SobieskiSavedEurope
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #401
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.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.
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.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.
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
This was the first truly modern war too, with constant aerial bombardment and battle. Allied commanders needed overwhelming firepower to achieve battle success
Actually, in a modern war, it's less about tactics, and more about how much you can afford to buy.
Poland was a rather new Nation for only 21 years when WW2 hit, as opposed to Germany which was around to build up it's economy much longer.
So, it's no wonder why Germany could afford to spend far more on military.
Pure bullshit- France and England were technology peers, it was German tactics, efficiency, and leadership that mattered. Any analysis of the battle of France comes to that conclusion, it is almost universal consensus, but here genius you comes along and asserts otherwise.
Nazi Germany, and France in WW2 had similar numbers during the Battle of France AKA the French Invasion.
How does that prove that Nazi Germany somehow had more victories when outnumbered?
Yes, Nazi Germany won, but they were hardly outnumbered against France.