World At War: Distant War 1 of 6

[bpiotrAgain]

Interesting document, with maaaaany errors in subject "Polish Campaigne" based on nazi propaganda, but interesing.

[macnos]

@bhasinuscuscable Looks like someone has a hard-on for the filthy Nazis

[KevinByrne2]

Does anyone know the name of the march that begins at 8:20 ?

[gray499kcw]

@KevinByrne2 Chopin Military polonaise

[snallpappa]

Trzeba poznac dwulicowosc anglosassa az do kosci przez przebywanie z nimi przez wiele lat to sie dowiecie dlaczego anglia nie pomogla polsce 1939. to sie nie zdarzylo i nie zdazy nigdy. Naiwny ten co wchodzi z nimi w pakty.

[kenramonet]

the ONLY thing that saved Britain at the beginning was the existence of the channel. to suggest that Britain was better prepared, braver or stronger than France, Belgium, Holland or Poland is manure. fact: hitler would have subdued Britain were it not for the channel. when Britain finally fielded an army, France too committed about the same number of troops (in two large army groups) that fought from the overlord and anvil invasions to Berlin. how else did France earn a partition of Germany?

[locheelad2]

Why are you so down on Britain, Germany could have got across that small stretch of water, except for the brave BOYS of the R.A.F., just no pleasing some people, even after you fight alone, and I never said anything about Britain being braver than anyone else, that came out of your own wee mind, watch the doc. and leave me alone. I like the French, the Great War was fought on their soil, they suffered most from the German Gassings, etc. etc. YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY!

[kenramonet]

if the germans could have gotten across that "small stretch of water" as you say then WHY didn't they?

the issue i very much mind is when the british put distance between themselves and the french in 1940. BOTH nations were horribly unprepared for the war when it came. france paid the price with occupation and thereafter with unending and unfair slights against the military prowess of the country.

[locheelad2]

Britain had to, if they didn't France would still be under German rule, because of well-meaning but stupid leaders like Chamberlain Britain was not prepared. The only slights against France come from uneducated Americans. My Grandfather fought at the Somme next to the French, in a Scots regiment, and he had only praise for them, Vive La France.

[MrPloopy]

Some Froggy must've tickled Grandpop's fancy by commenting on his shapely legs on seeing him in his kilt! Ou-lala!!!Hahahaha!!!

[MrPloopy]

When Poland was fighting back against the Germans, the British Army conscripts were training with broomsticks rather than rifles.

[maccermacnab]

Why the fuck do ppl with small penises have to debate over who was the better fighting country or who saved who? Christ, just watch the doco & get over yourselves you bunch of small-minded wankers

[Scotty993]

@maccermacnab lol well said.

[Ricardo72]

@maccermacnab bwhahahahaha, go on maccermanzzzz!

[3581233428]

Listen, I know that the British are very strong and were able to keep Germany off their territory for quite some time. The US ultimately, coming in, saved the UK. That is not talking from a US bias but from the plain old facts. The US and the British,together, could be viewed by some as unstoppable. However, its the US that is the bigger and stronger power of the two. By the way, many viewed the USA as the worlds superpower after WWI. Brits still show the most courage and power in Europe.

[locheelad2]

U.K. and U.S.A. ( and allies ), saved the world. Churchill called us "The English Speaking Peoples". Both Countries did very well, and have remained solid friends. I pray it stays this way, for who knows what new threats tomorrow may bring??

[jeffman3003]

Brits werent strong at all, Germany just didnt finish them off at Dunkirk because of Hitlers timidness, and good attitude towards the Brits. His mistake cost him the war!

[3581233428]

@jeffman3003 really. The Germans were going to attack the British at first using the kriegsmarine but were in for a rude awakening when the Royal Navy proved to be far superior and destroyed most of the kriegsmarine's fleet. Eventually the Germans had to turn to the Luftwaffe and basically just bombed Britian but it did little to stop the British. The British being very innovative came up with radar and could send up one plane to shoot down about 3 German aircraft. And that isn't powerful?

[HunMyy]

@3581233428

That is some capital horsesh*t :P

1) Hitler indeed planned to take down Poland first (lebensraum) then France through the Netherlands. Up until the Battle of Britain, everything happened according to his plans

2) The Kriegsmarine was well aware of their weaknesses, they avoided direct battles with Her Majesty's Navy, so there was no rude awakening whatsoever. On the contrary, the Scapa Flow Raid was a terrorising experience for the British, not to mention the convoy raidings

[HunMyy]

@3581233428

3) Turning into the Lufwaffe was not some sort of desparation - it was the plan itself. They intended to destroy the military deployments, but when that didn't worked out, they swiched to terror-bombing.

4) Radar didn't make british fighters invincible - it made possible to focus the planes where the germans headed. Also, the brit planes manuverability was much better, and their airfields were much much closer to the battle, so they could fly more frequently

[Oldcartoons571]

WOW you won that "argument" everything he said was wrong and everything you said was correct

thank you

[3581233428]

@HunMyy Exactly, with the invention of radar the RAF could dispatch crews to where Luftwaffe fighters were and therefore ruined the Luftwaffe's chances of destroying Military deployments. Also many would say that when the Royal Navy went up to Norway in operations: Claymore or Anklet, the Kriegsmarine figured out that the Royal Navy was far more superior. And you are wrong when you say the Germans knew they no match for the royal Navy. When in reality the SS though they were invincible.

[3581233428]

@3581233428 thought*

[HunMyy]

@3581233428

The reason why im so picky about what you said is that MrPloopy is more or less right. What you wrote is nothing more than some idealised british version of the actual events.

But regardless, the RAF pilots were heroes, and God bless them for making the supreme sacrifice.

[teslagod2003]

@3581233428 the british being innovative then came up with a radar,i dunno where you're getting your info,but i'm sure that the radar towers of britain had been build even before hitler threatens the world...

[3581233428]

Dear locheelad2, You obviously need to read up on your WWII history. The only reason why the US entered WWII on the European front was because the UK was at wits end. The UK probably would've had to declare neutrality or surrender to Germany hadn't the US stepped on in to save your fellow country men. The United States has become the military superpower it is today with little to no help from its allies. If you look at any war that "we" have gotten into,the US has always been the sole power.

[locheelad2]

yOU ARE TOO INWARD LOOKING. I HAVE STUDIED IT FOR 45 YEARS. iGNORANCE IS ALL YOURS, USA BECAME A SUPERPOWER, AFTER THE WAR, AFTER IT SAT OUT 2 YEARS, AFTER IT TOOK BRITAINS GOLD, BASES ETC. YOU DIDN'T COME TO SAVE US, YOU CAME AFTER THE JAPS WHACKED YOU, HOW CAN U B THE SOLE POWER, YOU ENTERED BOTH WORLD WARS AFTER THEY WERE HALF OVER. I HAVE AMERICAN FRIENDS BUT GUYS AS UNREAD AS YOU GIVE USA A BAD NAME.

[3581233428]

Believe me I 'am by no means unread. The USA remained neutral for 2 years simply because we had enough of our own problems i.e. The Great Depression. The great FDR did not want Americans to worry about sending their men off to duty.Most Americans were worried about providing the bare necessities for their families. Even when we were remaining neutral we still sent money to you Brits and the French, and still the Germans were making advances on you.

[bugsy101073]

pix042,

sorry to say, UK played along all our english history books that is why u call other countries including the US as the óther'countries....

besides, UK is the biggest and worst DRUG DEALER in history

[volvo4377]

"to escape Polish barberism".....what a ridiculous notion!

[Rico8458]

excellent review.

[bugsy101073]

as a German, Napoleon 1 is the most misunderstood conqueror in history. It is true that he played along all religions (even wanting to convert to Islam to pacify the Mamelukes) because he understands the diplomacy of global power: for him all religions are equal, not one should dominate from the other to unite them under one mortal power...just my 2 cents worth.....Vive le Napoleon!

[pix042]

Napoleon, like Hitler, was a common little git corporal. Disgusting scum, the pair of them. Each clearly degenerate. It always fell to Britain to maintain a balance of power in Europe. not entirely altruistic but nevertheless better than one country dominating, be it Germany or France. Britain never had scum degenerates like Hitler and Napoleon in charge. Long Live Lord Liverpool and Sir Winston Churchill KG!

[rbilleaud]

Interesting how great military powers rise and fall. The Romans - Mussolini tried and failed to revive that tradition; the French - failures after the defeat of Napoleon; the Prussians - WW1 and WW2 disposed of that tradition; the Japanese - after the victories of 1905 one and done. I suppose eventually the US will become a military has-been too, despite our seeming insurmountable superiority in weapons and training.

[Harry44Callahan2]

The US cannot be compared to Rome, Napoleon, Hitler...the US is actually a benign power, contrary to those who would argue that the US inflicts its ideals on the world. The US has the military power to wage war openly throughout the world and to openly conquer and subjugate other countries, taking all the commodities and riches from the conquered countries as it pleases...the US doesn't do this. The US is an enigma of history in this regard. What would Rome do with the power the US has today?

[jgcooper]

it's so sad to see such ignorance

[kipastra]

well put!!

[locheelad2]

Dear HarryCallaghan, Great Britain was a benign Superpower, it ruled 40% of the Earth, and has given the West , benign Laws, freedoms and civil liberties. I don't regard the U.S. as a military power, the unknowing citizens of America have given Israel freehand to be today's Nazis. You mention Rome etc., I hear no thanks to Britain and its old Empire, for standing alone against Germany, Japan, Italy, Vichy France et al ! U.S. may have never entered if Japan hadn't whacked you.

[kosciol2]

First of all I'm stunned to see yours immense ignorance. It is obvious that U.K. didn't fight alone- soldiers from Poland, Slovakai, Czech, Serbia, Croatia, etc were fighting for England. It is unfair to say that U.K. was the only country that stood up to Hitler and that U.S. may have never entered bla bla.. YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WHEN HITLER INVADED CZECHOSLOVAKAI AND POLAND. People in those countries were dying every day in camps, executins, bombings and so on and you were just watching!!!

[locheelad2]

O.K. FACTS! Britain COULDN'T help in 39, Churchill tried to warn since 33, British Government wouldn't listen. I said Pole Airmen were billited in my home town, Croatia? They became great Nazis. The Whole World watched, Britain held out even after France fell! Blame German-Soviet Pact of 1938, that is how Hitler got freee hand against Europe, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE IF NOT FOR BRITAIN !

[MrPloopy]

Couldn't help in 1939??? What about your bombers which dropped anti-war propaganda leaflets on German cities instead of the bombs they should have been aiming at German industry & the Reichsbahn. Limeys & Frogs made a pact with Poland which they cared not to keep. However, Poles were loyal allies at the Battles of France, Norway, & Britain, as well as throughout the war, even when they already knew that Churchill had betrayed them at Yalta! Then there was no room for Poles at the parade.

[locheelad2]

Churchill tried his best at Yalta, by this time Great Britain was the weak 3rd partner. Stalin sucked the ailing Roosevelt in, Churchill WARNED about Stalin, and continued after the war, never heard the IRON CURTAIN speech? By the BY, the Polish Forces were billited during the war in my home town, Dundee, Scotland, and many Poles live there today. IN 1939 Churchill wasn't in POWER, Chamberlain was, Winston warned about Hitler from 1933 on. After you've studied WW2 for 40 years, talk to me again.

[MrPloopy]

The so-called Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri was, what we call in Polish, "mustard served after dinner."

[MrPloopy]

You've studied WWII, as written by the British only and that's all you know - Royal Propaganda!!! History is multi-faceted and richer than your trove of 40 year-old stinking tripe!

[locheelad2]

Perhaps, I got other facts from my Grandfather who won the M.M. at the Somme in WW1, and 4 uncles who fought in Germany and Burma from 1939 till 1946, all with the BLACK WATCH ( a Scots Regiment whom the Germans dubbed LADIES FROM HELL), quite a compliment as the Germans were no slouches at war, where do you get your fiction Mr. Poopy? Anyway pal, YOU LOST.

[Katakulli123]

they didn't drop bombs because they didn't care about poland

but cowards tried to bomb italy in 1940 from french airbases but frenchs stopped them

but why did they want to bomb italy?

because italy wasn't capable to bomb england

but germany was capable to bomb england that's why they didn't bomb germany

they were using polish people as slaves like germans

and they killed general sikorski because he just wanted a free poland not an english or german muppet country

[MrPloopy]

They also wanted to shut Sikorski's mouth about the Katyn Forest massacre about which he had just gotten documents when he visited Cairo and was on his way back to England via Gibraltar. Sikorski wanted Churchill to confront Stalin about what happened to 25,700 members of Poland's officer corps after they were taken prisoner by the USSR in 1939. For Churchill, Katyn was an "inconvenient truth" with which he did not wish to offend Stalin & jeopardize any designs of the then "New World Order."

[MrPloopy]

Instead of dumping bombs on German heads, the limeys were dumping leaflets thinking that Hitler would be jolted into morally stopping the war. Fuck you and your 40 years of war study that is worth a pile of flattened, dried cowshit!

[12from12]

The U.S. most certainly asserts it's ideals on the world. There are other ways then the sword

[locheelad2]

France or China or Great Britain could make the U.S. unlivable, we have nuclear weapons too, you conveniently forgot the greatest military MEGAPOWER of all time, the U.K.! 40% of the whole world, and benignly ruled. To this day we have a commonwealth of Nations, and anyone can leave it if they wish. The U.S. was never a military power without allies,, what are you on about, Vietnam, and Grenada don't count.

[MrPloopy]

Yeah, you Brits suck off the world and your former colonies, so your Queen and Horsehead Charlie can laze about and jet from vacation to holidays!

[locheelad2]

Hey you ignorant wanker, I am Scots, I have NO liking for the Monarchy, now pish off and read a book.

[MrPloopy]

Are ye a "Real Thistle," or one of those Scots that betrayed William Wallace?

[Gustave154]

germany should have just stopped after taking control of france... what was hitler thinking?

[TheT4xid3rmist]

If the Navy and the Air Force could agree, the Germans may have very well conquered Britain.

[pokermaniac0978]

lol, europe had too many ethnicity , too much ethnicity with lack of resouce's and land cause conflict. lol. always your own kind of people bring the most destruction to you just like the asians

[tvicena]

this sounds like the ramblings of a retard...are you drunk or did you hit your head?

[Fridomfry]

When appointed head of the French army in 1917, Pétain had said that he wanted an army which would smell more of petrol, and less of horse-shit. After WW1, France was a wounded beast, whom its lame parliamentary regime didn't help much to recovering, as no long-term policy could be firmly carried. They developed new tanks, but slowly. In 1936, decisions were finally made to create 2 (then 4) armoured divisions "to be used as rams, not as infantry support", plus motorized cavalry divisions.

[ThuWalris]

His name is dangerously close to "Putain" - fuck, fucking

[Fridomfry]

Many jokes have been made by the French about this name, even since before the war, since Pétain was sent as ambassador to Franco.

[ThuWalris]

I suppose that's like the French equivalent of having the name "Fokkin"

[Fridomfry]

Somehow! Did WW2 pilots make jokes about "Fokker" airplanes?

Anyway, Pétain was just another case of a good professional who had clear, sound ideas about modern war in the 1910s, and the courage to assert them in the face of his hierarchy, and won battles and prestige.

In the 1930s, he was in his 80s and should have concentrated on his rose garden.

[tdyduch13]

really? well then you taught me something... i mean i knew france after ww1 was advanced due to the fact that they help introduce the tank ... but after that they went back to cavalry .... so i didnt know that they had mobilized motorized divisions... also france had begun preparations to extend the Maginot line along the belgian border .... but i mean france while it had i believe the largest army at the time( 6 million troops mobilized) ... it wasnt as advanced as most people think...

[tdyduch13]

this is to Fridomfry... poland made preparations for the war which they knew was coming sooner rather than later.... while they didnt have the modern equipment at the time... they had enough infantry and supplies... at least in their plans to hold out for 6 months and wait for britain and france to open up a second front....but yeah poland was expected to fall .... but just hold out long enough for a second front... and france thought it would be trench like warfare again and they fell

[Fridomfry]

Not exactly. What you write is true regarding the Maginot line. But France had prepared a large mobile army, based on armoured or motorized divisions, to attack in the North. Which it did just to fall in the German trap.

[girus19]

jajajajaja yeah sure

[NYerintransit]

The Polish Army simply didn't have the strength to face the upgraded Germany Army. And it didn't help that the Russians were coming from other side.

[rogersdh]

Yeah thats spot on. Really this has always been the Polish Problem, they have Germany on one Side and Russia on the other, and will never be able to totally do what they want due to their neighbours influence.

[RA30511]

if it wasnt for that Polish buffer zone German advance to Russia would reach Moscow, Russia had all the resources Germany needed for future conquest, they knew that Germany was going to attack but made a mistake in the time because they thought conflict with france would take longer

[Fridomfry]

Saying that "Germany should have had it's empire just like the British" is taking sides, it's not part of a historical debate. Germany tried and failed, that's all. There is no such thing as a "right to have an empire". Besides, conquering a colonial empire in the 20th century implied more costs than benefits.

[Fridomfry]

Comparing Hitler with Napoleon is misleading. Hitler, like older German leaders, certainly wanted to emulate Napoleon. Yet Napoleon was a son of the Enlightenment ("reason", science, equality), which Hitler stood totally against (racism). Napoleon was a gifted conqueror, but he proved to be also a talented manager & lawmaker in peace time. Remember he never declared a war until 1808. When he did so he got doomed.

[D42Clinton]

People could also say that Hitler took a country from the absolute state of poverty and with a 30% of unemployment to a much better place. And Germany was also in peace from 1933 to 1939. So please, don't say Napoleon was better... He was just another Hitler without TV.

[Fridomfry]

Germany was far from an "absolute state of poverty" in 1933 it was one of the great industrial powers, although in a deep crisis like all western countries. The US, UK and France were also in dire economic straits, yet remained democracies and didn't smash Jewish before burning shopkeepers.

If you consider that Germany flattened by British bombers and with 10 M casualties was "a much better place", we may have a slight disagreement over what "good" means.

Besides, Hitler had hardly any TV

[kingbobnjoe]

Napoleon was highly anti-semetic. He passed anti jewish laws in the Napoleonic Code; one stating any jew who makes his living through peddling must be able to prove he did not obtain his money through swindling. France was always a very anti-semitic country, as was most of Europe. Before WW2 Germany was the best country to be jewish in.

[Fridomfry]

That's a bizarre, misinformed statement, my friend. Napoleon was not more anti-semitic than he was anti-catholic. He just used every ideology which suited his power, and wanted to control people under his rule. This law you mention is applied, today, to all maney-makers! (cf. Madoff!)

France after 1791 became the best country for Jews, the only one where they could become senior officers in the Army and were not discriminated against. The USA were much more anti-semitic until the 1920s.

[Fridomfry]

You're both right if we pay attention to "timing". Britain & France entered war against Hitler either too late or too early. 1939 was the worst moment, as the German forces were ready, while Britain and France planned to be war-ready only in 1941. Of course France was on the Hitler's list, as were Belgium & Holland. But his strategic priority was rather in the East, beginning with Poland. Poland was our ally; we didn't expect it to fall that fast just like France 8 monts later.

[MrPloopy]

However, in 1939, the Germans had their backs turned "busy" with Poland. Still, the French and British did nothing.

[readynow12345]

Are you kidding me, regardless of whether they attacked poland or not, hitler

was waging war against everyone, because of germany's defeat in world war 1, france was no doubt on hitlers list, England I'm not sure he admired the brits

and thought they they where alot like the germans in class, but as far as being neutral no way, hitler was another Napoleon out to conquer the world.

[Blumbus23]

Just think about how many lives could have been saved if the british and french attacked germany in september 1939 (about 45 million lives im not paricuarly sure how many died on fighting for or against Germany at least 30 million.)

[BrinklytoBrimstock]

Do you know its funny you should say that, because I agree with you completely. If in 1935 Britain and France took a harder line with both Germany and Italy WW2 could have been stopped.

[seb25us]

yeah...when Poland was bleeding out British and French took their vacation instead of helping out and fullfiling military treaty assigned with this country.Who knows, maybe if those 2 countries would react immidiately and hit Germany from west ( most of the German troops were in Poland in Sep '39)war would have unexpected turn.Hitler feared Britain and France.That was like fortunate gesture towards his actions. ps, i was just thinking-nothing personal against French and British.

[tommysize2]

i got a 36killstreak on cod5

[Groznia]

dumbshit

[tommysize2]

lol

[rokyzam]

lebih la tu

[dazer45]

Great documentary, gz for uploading

[mobboss1944]

An excellent documentary. Thanks a lot for posting.