Polish Greatness

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

Battle of Kletsk 1506 7,000 Poles beat 20,000 Tatars.

Battle of Obertyn 1531 5,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldovians.

Battle of Lubieszow 1577 2,000 Poles beat 12,000 Germans.

Battle of Wenden 1601 700 Poles beat 3,000 Swedes.

Battle of Kircholm 1605 3,000 Poles beat 10,000 Swedes.

Battle of Klushino 1610 6,000 Poles beat 35,000 Russian + Swedish forces.

Battle of Khotyn 1621 60,000 Poles beat 150,000 Ottoman Turks.

Battle of Martynow 1624 5,000 Poles beat 15,000 Tatars.

Siege of Azbarazh 1647 10,000 Poles held off 140,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Battle of Bila Tserkva 1651 12,000 Poles beat 50,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Siege of Jasna Gora 1655. 310 Poles beat 3,200 Swedes.

Battle of Podhajce 1667 3,000 Polish soldiers, and 6,000 Polish villagers, beat 20,000 Tatars, 15,000 Cossacks, and 3,000 Turkish Janissarries.

Battle of Kamenets 1672 1,500 Poles held off 80,000 Ottoman Turks for 9 days.

Battle of Trembowla 1675 300 Poles held off 30,000 Turks for a month.,

Battle of Hodow 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars.

Wilno Uprising 1794 1,500 Poles held off 8,000 Russian forces.

Warsaw Uprising 1794 3,000 Poles beat 8,000 Russian forces.

Battle of Fuengirola 1810 400 Poles beat 3,500 British, and 1,000 Spanish forces.

Battle of Olszynka Grochowska in 1831 36,000 Poles beat 60,000 Russians.

Battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916 5,500 Poles beat 13,000 Russians.

Battle of Komarow 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets.

Battle of Zadworze 1920 300 Poles tactical Polish victory despite losing against 17,000 Soviets of the First Cavalry Division.

Battle of Wizna 1939 700 Poles held off 42,200 German Nazis for 3 days.

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

Lee didn't 'hold off' Lee attacked when he could, victories of offensive maneuver are far more impressive than folks turtling into a fort. Audie Murphy held off something like an entire German Battalion, all by himself, so it isn't something only poles can do, anybody can. You didn't segregrate battles by type, something that should be done when looking at military acheivement of this sort.

/QUOTE]

I already listed almost all of Lee's Battles, doof.
I proved they weren't outnumbered so much like many battles Poles were in.

In fact, I pulverized your claim that Lee was always outnumbered.

I can't even find Audie Murphy's holding off a German Battalion?

You made the claim, by your own logic, you should bring up the evidence for it

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

Battle of Kletsk 1506 7,000 Poles beat 20,000 Tatars.

Battle of Obertyn 1531 5,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldovians.

Battle of Lubieszow 1577 2,000 Poles beat 12,000 Germans.

Battle of Wenden 1601 700 Poles beat 3,000 Swedes.

Battle of Kircholm 1605 3,000 Poles beat 10,000 Swedes.

Battle of Klushino 1610 6,000 Poles beat 35,000 Russian + Swedish forces.

Battle of Khotyn 1621 60,000 Poles beat 150,000 Ottoman Turks.

Battle of Martynow 1624 5,000 Poles beat 15,000 Tatars.

Siege of Azbarazh 1647 10,000 Poles held off 140,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Battle of Bila Tserkva 1651 12,000 Poles beat 50,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Siege of Jasna Gora 1655. 310 Poles beat 3,200 Swedes.

Battle of Podhajce 1667 3,000 Polish soldiers, and 6,000 Polish villagers, beat 20,000 Tatars, 15,000 Cossacks, and 3,000 Turkish Janissarries.

Battle of Kamenets 1672 1,500 Poles held off 80,000 Ottoman Turks for 9 days.

Battle of Trembowla 1675 300 Poles held off 30,000 Turks for a month.,

Battle of Hodow 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars.

Wilno Uprising 1794 1,500 Poles held off 8,000 Russian forces.

Warsaw Uprising 1794 3,000 Poles beat 8,000 Russian forces.

Battle of Fuengirola 1810 400 Poles beat 3,500 British, and 1,000 Spanish forces.

Battle of Olszynka Grochowska in 1831 36,000 Poles beat 60,000 Russians.

Battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916 5,500 Poles beat 13,000 Russians.

Battle of Komarow 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets.

Battle of Zadworze 1920 300 Poles tactical Polish victory despite losing against 17,000 Soviets of the First Cavalry Division.

Battle of Wizna 1939 700 Poles held off 42,200 German Nazis for 3 days.

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

There would literally be hundreds of individual regiment sized battles to look over on the eastern front in 41-45, no I am not going to make a tally just for you, I am only telling you how to actually prove your own claim.

Prove it then.

Nazi Germans lost, anyways.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

Battle of Kletsk 1506 7,000 Poles beat 20,000 Tatars.

Battle of Obertyn 1531 5,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldovians.

Battle of Lubieszow 1577 2,000 Poles beat 12,000 Germans.

Battle of Wenden 1601 700 Poles beat 3,000 Swedes.

Battle of Kircholm 1605 3,000 Poles beat 10,000 Swedes.

Battle of Klushino 1610 6,000 Poles beat 35,000 Russian + Swedish forces.

Battle of Khotyn 1621 60,000 Poles beat 150,000 Ottoman Turks.

Battle of Martynow 1624 5,000 Poles beat 15,000 Tatars.

Siege of Azbarazh 1647 10,000 Poles held off 140,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Battle of Bila Tserkva 1651 12,000 Poles beat 50,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Siege of Jasna Gora 1655. 310 Poles beat 3,200 Swedes.

Battle of Podhajce 1667 3,000 Polish soldiers, and 6,000 Polish villagers, beat 20,000 Tatars, 15,000 Cossacks, and 3,000 Turkish Janissarries.

Battle of Kamenets 1672 1,500 Poles held off 80,000 Ottoman Turks for 9 days.

Battle of Trembowla 1675 300 Poles held off 30,000 Turks for a month.,

Battle of Hodow 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars.

Wilno Uprising 1794 1,500 Poles held off 8,000 Russian forces.

Warsaw Uprising 1794 3,000 Poles beat 8,000 Russian forces.

Battle of Fuengirola 1810 400 Poles beat 3,500 British, and 1,000 Spanish forces.

Battle of Olszynka Grochowska in 1831 36,000 Poles beat 60,000 Russians.

Battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916 5,500 Poles beat 13,000 Russians.

Battle of Komarow 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets.

Battle of Zadworze 1920 300 Poles tactical Polish victory despite losing against 17,000 Soviets of the First Cavalry Division.

Battle of Wizna 1939 700 Poles held off 42,200 German Nazis for 3 days.

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

Here is the wiki on france battles List of wars involving France - Wikipedia over 50 alone under Napolean. I am not going to parse out in which the french were outnumbered, because a) I don't want to waste my time, and b) I am not the one going around making a claim about how one country has more than another. /QUOTE]

I've flipped through about 30 battles by France, and haven't even found one yet, where they were outnumbered like Poland was.

Now, it's on you to bring forward the proof of France having more battle wins when outnumber than Poles.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

Battle of Kletsk 1506 7,000 Poles beat 20,000 Tatars.

Battle of Obertyn 1531 5,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldovians.

Battle of Lubieszow 1577 2,000 Poles beat 12,000 Germans.

Battle of Wenden 1601 700 Poles beat 3,000 Swedes.

Battle of Kircholm 1605 3,000 Poles beat 10,000 Swedes.

Battle of Klushino 1610 6,000 Poles beat 35,000 Russian + Swedish forces.

Battle of Khotyn 1621 60,000 Poles beat 150,000 Ottoman Turks.

Battle of Martynow 1624 5,000 Poles beat 15,000 Tatars.

Siege of Azbarazh 1647 10,000 Poles held off 140,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Battle of Bila Tserkva 1651 12,000 Poles beat 50,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Siege of Jasna Gora 1655. 310 Poles beat 3,200 Swedes.

Battle of Podhajce 1667 3,000 Polish soldiers, and 6,000 Polish villagers, beat 20,000 Tatars, 15,000 Cossacks, and 3,000 Turkish Janissarries.

Battle of Kamenets 1672 1,500 Poles held off 80,000 Ottoman Turks for 9 days.

Battle of Trembowla 1675 300 Poles held off 30,000 Turks for a month.,

Battle of Hodow 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars.

Wilno Uprising 1794 1,500 Poles held off 8,000 Russian forces.

Warsaw Uprising 1794 3,000 Poles beat 8,000 Russian forces.

Battle of Fuengirola 1810 400 Poles beat 3,500 British, and 1,000 Spanish forces.

Battle of Olszynka Grochowska in 1831 36,000 Poles beat 60,000 Russians.

Battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916 5,500 Poles beat 13,000 Russians.

Battle of Komarow 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets.

Battle of Zadworze 1920 300 Poles tactical Polish victory despite losing against 17,000 Soviets of the First Cavalry Division.

Battle of Wizna 1939 700 Poles held off 42,200 German Nazis for 3 days.

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

You think you are making the case that poles are a tough underdog nut-to-crack militarily when they got absolutely smoked in 1939, and they were out numbered by only 3 to 2.

No, Poland was outnumbered 2 to 1 in WW2.

When it came to Tanks Poland was outnumbered by nearly 8 to 1.

You act like Nazi Germany was a tough underdog nut to crack militarily , but they lost to Soviets in WW2.

So, what's the difference?

The difference is Poland was more outnumbered in WW2, than Nazis were.

In the Battle of Stalingrad for example Nazis, and Soviets had nearly equal numbers of forces, and Nazis still lost.

Battle of Stalingrad - Wikipedia

Actually Wikipedia puts Nazis as having more frontline strength in Operation Barbarossa, than Soviets.

Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

Battle of Kletsk 1506 7,000 Poles beat 20,000 Tatars.

Battle of Obertyn 1531 5,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldovians.

Battle of Lubieszow 1577 2,000 Poles beat 12,000 Germans.

Battle of Wenden 1601 700 Poles beat 3,000 Swedes.

Battle of Kircholm 1605 3,000 Poles beat 10,000 Swedes.

Battle of Klushino 1610 6,000 Poles beat 35,000 Russian + Swedish forces.

Battle of Khotyn 1621 60,000 Poles beat 150,000 Ottoman Turks.

Battle of Martynow 1624 5,000 Poles beat 15,000 Tatars.

Siege of Azbarazh 1647 10,000 Poles held off 140,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Battle of Bila Tserkva 1651 12,000 Poles beat 50,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Siege of Jasna Gora 1655. 310 Poles beat 3,200 Swedes.

Battle of Podhajce 1667 3,000 Polish soldiers, and 6,000 Polish villagers, beat 20,000 Tatars, 15,000 Cossacks, and 3,000 Turkish Janissarries.

Battle of Kamenets 1672 1,500 Poles held off 80,000 Ottoman Turks for 9 days.

Battle of Trembowla 1675 300 Poles held off 30,000 Turks for a month.,

Battle of Hodow 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars.

Wilno Uprising 1794 1,500 Poles held off 8,000 Russian forces.

Warsaw Uprising 1794 3,000 Poles beat 8,000 Russian forces.

Battle of Fuengirola 1810 400 Poles beat 3,500 British, and 1,000 Spanish forces.

Battle of Olszynka Grochowska in 1831 36,000 Poles beat 60,000 Russians.

Battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916 5,500 Poles beat 13,000 Russians.

Battle of Komarow 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets.

Battle of Zadworze 1920 300 Poles tactical Polish victory despite losing against 17,000 Soviets of the First Cavalry Division.

Battle of Wizna 1939 700 Poles held off 42,200 German Nazis for 3 days.

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

Audie Murphy held off something like an entire German Battalion, all by himself, so it isn't something only poles can do, anybody can.

1,500 Poles, and 80 tanks held off, and beat remnants of 20 Nazi German Infantry, and Panzer divisions in Hill 262, killing over 1,500 German Nazis, and closing the important Falaise Pocket.

Hill 262 - Wikipedia

The highest scoring Squadron of the Battle of Britain, was a Polish Squadron.

No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron - Wikipedia

Poles won the first Battle of WW2, presumably when outnumbered, in the Battle of Mokra 1939.

Battle of Mokra - Wikipedia

Poles won at Krasnobrod in 1939.

Battle of Krasnobród (1939) - Wikipedia

Poles won at the Battle of Woka Weglow in 1939 with 1,000 Polish calvary vs 2,000 Germans, including 37 tanks.

Battle of Wólka Węglowa - Wikipedia

200 Poles held off 3,400 Nazi Germans for 6 days in Westerplatte.

Battle of Westerplatte - Wikipedia

800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans for 3 days in Wizna.

Battle of Wizna - Wikipedia

So, to say Poles always did poorly in WW2, would be a lie.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

Battle of Kletsk 1506 7,000 Poles beat 20,000 Tatars.

Battle of Obertyn 1531 5,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldovians.

Battle of Lubieszow 1577 2,000 Poles beat 12,000 Germans.

Battle of Wenden 1601 700 Poles beat 3,000 Swedes.

Battle of Kircholm 1605 3,000 Poles beat 10,000 Swedes.

Battle of Klushino 1610 6,000 Poles beat 35,000 Russian + Swedish forces.

Battle of Khotyn 1621 60,000 Poles beat 150,000 Ottoman Turks.

Battle of Martynow 1624 5,000 Poles beat 15,000 Tatars.

Siege of Azbarazh 1647 10,000 Poles held off 140,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Battle of Bila Tserkva 1651 12,000 Poles beat 50,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Siege of Jasna Gora 1655. 310 Poles beat 3,200 Swedes.

Battle of Podhajce 1667 3,000 Polish soldiers, and 6,000 Polish villagers, beat 20,000 Tatars, 15,000 Cossacks, and 3,000 Turkish Janissarries.

Battle of Kamenets 1672 1,500 Poles held off 80,000 Ottoman Turks for 9 days.

Battle of Trembowla 1675 300 Poles held off 30,000 Turks for a month.,

Battle of Hodow 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars.

Wilno Uprising 1794 1,500 Poles held off 8,000 Russian forces.

Warsaw Uprising 1794 3,000 Poles beat 8,000 Russian forces.

Battle of Fuengirola 1810 400 Poles beat 3,500 British, and 1,000 Spanish forces.

Battle of Olszynka Grochowska in 1831 36,000 Poles beat 60,000 Russians.

Battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916 5,500 Poles beat 13,000 Russians.

Battle of Komarow 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets.

Battle of Zadworze 1920 300 Poles tactical Polish victory despite losing against 17,000 Soviets of the First Cavalry Division.

Battle of Wizna 1939 700 Poles held off 42,200 German Nazis for 3 days.

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

You think you are making the case that poles are a tough underdog nut-to-crack militarily when they got absolutely smoked in 1939, and they were out numbered by only 3 to 2.

The Dutch only lasted 3 days in WW2, the Danes only lasted 1 day in WW2.

Poland did much better than those.

Even though Polish, and Dutch military funding, and army sizes were more similar to each other, than to French, or Nazi German funding, and military sizes.

Speak of which France only lasted about 10 days longer than Poland, despite having much more military funding, a bigger population size, help from Britain, and no Soviet Invasion.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

Why don't you prove it?

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

Battle of Kletsk 1506 7,000 Poles beat 20,000 Tatars.

Battle of Obertyn 1531 5,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldovians.

Battle of Lubieszow 1577 2,000 Poles beat 12,000 Germans.

Battle of Wenden 1601 700 Poles beat 3,000 Swedes.

Battle of Kircholm 1605 3,000 Poles beat 10,000 Swedes.

Battle of Klushino 1610 6,000 Poles beat 35,000 Russian + Swedish forces.

Battle of Khotyn 1621 60,000 Poles beat 150,000 Ottoman Turks.

Battle of Martynow 1624 5,000 Poles beat 15,000 Tatars.

Siege of Azbarazh 1647 10,000 Poles held off 140,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Battle of Bila Tserkva 1651 12,000 Poles beat 50,000 Cossack + Tatar forces.

Siege of Jasna Gora 1655. 310 Poles beat 3,200 Swedes.

Battle of Podhajce 1667 3,000 Polish soldiers, and 6,000 Polish villagers, beat 20,000 Tatars, 15,000 Cossacks, and 3,000 Turkish Janissarries.

Battle of Kamenets 1672 1,500 Poles held off 80,000 Ottoman Turks for 9 days.

Battle of Trembowla 1675 300 Poles held off 30,000 Turks for a month.,

Battle of Hodow 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars.

Wilno Uprising 1794 1,500 Poles held off 8,000 Russian forces.

Warsaw Uprising 1794 3,000 Poles beat 8,000 Russian forces.

Battle of Fuengirola 1810 400 Poles beat 3,500 British, and 1,000 Spanish forces.

Battle of Olszynka Grochowska in 1831 36,000 Poles beat 60,000 Russians.

Battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916 5,500 Poles beat 13,000 Russians.

Battle of Komarow 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets.

Battle of Zadworze 1920 300 Poles tactical Polish victory despite losing against 17,000 Soviets of the First Cavalry Division.

Battle of Wizna 1939 700 Poles held off 42,200 German Nazis for 3 days.

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

You think you are making the case that poles are a tough underdog nut-to-crack militarily when they got absolutely smoked in 1939, and they were out numbered by only 3 to 2.

There's 4 big factors why Poland didn't perform so well in WW2.

1.) Soviets gave Nazi Germany vast resources in the German - Soviet - Credit Agreement, fueling their war effort, to both make, and fuel vehicles like tanks.
Poland had tanks too, like the 7TP but they generally ran out of gas.

2.) Nazis spent massive amounts of their GDP on military spending, Poland did not. (Probably because Poland was trying to focus on the economy)

3.) Nazi Germany got a big build up in Tanks, and Motor vehicles by annexing Czech lands, and acquiring Skoda, actually the best Nazi tank during the Invasion of Poland, was the Czech Skoda Panzer 38(t)

4.) A lot of fighting aged Poles had left for America just before WW2.
Actually a Polish American population 5 million in WW2, had produced 1 million soldiers.
While Poland of 34 million in WW2, had produced 1 million soldiers.

 

[ChrisL]

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

You think you are making the case that poles are a tough underdog nut-to-crack militarily when they got absolutely smoked in 1939, and they were out numbered by only 3 to 2.

The Dutch only lasted 3 days in WW2, the Danes only lasted 1 day in WW2.

Poland did much better than those.

Even though Polish, and Dutch military funding, and army sizes were more similar to each other, than to French, or Nazi German funding.

Speak of which France only lasted about 10 days longer than Poland, despite having much more military funding, a bigger population size, help from Britain, and no Soviet Invasion.

It doesn't matter how many things you post. You will never "please" this person. He is just trolling you. Going out of your way to provide any further information to this poster is just a waste of your time.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

You think you are making the case that poles are a tough underdog nut-to-crack militarily when they got absolutely smoked in 1939, and they were out numbered by only 3 to 2.

The Dutch only lasted 3 days in WW2, the Danes only lasted 1 day in WW2.

Poland did much better than those.

Even though Polish, and Dutch military funding, and army sizes were more similar to each other, than to French, or Nazi German funding.

Speak of which France only lasted about 10 days longer than Poland, despite having much more military funding, a bigger population size, help from Britain, and no Soviet Invasion.

It doesn't matter how many things you post. You will never "please" this person. He is just trolling you. Going out of your way to provide any further information to this poster is just a waste of your time.

True, but I do enjoy all things Polish, military discussions, and a good debate.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

One British pilot was killed for every 4.9 enemy planes downed. The Poles managed to notch up 10.5 enemy planes per pilot death.

In The Forgotten Few, his tribute to the Polish air force, historian Adam Zamoyski puts this down to ‘superior tactics and better team work — the last thing the RAF top brass had expected of them’.



Read more: Why did we humiliate the Polish aces after their Battle of Britain heroics? | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Personal: Birth date: May 18, 1920

Death date: April 2, 2005

Birth place: Wadowice, Poland

Birth name: Karol Jozef Wojtyla

Father: Karol Wojtyla, officer in the Polish Army

Mother: Emilia Wojtyla

Education: Doctorate in Philosophy and a Doctorate in Sacred Theology, Jagiellonian University

Other Facts: Pope John Paul II died in April 2005 at the age of 84. His official cause of death was septic shock and cardio-circulatory collapse. He had suffered from Parkinson's disease, arthritis and other ailments for several years before his death.

Upon his election in 1978, John Paul II was the first non-Italian Pope in 455 years. His official title was: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Western Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Province of Rome, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City.

Achievements: First pope to visit the White House.

First modern pope to visit a synagogue.

First pope to visit Cuba.

The most widely traveled pope in history.

Canonized more saints than any other pope.

Created 232 cardinals.

Re-established diplomatic relations with Great Britain after a 450-year break.

In January 1984, re-established diplomatic relations with the United States which had been broken since 1867.

Established diplomatic relations with Israel and with the PLO.

Timeline: May 18, 1920 - Karol Jozef Wojtyla is born in Wadowice, Poland, at 7 Koscielna Street. The little boy nicknamed Lolek is the third and last child of Karol, an officer in the Polish Army, and Emilia. His brother Edmund was born in 1906 and a sister, Olga, died in infancy in 1914.

1938 - After Karol Jr. graduates from high school, the Wojtylas move from Wadowice to Krakow. Karol Jr. attends Jagiellonian University until World War II begins in September 1939.

1941 - Wojtyla and his friends start an underground theater, called the Rhapsodic Theater, to present works in Polish in defiance of the Nazis. During the day, Wojtyla works in quarries and chemical factories.

1942 - Wojtyla joins an underground seminary organized by Archbishop Sapieha.

1946 - Wojtyla is ordained by Cardinal Sapieha to become a priest and celebrates his first Mass.

1946-1948 - Wojtyla studies in Rome, where he earns a doctorate in philosophy. After returning to Poland, he also earns a doctorate in Sacred Theology from Jagellonian University in December 1948.

1958 - Wojtyla is consecrated as a bishop.

1962-1965 - Wojtyla participates in Vatican II in Rome. He sides with the reformers who want to modernize the church. He also contributes to a document that states that the Church no longer considers Jews responsible for Christ's death.

March 8, 1964 - Wojtyla is ordained as Archbishop of Krakow.

June 26, 1967 - In a secret consistory, Wojtyla is elevated to cardinal. Two days later, he is formally installed in a Vatican ceremony.

October 16, 1978 - Cardinal Karol Wojtyla is elected to be the 264th pope, the first non-Italian in 455 years. He is also the youngest pope since 1846. He takes the name John Paul II to honor his three immediate predecessors.

October 2, 1979 - Addresses the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York.

May 13, 1981 - Pope John Paul II is shot by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca in Saint Peter's Square. He is wounded in the abdomen, arm and hand. Two others are wounded as well. Vatican Secretary of State Agostino Cardinal Casaroli takes over as temporary head of the Roman Catholic Church.

December 27, 1983 - The pope meets with Ali Agca at Rebibbia Prison.

January 10, 1984 - The United States re-establishes full diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

December 26, 1994 - Time Magazine names Pope John Paul II its Man of the Year.

October 5, 1995 - He addresses the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York, commemorating the organization's 50th anniversary.

March 16, 1998 - The Vatican releases a formal apology to Jews for the Church's failure to do more to prevent the Holocaust.

March 12, 2000 - Apologizes for the Church's mistreatment of Jews, non-Catholic Christians, women, the poor and minorities over the last 2,000 years.

March 16, 2004 - With 25 years and 5 months as pope, John Paul II becomes the third longest serving pontiff in history, behind St. Peter's 32 years and Pope Pius IX's 31 years 7 months.

June 15, 2004 - Pope John Paul II asks forgiveness for the Inquisition, "for errors committed in the service of truth through use of methods that had nothing to do with the Gospel."

February 1, 2005 - Hospitalized with a respiratory infection.

February 9, 2005 - For the first time in his papacy, John Paul II does not perform the Ash Wednesday Mass at the Vatican.

February 11, 2005 - Is released from the hospital.

February 24, 2005 - Re-hospitalized at Gemelli Hospital after relapsing with the flu. Successfully undergoes a tracheotomy to relieve respiratory problems.

March 13, 2005 - Released from the hospital.

March 30, 2005 - The Vatican announces that the pope is being fed by a nasal tube.

March 31, 2005 - Given last rites after developing a high-fever and a urinary tract infection.

April 1, 2005 - The Vatican says in a written statement that the pope had suffered cardiocirculatory collapse and septic shock. The Vatican denied reports that the pope was in a coma and described his condition as "lucid, fully conscious."

April 2, 2005 - Pope John Paul II dies at 9:37 p.m. in his private apartment in the Vatican.

April 8, 2005 - His funeral takes place in Saint Peter's Square and he is buried in a crypt under Saint Peter's Basilica.

May 2005 - Pope Benedict XVI waives the wait period for review for beatification and canonization, which is at least five years after death.

May 1, 2011 - Is beatified, or declared "blessed," as a saint by his successor Pope Benedict XVI. A vial of Pope John Paul II's blood is displayed before the crowd.

July 5, 2013 - The Vatican announces that Pope John Paul II will be made a saint.

April 27, 2014 - Is canonized a saint, along with Pope John XXIII.

Travels: 1979 - Dominican Republic, Mexico, the Bahamas, Poland, Ireland, the United States and Turkey.

1980 - Zaire, the Congo, Kenya, Ghana, Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Ivory Coast, France, Brazil and West Germany.

1981 - Pakistan, the Philippines, Guam, Japan and the United States.

1982 - Nigeria, Benin, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Portugal, Switzerland, San Marino, Spain, United Kingdom, Brazil and Argentina.

1983 - Portugal, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Haiti, Poland, France and Austria.

1984 - US, South Korea, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Thailand, Switzerland, Canada, Spain, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico.

1985 - Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Togo, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Zaire, Kenya, Morocco, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

1986 - India, Colombia, St Lucia, France, Bangladesh, Singapore, Fiji Islands, New Zealand, Australia and Seychelles.

1987 - Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, West Germany, Poland, the United States and Canada.

1988 - Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Austria, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland and France.

1989 - Madagascar, Reunion Island, Zambia, Malawi, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, South Korea, Indonesia, Mauritius and East Timor.

1990 - Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, Curacao, Malta, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda and Ivory Coast.

1991 - Portugal, Poland, Hungary and Brazil.

1992 - Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Angola, Sao Tome and Principe, and the Dominican Republic.

1993 - Benin, Uganda, Sudan, Albania, Spain, Jamaica, Mexico, US, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

1994 - Croatia.

1995 - Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Australia, Sri Lanka, Czech Republic, Poland, Belgium, Slovakia, Cameroon, South Africa, Kenya and the United States.

1996 - Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Venezuela, Tunisia, Slovenia, Germany, Hungary and France.

1997 - Bosnia, Czech Republic, Lebanon, Poland, France and Brazil.

1998 - Cuba, Nigeria, Austria and Croatia.

1999 - Mexico, US, Romania, Poland, Slovenia, India and Georgia.

2000 - Egypt, Jordan, Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Portugal.

2001 - Greece, Syria, Malta, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Armenia.

2002 - Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Guatemala, Mexico and Poland.

2003 - Spain, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovakia.

2004 - France and Switzerland.

Pope John Paul II Fast Facts

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

A builder of bridges in America

Rudolf Modrzejewski's career across the Atlantic was certainly helped along by the fame and connections of his mother, a prominent actress, but also by the comprehensive engineering education he obtained at France’s leading university. He is known in the United States to this day as Ralph Modjeski.

© J. Mieczkowski/Wikimedia Commons" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: url("../images/elements/copyright-icon.png"); color: rgb(15, 94, 162); transition: all 0.5s ease; outline: 0px; display: block; width: 20px; height: 16px; position: absolute; left: 30px; bottom: 30px; z-index: 100;">Until the second half of the 18th century, wood and stone were mainly used to build bridges. In 1779, the English engineer and metallurgy pioneer Abraham Darby built across the River Severn in Britain the first iron arch bridge in the world, modelled on ancient stone bridges. In America three years earlier, thanks to John Finley's design, the first iron-chain suspension bridge was built across Jacob’s Creek river, and 13 years later, a famous 75-meter-long chain bridge was constructed across the Merimac river.

In later years, chains were replaced by braided steel ropes, each consisting usually of over 1,000 twisted wires with a diameter of 3 mm. European engineers, however, quickly abandoned the construction of suspension bridges because they were susceptible to side winds. American constructors, on the other hand, still favoured these bridges, and after introducing additional stiffening supports they created architectural masterpieces.

The pioneers in this type of construction undoubtedly included Ralph Modjeski, known in Poland as Rudolf Modrzejewski – the talented son of prominent actress Helena Modrzejewska. He made a career in America and his architectural and construction firm Modjeski & Masters still operates today. He was not preordained to become a bridge builder though, and he may not have left Poland, a country that was not even on the map, having been ravaged by the partitioning powers.

Dolcio’s difficult childhood

Helena Modrzejewska, before she became a star of the American stage, began her acting career modestly in a small theatre in Bochnia, near Krakow. Before appearing there, she helped her mother, Józefa Bendowa, run the first women's cafe in Krakow (founded in 1854), where she learned the cooking skills that she would use throughout her life, creating her hand-made “Own Stuffed Buns”, the recipe which she left to her friend and frequent house visitor Ignacy Jan Paderewski.

As for the origin of the future actress, it is known that she was christened Jadwiga Helena. It is not certain whether she bore the surname of her father, Benda, or that of one of her widowed mother’s later partners (Opid or Misel). Her stage-name Helena Modrzejewska, used for the first time in 1861, appeared on a poster for the theatre in Bochnia run by former Austrian officer and mediocre actor Adolf Gustav Sinnmayer. Zimajer, the surname he was known by, had a romance with Helena, although he had a wife and children. The fruit of their relationship was born in Bochnia on 21 January 1861. Rudolf, affectionately called Dolcio, was given the surname Modrzejewski, which was the surname his father was using at the time.

Dolcio spent the first years of his life mostly in actors’ dressing rooms and behind the scenes of his mother’s stage productions. Helena's relationship with Zimajer quickly fell apart, but the Austrian father did not simply fade away: he abducted his son and took him first to Bochnia and then to Vienna. According to reports from the time, Helena went out of her mind in despair, but still tried to perform. Her half-brother helped her regain her son by mediating in negotiations and handing over a large ransom. Dolcio returned to his mother (it is worth mentioning that the dramatic life of the actress was depicted wonderfully in the series screened in 1990, Modrzejewska, directed by Jan Łomnicki with Krystyna Janda playing the title role brilliantly).

At that time, the beautiful Helena was adored by Karol Chłapowski, a nobleman from Wielkopolska. They met in 1866 in Poznan during a tour by the actress. Despite opposition from Chłapowski’s family, he married Helena Modrzejewska in 1868. They had no children together, so they focused on their beloved and talented Dolcio. Initially, it was thought that Rudolf would become a piano virtuoso due to his undoubted gift for the piano. At the time, his mother was performing on stage in Warsaw and Krakow but terminated her contracts when the boy was 14 years old.

Helena Modrzejewska was invited to tour America. Travelling through France, the family crossed the Atlantic and decided to settle there. In 1876, together with a group of Polish friends, she founded a settlement in Anaheim, California. The utopian project, mostly financed by Modrzejewska and her husband Chłapowski, whose partners included Stanislaw Witkiewicz, Adam Chmielowski, Juliusz Sypniewski and Henryk Sienkiewicz, proved to be a complete fiasco. Fortunately though, Helena was being well paid for her performances.

© Overland Monthly/Wikimedia Commons" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: url("../images/elements/copyright-icon.png"); color: rgb(15, 94, 162); transition: all 0.5s ease; outline: 0px; display: block; width: 20px; height: 16px; position: absolute; left: 30px; bottom: 30px; z-index: 100;">The engineer Ralph Modjeski

Americans fell in love with Helena Modrzejewska for her prominent performances of Shakespearean roles. At that time, the actress changed her stage name to Modjeska – much simpler to pronounce in the West. Thus, her son became Ralph Modjeski, and earned American citizenship under that name (but only in 1883). In 1878, returning from a visit to her family in Krakow, she went to Paris with her son, where he stayed to continue his education. He already had his American high school diploma, so he had to choose what to study. It was only after his second attempt that in 1881 he was accepted into the famous Parisian Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chausés (State Road & Bridges School), from which he graduated with honours.

In 1884-1885, he often visited family and friends in Krakow and Zakopane. It was then that he got engaged to his distant cousin Felicja Benda. Their wedding took place on 28 December 1885, in the Polish church of St. Stanislaus in New York.

Thanks to his mother’s connections, after returning to America, Ralph Modjeski got his first job with the eminent bridge builder George S. Morison. He began as a master in the steel bridge components division and ended up seven years later as chief supervision and quality inspector in the company. Then, in 1892, he started working for himself and founded Modjeski & Masters in Chicago (with subsidiaries in New York and New Orleans). In the same year, his third child was born – his daughter Marylka, who became the well-known painter Modjeska-Pattison. He also had sons Feliks (b. 1886) and Karol (b. 1890), who would both follow their father’s footsteps and become engineers.

Ralph Modjeski won recognition thanks to his knowledge and bold work. Modjeski & Masters's speciality was the design and construction of suspension bridges, which at the time were the height of technical fashion, though they were difficult and risky to build. Modjeski used numerous technical modifications, including new methods of joining individual bridge elements and new steel alloys, and he also began to use more durable materials, such as reinforced concrete, to build spans.

Of course, running the company was not easy initially, but after building several bridges (including the Trebes Bridge on the Mississippi in Illinois, a bridge with a 198-metre-long main span with two arched flyovers, opened in 1904) his fame grew, and after being awarded the title of engineer of the year, orders started to arrive. He connected the distant banks of American rivers, designing and supervising the construction of over 30 suspension bridges.

In 1911, he received a doctorate degree in engineering from the University of Illinois, and his scientific papers were published, including a treatise on large bridge design (1913). In 1929, he was awarded the John Fritz Gold Medal, the highest American engineering award, and in the same year Lvov Polytechnic awarded him an honorary doctorate. The Benjamin Franklin Bridge in Philadelphia (over the Delaware River, with a record breaking span of 530 m, opened in 1926) and the Bay Bridge linking San Francisco to Oakland (1936) made him famous around the world. Building a bridge across the bay earned him the title of suspension bridge wizard in the United States. It was at that time that he took his well-deserved retirement and devoted himself to academic work and his family.

© Wikimedia Commons" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: url("../images/elements/copyright-icon.png"); color: rgb(15, 94, 162); transition: all 0.5s ease; outline: 0px; display: block; width: 20px; height: 16px; position: absolute; left: 30px; bottom: 30px; z-index: 100;">Ralph’s family dramas

Ralph Modjeski's private life was not particularly happy, especially after his beloved mother died on 8 April 1909. His stepfather, Karol Chłapowski, took Helena Modrzejewska’s body to bury it in Krakow’s Rakowicki Cemetery (where he was later buried in 1914). At that time, Ralph's marriage to Felicja was falling apart, although they only separated in 1916, and divorced in 1931. Then, at the age of 70, Modjeski married the much younger Virginia Mary Giblyn. The family, though, did not accept her, seeing her as a gold digger. It is worth noting that Modjeski had previously been in love for a long time with the artist of French origin Belli Silvestri, who committed suicide in 1929, in unexplained circumstances.

After retiring from running the company in 1936, Modjeski settled in a beautiful villa with a garden at N. Alexandria 157 in Hollywood. Kazimierz Kozuba writes (The Suspension Bridge Wizard) that at that time "he liked most of all to lie in the sun and talk for hours with his grandson Karol, Maryla's son. The grandson was already an engineer, and was about to travel to the front in the war with the Japanese in the Pacific.

Rudolf Modrzejewski, or Ralph Modjeski, died in his villa garden on 26 June 1940. He was buried at the Ingelwood Eternity Mausoleum Cemetery in the crypt K-208. A few months later, his son, Felix, an engineer and owner of the prosperous Modjeska Electric Co., died suddenly (...). In 1944, Rudolf Modrzejewski’s second son, Karol, a civil construction engineer, died. Maryla's daughter, whose surname was Pattison by her husband, who lived in Arizona, died in a car accident in 1966. Her son Karol was then a professor at Arizona State University, where he taught mechanical engineering."

The bridges built by Ralph Modjeski still stand today, although some of them have been renovated and rebuilt after many years. In 1999, the Polish Post Office issued a stamp bearing the image of the eminent engineer and one of his works. Meanwhile, in May 2008, a ceremony took place in Bydgoszcz naming the Fordon bridge after Rudolf Modrzejewski.

Author: Agnieszka Niemojewska

Source: “Rzeczpospolita”

• Modj

A builder of bridges in America

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Not many discoverers or world travellers have made a name for themselves on the pages of Polish history. But one man that did was undoubtedly Beniowski – a valiant soldier, sailor, commander and even... king.

© Polona.pl" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: url("../images/elements/copyright-icon.png"); color: rgb(162, 32, 53); transition: all 0.5s ease; outline: 0px; display: block; width: 20px; height: 16px; position: absolute; left: 30px; bottom: 30px; z-index: 100;">Maurycy August Beniowski was awakened by three successive cannon shots, but that did not surprise him. He knew that this artillery salute signalled the arrival of great day, 10 October 1776. For the first time since first arriving on Madagascar, where he had already spent three long years, he donned the local garb, the white flowing robe worn by local rulers known as rohandrians.

At six in the morning his tent was entered by Raffangour, the chief of the Sambariv tribe, and several other prominent rulers of the Malagasy.

“I was then led to a broad, beautiful plain, surrounded on all sides by natives, at least 30,000 in number. (…) The chiefs stood at the head with the womenfolk in the centre. When I entered the throng, I was greeted by a joyous outcry,” Beniowski wrote in his famous Journal.

The eldest chief, Raffangour, was the first to speak and presided over the ceremony. In florid language, he recalled the history of the Malagasy, the battles they had fought amongst themselves after their sole ruler ceased to be, and the oppression they had suffered at the hands of the French. Then they asked Beniowski to accept the title of ampansakaba or supreme ruler, reigning over all the Malagasy rohandrians. Beniowski of course accepted, fulfilling the conditions jointly agreed with the rohandrians over several preceding days. He also had to perform a few rituals.

The society of Madagascar was divided into castes. The new king of kings successively paid visits to them all, personally butchering oxen, and his new subjects dipped their swords in the animal blood and licked off the droplets dripping from their blades, whilst swearing their oath of loyalty. Beniowski and the principal Malagasy leaders were thereupon joined by their bonds of blood, when they slashed their arms and sucked the blood from the wounds “violently cursing anyone who would dare violate their oaths and blessing those who uphold their vows.”

Finally, an act of election was drafted in the Malagasy language in Latin script and read out three times to those gathered in the plain and then signed on behalf of the natives by Hiawi, the rohandrian of the East, Lamboin – rohandrian of the North, and Raffangour – the rohandrian of the Sambarivians. The white Bourbon flag flying over the fort was then immediately removed and a sky-blue one symbolising Madagascar's independence was hoisted up the mast.

And that is how Maurycy Beniowski, a Polish member of the Bar Confederation, an exile and later a fugitive who escaped from captivity in Kamchatka, became an ampansakaba – the rule of all of Madagascar. How did that come about?

A rebel by choice

Maurycy Beniowski was born on 20 September 1746 in the town of Vrbové, which was then in Hungary and is now in Slovakia. He was the son of Colonel Samuel Beniowski and Baroness Rose Révay. The family had Hungarian roots but from the 14th century had been closely tied to Poland. Maurycy himself, who came to the Polish Commonwealth at the age of 17, always stressed that he felt Polish. He had expressed such sentiments many times in the pages of his Journal. These memoirs were published for the first time in London in 1790, four years after Beniowski's death, and to this day remain the main source of information about this unique character.

Many researchers, above all from France and Russia, had questioned the credibility of the adventures and discoveries it described. However, there are many indications (as credibly presented in Edward Kajdański's book for example that attempts to portray Beniowski as a run-of-the-mill swashbuckler and confabulist were politically motivated. Whatever the case, Beniowski's Journal in the late 18th and early 19th century enjoyed huge popularity in Europe. By 1808, 18 editions of the book had been published in six different languages. Beniowski became the hero of many other works and a source of inspiration for other authors. This comes as no surprise, since Beniowski had led such a fascinating, colourful and adventure-filled life.

From his youngest days, he had a temperament bursting with energy. He left home at the age of 16 after his father had died (his mother had orphaned him two years earlier). He wandered all over Hungary and Poland and married Zuzanna Hönsch, a Polish girl from Spisz. But after a time, he returned to his native parts, where, while handling matters pertaining to his inheritance, he raided the manor in Hruszów. Pursued by officials of Maria Theresa, he fled to Poland. In the meantime, in February 1768, the Bar Confederation was set up – an armed revolt of the Polish nobility in defence of their Golden Freedom (privileges) and against Polish King Stanislaus Augustus Poniatowski and the Russians supporting him. Beniowski joined the Confederation.

His innate soldiering and leadership talents became apparent. He valiantly fought Russians troops in many battles and was wounded seven times. But in May 1769, at the Battle of Nadvirna he was taken prisoner and landed in tsarist captivity. He was exiled to Kazan, where he immediately joined a conspiracy to free the leaders of the Confederation incarcerated in Kaluga. When Beniowski learnt that the conspiracy had been discovered, he and his friend Wynblath flee to St Petersburg, from where they had hoped to make their way to Holland. But they fell into a trap after the Dutch skipper informed on them. This time the verdict was more severe. Tsarina Catherine II personally sentenced Beniowski to exile in Kamchatka, at the empire's easternmost extreme.

© Polona.pl" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: url("../images/elements/copyright-icon.png"); color: rgb(162, 32, 53); transition: all 0.5s ease; outline: 0px; display: block; width: 20px; height: 16px; position: absolute; left: 30px; bottom: 30px; z-index: 100;">The great escape

At the time, the most important Russian settlement in Kamchatka was Bolsheretsk. The tsarist authorities regarded that frigid peninsula, all but cut off from the civilised world, as a prison for those who dared rebel against tsarist despotism. Beniowski soon assured himself of better conditions than those of other exiles. The enterprising Pole. full of ambitious ideas, won the friendship of Kamchatka's administrator Nilov and the heart of his beautiful daughter Afanasia who fell hopelessly in love with him. Nor did she abandon her lover even after learning of his conspiracy. On the contrary, she promised Beniowski she would warn him of any impending danger.

When Nilov ultimately found out about the plot, he ordered Beniowski's arrest. But before then, Beniowski received a red ribbon from his beloved, the agreed signal. The rebels incapacitated a Cossack patrol and moved on the administrator's headquarters. In desperation, Nilov lunged at Beniowski but perished by the sword of one of the Pole's fellow-conspirators. After routing another Cossack patrol, Beniowski became the master of all Kamchatka. But he did not intend to stay there.

Instead, he equipped the galley of SS Peter & Paul and loaded it with valuable furs taken from the Bolsheretsk warehouse and meant for export to China. He also took aboard secret tsarist archives pertaining to Russian expansion in the Far East. He sent a letter to St Petersburg in which he accused Tsarina Catherine of unlawfully depriving her son Paul of the throne and meddling in Poland's internal affairs.

Finally, on 11 May 1771, Beniowski sailed off on a voyage that would bring him fame and the freedom he so greatly yearned. On board were nearly a hundred exiles including nine women, among them Afanasia Nilovna who thought the world of him.

The SS Peter & Paul, flying the flag of the Bar Confederation, did not immediately head south, but began by exploring the virgin areas of the Bering Sea. Possibly, Beniowski's original plan had been to get to Europe via an unexplored northern route, but ice fields made that impossible. The ship stopped for a spell along the southern shore of St Lawrence Island and later sailed along the little-known shores of Alaska.

When a storm pushed the ship to the west, they accidentally discovered the islands of St George and St Paul and a few days later reached Unimak, the last Aleutian island. In effect, several years ahead of Captain James Cook's famous expedition, Beniowski explored the hitherto uncharted expanses of the northern seas. For that reason alone, he deserves the title of one of the greatest discoverers in the history of Poland.

The next stage of his voyage took him to Japan. By Beniowski's time, the country had been completely closed to Europeans for a hundred years (and had maintained commercial contacts solely with the Dutch), but Beniowski set his foot on the soil of that mysterious land. He experienced a varied welcome, but the first stage of his trip was decidedly unlucky. The warm sea current known as Kuro Siwo brought with it a murderous heat wave. The crew lacked food and water. When his ship accidentally arrived at the paradise-like Aogashima island, the crew mutinied, refused to sail any farther and intended to set up a settlement there. But Beniowski was determined to make his way to Europe and thought up a ruse.

“We've got too few women to settle down here. Let's first sail to the Japanese coast, get some women and then we can set about building a town,” he told his shipmates. He was able to persuade them. The Japanese feted them so well, that on the return voyage the satisfied crew forgot about Aogashima.

The SS Peter & Paul continued its voyage in a southerly direction and at one point got grounded on a sandbar. Off the coast of Amami Ōshima island, called Usmay Ligon by the locals. The hospitality of its inhabitants, particularity its women, prompted eight crew members to stay there for good. Beniowski and his crew had already welcomed in such a friendly fashion on one of the Aleutian Islands. Totally uncoerced, the local women flocked to the ship to engage in carnal pleasures with the Kamchatka fugitives.

When they approached Formosa (Taiwan), Beniowski noticed two Dutch ships sailing in the opposite direction. When he refused to obey the orders of the Dutch captain, a brief skirmish ensued. Beniowski fired upon the Dutch ships with the four cannons on board. The Dutch withdrew, but after that incident Beniowski ordered the flag of the Polish Commonwealth hoisted up the mast. It was surely the first ship sailing the Pacific under the Polish flag.

Finally, after 134 days at sea since leaving Kamchatka, the SS Peter & Paul called at port in Portuguese Macao. There he sold his ship and the valuable furs from Kamchatka and the Aleutian Islands. He also sold important information. The East Indies companies of the major Western powers paid cash for information on Russia's commercial and political plans on the northern seas. It was also in Macao that Afanasia died of a serious disease.

Beniowski boarded the ship named Dauphin and sailed to France. Along the way he briefly visited Île de France (Mauritius) and Port Dauphin in Madagascar. The latter island greatly piqued his interest. Little did he know that he would soon return there in a completely different role.

© Polona.pl" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: url("../images/elements/copyright-icon.png"); color: rgb(162, 32, 53); transition: all 0.5s ease; outline: 0px; display: block; width: 20px; height: 16px; position: absolute; left: 30px; bottom: 30px; z-index: 100;">Ruler of Madagascar

In Paris, Beniowski wasted no time. Although suffocating in the congested metropolis, the ambitious Pole sought to interest the French government in colonising Formosa, some other Pacific island or the distant north. The French were not interested in such remote expeditions, but they were looking for someone who could help them extend Bourbon rule to Madagascar.

Beniowski did not need much time to consider the offer. He drew up a plan of conquest and equipped the expedition which set out in September 1773. He was accompanied by his wife, whom he had brought over from Spisz, and a group of French volunteers. In February the following year, he landed in the Bay of Antongil and energetically began building Fort Louisbourg which some years later would develop into one of Madagascar's larger cities – Maroantsetra. He drained swampland, set up cotton and sugar-cane plantations and through incentives and threats subjugated the local tribal chiefs.

In the island's interior, in what he called the Valley of Health, he built additional forts and roads leading to them. Beniowski's rule in Madagascar was strict but just. He punished all offences, whether committed by natives or foreign merchants, mainly from France. He vigorously opposed the slave trade. This made him popular amongst the Malagasy but incited hatred on the part of the French administrators of the Île de France and Bourbon (La Réunion) colonies, situated not far from Madagascar's east coast.

They regarded the economic development of Beniowski's colonies as a mortal threat, hence from Île de France there flowed a steady stream of complaints to the king of France, discrediting Beniowski and his policies. After a new ruler, Louis XVI, assumed power at Versailles, the atmosphere at the royal court became even less propitious for Beniowski. The French government ultimately resolved to send commissioners to the island to verity how many of the circulating rumours were true.

Beniowski felt threatened and decided to go for broke. After three years of his rule, his position amongst the natives had grown immeasurably. He was increasingly appreciated for combating the slave trade. Unlike other foreigners, he never displayed contempt for the natives.

In fact, many chiefs saw in him the only chance for protection against the possessiveness of the Europeans (although paradoxically he also represented them). In spring 1776, he acquired a powerful ally, the Sambariv tribe which he defended against an attack by the warlike Seclavians.

Already for some time, tales of an old Malagasy woman and former slave from Île de France had been circulating around the island. She claimed that Beniowski was the son of a certain foreigner and the daughter of Laryzon Ramini, the last king of all Madagascar. Most likely, Beniowski himself was the author of that tale.

With his power in peril, he began proclaiming far and wide that the old woman's story was true. When the Malagasy chiefs learnt the royal commissioners could dismiss Beniowski, they resolved well in advance to proclaim him the Ampansacaba, the king of kings. Beniowski quickly agreed and, after the Great Cabar (Grand Council) gave its approval, he became Maurycy August I. Following the ceremonies mentioned above, the new ruler of Madagascar plunged into the thick of activity. Interestingly, he enjoyed strong support from the French garrison of Louisbourg who had generally sworn their loyalty to him.

Beniowski decided to shape Madagascar's political system in the image of the model he knew best – that of the gentry democracy of the Polish Commonwealth. He retained the prerogatives of the Great Kabar, set up a Supreme Council and a Perpetual Council, something reminiscent of the executive authority. He also pledged to create provincial councils, similar to Poland's local assemblies (sejmiki ziemskie). He reorganised the army and decided on the location for a new capital.

He realised, however, that he was at loggerheads with a major world power. That is why already in late 1776 he decided to sail to France and clarify the situation and propose an alliance between two independent states. The Great Kabar agreed to allow their ruler leave the island for no longer than 18 months. No-one, Beniowski included, knew that his absence would stretch to nearly nine years.

© Poland MFA" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: url("../images/elements/copyright-icon.png"); color: rgb(162, 32, 53); transition: all 0.5s ease; outline: 0px; display: block; width: 20px; height: 16px; position: absolute; left: 30px; bottom: 30px; z-index: 100;">Return of the King

In France, both awards and rejection awaited Beniowski. In recognition of his contribution to the colonisation of Madagascar, Louis XVI decorated him with the Cross of St Louis, promoted him to brigadier general and bestowed on him the title of count. At the same time, the king refused to even hear about the concept of building an independent state in Madagascar and forbade Beniowski from returning to the island. Discouraged, Count Beniowski travelled to Hungary, where he purchased a landed estate known as Wieska, situated not far from Nowe Miasto on the Vah.

But the quiet life of a country squire was not to the liking of an ambitious and dynamic individual such as Beniowski. He yearned for adventure, and that could be found either on the battlefield or while travelling. He therefore took part in the Austro-Prussian War and later again set out in an attempt to win the world's powers that be to his concept of an independent Madagascar. He constantly travelled back and forth between France, England and the United States. In America, his spokesman was Kazimierz Pułaski, a friend from his Bar Confederation days.

Pułaski presented Beniowski's Project of an Expedition to Madagascar to the US congress. Beniowski even won the support of Benjamin Franklin during a chess match (both men were avid chess players), but Congress did not agree to an expedition, fearing it might damage the young country's relations with its ally France.

His proposal did pique the interest of the British; however, they did not wish to become officially involved in an undertaking whose outcome was far from certain. Regardless, they did help Beniowski set up a private company that would enable the count to regain power on the island and subsequently sign an alliance with Great Britain.

The shareholders' capital enabled him to purchase a large ship, the Intrepid, whose holds were full of arms, gunpowder and commercial merchandise, from the American Port of Baltimore. A certain Captain Davis became the ship's commander. Beniowski, however, failed to realise that Davis was a French agent and that France was closely observing the activities of the “Polish adventurer,” as he had been known for some time in Paris, striving at all costs to sabotage them.

In July 1785, Beniowski sailed into the bay near Madagascar's Cape of St Sebastian. As soon as he had landed, the Malagasy appeared. They had remembered him and continued to regard him as their ampansakaba. Beniowski divided up his forces and, together with the native army and the volunteers who had come with him from the United States, set out by land to the Valley of Health near Louisbourg in Antongil Bay. The Intrepid, with its remaining supplies, was to sail around the island from the north and ensure the caravan's safe entry into the fort itself. Davis made his move and unexpectedly deserted, taking the ship along with its cargo of arms and equipment with him.

Regardless, Beniowski was a stout-hearted soul who never backed down once his mind was made up and, despite these vicissitudes, he made his way to the east coast and set about building the new capital, Mauritania. The well-governed settlement developed quickly. Beniowski also raised an army comprised mainly of Malagasy, but the French were by no means standing idly by during this time.

At the start of May 1786, Captain Larcher and 60 battle-seasoned soldiers sailed out of Port Louis on Île de France. Beniowski engaged them in open battle. The conflict might have ended differently had it not been for one unfortunate stray bullet.

In his memoirs, Captain Larcher described the final phase of the battle fought on 23 May 1786: “At one moment I noticed Mr Beniowski ordering one of the cannons to fire, but it failed to do so. We were so close to the fort that such a shot would have killed or wounded most of my troops. I felt that was the decisive moment and ordered my men to storm the fort. I was still several steps from the palisades when I again saw Beniowski, shooting at us with a rifle before immediately dropping it to the ground, raising his left hand to his heart and extending his right hand in our direction. He took a few more steps to get down from the embankment but fell between the stakes reinforcing it. We crossed the palisades and stormed the fort. (…) The bullet had penetrated his chest from right to left.”

Before the count's body was placed in a grave, his pockets were searched. One of them contained the act of election signed in Louisbourg ten years earlier.

Mieczysław Lepecki, Count Maurycy Beniowski's biographer, summed up the former’s achievements as follows: “Without anyone's assistance and without financial resources, equipped only with his intelligence and innate leadership skills, he was able to flee from so remote a place as the shores of the Okhotsk Sea and a few years later managed to acquire a crown. His courage, imagination and endurance ought to be admired. It was to such people that England, France, Spain and Portugal owed their vast empires – to some extent to adventurers and dreamers but always to the courageous, enterprising and uncontrollable.”

Beniowski is without a doubt one of the most interesting and colourful personalities in Polish history. The Polish King of Madagascar left behind a fascinating Journal, the legend of Poland's greatest 18th-century explorer and traveller as well as an impressive chess manoeuvre that involved sacrificing the queen and allowing the knight to single-handedly checkmate the opponent's king.

Throughout his lifetime, Maurycy Beniowski could have been likened to a chess piece in constant motion, criss-crossing the world's chessboard and able to overcome every adversity. However, after he became king, it was twisted fate that finally checkmated him.

Author: Krzysztof Jóźwiak

Source: “Rzeczpospolita”

How Beniowski became the ruler of Madagascar

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Europe’s first constitution
0

?

1. Home Page
   
2. History
   
3. Highlights of Polish History
   
4. Europe’s first constitution

It was the Polish Constitution, adopted on May 3rd 1791, and not the much-lauded French Constitution, that was Europe’s first fundamental law. And it was the second in the world, after the American Constitution of 1787. Moreover, it was implemented using democratic methods and, in contrast to France, without any blood being shed.
The May 3 Constitution was a reflection of the Polish spirit, which, after all, allowed the Poles to survive 123 years of partitions and then 45 years of Soviet communism. May 3rd was a state holiday until 1939, the outbreak of World War II. Thereupon, first the German and then the Soviet occupiers forbade Poles from celebrating this important day, which became a pretext for many anti-Communist manifestations. And now, in free Poland, the Constitution of May 3 is celebrated once again and Poles treat implementation of this basic law as one of the breakthrough events in Polish history.

There is a lot of talk and a lot has been written about the important contribution of our country to the development of European culture and identity, but certainly not enough has been said about the legacy of Polish political and social thought and the role it has played in the field of cooperation between nations, intercultural dialogue and mutual respect and reconciliation. About the rich tradition of Polish openness and tolerance in the lands of the former Commonwealth, for centuries called the "state without stacks." Because when religious wars raged in England, France and Spain - Scottish Catholics, French Huguenots and Jews found a peaceful haven in Poland. And these Jews, who were thrust out of England in the thirteenth century and France in the 14th century and kicked out by the Catholic Kings of Spain in the 15th century, sought refuge in Poland, where they were able to live peacefully until the outbreak of World War II. It is no coincidence that they called Poland "Polin", "here you will rest". And Poles make up the most highly represented nationality among the Righteous Among the Nations,

It is also worth mentioning that the Commonwealth – unlike Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Spain - was never an imperialist, colonial state. It is also a legacy of our traditions, of freedom and tolerance, of respect for the independence of other countries, of other religions, the most beautiful fruit and symbol of which is the May 3 Constitution. Interestingly, it is a law that remains very modern, so much so that to this day one can draw on its political and moral wisdom, both in its spirit and content.

Let us just look at how modern its message really is. For example, that "all authority of the human community originates from the will of the people," or that "independence on the outside, and freedom within the borders is the highest good of the nation." And all these pointers, written up 226 years ago, can serve as valuable signposts to this day. This Constitution is also so close to Poles because it was created as a continuation of the deliberations of Polish philosophers, historians and statesmen, among them Jan Ostrorog and his "Memorandum on the Order of the Commonwealth" from 1477, where for the first time, Poland was called a republic. Or the works of Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski "On the improvement of the Commonwealth" of 1576, whose author in a very modern way for those times combined three values, the foundation for thinking about the state – the community, honesty and usefulness.

Should these "golden thoughts" of Ostrorog, Frycz Modrzewski and the authors of the Constitution - Stanisław Staszic and Hugo Kołłątaj - not be included in the canon of reading of every Polish modern civil servant and parliamentarian? This canon could also include many other informative texts from the past, such as those by Jan Krasiński, who 100 years later sung high praises for the Republic’s 16th-century system: "because governing is established by the law ... and the king himself, without the consent of the council and the senate, and the consent of the nobles does not establish rights, rights are mandated". Exchanging the king for a president or prime minister – is not this thought still to this very day up to date, democratic and modern? The May 3 Constitution is also dear to us because it reminds us of the times when the Republic – just as it is starting to be the case now – contributed to European political and social thought and took part in the debate on the future of Europe.

Very interesting was the reaction of the world to the Constitution of May 3. The world, that is, with the exception of the invaders – Russia, Germany and Austria – congratulated Poland on this extremely important document. These included the co-founder of the American constitution, the Englishman Thomas Payne and another Englishman, the writer and publicist and the "father of conservatism" Edmund Burke. Burke commented the proclamation of the Polish Basic Law using the following words: "No one has suffered any loss, no one has been humiliated. From the king to the day labourer ... no drop was shed: there was no betrayal nor insult, nor affront of religion or customs, nor looting or confiscation." In obvious opposition to the bloody events across English Channel that Burke condemned in his work "About the revolution in France." It may be interesting to continue this argument: "But such admissions of dignified behaviour were preserved only for this glorious relationship whose purpose was to maintain true, essential and indispensable human rights."

Another enthusiastic supporter of the events in Poland and the adoption of the May 3 Constitution was the French member of parliament Alexander Bonneau, who was visiting Warsaw at the time. As was, surprisingly, French agent Joseph Aubert, who in his message to the then Foreign Minister Armand de Montmorin pointed to the importance of the reforms carried out in Poland: "One of the most important achievements is the granting of privileges to both cities and citizens. It was certainly a clever move, because in this way the burghers connected their fate to that of the state and their help was assured." I do not have to recall what Danton and Robespierre did to the disobedient bourgeoisie.

A very interesting assessment of the Constitution of 3 May was also made by the then Foreign Minister of Prussia, Ewald Friedrich von Hertzberg, who ended up as an enemy of Poland: "The Polish revolution is one of the most important events of our century, it will, in my view, have more immediate consequences than the French Revolution."

The thing is – and you can see it in the example of the Conservative party in Britain or the Republicans in the United States – for a programme to pass the test of time it must be based on axiology. If moral values are replaced by socio-technics, human rights - the rancour of one social group against another, terror and violence become unavoidable. John Paul II continually reminded that "politics without morality degenerates and usually leads to dictatorship." And our Constitution often refers to the respect of human rights, the obligations of power to citizens, condemning both rape and violence. Thus, despite the dramatic situation accompanying its proclamation, it did not, as in France, lead to mass slaughter. Perhaps that is why it has become not only a symbol of modern reform, but also a living legend that allowed Poles to survive almost two centuries of captivity – first partition and then Soviet occupation – and today can be a valuable guide to thinking about the country for Poles but also for the other nations of Europe. And it makes sure that we do not have to look westwards in order to seek the foundations of knowledge about democracy.

Elżbieta Królikowska-Avis, Editor-in-chief of Poland.pl

26.04.2017

Europe’s first constitution

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Cloth Hall (Sukiennice)
Rynek Główny 1/3 , Old Town 26 Oct 2017
share post a comment20 comments


Your best and easiest bet for gifts in Kraków. Essentially the world's oldest shopping mall, this space in the centre of Kraków has been home to a trading hall since at least the 1300s. Given a 16th century Renaissance facelift, this architectural marvel boasts dozens of stalls selling amber jewellery, lacework, cloth handicrafts, wood carvings, sheepskin rugs and all sorts of Polish souvenirs and trinkets at prices that are actually more reasonable than you'd anticipate. The quintessential Cracovian shopping experience.












Map

Cloth Hall | Shopping | Krakow

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Europe's growth champion: will Poland's success continue?
27 March 2017 | Event report | gsclibrary

• Economy & finance
  
• EU Member States

This blog post was written by our guest blogger Ewa Kazmierczyk, former trainee in DG Communication and Information, Knowledge Management Unit, Archives.

Bruegel organised an event on "Europe's growth champion: will Poland's success continue?" The discussion, chaired by Maria Demertzis, Deputy Director at Bruegel and Visiting Professor at the University of Amsterdam, served as a platform for discussing Poland’s economic success over the last 25 years, as well as the possible risks to, and opportunities for its future growth.

Maciej Piatkowski, Visiting Scholar at Harvard University's Center for European Studies and Senior Economist at the World Bank, presented his views on Poland's growth success. He focused mainly on the reasons why Poland had succeeded after 1989. He explained that it was the first time in its modern history that Poland had been able to catch up with Western Europe. He also explored whether the pace of economic growth would continue in the future.

According to Piatkowski, the reason why for centuries Poland was backwards compared to Western Europe was the fact that it was an exclusive society. Communist times had provided Poland with one key asset: the erasure of social divisions and the creation of an egalitarian and inclusive society. More people completed tertiary education and a rapid industrialisation took place. The communist regime can thus be seen as a shock that helped Poland evolve from a so-called exclusive society to an inclusive state, and paved the way to it becoming a successful transition economy.

The Polish economy had grown quickly since 1989, with no recession so far. The differences between the Polish GDP per capita and those of Western Europe were now the smallest in history, even smaller than during the "Golden Age" in the 16th century. Poland had achieved this despite disadvantages such as a lack of natural resources and the slow growth of the EU economy. Maciej Piatkowski highlighted that the immediate causes, on which the experts usually focused (e.g. early reform after communism collapsed, EU funds, high percentage of young people with university degrees) only partially explained Poland's economic growth.
Piatkowski also commented on the potential risks which could affect the country's further economic development, such as population decline, ageing, weakening institutions etc.

Paweł Samecki, member of the Board of Poland's Central Bank emphasised in particular the difference between real economic growth and the perception of it among Polish citizens: the older generation compared the current reality to communist times, while the younger generation compared it to Western standards of living. Samecki also focused on the level of education: while the percentage of students was very high (quantity), the quality of that education was lower . He was also cautious on the subject of the budgetary deficit, which left no room for easing in the event of a crisis. His forecast for Poland remained optimistic, but in his opinion economic growth would be slower than in the past.

The assessment of Dan Bucşa, Lead CEE economist at UniCredit Bank AG in London, was less encouraging. He pointed out that a large number of Poles were unhappy with the current situation in the country. In particular, there was a strong perception of the inequality between rural and urban regions. Moreover, significant differences in income levels between Poland and other countries were leading to a high level of emigration. According to Bucşa, Poland was still in the middle-income trap and full convergence with Western Europe would not be reached before 2050. He focused on the existing risks, such as the end of EU fundings and the hesitations of private investors.

Alexander Lehmann, Visiting Fellow at Bruegel, concentrated on the institutional context, the lack of domestic savings in Poland and the nationalisation of pension funds. He highlighted several challenges to sustaining future growth: finding a way to cope with the ageing population, improving the overall quality of education and other public services, strengthening the energy infrastructure and innovating the economy.

The panel agreed that Poland’s growth would continue in the near future, but would most likely slow down. According to Piatkowski, EU disintegration constituted the biggest risk to Poland’s transition.

Background information

Europe's growth champion: will Poland's success continue? - Consilium

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

© Wlodzimierz Wasyluk/REPORTER/EAST NEWS" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: url("../images/elements/copyright-icon.png"); color: rgb(36, 43, 54); transition: all 0.5s ease; outline: 0px; display: block; width: 20px; height: 16px; position: absolute; left: 45px; bottom: 30px; z-index: 100;">
Prof. Jan Lubiński
0

?

1. Home Page
   
2. Science
   
3. Famous Scientists
   
4. Prof. Jan Lubiński

• famous scientists
  
• genetics
  
• science
  
• medicine

One of the most important figures in Polish genetics. He has created the world’s first preventive genetic–oncological programme that detects genetic predisposition to the risk of cancer.
One of his greatest achievements is the creation of the Polish network of Centres of Genetics in Oncology and conducting the world’s first preventive genetic–oncological programme concerning genetic predisposition to ovarian and breast carcinomas. Based on these studies, Prof. Lubiński has created a biobank of samples and a register of clinical data of over 250 thousand cancer patients and their relatives.

He gained his professional experience as a holder of the French government scholarship in the Institut Pasteur in Paris. He has also conducted studies in cancer centres in Philadelphia, USA.

Currently, he is the head of the Department of Genetics and Pathomorphology of his mother university – the Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, and of the International Hereditary Cancer Centre – a part of the Pomeranian Medical University. The centre maintains 57 regional representatives on all continents. Since 2005, Prof. Lubiński has held the function of a professor in the M. Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. He is also a national consultant in clinical genetics and sits in the council of the National Centre for Research and Development.

In 2012, Prof. Lubiński obtained the best result in Poland in the ranking of medical scientists based on the so-called h-index (Hirsch index) which indicates the number of citations and measures the quality of work of a scientist. Born on 7 January 1953.

AS



26.11.2014

Prof. Jan Lubiński

 

[NCC1701]

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

You think you are making the case that poles are a tough underdog nut-to-crack militarily when they got absolutely smoked in 1939, and they were out numbered by only 3 to 2.

No, Poland was outnumbered 2 to 1 in WW2.

When it came to Tanks Poland was outnumbered by nearly 8 to 1.

You act like Nazi Germany was a tough underdog nut to crack militarily , but they lost to Soviets in WW2.

So, what's the difference?

The difference is Poland was more outnumbered in WW2, than Nazis were.

In the Battle of Stalingrad for example Nazis, and Soviets had nearly equal numbers of forces, and Nazis still lost.

Battle of Stalingrad - Wikipedia

Actually Wikipedia puts Nazis as having more frontline strength in Operation Barbarossa, than Soviets.

Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia

First of all, as I stated I am not doing your homework for you, I am not the flag waving fool you are and I will not be goaded. I am making no claims, I am making the observation about your lack of substance, and it still holds.

No, poland was only outnumbered 3 to 2 by germany, that war was over by the time the soviets entered. Battle usually favors the defenders, especially on home soil, and by all accounts then September 1939 was a very poor outing for the poles.

Nazi Germany faced off against the 3 largest economies on earth outside their own, over 4 years, with a population pool well over 8 times its size. They were tough, they almost beat russia while fighting a two front war. It is likely that the UK and USA would not have been able to beat them alone with some 80% of their losses on the eastern front. This was the first truly modern war too, with constant aerial bombardment and battle. Allied commanders needed overwhelming firepower to achieve battle success, they were very respectful of german battlefield abilities. No way did poland face anything like this in 1939. Polish tactics, equipment, and leadership was poor and there really is not much else to explain why they could not hold out longer. They certainly were not surprised, they had at least 6 months to dig into 'fortress poland'.

Your numbers for Barbarossa only include the initial western Soviet Armies, they don't include the huge reserves or Siberians that would later be chucked into battle. German satellites like Hungary did very little in the first phases. If you could read better you would have also noticed 4.9 million casualties, impossible if you only have 2.9 million troops. It was only after the start of operation Typhoon, when yet another huge haul of Soviet prisoners was taken at Vyazma, did the germans briefly enjoy tactical numerical superiority over a wide front in front of Moscow. Your numbers for Stalingrad are again flawed. While there was always local superiority of numbers in some cases, these numbers do not include the huge numbers of troops on the flanks in all of case blue, the ever increasing russian replacements, and the large number of non german axis. It was on these flanks were the soviets chose to attack the Romanians who were viewed as weaker.

The eastern front was a modern war with almost continuous battle. There would be so many engagements of regimental size that digging them all out would be a monster task. I am not doing because I am not making claims, you are. Until you do it, your claim is empty.

 

[NCC1701]

Nobel prize winners in Physics

List of Nobel laureates in Physics - Wikipedia
List of Nobel laureates by country - Wikipedia

Poland 3
Austria 3
Canada 3
Denmark 3
Hungary 3
France 8
Holland 7
Germany 29
UK 22
Russia 7


so don't even bother with some sort of 'poland is great at science' crap

 

[NCC1701]

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

In some Battles Poles killed, and captured bigger numbers of the enemy than they had Poles.

In the Battle of Kircholm in 1605 3,600 Poles beat 10,800 Swedes, capturing, killing, and dispersing 8,000 Swedes.

In the Battle of Komarow in 1920 1,700 Poles beat 17,500 Soviets, killing 4,000 Soviets.

In the Battle of Obertyn 6,000 Poles beat 17,000 Moldavians, killing 7,000 Moldavians.

In the Battle of Kumeyki 4,000 Poles beat 18,000 Cossacks, killing 6,000 Cossacks.

In the Battle of Wizna in 1939 800 Poles held off 42,000 Nazi Germans, killing 900 Germans.

In the Battle of Zadworze in 1920 330 Poles held off 17,000 Soviets, killing 600 Soviets

In the Battle of Hodow in 1694 400 Poles beat 40,000 Tatars, killing 2,000 Tatars.

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

China was for a very long time the biggest country in the World in population.

Poland's just a country that started off wedged between bigger Germans, and East Slavic states like Kievan Rus, or then Russia.

Poland's lands are very vulnerable, because they're mostly flat plains, not rugged mountains, or protected by any kind of water.

Poland did exceedingly well.

In 1000 AD Poland had just over 1 million in population, the German Holy Roman Empire of over 7 million, and the East Slavic Kievan Rus of over 7 million both attack Poland, and failed.

In the German - Polish 1002 - 1018 War, Germany proved to be a complete embarrassment.

Much smaller Poland beat not just the much bigger Germans, but whom Germans had help from Czech Bohemians, and Italian Venetians, and whom Germans gave Poland Lusatia in the Peace of Bautzen in 1018.
Then
Poland summoned small bands of Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs, invaded the Kievan Rus, and captured Kiev the capital of Kievan Rus in 1018. in the Kiev Expedition against Kievan Rus.

The fact that a much smaller country actually could stand toe to toe with such bigger countries like Poland had, says something.

me? you started this thread and made this claim dumbass

I originally said Poles probably have more battle wins when outnumbered, than anyone.

I think I proved that point.

I proved that Poles have at least 3 battles similar to Spartan's famous battle of Termopylae.
Being the Battle of Hodow in 1694, the Battle of Trembowla in 1675, and the Siege of Kamanets of 1672.

That's actually more than Sparta, and the full list I posted actually contained more Polish victories when outnumbered than the number of battles Sparta even took place in, actually.

You mention Nazi Germany, which didn't even have many battles when seriously outnumbered.
In fact in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 Soviet Russia with a similar number had turned around, and started winning the war.

Napoleon had some somewhat impressive wins like the Battle of Jena- Auerstäd in 1806, Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, or Battle of Dresden in 1815, but these are clearly dwarfed by Poland's victories when outnumbered.

But, why don't you prove, otherwise, then?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is pretty simple, I am not going to do your homework little boy.

You have some awfully small battles in there, and a win is not defined. Was the enemy simply discouraged? were they killed or captured? There would be at least that many small battles on the eastern front in 41-45, so there needs to be a better definition.

Defensive battles are much easier than offensive wins against superior numbers. Forts, trenches, static positions etc. are all force multipliers. Anybody can turtle in to a fort and hold off 20th century russians for a while. Battles of maneuver in the open are much more difficult than holding down a fort. Set piece battles are different than battles with tactical surprise. Was the battle on home soil or far off with a long logistical chain?

It is way more complicated than you make it out to be, and no, Nazi Germany was almost always outnumbered over the eastern front, it is pretty much how they were worn down and beat. Stalin himself said quantity has a quality all its own, and that is how he won.

1) open battles of maneuver with forces greater than 5,000 for each side, can you parse out those?

2) Static defense is not impressive unless at least 6 to 1 and you force the enemy to go home or better yet you capture or kill all of them. So lets look at those seperately, can you make that list?

3) Obviously Polacks are not great at war all the time, and adding up all Polish battles ever to those of R.E. Lee isn't fair because Lee didn't live 1000 years. So if play by your rules then we must account for every battle ever fought by all Americans when out-numbered, like la drang, bastanonge, etc. and compare to a 200 year period in poland, or go leader versus leader.

4) If all you care about is quantity regardless of type of battle, or length of time, China has a longer recorded history than poland, do you have that list?

that is only half the answer, now show nobody else has as many over that time span

So he provides one list for you, but that's still not enough. You demand yet another list? Who do you think you are? Someone important or something? Nobody has to "prove" anything to you. If you want to disprove his claims, then go ahead and do it.

take a logic class dumbass? If I say Americans have the most of something, I have to show how much the others have. If you don't get that, then go F yourself.

No, nobody here has to prove anything, I already told him that if he just wants to make empty claims then I don't give a shit. If he wants to make substantive claims, then he does have to prove it.

I posted the list of Polish wins when outnumbered, or Polish holding off much bigger forces for extended periods.

YOU claimed Nazis, General Lee, or Sparta may have done more.

But, YOU DID NOT bring up evidence for your claim then.... Mega- Hypocrite.

Lazy, nitpicking, jerk.

You think you are making the case that poles are a tough underdog nut-to-crack militarily when they got absolutely smoked in 1939, and they were out numbered by only 3 to 2.

The Dutch only lasted 3 days in WW2, the Danes only lasted 1 day in WW2.

Poland did much better than those.

Even though Polish, and Dutch military funding, and army sizes were more similar to each other, than to French, or Nazi German funding, and military sizes.

Speak of which France only lasted about 10 days longer than Poland, despite having much more military funding, a bigger population size, help from Britain, and no Soviet Invasion.

the Danes? they didn't even try, LOL

the Dutch? you don't seem to get logic, the dutch are not here beating their chests about how great they are in battle, likewise the French.

Poland was toast by Sept. 17, in fact there was almost 0 resistance to the Soviets from such great warriors who are good at defense. Stalin waited until then because he wanted to be sure the government had collapsed and had left Warsaw. Very shrewd, since then he could rightly claim Poland was no longer a viable country and avoid the western powers declaring war on him too.

I am however beginning to understand why all of poland's neighbors don't like them much, thanks to you.