Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Poland, who may not remember 1938 all that well, decides to tweak Russia by awarding the Inaugural "Solidarity Prize" for achievements in spreading human rights and democracy to a Crimean Tatar leader who opposed Russian annexation   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 74
    More: Interesting, Crimean Tatars, Crimea, Russians, Poland, Russia, Tatars, Kremlins, human rights  
•       •       •

1467 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 May 2014 at 3:45 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-07 05:21:52 PM  

RexTalionis: Of all of the Eastern European former Soviet bloc states, Poland is in the best position to tweak Russia however they like because they are a NATO member and Russia wouldn't dare to act against them.


Oh, that's a bummer for the large Russian Polish immigrant population.


But no they wouldn't, and why should they. And I mean, we're not talking about your fantasy world here. I mean, why really?
 
2014-05-07 05:26:10 PM  

dukeblue219: dj_spanmaster: To be fair, in 1938 Poland had little military to speak of and there was no UN or NATO.

They had a better military than most people give them credit for, as they'd been rapidly expanding under the assumption of an eventual European war, presumed to come from the Soviets. Sure, they collapsed under the pressure of dual German and Soviet invasions, but so did everyone else in Europe. The tales of Polish cavalry charging German tanks are largely urban legends and much of the Polish army was well-equipped and inflicted substantial losses on the Germans.


Yes, everyone else, except all the countries that weren't involved in the conflict and those that were that didn't.

England got their asses kicked in France, but I am pretty sure they didn't collapse, yes?


Now go show me Ukraine on a map.
 
2014-05-07 05:27:54 PM  

rka: cynicalbastard: rockforever: Perhaps, PERHAPS, subby was thinking of the military guarantee that Great Britain granted to Poland to intervene on Poland's behalf should they be invaded by Germany.

When the time came to man up on that guarantee the British... well... they didn't. When they were soon after invaded by the USSR, the British told them no again. It was a pretty dick move by Britain.

Of course that was in 1939, so I'm not to sure.

Umm, actually, when Poland was invaded, the British did something subsequently which is known as "declaring war." Crack open a history book, bubbe.

And then they abandoned them to the Soviets after the war for 50 years.

So, declare war to defend Poland. Fight war, almost lose...don't actually defend Poland at all. Empire crumbles because they can't afford it anymore. Is that about right? Yeah. I always wonder why the British look back on WWII as some sort of shining moment.


USA abandoned Poland, England wanted to attack USSR on the spot.
 
2014-05-07 05:28:57 PM  

spawn73: RexTalionis: Of all of the Eastern European former Soviet bloc states, Poland is in the best position to tweak Russia however they like because they are a NATO member and Russia wouldn't dare to act against them.

Oh, that's a bummer for the large Russian Polish immigrant population.


But no they wouldn't, and why should they. And I mean, we're not talking about your fantasy world here. I mean, why really?


I'm not entertaining the notions of any fantasy, merely pointing out that Poland has the most protection of any Eastern European former Soviet bloc states which means they can aggravate Russia however they like.

If you want to argue against that, prove me wrong.
 
2014-05-07 05:31:50 PM  

YixilTesiphon: grimlock1972: yup 1939 what most people do not realize is one reason for the long downtime between the conclusion of combat in Poland and major operations in the west is due to the need for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to replace equipment lost in the Polish campaign.    The Germans took more of beating there than many realize, by all measures the Polish put up a better fight than the French did in 1940 despite the french having more troops and generally better equipment.

Today's Poland is not about to let its self be conquered ever again.

And non-organized resistance to the Germans continued for a very long time. The USA couldn't maintain control of a desert. Imagine how hard it would be for Russia to maintain control of a giant forest?

The Poles also resisted the USSR's puppet government into the 50s, which I didn't know until just now.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers

Nazi-German allies fought in Lithuenia till 1956. Though, not for Germany at that point obvioisly, just against the Soviet Union.
 
rka
2014-05-07 05:34:09 PM  

spawn73: rka: cynicalbastard: rockforever: Perhaps, PERHAPS, subby was thinking of the military guarantee that Great Britain granted to Poland to intervene on Poland's behalf should they be invaded by Germany.

When the time came to man up on that guarantee the British... well... they didn't. When they were soon after invaded by the USSR, the British told them no again. It was a pretty dick move by Britain.

Of course that was in 1939, so I'm not to sure.

Umm, actually, when Poland was invaded, the British did something subsequently which is known as "declaring war." Crack open a history book, bubbe.

And then they abandoned them to the Soviets after the war for 50 years.

So, declare war to defend Poland. Fight war, almost lose...don't actually defend Poland at all. Empire crumbles because they can't afford it anymore. Is that about right? Yeah. I always wonder why the British look back on WWII as some sort of shining moment.

USA abandoned Poland, England wanted to attack USSR on the spot.


Some US generals did too but the point is that US didn't have a treaty to defend Poland in the first place. The US didn't declare war on Germany due to their invasion of Poland. The UK did. The casus belli for the UK was to defend Poland. Not so with the US.
 
2014-05-07 05:37:03 PM  
spawn73:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers

Nazi-German allies fought in Lithuenia till 1956. Though, not for Germany at that point obvioisly, just against the Soviet Union.



www.wearysloth.com : I hate Lithuenian Nazi allies
 
2014-05-07 05:43:39 PM  

RexTalionis: Of all of the Eastern European former Soviet bloc states, Poland is in the best position to tweak Russia however they like because they are a NATO member and Russia wouldn't dare to act against them.


You forget the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia. They used to be members of the Warsaw pact or the USSR (except for the former states of Yugoslavia, which wasn't a member of either) and now they are NATO members. Poland has the biggest active army personnel (120,000) and Romania next (73,350). The other countries don't really contribute much to the military power of the NATO, their membership is more of a political importance.


Elroydb: One of the requirements for being a NATO member nation is to spend at least 4% of GDP on defense. The US and Poland are the only two countries that meet that requirement. The costs for invading them would be extremely high


According to this wiki article, military expenditures in % of GDP for the US was 4.8%, for Poland 1.7% in 2012. There's no 4% rule, only that "Members' defense spending is supposed to amount to 2% of GDP."
 
2014-05-07 05:48:07 PM  

RexTalionis: spawn73: RexTalionis: Of all of the Eastern European former Soviet bloc states, Poland is in the best position to tweak Russia however they like because they are a NATO member and Russia wouldn't dare to act against them.

Oh, that's a bummer for the large Russian Polish immigrant population.


But no they wouldn't, and why should they. And I mean, we're not talking about your fantasy world here. I mean, why really?

I'm not entertaining the notions of any fantasy, merely pointing out that Poland has the most protection of any Eastern European former Soviet bloc states which means they can aggravate Russia however they like.

If you want to argue against that, prove me wrong.


Eh, what? How about I just address your argument instead?

Poland, could, invade Russia. But that would be stupid.

Russia could invade Poland, that would be equally stupid.

Is either scenario likely outside your fantasy world? No.
 
2014-05-07 05:50:44 PM  

rka: spawn73: rka: cynicalbastard: rockforever: Perhaps, PERHAPS, subby was thinking of the military guarantee that Great Britain granted to Poland to intervene on Poland's behalf should they be invaded by Germany.

When the time came to man up on that guarantee the British... well... they didn't. When they were soon after invaded by the USSR, the British told them no again. It was a pretty dick move by Britain.

Of course that was in 1939, so I'm not to sure.

Umm, actually, when Poland was invaded, the British did something subsequently which is known as "declaring war." Crack open a history book, bubbe.

And then they abandoned them to the Soviets after the war for 50 years.

So, declare war to defend Poland. Fight war, almost lose...don't actually defend Poland at all. Empire crumbles because they can't afford it anymore. Is that about right? Yeah. I always wonder why the British look back on WWII as some sort of shining moment.

USA abandoned Poland, England wanted to attack USSR on the spot.

Some US generals did too but the point is that US didn't have a treaty to defend Poland in the first place. The US didn't declare war on Germany due to their invasion of Poland. The UK did. The casus belli for the UK was to defend Poland. Not so with the US.


I'm talking 1945. UK obviosly did what it could in 1939.
 
2014-05-07 06:03:56 PM  

CruJones: anuran: Meanwhile Pootie Poot has said giving Finland its independence was a "mistake" and that Russia stands ready to defend ethnic Russians in Finland. I bet the Finns are looking at their "Partnership for Peace" agreement and wishing they'd upgraded. Even with full NATO membership the Baltic States must be feeling VERY nervous

I don't think Putin has ever actually mentioned Finland, he's said they made some mistakes, but the odds of a Finland invasion are zero.


I caught the quote. It turns out it was aides of his who said he wanted to "regain Finland" and that Russia never should have let it go. How accurately they're quoting the Czar is another question.
 
2014-05-07 06:10:57 PM  
And keep in mind, Germany declared war on the US. Against the advice of almost his entire staff, diplomatic corps, and military commanders, Hitler insisted on holding up Germany's end of the Tripartite Pact. The American war aims never included exactly what would happen to Eastern Europe; the goal was always to eliminate the Nazi regime.
 
2014-05-07 06:21:50 PM  

cynicalbastard: rockforever: Perhaps, PERHAPS, subby was thinking of the military guarantee that Great Britain granted to Poland to intervene on Poland's behalf should they be invaded by Germany.

When the time came to man up on that guarantee the British... well... they didn't. When they were soon after invaded by the USSR, the British told them no again. It was a pretty dick move by Britain.

Of course that was in 1939, so I'm not to sure.

Umm, actually, when Poland was invaded, the British did something subsequently which is known as "declaring war." Crack open a history book, bubbe.


Yeah they got right on it! HA! Good one though.

Someone else said it, the UK did what it could, which was nothing. If they couldn't do anything, why did they issue the guarantee? Cus their arseholes.
 
2014-05-07 07:00:35 PM  

UNC_Samurai: And keep in mind, Germany declared war on the US. Against the advice of almost his entire staff, diplomatic corps, and military commanders, Hitler insisted on holding up Germany's end of the Tripartite Pact. The American war aims never included exactly what would happen to Eastern Europe; the goal was always to eliminate the Nazi regime.


Germany was not required by the Tripartite act to declare war on the US , nor was Italy but they both did.  one of the biggest errors in the war by the Germans.
 
2014-05-07 07:10:10 PM  
Oh, I'm pretty sure Poland remembers 1938.  And 1832.  And 1815.  And 1795.  And 1793.  And 1772.
 
2014-05-07 07:16:43 PM  

dukeblue219: The tales of Polish cavalry charging German tanks are largely urban legends


not so much urban legends as NAZI propaganda to cover for the fact that the Poles were mauling the Germans pretty badly.
 
2014-05-07 07:23:35 PM  

anuran: Meanwhile Pootie Poot has said giving Finland its independence was a "mistake" and that Russia stands ready to defend ethnic Russians in Finland. I bet the Finns are looking at their "Partnership for Peace" agreement and wishing they'd upgraded. Even with full NATO membership the Baltic States must be feeling VERY nervous



Simo Hayha tells Putin "come at me bro".

And I used to sail with some Litvaks in Chicago, Russia would NOT enjoy trying to take the Baltic's back?   You think the IRA held a grudge?   Every expat Baltic in the world would send cash and guns to defend their version of the auld sod
 
2014-05-07 07:51:48 PM  

rockforever: cynicalbastard: rockforever: Perhaps, PERHAPS, subby was thinking of the military guarantee that Great Britain granted to Poland to intervene on Poland's behalf should they be invaded by Germany.

When the time came to man up on that guarantee the British... well... they didn't. When they were soon after invaded by the USSR, the British told them no again. It was a pretty dick move by Britain.

Of course that was in 1939, so I'm not to sure.

Umm, actually, when Poland was invaded, the British did something subsequently which is known as "declaring war." Crack open a history book, bubbe.

Yeah they got right on it! HA! Good one though.

Someone else said it, the UK did what it could, which was nothing. If they couldn't do anything, why did they issue the guarantee? Cus their arseholes.


That's one of the central points of AJP Taylor's book - the British painted themselves into a corner, and were more enthusiastic about guaranteeing the defense of a country, in Poland, that they had less capability of supporting on the battlefield than Czechoslovakia, which they hesitated to go to war for on the grounds that it was infeasible to support them militarily. In both cases, military support meant engaging the Germans in the same general areas they had fought over in 1914-18.
 
2014-05-07 08:16:55 PM  
1938? 1939?

Meh... who cares: the Soviets had to team up with the Nazis to take out Poland.

How about looking at the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921 where the Poles kicked Russian ass over the Ukraine.
 
2014-05-08 12:03:10 AM  
In addition to much of what's been said above, Polish dog fighters were some of the fiercest protecting Britain against the Luftwaffe.
 
2014-05-08 05:15:23 AM  

Slowdog: [i.imgur.com image 708x1500]

/oblig


I wonder if the comic's creator knows that the "RRRRRRRR" and the ball guy thing is colored as the flag of Monaco or Indonesia, and not Poland.
The flag of Poland is red on the bottom.

/I live in Poland.
 
2014-05-08 05:38:27 AM  

RexTalionis: Of all of the Eastern European former Soviet bloc states, Poland is in the best position to tweak Russia however they like because they are a NATO member and Russia wouldn't dare to act against them.


Well apart from the very suspicious air crash that wiped out their government a few years back.
 
2014-05-08 07:13:37 AM  
Only two Euro countries you can count on if Russia goes west;  Germany and Poland.
 
kgf
2014-05-08 01:13:09 PM  
Germany's initial success in WWII was a result of their embracing mobility.  WWI was fought with 20th century weapons and 19th century tactics.  Germany learned from that and used mobility to gain an advantage while France was preparing to fight WWI all over again with the Maginot Line.

Many people today wrongly think "blitzkrieg" simply means attacking the enemy fast and hard.  I remember reading a book (can't remember its name) that  asserted that teh German "blitzkrieg" is a myth.  Blitzkrieg is the concept of penetrating the enemy's lines on small fronts and then using the mobility of the penetrating troops to wreak havoc deep in the enemy's rear areas, disrupting communications and supplies.  For the most part, the Germans in WWII relied on the tried and true strategy of "Kesselschlacht", which is to envelop the enemy and then destroy him in the resulting cauldron (kessel), not blitzkrieg.    That is, blitzkrieg was used on a very small scale to gain local advantage to enable the kessel, but it was not a large scale strategy.
 
Displayed 24 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report