't explain why Germany has a powerful, technologically advanced military force. After all, if Germans feared gun, then they wouldn't, logically, keep a large, well armed, and well trained standing army?
 
Tagaziel said:
Did I write that? No, I didn't. In fact, I underscored the achievements of my nation, which gave birth to the largest and most significant wartime resistance movement, which was, in theory and in practice, an underground state with a standing army, continuing from the Second Republic.

You marginalized the resistance fighters efforts, to go on about Universities and Postal services. Those would not have happened without the resistance FIGHTERS.


Tagaziel said:
Construct strawmen all you wish. I never denied the existence or effectiveness of resistance efforts.

You have several times up until this point. Then you switched gears.



Tagaziel said:
What I am denying is your ridiculous claims that American resistance can make a difference because guns,

Hey smart guy, all resistance fighters are armed. That's how they're resisting. What are they supposed to resist with, harsh language?

Tagaziel said:
surveillance infrastructure

Because surveillance mean troops instantly appear at that location, riiiight.


Tagaziel said:
Plus, the theoretical aggressor is an entity capable of invading, defeating, and controlling the United States. Since control is established, the implication is that the U.S. conventional forces have been neutralized

LOL, I never said they were wiped out. You keep repeating that. But I'm sure not waiting for them to show up.


Tagaziel said:
It's "throughout."

That just reeks of desperation.

Tagaziel said:
because guns

Don't you mean "because of guns"?

See it's silly, so just stop.


Tagaziel said:
And "generally" you shouldn't generalize. Because that can apply to American forces as well.

Of course it does, who excluded them from possible war crimes? I didn't. See, unlike you and mentioning all of Germany/Europes perfections, I on the other hand am able to acknowledge the many wrong doings of the U.S. and still be confident.


Tagaziel said:
I don't recall the U.S. purposefully brutalizing the populations of countries they invade (apart from the campaigns against Japan and Germany, which would be classified as war crimes if the U.S. did not win the war).

Recently no, but as you say...

Tagaziel said:
Then why isn't Great Britain, France, Russia, or Spain so gun happy?

Because as I've mention multiple times in this thread they've seen first hand the results of war. In their neighborhoods and in their streets (The U.S. has never experienced this). They're bound and determined (rightly so IMO) to not let it happen again. So that means no guns for anyone, or at least extremely difficult to obtain.

Tagaziel said:
Swiss cheese treated with machine gun fire?

Speaking of the Swiss, they have lots of guns. Are they gun happy? Smart I'd say.


Tagaziel said:
modern Germans are not Germans from World War II

Oh absolutely good sir, however, the actions of "those" Germans, has absolutely shaped "these" Germans, for the better I say.


Tagaziel said:
It also doesn't explain why Germany has a powerful,

Powerful is probably too strong a word. No disrespect intended, but as far as advanced militaries go worldwide they would fare poorly. The number of active personnel alone would not be enough to defend Germany. Germany doesn't need a larger force because the U.S. is still implanted there.

Power Index: 0.6491

Defense Budget: $43,478,000,000

Active Military Personnel: 148,996

Labor Force: 43,620,000

Total Aircraft: 925

Total Naval Strength: 67

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2013-6?op=1#ixzz2fY1IIkcK

Tagaziel said:
After all, if Germans feared gun, then they wouldn't, logically, keep a large, well armed, and well trained standing army?

No offense, but a large part of that military is still leaning on the U.S. for logistical support. Take that away, you're left with a military that can't go anywhere.
 
Shoveler said:
You marginalized the resistance fighters efforts, to go on about Universities and Postal services. Those would not have happened without the resistance FIGHTERS.

As a Polish person with more than a passing interest in World War II history, especially that of his own nation, I wager I'm more qualified to speak about my own country's resistance than you.

Let me break it down to you:

There were no resistance fighters in Poland, not in the typical sense. What existed was an underground Polish state that formed when Germans occupied Polish territories, with a standing army, the Home Army, the government, and public services associated with it. The resistance was the entire state, from secret Universities to people carrying out executions of traitors, snitches, and ranking Germans, per sentences of wartime tribunals of the Polish state.

I'm not sure why you're clinging to the romanticized image of a freedom fighter with guns, blowing up trains and shooting the occupant, when in reality, the work done by civilians to uphold culture, provide education, and protect the legacy of the country is just as important. It was even more important in occupied Poland, since my nation was slated to become slaves; to this end, Germans shut down practically all education and instituted laws meant to make Poles docile and stupid.

The work of the underground Polish state was focused on preventing that fate and fighting the occupant. These were equal, inseparable parts.

You have several times up until this point. Then you switched gears.

Nope. That's only your, particularly malicious interpretation.

Hey smart guy, all resistance fighters are armed. That's how they're resisting. What are they supposed to resist with, harsh language?

Again, romanticized, baseless thinking. Resistance isn't only shooting people and blowing up cars.

Because surveillance mean troops instantly appear at that location, riiiight.

Do read up on counter-insurgency operations. Surveillance allows for keeping a lid on the resistance much more effectively since you aren't flying blind and deaf and have a much easier time in keeping tabs on development, organizing response, and even identifying potential insurgents in advance.

In other words, this ain't 1776 anymore.

LOL, I never said they were wiped out. You keep repeating that. But I'm sure not waiting for them to show up.

That just reeks of desperation.

Don't you mean "because of guns"?

See it's silly, so just stop.

How about you stop jumping all over the place in a weak attempt to dodge the point and actually respond to issues I raise.

Of course it does, who excluded them from possible war crimes? I didn't. See, unlike you and mentioning all of Germany/Europes perfections, I on the other hand am able to acknowledge the many wrong doings of the U.S. and still be confident.

Which wasn't the point I raised. Again, you're fighting strawmen. The point was that you use broad generalizations, which are completely useless in an argument, sicne they increase every possible factor that can affect the ways in which an invader can treat the invaded population.

Plus, I'm well aware of Europe's shortcomings, but they are irrelevant to this thread.

Recently no, but as you say...

Respond to the point, please.

Because as I've mention multiple times in this thread they've seen first hand the results of war. In their neighborhoods and in their streets (The U.S. has never experienced this). They're bound and determined (rightly so IMO) to not let it happen again. So that means no guns for anyone, or at least extremely difficult to obtain.

Your shallow understanding of history amazes me. The experience of war is irrelevant to the current gun laws in Europe.

Plus, before you start talking about the history of Europe, maybe you should think about your own. The United States certainly experienced war on its own soil, yet the American Civil War did not lead to the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. Your logic is contradicted by your own country's history.

Speaking of the Swiss, they have lots of guns. Are they gun happy? Smart I'd say.

Do read up on fundamental differences in Swiss gun culture and American gun culture. One is insane. One is not.

Oh absolutely good sir, however, the actions of "those" Germans, has absolutely shaped "these" Germans, for the better I say.

Yes, do ignore the root causes of World War II and the Nazi movement, which wasn't because of some innate fascist tendencies of the German nation, but the utter humiliation Germany was forced to suffer at the hands of the Allies after World War I.

Powerful is probably too strong a word. No disrespect intended, but as far as advanced militaries go worldwide they would fare poorly. The number of active personnel alone would not be enough to defend Germany. Germany doesn't need a larger force because the U.S. is still implanted there.

I see a pattern here. Miss the point, cherry pick, then make some inane statement using an arbitrary data point. Germany has a powerful military that meets its current needs. In case of war, there would be a natural spike in the size of its military.

Plus, Germany wouldn't be fighting alone, even if the United States decided to screw its allies over.

No offense, but a large part of that military is still leaning on the U.S. for logistical support. Take that away, you're left with a military that can't go anywhere.

And why would it go anywhere? Germany and Europe aren't keen on invading sovereign countries and bombing the third world into submission anymore, that's your job.
 
Tagaziel said:
And why would it go anywhere? Germany and Europe aren't keen on invading sovereign countries and bombing the third world into submission anymore, that's your job.

Oh you.
 
TheGM is right and Libya is a good example of that. It was British navy who tossed a lot of Tomahawk missiles at Gaddafi's precious palace along with American navy. Also French air forces spent huge load of bombs and missiles here.
 
Tagaziel said:
As a Polish person with more than a passing interest in World War II history, especially that of his own nation, I wager I'm more qualified to speak about my own country's resistance than you.

So far you've been dishonest and marginalized your countries patriots. Nice work.

Tagaziel said:
There were no resistance fighters in Poland,

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.


Tagaziel said:
What existed was an underground Polish state that formed when Germans occupied Polish territories, with a standing army, the Home Army, the government, and public services associated with it. The resistance was the entire state, from secret Universities to people carrying out executions of traitors, snitches, and ranking Germans, per sentences of wartime tribunals of the Polish state.

The French did this too, and they were called: The French Resistance. Among other names.

Tagaziel said:
I'm not sure why you're clinging to the romanticized image of a freedom fighter with guns,

No romanticisms here, two tours in combat zones knocked that out of me at an early age.

Tagaziel said:
the work done by civilians to uphold culture, provide education, and protect the legacy of the country is just as important.

Important maybe, but not going to drive anyone out of Poland at all. Guns will though.

Tagaziel said:
It was even more important in occupied Poland, since my nation was slated to become slaves; to this end, Germans shut down practically all education and instituted laws meant to make Poles docile and stupid.

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.

Tagaziel said:
The work of the underground Polish state was focused on preventing that fate and fighting the occupant. These were equal, inseparable parts.

Wait, you said there was no armed resistance earlier.

Tagaziel said:
Again, romanticized, baseless thinking. Resistance isn't only shooting people and blowing up cars.

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.

Tagaziel said:
Surveillance allows for keeping a lid on the resistance much more effectively since you aren't flying blind and deaf and have a much easier time in keeping tabs on development, organizing response, and even identifying potential insurgents in advance.

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.

Tagaziel said:
In other words, this ain't 1776 anymore.

If 1776 is in play maybe I should mention some of "Europes" transgressions since then. Hmmm. For now I'll hold off.

Tagaziel said:
How about you stop jumping all over the place in a weak attempt to dodge the point and actually respond to issues I raise.

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.

Tagaziel said:
The point was that you use broad generalizations, which are completely useless in an argument, sicne they increase every possible factor that can affect the ways in which an invader can treat the invaded population.

You've used a crap load of broad generalizations. I'll point a few out.

Tagaziel said:
Plus, I'm well aware of Europe's shortcomings, but they are irrelevant to this thread.

Actually, I don't think you're that aware. You don't want them brought up because they're indefensible.

Tagaziel said:
Respond to the point, please.

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.

Tagaziel said:
Your shallow understanding of history amazes me. The experience of war is irrelevant to the current gun laws in Europe.

No it isn't, is implanted in the German psyche. As well as other large portions of Europe.

Tagaziel said:
The United States certainly experienced war on its own soil, yet the American Civil War did not lead to the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. Your logic is contradicted by your own country's history.

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.

Tagaziel said:
Do read up on fundamental differences in Swiss gun culture and American gun culture. One is insane. One is not.

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.

Tagaziel said:
Yes, do ignore the root causes of World War II and the Nazi movement, which wasn't because of some innate fascist tendencies of the German nation, but the utter humiliation Germany was forced to suffer at the hands of the Allies after World War I.


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.


Tagaziel said:
Germany has a powerful military that meets its current needs. In case of war, there would be a natural spike in the size of its military.

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!

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.

Tagaziel said:
Plus, Germany wouldn't be fighting alone, even if the United States decided to screw its allies over.

We wouldn't, that why we're awesome. Next round of Spatan's on you guys.

Tagaziel said:
And why would it go anywhere? Germany and Europe aren't keen on invading sovereign countries and bombing the third world into submission anymore, that's your job.

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.
 
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.
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
Are me and my high horse too late for the most sanctimonious poster contest?

That depends.

I like this topic, I have learned so much. I've learned America invented being a bully on the world stage and Europe can do no wrong, and if they did, other people have done worse. as well as Europe has become a homogeneous sentient entity.

I would call the experience....life changing.
 
Tagaziel said:
And, again, he was not a resistance fighter.

He was. Multiple sources refer to him as partisan (irregular military), guerilla and not the least of which, guerilla commander. Including his own wiki page.

"A partisan is a member of an irregular military force formed to oppose control of an area by a foreign power or by an army of occupation by some kind of insurgent activity."

Tagaziel said:
He was a soldier of the Polish Army

This is an undisputed fact.


Tagaziel said:
1. There were no resistance fighters in Poland in the classic sense.

There were.

"Thanks to the support of the local civilian population, the "Separated Unit of the Polish Army" (Oddział Wydzielony Wojska Polskiego), as he named his unit, managed to evade all raids and traps organised by the Germans. However, the German authorities responded with brutal retaliation against the civil population. Because of that the newly formed ZWZ and the Government Delegate's Office at Home ordered Hubal to disband his unit, but he refused. At the same time he limited his contacts with the civilians so as not to endanger them more than necessary."

The legitimate Polish authority ordered him to stop and disband. He refused (he was on his own at that point) without the blessings of the legitimate Polish government and continued on to do this:

"In March 1940 his unit 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 on 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 Maj. Dobrzański never exceeded 300 men, the Germans fielded at least 8,000 men in the area to secure it."

I have no doubt this man was a hero in any respect. But, he was also a partisan.


Tagaziel said:
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.

I agree, however there were also partisans. The Home Army didn't come together till 1942. More than 2 years after the occupation started. There's no way you can speak for all of the groups that were active in those 2 years before that. There were many.

Tagaziel said:
Actions carried out by what you consider guerrillas were military operations carried out with the sanction of the Polish government and military leadership.

Not all of them, as I proved. He refused his orders, to carry out his own initiatives.

Tagaziel said:
As such, these were not guerrilla fighters, but legitimate combatants.

There were guerilla fighters.

Tagaziel said:
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.

I didn't dispute otherwise. What I DID dispute was your claim that there were NO guerillas, there were.


Tagaziel said:
No nation in Europe had anything comparable to the Polish underground state. You know, a legitimate continuation of the pre-War country.

The Polish accomplishments were considerable. But, those feats included partisans.


Tagaziel said:
Your ignorance is staggering, as is your fixation on guns.

Guns were the topic of the previous thread you created this one from. I was staying on topic.

Tagaziel said:
The military operations against the occupation of Poland and the continued operation of civilian agencies and public services were inseparable

You're arguing with yourself here. All I said is that there were resistance fighters, and there were.


Tagaziel said:
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.

I agreed earlier in the thread they were important. So is armed resistance. So were the partisans/guerillas.


Tagaziel said:
I'm not sure why you're arguing that making sure there is a nation to fight for is not important.

I haven't argued that point, only that armed resistance, and guerillas played a role as well.


Tagaziel said:
The Germans were afraid of smart Poles, as were the Soviets. That's why the aforementioned massacres occurred.
A tragedy, truly, but a drop in the bucket compared to everything the Nazi’s did.

Tagaziel said:
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.
Agreed to an extent. There will always be risks to civilians, if it’s acceptable risks is another matter.
Tagaziel said:
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.
Can’t fault him for trying though. The risks are never light in these scenarios. And civilians are always going to pay the highest toll.
Tagaziel said:
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.
It’s still valid, as one of, if not the largest insurgency network in the world at the moment. Besides that point, your argument that the U.S. Armed Forces is neutralized would also, in theory, neutralize said surveillance network. But it’s all hypotheticals so who knows.


Tagaziel said:
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.
Sorry no, he (Hubel) was insubordinate (rightly so) when they asked him to disband.

Tagaziel said:
They were not resistance fighters, since they were, formally and in practice, the legal army of the Polish state.
They were. Pretty much every source describes him as partisan or guerilla commander.

Tagaziel said:
Organizations that could be classified as resistance fighters were a minority, mostly subordinated to legitimate Polish authorities as well.
At least you’re admitting there were some, that’s progress.

Tagaziel said:
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?
It’s not so much that you’re not aware, as it is that you claim those events have little to no impact today. The Germans of the past and the Germans of today are inextricably linked.
Tagaziel said:
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)?
Everyone recognizes that difference. Yes, even me. The problem lies in that there is so much done to bury German history in Germany. Swastikas happened, banning them is ridiculous. It’s like the U.S. having a ban and actual enforcement of the Dixie Flag after the civil war.
Tagaziel said:
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.
All true, for every country, due largely to the things they faced in the past.
Tagaziel said:
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.
I’ll make a small example near the end of the post. One made lightly mind you, but still.
Tagaziel said:
Your argument was that the United States did not experience war, which was false. Don't move the goalposts when proven wrong.
You realize the U.S. is large? MOST of the intense fighting was in a geographically small area. Most of the U.S., and most major U.S. cities did not experience this firsthand.
Tagaziel said:
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.
Explain what is insane about U.S. gun culture? Are there fringes sure. But by far not the majority.
Tagaziel said:
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.
The difference is I give you more credit than stating the obvious to you.

Tagaziel said:
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
The validity stands, just because you don’t like the results really doesn’t matter. I’ll explain below.

Tagaziel said:
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?
Taught early in U.S. schools friend, your assuming again.

Tagaziel said:
The United States did not plan to fight the Soviets in Europe alone.
Again obvious due to the existence of NATO.
Tagaziel said:
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.
Yes, they wanted to be able to repel a massive Soviet armored attack (among other things). And Germany would have been the front lines in such a scenario. I’m glad it never happened.
Look I can see a pattern here too, we tend to agree more than we disagree.
Tagaziel said:
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.
Not really, all of the countries listed there were on peace time footing. Except maybe the U.S., but even with Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other theatres/operations worldwide we’re not really in a wartime stance. Meaning simply, there’s lots of potential for more also. But I don’t think the information it presented portrayed Germany unfairly.

Tagaziel said:
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.
True, but the same would happen for all those on the list I presented.

Tagaziel said:
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.
We were not a military power at the outset of the war. We became one quickly because of our already in place massive manufacturing capabilities which were quickly converted to military purposes. Just to emphasize our lack of military power at the outset of the war, you only have to look at our poor battle performance. We were bad.

Tagaziel said:
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).
No argument here, I use equipment made in Germany on a daily basis (eye care). Zeiss makes good toys.
Tagaziel said:
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.
Sarcasm? Sorry I figured you’d catch it. Concerning Roosevelt, he believed Stalin, and he shouldn’t have. After all, if you can’t trust Stalin, WHO can you trust?

Tagaziel said:
And then there's Vietnam. But you probably know all about that.
Yea, we lost. There’s a whole plethora of reasons. Not the least of which is indiscriminant bombing/napalming of civilians.

Tagaziel said:
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.
No one is beating Europe over the head. You stated Europe doesn’t attack sovereign countries. I mentioned evidence to the contrary.

Tagaziel said:
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.
I never said they were exactly the same.
Tagaziel said:
The past shapes the future to a degree, but nowhere near the extent you claim it does. Every generation's actions are its own.
To a large degree in some cases.
Tagaziel said:
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).
I haven’t taken any of your repeated attacks on me personally. You thought you were right about Hubel, you were wrong. I proved as much, you belittle me, but it doesn’t change the fact that he was a partisan/guerilla by his own choosing.
Tagaziel said:
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.
I’d expect for you to do no less.
Tagaziel said:
And last, you being German American and having family in Germany is irrelevant, as are your travels.
Nope, they HELP form opinions. You want to just label me uninformed American and be done with it. But it’s not the case with me. World War II history is more than just a passing interest for me as well, but more from the American side understandably. I’ve never once claimed to know more than you about Polish history, but when some makes the statement “There were NO resistance fighters in Poland”, that is blatantly false.
Tagaziel said:
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.
Yes, and all of those modes of information gathering can be just as flawed. They are written by people, whom presumably talked to someone.
Tagaziel said:
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.
Who said it did? I didn’t. You assume a lot.





Lastly, explain this:
Tagaziel said:
Oh, yes. Germany's crazy. Apparently, the elderly men that decide this crap are afraid killing pixels will cause German youth to put on brown shirts and march down streets shattering windows of immigrant businesses, before causing another world war.
Germany: where even the language selection on Wolfenstein's website is disabled, so that your young, impressionable mind isn't hypnotized by a random swastika.
Firstly let me say I LOL’d a little when I read that, as in it was funny, don’t take it as a troll but curiosity:
If you were serious in this post, and if the “elderly men” that decide this crap are afraid of, pixelized guns/violence (and it appears they are by all accounts). Then why would they not hand real guns with the same mentality? Going back to your point of view regarding WWII having nothing to do with Germany’s gun control today? Just curious how you rationalize the two instances, since this is still a game site.

PS. We have to whittle down the topics a bit. The walls of text we are making is insane. I say lets pick two or three and be done with it.
 
Shoveler said:
Firstly let me say I LOL’d a little when I read that, as in it was funny, don’t take it as a troll but curiosity:
If you were serious in this post, and if the “elderly men” that decide this crap are afraid of, pixelized guns/violence (and it appears they are by all accounts). Then why would they not hand real guns with the same mentality? Going back to your point of view regarding WWII having nothing to do with Germany’s gun control today? Just curious how you rationalize the two instances, since this is still a game site.
Well, german politicians don't understand videogames, are afraid of them and like(d) to blame violent behaviour in kids on them. Pretty much standard behaviour for old folks, really.
So when there's a school shooting they usually look at videogames first because it's easy and it makes them look like they're doing something.
There have been people who want to restrict guns even further, but since the old farts are also more often than not conservative members of Schützenvereine, they don't want to restrict their own fun. And even if they aren't active in Schützenvereine, they do like
the tradition and thus don't want to put any restrictions on it. In short, they're simply stupid.

Again, WWII doesn't have much to do with the modern gun control. Firearms have been heavily restricted before WWII and even before WWI. It's not because of the known effects of warfare that people are scared of guns, it's because most of Europe's countries used to be monarchies most of the time. Monarchies don't like armed plebs, simple as that.
The disarmament of the people after WWII was of course a lot more thorough than after WWI as Germany was occupied and had armed the people in the final stages of the war. But the general dislike of guns was around long before that.
 
I'm putting this on top, since your conciliatory message deserves it. The response is under spoilers, since I didn't feel like deleting an hour's worth of typing (research is an obsession of mine).

PS. We have to whittle down the topics a bit. The walls of text we are making is insane. I say lets pick two or three and be done with it.

Yeah, the quote mines are getting out of control. As we are, which is what Cimmie and GM helpfully pointed out. I think we both ended up arguing with strawmen of our own making, as is the tendency in longer arguments. So:

- I understand that the point of contention is a simple difference in definitions. The Home Army is obviously categorized as resistance, but I differentiate it due to the unique circumstances in which it operated and the basis on which it was formed. You are correct in categorizing them as resistance fighters. I am also correct in categorizing them as a legitimate army.

- This can be the result of me using (unfortunately) mental shortcuts, i.e. using shorthands instead of explaining the point in excruciating detail.

- We do agree on many points (most of them actually), but the argument goes on because we're both obstinate and maliciously interpret the posts. I do believe it's because you really hit a nerve with a post that seemed to question my competence in the history of my own country. I'm pretty sensitive, what with the bullshit about Polish concentration camps circulating despite decades of fighting it. I should chill.

- The argument about Germany's power results from different understanding of military power and methodology. I'm focusing on the potential power, basing on historical processes (like the frightening arming of the U.S. in World War II), while you are seemingly more focused on the current state of affairs. I can't blame you, since the wording of my post indicated the present, not the future.

- Gun culture and Germany is a sensitive topic, mostly resulting from our cultural differences. I come from a country and Union where guns aren't endemic. Your situation is the opposite. I still stand by my point that gun culutre in Europe isn't a product of the experience of war, but a lack of need. This might be because we've always had strong governments and armies doing the fighting. The U.S. initially had to rely on armed militias for its defence instead, which is where the Second Amendment comes from.

You're a great partner to talk to, but as the others (and you) pointed out, we've long since passed into the realm of hilarious obstinacy.

BFFs forever? I'll substitute puppies in the spoiler tags in that case.

[spoiler:4e4a5c1f58]
Shoveler said:
He was. Multiple sources refer to him as partisan (irregular military), guerilla and not the least of which, guerilla commander. Including his own wiki page.

"A partisan is a member of an irregular military force formed to oppose control of an area by a foreign power or by an army of occupation by some kind of insurgent activity."

This is an undisputed fact.

There were.

"Thanks to the support of the local civilian population, the "Separated Unit of the Polish Army" (Oddział Wydzielony Wojska Polskiego), as he named his unit, managed to evade all raids and traps organised by the Germans. However, the German authorities responded with brutal retaliation against the civil population. Because of that the newly formed ZWZ and the Government Delegate's Office at Home ordered Hubal to disband his unit, but he refused. At the same time he limited his contacts with the civilians so as not to endanger them more than necessary."

The legitimate Polish authority ordered him to stop and disband. He refused (he was on his own at that point) without the blessings of the legitimate Polish government and continued on to do this:

"In March 1940 his unit 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 on 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 Maj. Dobrzański never exceeded 300 men, the Germans fielded at least 8,000 men in the area to secure it."

I have no doubt this man was a hero in any respect. But, he was also a partisan.

Cherry picking quotes is not a legitimate reply. If you wanted to address my point, you'd try to disprove that the 400,000 strong Home Army (at the zenith of its size) was a resistance group, instead of the legitimate military force recognized by and subordinated to the Polish government.

I agree, however there were also partisans. The Home Army didn't come together till 1942. More than 2 years after the occupation started. There's no way you can speak for all of the groups that were active in those 2 years before that. There were many.

Did I dispute that? No. But you're using your own, very malicious interpretation of what I post, twisting words to fit your own reply, while ignoring the bigger picture.

It also betrays your lack of research. The Home Army dates back to September 1939, when it was first founded by General Rómmel as Służba Zwycięstwu Polski (Service for Poland's Victory), renamed into Związek Walki Zbrojnej (Union for Armed Struggle) in November 1939. From the onset, it was a military organization formed by legitimate military authorities recognizing the authority of the Polish government.

Do. Your. Research.

Not all of them, as I proved. He refused his orders, to carry out his own initiatives.

There were guerilla fighters.

I didn't dispute otherwise. What I DID dispute was your claim that there were NO guerillas, there were.

I did not claim an absolute, so I'm not sure why you're twisting my words that way. If your argument is so strong, why do you insist on using crutches?

The Polish accomplishments were considerable. But, those feats included partisans.

I agreed earlier in the thread they were important. So is armed resistance. So were the partisans/guerillas.

Now you're just being obstinate.

Guns were the topic of the previous thread you created this one from. I was staying on topic.

The topic of the previous thread was the shooting of a black guy. You derailed it into a topic about resistance and then into me (allegedly) denying the existence of resistance movements in Poland. Which I never did, unless you apply your obstinacy to it.

You're arguing with yourself here. All I said is that there were resistance fighters, and there were.

I haven't argued that point, only that armed resistance, and guerillas played a role as well.

Sorry no, he (Hubel) was insubordinate (rightly so) when they asked him to disband.

They were. Pretty much every source describes him as partisan or guerilla commander.

At least you’re admitting there were some, that’s progress.

And I disputed that, pointing out that resistance fighters did not exist, since I contest the connotations going along with it. I'm not sure why you didn't ask what definition I use, pursuing your own tangent.

The term resistance fighter implies decentralized organization and lack of formal oversight from the government (which is usually dismantled or replaced by a puppet government, like in Norway or Vichy France). This is obviously not applicable to Poland, since the state never ceased to exist, and continuity of government was maintained, while Polish "resistance" fighters were actually legitimate soldiers operating under the aegis of the Polish government.

Were there other resistance organizations? Sure, but they either weren't particularly notable (Armia/Gwardia Ludowa, People's Army/Guard) or allied with the AK anyway (Bataliony Chłopskie, Peasant Battalions).

If you insist on using an extremely narrow, pedantic, and obstinate dictionary definition, then I was wrong. But only in this case. Unless you think 400,000


A tragedy, truly, but a drop in the bucket compared to everything the Nazi’s did.

No. No, it wasn't. If you are arguing that the crimes perpetrated by Nazi Germany against Poland are comparable to a drop in a bucket, then you obviously haven't devoted a single second to proper study of history, beyond the diluted porridge spoon fed to you in school.

Agreed to an extent. There will always be risks to civilians, if it’s acceptable risks is another matter.

Can’t fault him for trying though. The risks are never light in these scenarios. And civilians are always going to pay the highest toll.

And that's why indiscriminate resistance is bad.

It’s still valid, as one of, if not the largest insurgency network in the world at the moment. Besides that point, your argument that the U.S. Armed Forces is neutralized would also, in theory, neutralize said surveillance network. But it’s all hypotheticals so who knows.

The infrastructure would remain in place, which was the big point. And unless the U.S. also took pains to wipe out every social network in existence and all data backups on it, there would be plenty of data for profiling and identifying threats. Oh, the wonders of modern technology.

It’s not so much that you’re not aware, as it is that you claim those events have little to no impact today. The Germans of the past and the Germans of today are inextricably linked.

Never argued the past is irrelevant today. Don't do strawmen. And drugs.

Everyone recognizes that difference. Yes, even me. The problem lies in that there is so much done to bury German history in Germany. Swastikas happened, banning them is ridiculous. It’s like the U.S. having a ban and actual enforcement of the Dixie Flag after the civil war.

Except Dixie isn't associated with planned, purposeful genocide of peoples and mass murder of religious and sexual groups. It's inconsistent though, Germany should have banned the Hammer and Sickle as well. At least Poland's consistent.

All true, for every country, due largely to the things they faced in the past.

Or decisions made by every generation of their own. People aren't nearly as determined by their history as you make them out to be.

I’ll make a small example near the end of the post. One made lightly mind you, but still.

You realize the U.S. is large? MOST of the intense fighting was in a geographically small area. Most of the U.S., and most major U.S. cities did not experience this firsthand.

You're moving the goalposts. Your original claim was that U.S. didn't experience war. That was disproved. And looking at the list of conflicts in the United States... That's a pretty long list. There was plenty of warfare in North America.

But, of course, now you'll move the goalposts and change the critieria again.

Explain what is insane about U.S. gun culture? Are there fringes sure. But by far not the majority.

Second Amendment rabies, for starters. The gun-related crime statistics. Availability of firearms to disturbed people. Mass shootings on a regular basis.

The difference is I give you more credit than stating the obvious to you.

It's not giving credit, it's obfuscating the basis of your argument, which comes off as ignorance, not competence.

The validity stands, just because you don’t like the results really doesn’t matter. I’ll explain below.

Taught early in U.S. schools friend, your assuming again.

The United States did not plan to fight the Soviets in Europe alone.

Again obvious due to the existence of NATO.


Yes, they wanted to be able to repel a massive Soviet armored attack (among other things). And Germany would have been the front lines in such a scenario. I’m glad it never happened.

Look I can see a pattern here too, we tend to agree more than we disagree.

If we do, we might reach a consensus. But only if you lay out your argument, showing the basis, explaining your reasoning in detail, and generally not being obstinate.

Not really, all of the countries listed there were on peace time footing. Except maybe the U.S., but even with Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other theatres/operations worldwide we’re not really in a wartime stance. Meaning simply, there’s lots of potential for more also. But I don’t think the information it presented portrayed Germany unfairly.

True, but the same would happen for all those on the list I presented.

Not unfairly, but with arbitrarily chosen statistics that ignore qualitative differences and the aforementioned potential. And then there's the problem of mandatory military service. Conscription has been suspended in Germany for peacetime, while it continues in Russia and China. That skews results. And it also ignores alliances, further skewing the results.

Furthermore, the expansion in military power would not proceed at a similar pace and would definitely not produce armies of comparable size. It's why comparing peacetime armies on paper, without adjusting for the myriad factors related to them is fallacious.

We were not a military power at the outset of the war. We became one quickly because of our already in place massive manufacturing capabilities which were quickly converted to military purposes. Just to emphasize our lack of military power at the outset of the war, you only have to look at our poor battle performance. We were bad.

But you had a very large potential military power, and that's what counts. Germany, as the biggest and highly industrialized economy in the European Union, has the largest potential military power as well, for the same reason: manufacturing capacity. And, as World War II showed, they're capable of wonders. Production of steel, fuel, and ordnance did not fall as the war went on, but rose, even as the Reich was taking a battering on every conceivable front.

And before you accuse me of unwarranted revisionism: I use the term Reich since at this point the Reich was using not just Germans, but pretty much anyone they could lay their hands on, including Cossacks, Latvians, Estonians, everyone willing (or unwilling) to grab a gun and go to the front.

No argument here, I use equipment made in Germany on a daily basis (eye care). Zeiss makes good toys.

And the Leopard 2. God, I love that tank. I could watch tank crew shenanigans all day.

Sarcasm? Sorry I figured you’d catch it. Concerning Roosevelt, he believed Stalin, and he shouldn’t have. After all, if you can’t trust Stalin, WHO can you trust?

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in pure text without descriptors.

Yea, we lost. There’s a whole plethora of reasons. Not the least of which is indiscriminant bombing/napalming of civilians.

I actually think the key reason was withdrawing support just when South Vietnam was back on its feet.

No one is beating Europe over the head. You stated Europe doesn’t attack sovereign countries. I mentioned evidence to the contrary.

And now you missed my sarcasm.

I never said they were exactly the same.

To a large degree in some cases.

I haven’t taken any of your repeated attacks on me personally. You thought you were right about Hubel, you were wrong. I proved as much, you belittle me, but it doesn’t change the fact that he was a partisan/guerilla by his own choosing.

Look above. You insist on sticking to a narrow dictionary definition. I was never arguing in absolutes. You're claiming you give me credit by not explaining obvious parts. Do I really have to explain the obvious and provide a detailed guide on interpreting my posts, complete with FAQs and charts of where you are going wrong with your interpretation?

I've already explained my reasoning earlier and outlined how it should be interpreted.

I’d expect for you to do no less.

Nope, they HELP form opinions. You want to just label me uninformed American and be done with it. But it’s not the case with me. World War II history is more than just a passing interest for me as well, but more from the American side understandably. I’ve never once claimed to know more than you about Polish history, but when some makes the statement “There were NO resistance fighters in Poland”, that is blatantly false.

I agree that I should have worded that differently, along the lines "The dominant majority of resistance forces in Poland were soldiers serving in the legitimate underground army operating under the command of military authorities subordinated to the legitimate Polish government in London; other resistance forces were small scale and lacked significance relative to the Home Army."

Yes, and all of those modes of information gathering can be just as flawed. They are written by people, whom presumably talked to someone.

Who said it did? I didn’t. You assume a lot.

I only work with what you gave me. And you appealed to your extensive travels and meeting other people, as if they fostered a deep understanding of history and culture of places you visit. They do give you *some* understanding, but not comparable to what reading properly researched publications does.

Lastly, explain this:

Firstly let me say I LOL’d a little when I read that, as in it was funny, don’t take it as a troll but curiosity:
If you were serious in this post, and if the “elderly men” that decide this crap are afraid of, pixelized guns/violence (and it appears they are by all accounts). Then why would they not hand real guns with the same mentality? Going back to your point of view regarding WWII having nothing to do with Germany’s gun control today? Just curious how you rationalize the two instances, since this is still a game site.

Hassknecht explained it, but I'll throw my two (Euro)cents in.

My problem is with the withered husks that decided on this committee that are out of touch with reality and actual scientific research. Their actions are not indicative of the opinions and attitudes of the German nation, but of a bunch of pretentious old men playing with matters they refuse to understand.

A bunch of overreacting, incompetent prudes. Germans aren't overreacting, incompetent prudes. The volume of German porn on the market is proof enough. (I am being sarcastic and/or facetious)[/spoiler:4e4a5c1f58]

TheGM said:
I like this topic, I have learned so much. I've learned America invented being a bully on the world stage and Europe can do no wrong, and if they did, other people have done worse. as well as Europe has become a homogeneous sentient entity.

I would call the experience....life changing.

You should read this topic again on LSD. Daaaamn, now that would be a trip.
 
I might be wrong here, but I always thought that the Yugoslav Partisans commanded by Tito have been the biggest resitance movement in WW2 as far as the number of armed people goes.
 
Yeah, in numbers and effectiveness. It's hard to compare the two, though, since the Balkans are fundamentally different. For starters, they aren't a predominantly flat area that historically offered little resistance to armoured tourists on field trips.

The Underground State in Poland was practically unparalleled, though.
 
Tagaziel said:
BFFs forever? I'll substitute puppies in the spoiler tags in that case.

BFFs forever! "Brothers don't shake hands, brothers gotta hug!"(Farley voice)

PS. I read through your post (oh you know I did!), I didn't want you to think I ignored it. Probably nothing else to add at this point that would be helpful/useful beyond being argumentative.

For the record, I knew some Polish WWII-Era history, and due to this thread pick up some more.

At any rate good discussion, maybe the next one will even be civil all the way through! Hah!
 
Back
Top