Jump to content


Warsaw Uprising 1944-2014


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
39 replies to this topic

Drinkos #1 Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:23 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 42198 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
70 years ago Warsaw uprising started. Polish national partisan army (AK) wanted to free Polish capital - to greet incoming russian army as a guests, not as a liberators.Heavy fights lasted 2 months. As a revenge Warsaw was burned to the ground.  There is no mention of this fact on WOT site.Poles were forced to  wait 5 months to be "liberated" by russian army which camped on other side of Vistula river.  Glory to all the fallen Warsaw Heroes.  Its a shame no 1 except players like me, mention about this fact here .

Edited by Drinkos, 03 August 2014 - 01:15 AM.


Vestrick64 #2 Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:31 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11481 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013
Most likely because it's a forum about a video game, not a historical board?

steelers708 #3 Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:46 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 26189 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010

The Soviets didn't camp on the other side of the Vistula(that's the widely accepted western myth), the 1st Belorussian Front was getting it's [edited]kicked between July & September 1944 during the counter-attack battle of Praga by 4 German panzer divisions.  Defeats don't look good in the "History of the Great patriotic War"(and that's why they don't mention it) and that bulls**t is still peddled out by Russians and ex-Soviets as the official history of WWII to this day, although some Russian authors are starting to tell the 'proper truth', much to their credit.

 

The edited out word referred to a persons backside/derrierre.


Edited by steelers708, 01 August 2014 - 11:48 PM.


Zitzeron #4 Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:48 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8059 battles
  • 401
  • Member since:
    12-18-2012
1944-2014 ??? seriously ? was it that long ?

Drinkos #5 Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:49 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 42198 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
cant agree - European capital was raised to the ground. Most of ww2 events are noticed by Wargamer and we have nice bonus weekends. Well ,i dont want anzthing special, but at least small note would be nice

Drinkos #6 Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:56 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 42198 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
Steelers  - good answer. ty. It was not my intention to mess historical truth, just to point that history should be mentioned even here

steelers708 #7 Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:59 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 26189 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010

View PostDrinkos, on 01 August 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

cant agree - European capital was raised to the ground. Most of ww2 events are noticed by Wargamer and we have nice bonus weekends. Well ,i dont want anzthing special, but at least small note would be nice

 

No!!  Only the battles etc where the Allies won are recognized by Wargaming, the 1940 French campaign was brilliant, as was the invasion of Crete(the first large scale airborne invasion), the opening few months of Barbarossa was outstanding, but will they ever get a mention, of course they won't because the evil Germans were successful.  Wargaming is totally blinkered to history, if the allies didn't win then as far as they're concerned it never happened.



Drinkos #8 Posted 02 August 2014 - 12:12 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 42198 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
good point , True again.  eeeh, wait , 1940 French campaign was brilliant , no way

Edited by Drinkos, 02 August 2014 - 12:28 AM.


steelers708 #9 Posted 02 August 2014 - 02:08 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 26189 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010

View PostDrinkos, on 02 August 2014 - 12:12 AM, said:

good point , True again.  eeeh, wait , 1940 French campaign was brilliant , no way


Armour through the Ardennes, France knocked out in 6 weeks, the British scuttling back to Dunkirk and evacuation from the beaches losing all their heavy equipment etc in the process, how is that not brilliant and totally unexpected.



Slyspy #10 Posted 02 August 2014 - 02:27 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14186 battles
  • 16,481
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
You know those WoT games which you only win because your side is marginally less stupid than their side? That is the invasion of Crete! 

SufficientlyDamp4Rooting #11 Posted 02 August 2014 - 07:54 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3228 battles
  • 309
  • Member since:
    06-18-2014

View PostSlyspy, on 02 August 2014 - 02:27 AM, said:

You know those WoT games which you only win because your side is marginally less stupid than their side? That is the invasion of Crete! 

LOL, very true



wsatnutter #12 Posted 02 August 2014 - 08:48 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 24226 battles
  • 7,190
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    08-25-2010
Keep politics of the forums it will only end in tears

WarIock #13 Posted 02 August 2014 - 08:49 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 34061 battles
  • 114
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View Poststeelers708, on 01 August 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

The Soviets didn't camp on the other side of the Vistula(that's the widely accepted western myth), the 1st Belorussian Front was getting it's [edited]kicked between July & September 1944 during the counter-attack battle of Praga by 4 German panzer divisions.  Defeats don't look good in the "History of the Great patriotic War"(and that's why they don't mention it) and that bulls**t is still peddled out by Russians and ex-Soviets as the official history of WWII to this day, although some Russian authors are starting to tell the 'proper truth', much to their credit.

 

The edited out word referred to a persons backside/derrierre.

 

And your references to your statement? No doubt, the  Katyn massacre was also a myth peddled by the West, too.

 

Maybe worth a read  Warsaw_Uprising ...at least it has a number of references as to its info, and in particular, it  says...

 

'...By 14 September, Polish forces under Soviet high command occupied the east bank of the Vistula river opposite the insurgents' positions; but only 1,200 men made it across to the west bank, and they were not reinforced by the bulk of the Red Army. This, and the lack of Soviet air support from a base 5 minutes flying time away, led to allegations that Joseph Stalin tactically halted his forces to let the operation fail and allow the Polish insurrectionists to be crushed....'

 

and

 

'...The Soviet Union did not allow the Western Allies to use its airports for the airdrops,[7] so the planes had to use bases in the United Kingdom and Italy which reduced their carrying weight and number of sorties. The Allies' specific request for the use of landing strips made on 20 August was denied by Stalin on 22 August.[97] Stalin referred to the insurgents as "a handful of criminals"[101] and stated that the uprising was inspired by "enemies of the Soviet Union".[102] ...'

 

It's an interesting read...and to the Poles involved in this action, I salute you  o7

 

 

 



nixxxie #14 Posted 02 August 2014 - 12:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 123 battles
  • 1,206
  • Member since:
    12-03-2012

It was two months, Dinkos.

 



ClassicFrog #15 Posted 02 August 2014 - 02:50 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 44193 battles
  • 2,981
  • Member since:
    04-05-2012

View Poststeelers708, on 01 August 2014 - 11:59 PM, said:

 

No!!  Only the battles etc where the Allies won are recognized by Wargaming, the 1940 French campaign was brilliant, as was the invasion of Crete(the first large scale airborne invasion), the opening few months of Barbarossa was outstanding, but will they ever get a mention, of course they won't because the evil Germans were successful.  Wargaming is totally blinkered to history, if the allies didn't win then as far as they're concerned it never happened.

 

Yes and no. Germans were successful in France and early in Russia not because they were so good, but because the opposition was less than stellar. If they wanted to give justice to German victories they would have to admit the weaknesses of the Allies at these times. It's a bad business to antagonise part of the customers by pointing out their flaws, even if it's just a historical hindsight, while having no sympathy for Germans at the said time frame of the history seems to be accepted worldwide and carries no significant risk of antagonising people. I guess it's nothing personal, just business.



Dominico #16 Posted 02 August 2014 - 03:00 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6729 battles
  • 771
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011

View PostClassicFrog, on 02 August 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

 

Yes and no. Germans were successful in France and early in Russia not because they were so good, but because the opposition was less than stellar. If they wanted to give justice to German victories they would have to admit the weaknesses of the Allies at these times. It's a bad business to antagonise part of the customers by pointing out their flaws, even if it's just a historical hindsight, while having no sympathy for Germans at the said time frame of the history seems to be accepted worldwide and carries no significant risk of antagonising people. I guess it's nothing personal, just business.

 

That's BS there was nothing wrong with the allied armies at the time,  infact they had superior equipment in most cases (Tanks definitely).

 

The fact is the German tactics were just genius like them or hate them in this war. They used combined arms in a way no one had put into practice (though some British think tanks had the same ideas). This leap in tactics which is still in use today was the winning formula, not failures on the allies.

Amazingly the Germans were still miles ahead by the time of the D day landings. The British could just about compete with them on the ground as they had shown in North Africa and could beat them in the air as shown in battle of Britain. The Russians could just throw men at them till they wore them out as shown in pretty much all their battles. But still 1 on 1 the germans were tactically and technically superior. Hitler started to show otherwise as he got more paranoid and more involved at the end of the war.

But the war in France not amazing technically? Mad statement.



iceride #17 Posted 02 August 2014 - 03:21 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 42699 battles
  • 365
  • [WOT] WOT
  • Member since:
    01-30-2011

View PostDominico, on 02 August 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:

The British could just about compete with them on the ground as they had shown in North Africa...

About compete? What was the ratio of forces?

At El Alamein and inTunisia?



ClassicFrog #18 Posted 02 August 2014 - 03:24 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 44193 battles
  • 2,981
  • Member since:
    04-05-2012

View PostDominico, on 02 August 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

 

That's BS there was nothing wrong with the allied armies at the time,  infact they had superior equipment in most cases (Tanks definitely).

 

The fact is the German tactics were just genius like them or hate them in this war. They used combined arms in a way no one had put into practice (though some British think tanks had the same ideas). This leap in tactics which is still in use today was the winning formula, not failures on the allies.

Amazingly the Germans were still miles ahead by the time of the D day landings. The British could just about compete with them on the ground as they had shown in North Africa and could beat them in the air as shown in battle of Britain. The Russians could just throw men at them till they wore them out as shown in pretty much all their battles. But still 1 on 1 the germans were tactically and technically superior. Hitler started to show otherwise as he got more paranoid and more involved at the end of the war.

But the war in France not amazing technically? Mad statement.

 

Superior tanks, yes. yes they did have them. They did not use them well however.

 

French doctrine restricted their armour forces use, and their political approach meant they had no motivation to fight whatsoever. It was not German superior tactics, it was French utter fail at this department.

 

Russians had brilliant tanks for their early war era, but most of them had little to no anti tank ammunition, crews lacked training (with so little ammunition they had they could not afford effective target practice), in the first moments of Barbarossa there was too much confusion as the front commanders were told not to provoke Germans, because Russians were 1 or 2 days away  from launching their own offensive against Germans, and morale overall was weak and most of the tank loses were either "mechanical faults" (surprising, how they managed to get to the units and front line, but suddenly broke down when about to engage the enemy) or  "unexplained" (just .... lost .... somehow), simply meaning they were abandoned by withdrawing troops. Large army formations (not just tanks) fell back without a fight, or with very little resistance, because commanders either did not know what to do (do not provoke Germans orders stood for a while even after Germans attacked) or had no will to fight. In the few glorious situations where tanks actually stood their ground they were worthy adversary, but these situations were too few to make a difference. After the front collapse Germans were simply taking advantage of the situation and it took Russians a while to get a grip and make a stand, which they eventually did, and pushed back.

 

In North Africa all Allied victories were thanks to numerical advantage. Germans had good tanks and some troops were quite effective, but in the end, logistics mattered the most. Just because of early German advances there it doesn't mean they were so good at desert warfare. There was so little opposition at first, that it would be strange for them not to advance so far. And again, once the opposition toughed up, they were halted, starved, and pushed back. Hardly any glorious Allied tactics, apart from being wise enough to use the terrain to their advantage.

 

 

But you wouldn't know that reading WoT historical events would you? It had to be some uber stronk Germans attacking everyone left, right, and centre, how else could they make all their exploits against righteous and fair, good Allies, the force of light and good, that was never wrong or weak. It was just Germans haxxing their way through. And then, by a chance one in a million, they stopped to be uber, and that's how Allies defeated them.

 

Please, educate yourself a wee bit before posting stuff.


Edited by ClassicFrog, 02 August 2014 - 03:49 PM.


Jigabachi #19 Posted 02 August 2014 - 03:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17852 battles
  • 18,205
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostDrinkos, on 02 August 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

Its a shame no 1 except players like me, mention about this fact here .

Yes, because mentioning all that stuff on a GAMEforum (btw: This GAME is about and glorifies WAR and KILLING stuff.) is such a sign of respect and remembrance. D'uh. :eyesup:



steelers708 #20 Posted 02 August 2014 - 04:43 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 26189 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010

View PostWarIock, on 02 August 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

 

And your references to your statement? No doubt, the  Katyn massacre was also a myth peddled by the West, too.

 

 

Well I assume you've heard of David M. Glantz, probably the most eminent author on the Eastern Front alive.

 

See "The Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay", pages 83-84

 

 

The Warsaw Uprising:

No case of Red Army action or inaction on the Soviet-German front has generated more heated controversy then its operations east of Warsaw in August and September 1944 during the Polish Home Army's Warsaw uprising against German occupation forces. While most Western historians have routinely accused Stalin of perfidy and deliberate treachery in permitting the Germans to destroy the Warsaw Poles, Russian historians counter by asserting the Red Army made every reasonable attempt to assist the beleaguered Poles.

In fact, in late July 1944 the Stavka ordered its 2 Tank Army to race northward to Warsaw with the 47 Army and a cavalry corps in its wake. After encountering two Wehrmacht divisions defending the southern approaches to Warsaw, the tank army tried to bypass the German defenses from the northeast but ran into a counterstroke by four Wehrmacht panzer divisions, which severely mauled the tank army and forced it to withdraw on 5 August. During the ensuing weeks, while the Warsaw uprising began, matured, but ultimately failed, the forces on the 1 Belorussian Front's right wing continued their advance against Army Group Center northeast of Warsaw. For whatever motive, however, the forces on the 1 Belorussian Front's right wing focused on defending the Magnuszew bridgehead south of Warsaw, which was being subjected to heavy German counterattacks throughout mid-August, and the forces on the front's left wing continued their advance to the Bug River north of Warsaw and attempted to seize crossings over the river necessary to facilitate future offensive operations.

Throughout the entire period up to 20 August 1944, the 1 Belorussian Front's 47 Army remained the only major Red Army forces deployed across the Vistula River opposite Warsaw. On that date the 1st Polish Army joined it. Red Army forces north of Warsaw finally advanced across the Bug River on 3 September, closed up to the Narew River the following day, and fought their way into bridgeheads across the Narew on 6 September. Lead elements of two Polish divisions finally assaulted across the Vistula River into Warsaw on 13 September but made little progress and were evacuated back across the river ten days later.

Political considerations and motivations aside, an objective consideration of combat in the Warsaw region indicates that, prior to early September, German resistance was sufficient to halt any Soviet assistance to the Poles in Warsaw, were it intended. Thereafter, it would have required a major reorientation of military efforts from Magnuszew in the south or, more realistically, from the Bug and Narew River axis in the north in order to muster sufficient force to break into Warsaw. And once broken into, Warsaw would have been a costly city to clear of Germans and an unsuitable location from which to launch a new offensive.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users