Idiots do not sow due to the fact that they are born, as the old Polish proverb says.
I remember the discussions that started after the publication of Piotr Zychowicz's book Ribbentrop-Beck Pact (2012). In general, only those who were more passionate about the historical explanation of Braun's "eurostrazak" (e.g. English have mixed in Poland since the time of Mieszko I and are liable even for Volyn!) were willing to believe in the reality of this completely fantastic hypothesis.
Thinking people, especially historians, were knocking on their foreheads.
Because I believe that Hitler with Poland by his side could easy win Moscow is simply a unique fiction.
The case came to an end, but thanks to a Podopolska blogger claiming to be a writer named Romuald Kałwa, she got blushing on NP.
In a peculiarly sleazy text (even for this author) we read:
Minister Joseph Beck was a traitor. Many Poles consider him a hero in a thoughtless but patriotic way. The traitor Joseph Beck inactive has squares and streets of his name in Poland. It's hard what elites, specified heroes.
Foreign Minister Józef Beck: a liar, a servant of large Britain and a peace thief in Poland.
The allegation that Beck was “a servant of the United Kingdom” clearly indicates that the author of this pashquil is influenced by the ahistorical nonsense of the Pole Braun.
True, according to the Sancho Pansy principle, formulated in the early 17th century (printed in 1605)* – Long live the hen, even with a cock I'm expected to blow off a fool.
Happy birthday to you.
But the fool fights hard, and the blogger Aleshumma turns her attention:
This is the Super Chamian Auto-Disc.
IMPROVABLE.PL IT PATRIOTIC, AND THE MINISTER JÓZEF BECK WAS A large POLA!
He writes back in a way that at least made me sick.
I'm sorry, but you're totally wrong.
I respect you, but that's what reasoning has led Poles to hundreds of misfortunes.
You deficiency knowledge, I'm sorry. You represent any completely detached thinking.
After that, the Podopolska slanderer, nb. only with his GED, and it obtained in the evening! he quotes the message of the late prof. Paweł Wieczorkiewicz.
]]>https://www.youtube.com/embed/Uy2ayAnpafa]]>
Historian prof. Paweł Wieczorkiewicz died 15 years ago.
It is worth a small effort to perceive to the full statement. erstwhile you get through the first 10 minutes, dedicated... 4 armored and dogYou'll have a small shock. According to the late Professor, if Poland had made an alliance with Germany today, 2 languages would be in force in the EU – Polish and German!
Furthermore, the Polish army during the conflict of Moscow (November-December 1941) would be a force giving advantage to Germany.
And that would mean the end of Stalin.
One thing at a time.
In 1939, the russian Union had the strongest army in the world. Moreover, he developed it intensively for years to come.
Meanwhile, the Germans of an army capable of resisting the Soviets were not to. Their tanks did not fit in the quality categories of the Red Army!
On September 17, 1939, he showed this highly clearly. The Germans threw around 1500 vehicles called "tanks" against Poland. However, it should be remembered that as many as 900 of these "tanks" were PzKpfW I cars, which in practice were weak tankers (two crew members, weapons: device gun). The armor could be pierced even by a bullet from an average firearm on the equipment of WP soldiers from 150-200 m).
The bombs were missing from Germany on September 15!
After the 20th of that month, Wehrmacht soldiers were advised to attack bayonets because... there was besides a deficiency of gunfire!
TIn the meantime, the Soviets invaded Poland on 17 September 1939 with tanks in quantities of... 4,000 pieces. And better quality than German tankers on 22 June 1941!
WMr Wieczorkiewicz is rambling. The stories that Hitler attacked Poland due to the fact that he was angry at the rejection of the alliance offer was a complete departure.
For Hitler considered France the main enemy of Germany (video: Mein Kampf). However, he was aware that in the event of the attack on France, Poland would implement allied obligations (the Pact of 19 February 1921) and would attack Germany. But in the case of the reverse war in the West, 1 cannot expect!
The attack on Poland was so a rational choice.
WThe theories about the Polish-German alliance have 1 drawback. someway they jump through the first years of war and begin with the conflict of Moscow in autumn and winter 1941.
So let's let the imagination go. Poland becomes Hitler's ally. But then the Soviets do not destruct the largest fortification line in the 20th century (more powerful than the alleged Maginote Line) called Stalin Line. And they sleep peacefully due to the fact that any attack from the west will end in a position war.
Meanwhile, our soldiers will occupy region N for exampleOrd-Pas-de-Calais. If we were to become Hitler's ally, we'd be fighting in the West. ;)
Wp. The prof. most likely remembered that Hitler made the decision to attack the russian Union only erstwhile the intelligence data showed the unmistakably mobilization of russian troops on the western border and the threat of Germany.
Thus the German ambassador justified the declaration of war against the Soviets!
Germany's large triumph in the first phase of Operation Barbarossa was the consequence of an attack only and only Soviets a small sooner than they'd be ready to attack. Similarly, it would have been if Poland had hit Germany on 24 August 1939. The army, which is just taking its starting positions until the attack, is heavy defenseless.
PWith the German and russian forces on 21 June 1941, you can clearly see a immense advantage for the Soviets. Not only did all tanks have at least 2 classes higher, it was more than 4 times more. In humans, the advantage reached... 40% and this was only for the first round. The planes besides had more than 4 times as many.
Meanwhile, the late prof. says that if Poland were an ally of Germans there would be about 1,500 more tanks on the front. Polish!
You wear the face of Barabbas!
And where and by whom would they be produced? For what?
Tanks, as specified comparable to russian T-26 tanks (the same British license) in September 1939 we had about 130 (7TP). Meanwhile, in Soviets, specified ones were produced (but armed with a better 45 mm cannon)... 12,000 pieces!
And the Soviets were already preparing newer (including T-34). In addition, they had quite a few others, specified as the BT series, implemented dense tank production (KW), and no another country in the planet had specified ones at the time.
Germany, erstwhile deciding to fight a defensive war in the east, managed to phase only less than 3.700 tanks, along with allies' forces. At the same time, the quality of many of them was at the level of russian floating tanks, which were not taken into account at all in postwar statistics.
Another question needs to be asked – And why the fuel to drive them? After all, the only sources of oil that existed in Europe at the time are Romanian pits and tiny mining on the Polish Kresach. Planes attacking Britain in 1940 flew on the gasoline supplied to Germany by Stalin. However, comparatively good food supply around the fall of 1941 besides provided the citizens of the 3rd Reich with russian supplies. besides needed for the production of projectiles metallic another than iron. Ba, even wood, utilized massively in mines for pavement housing came from Siberia.
If Poland had concluded an anti-communist pact with Germany, there would have been no specified supply. And the Germans would gotta stop.
In the meantime, like touching Common wands abruptly the communicative begins under Moscow. You can't do that.
GThe war broke out in the West and Poland as an ally took part with Hitler (and even under neutral conditions, which would be considered to be a breach of the alliance of 1921 and the global community would treat us as a quasi aggressor) the fall of France would be doomed. Still, England would remain. Without fuel, it would not be possible to conflict for the Atlantic or to attack England. And even so, it's very limited.
The London-Moscow approach would have taken place immediately after the attack on France. Stalin, hidden behind powerful fortifications, would have prepared faster for the “liberating” war and attacked Germany in 1940.
Against russian tanks would we then display Polish-German cavalry corps??? As you know, a horse for driving gasoline doesn't need. ;)
The Soviets would not have stayed on the Elbe, but would have continued, possibly even passed the Pyrenees and brought “freedom” to Spanish workers and peasants.
Someone fell on their head, and it was very hard.
W The success of the first months of the German defence war in the East was possible in the real planet thanks to 2 factors:
1. preemptive strike on russian troops occupying positions (many tanks were destroyed, for example, on railway platforms);
2. low morale of russian slaves (soldiers), resulting in mass submission to Germany.
Yes, the war was to be won. After all, in 1941 more russian soldiers were captured than Wehrmacht counted on 22 June. If then the ROA (which was made besides late and besides small) were to offer the land to the russian peasants, Stalin himself would defeat the citizens of the USSR. Germans would only gotta deliver weapons.
But Hitler lost besides much confidence. Looking at the scale of the russian disaster in the summertime of 1941, he believed that Moscow was about to fall.
Instead of giving people land, he maintained on conquered lands of the collective farm. Even the nomenclature remained the same. The conquered lands were inactive ruled by... commissioners.
But it's a communicative commonly known (but it's actual erstwhile you read constantly appearing cots).
Let us return to the considerations raised by Mr Wieczorkiewicz.
The Polish-German Alliance would actually mean a shorter war. Regrettably, the implementation of Stalin's plan was to lead to a war in the “capitalist camp”, followed by “the liberation” of Europe (read the annexation of European countries to the USSR as a union republic).
What would Poland look like then? It would most likely be as a union republic with borders from Grudziądz to Nowy Targ (north-south axis) and from Wieliczka to Wieruszów (east-west).
That would be the consequences of a hypothetical Ribbentrop-Beck pact.
In dealing with a somewhat celebrated message by late Zbigniew Herbert, it must be noted that Titled names match the most idiotic, due to the fact that the crowd has naive assurance that titled people can't blabber.
In the mid-19th century the large philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer so-called. argumentum ad ad autctoritatem (argument to authority) he considered to be an example of an disloyal eristic grasp, a cultural man who should avoid. Nevertheless, it is inactive used, which only proves the low intellectual level of the author of the sleazy entry.
TAt the same time, a minute of reflection is adequate to exposure an idiot.
However, this requires intellectual effort, and the condition of sine qua non is to have as specified a functioning brain.
However, as can be seen from Kałwa's sleaze, besides many people, unfortunately, usage their heads only to wear a hat and as a place to place their mouths, utilizing which they can stuff their femurs.
25.11.2024
Ps. tiny people, who have no education, do not realize what the work of the scientist, especially the historian, is, therefore, treating the late prof. as the alleged revealed truth.
So it is worth recalling his words, most likely from the last interview he gave just before his death. Asked by ed. Peter Zychowicz said:
He should be open to fresh ideas. He should approach the problems examined again, rejecting everything written in the Polish People's Republic. He should be asking the craziest thesis and questionsBecause there's a genius in madness. The work of a historian is to ask questions, not repeat the same answers over and over again.
The hypothesis about the "good" Ribbentrop- Beck pact is 1 of the crazy ones, which I believe I have managed to show above.
tot. Wikimedia Commons
__________________________________________
* Oh, my God *El ingenio hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha Miguel de Cervantes y Saavedra
