Why didn't Poland win WW2?

>Update

>vs poland
>Germany
>60 divisions

>vs France
>Germany
>141 divisions.

Do they do math differently in whatever country you're from? Because at least where I live, 141 is more than twice of 60.

nice damage control

Holy shit, you are amazing. You have even listed main differences. I don't know, check them?
Yeah, Germans used more soldiers. But well, allies also used more soldiers than Poland
So let me ask you.
>Do they do math differently in whatever country you're from?
Have you ever heard about proportions?

pic related.

You, or at least someone, said "Look again", in regards to the claim that Germany hit France and the low countries with over twice the force that they hit Poland with. Given how the post count hasn't gone up, I'm assuming that the first post was you not checking the facts, and the second one is you trying to scrabble out of the way of them.

You are, and I rather happily report, are completely, absolutely, totally WRONG with that claim.

Instead of admitting you are wrong, you instead decided to move the venue of the debate. Good job.

Let's also ignore that the Allies had enormous C&C issues, had prepared to fight a largely static war and wound up with a mobile one, that most of those French divisions never actually saw combat, and, oh yeah, you decided to completely and arbitrarily define the length of the "war" as beginning with Fall Gelb, without actually justifying that claim.

Unfortunately you are not Sherlock, and I also did not post or made that picture of "France vs Poland"

I assume, that you said that:
>You do realize your own picture shows that Germany hit France with over double the force they hit Poland with, right?

So let me say again
Yes, they did. So what?

Let me do the same

>vs poland
>Germany
>60 divisions

>vs France
>Germany
>141 divisions.

And here is mine:
>vs Germany
>Poland
>39 divisions

>vs Germany
>France&allies
>144 divisions

Where I live, 144 is more than twice of 39.

>Let's also ignore that the Allies had enormous C&C issues, had prepared to fi(...)
Yeah, and Poland was perfectly prepared for that war.

>Yes, they did. So what?

Good question, so what? Why even bring it up to begin with. Unfortunately, since you are not the user who did so, you'll have to ask him, not me.

I made a claim, a claim that you apparently agree with, and yet despite this, you've decided to attack me making it anyway, because, I'm not really sure why but probably involving you having your head up your ass.

>Yeah, and Poland was perfectly prepared for that war.

Good to see you're ignoring the other points I made, which I'll take as you conceding them. Therefore, since the French-German war that the Third Repulblic fought had its first fighting I'm aware of in early September, that makes it of a duration of a bit shy of 10 months, not a bit over 1.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
Date 10 May – 25 June 1940 (1 month and 15 days)
You are kinda using strange way of argumentation. Because except early September, there were no fights in between till invasion of France (strange war).
By the same logic, German diversions on Poland started on march, so that would be 7 months of "fighting"

Why did Britain have such a shit army?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

Oooh, wiki!

>You are kinda using strange way of argumentation

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that the measurement used in the wiki comparison is dishonest.

To say that the War in Poland lasted from September 1st until October 6th, you are starting the war with the declaration and ending it when you have the last pocket of Polish troops eliminated at the Battle of Kock.

To say that the War in France started on May 10th, you're starting it with Fall Gelb, a major offensive that really did maul them, and ending it when the Third Republic surrendered.

Those are completely different criteria, and as such, using them to compare a conflict's duration is extremely dishonest. If you're using the same set of standards for France that you did for Poland, you may as well say the war ended on September 18th, when the Polish government fled, and could claim that it started on September 8th, when Warsaw was invested. Or perhaps on the 9th, when you had that huge double envelopment in Weilpolaska (sp?)

If you want to measure by the war's beginning for France, you get a bit less than 10 months. If you measure it by when the last pocket of resistance was overrun, you get 1945, since you know, elements of the French army never stopped fighting.

>By the same logic, German diversions on Poland started on march, so that would be 7 months of "fighting"

If you want to start with mobilization, sure, you can start there, but really, you should use consistent criteria of when you're starting and ending your measurement. Otherwise, you're just spouting arbitrary bullshit.

Good point, so let's use the same measurement

Date of Germans crossing a border with very bad goals in mind:
Poland: 1 September 1939
France: 25 June 1940

To date of government surrendering/escaping
Poland: 17 September '39
France: 25 June 1949

So that would be 17 days vs month and 15 days
It changes nothing about France and Poland doing overall awful, and France compared to Poland still did bad, given the capabilities of both nations.
And don't ever start about excuses for France, because Poland will win that competition.

>Date of Germans crossing a border with very bad goals in mind:

Then at the very latest you'd have August 23rd, 1939, before the war even started, when the Germans sent a number of U-boats through British and French territorial waters to be in place should war develop, which id did.

>It changes nothing about France and Poland doing overall awful, and France compared to Poland still did bad, given the capabilities of both nations.

Of course, who said anything otherwise? Throw in Britain while we're there as well, they didn't start doing well until late 42/early 43, and even then they tended to lag behind the Wehrmacht.

But come on, if you're using a wiki comparison like it's not to lay all around blame or to even do a proper analysis of what happened in the opening of WW2, it's /int/ style country dickwaving, nothing more. There is no "competition, except in the minds of 4channers with absolutely nothing better to do with their lives, and apparently, can't let the facts speak for themselves, but have to twist them so that the right county "wins".

Let's just say they are not the smartest people on earth

do you not see the Soviet Union part of invasion on Poland?

The Soviet invasion of Poland happened on the 17th. By such time, Warsaw was encircled, the Polish had suffered almost 50% casualties and none of their armies were in direct communication with each other, and Lodz, the single biggest center of Polish military production, had been overrun for over a week.

The USSR invasion had pretty much 0 impact on the Polish defense, except insofar that a few troops (more border police than actual soldiers) were placed there rather than the overwhelming majority of said troops in the West.

The Soviets invaded to expand their sphere of influence according to the MR pact and because they were afraid that the Germans wouldn't give them their share if they didn't grab it. It had virtually no impact on the German-Polish war.

>imagine being from a country that unironically surrendered in ww2
Absolutely pathetic non-countries lmao

Yeah, the British sure never surrendered in that war.

>An army surrendered
>your entire country did

Your "empire" basically surrendered with that battle.

>what_is_the_English_Channel.jpg

>surrendering non-country damage control

Didn't need a good one.

imagine being from a country that didn't have the ocean to (disastrously) flee over

Because the Allies didn't mobilize, she also had to contend with stopping two superstates from invading her at the same time.

imagine being from a country that surrenders

>Implying Poland wasn't already utterly crushed by the time the USSR invaded.

It wasn't.

Army was ready to regroup, if it wasn't for Soviets, the campgain would last much longer.

>It wasn't.

It was. Warsaw encircled, Lodz fallen, army had taken over 50% casualties already, and they weren't in much of a position to "regroup" since the Axis were interdicting what lines of communication they didn't completely control.

> if it wasn't for Soviets, the campgain would last much longer.

It would have lasted a week, 2 extra, tops. The government was already planning to flee the country before the Soviets attacked.

The Krauts used their space magic and cheated.

Army was ordered to regroup in the Eastern territories.

And that army was mauled and most of its constituent elements were surrounded by Germans.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Poland2.jpg

They couldn't get East to where the Soviets were overrunning places, so it doesn't matter that they were ordered to do so any more than the Soviets were ordered to counterattack in the teeth of Barbarossa and sweep the Germans from Soviet territory; facts on the ground mean a hell of a lot more than high command's dictates.

don't forget about the horses... they could have changed the tide of war

I think divisions have different numbers of men in different countries.

The Germans had more horses than the Poles did too.

That is also correct; and gets doubly confusing since not all divisions are built along the same lines, an infantry division usually has mroe men in it than say, an armored division.

German divisions were not only bigger, but were better equipped as well.

ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/DA-Poland/DA-Poland.html

Goebbels would be proud.

>tfw you get so butthurt that you lost to 5'4 japanese manlets when you outnumbered them 3:1 and were defending you have to shitpost about it
american btw

>island nation
>needing a large army

The royal navy was fucking massive, it's all they needed.

At least the Japanese had an actual army instead of a bunch of rice farmers fighting with inferior soviet equipment.

PAVN/NLF weaponry was way closer to modern for its era than IJA weaponry tbqh.

t. butthurt pole

on your knees, whore

What are you trying to say with this propaganda pic?

Poles are so dumb lol, no wonder they get fucked in the ass in every war

This never happened you fucking imbecile

Doesn't change the fact that Poles are bad at winning wars

they're fucking terrible

...

their division sizes were 1/4 the size of western european divisons iirc

out numbered and out gunned. For whatever reason still diligently fought on as somesort of irl tragic hero

dont engage him

he's just shitposting and looking for >(you)s

>why didnt Poland win WW2
they were part of the Allies, the Allies won WW2, therefore Poland won WW2. What you meant was why didnt Poland win during the September Campaign

Average German size for an infantry division in 1939 was 15,823. You show me a 64,000 man division in Britain or France's organizational charts.

this was the only thing I could find with a specific number, prewar division sized at 16,000 men

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_Mountain_Infantry_Division_(Poland)

i dont know where you got the 60,000 number from, id assume thats the size of the improvised armys consisting of multiple divisions

I stated that the Germans mobilized around 130 divisions by the end of October, (and much more than the 52 mentioned in the OP pic, which is smaller than what was slated for Fall Weiss, let alone guarding their other possessions) to which user here said that a German division was about 1/4th the size of a Western European division.

Going off of this ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/DA-Poland/DA-Poland.html

I replied that a German division was just shy of 16,000 men. For a Western European division to be 4 times that size, they'd need a bit less than 64,000 man unit.

Since none exist, I think we can put the claim to bed that German divisions were quarter sized.