Polish Greatness

[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.

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

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 1.

Poland for 800 years didn't fall in perpetual war, they fought the Mongols, Kievan Rus, Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Turks, Russia, Sweden, Tatars, and others.

So, actually Poland achieved better results than Nazi Germany had.

That Wikipedia link says Nazi Germany had more personnel than Soviets had.

So, that's NOTHING compared to the list of Polish wins, when outnumbered.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, your posts have been very informative. Thanks, SobieskiSavedEurope. I never knew a lot of these things about Poland. My mother's family are of Polish origin, but they came here a few generations ago and my grandfather never really talked about Poland or his family (he ran away from home at a young age and became estranged from his family), so I know nearly nothing about the place.

 

[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.

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 you have a lack of substance.

You've not shown any Battles of the ones you think did better like Nazis, WHO LOST at near even numbers in Operation Barbarossa.

You've ignored all the Battles I've posted, and just have moved everything to WW2 which is 1 out of 1,000's of Wars Poland was in.

Spartans also lost some battles, so it doesn't really matter if Poles sometimes lost.

You're just looking like one with some serious bone to chew with Poland for no reason at all.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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

The start of the Scientific Revolution is considered generally when Polish Copernicus formulated the Heliocentric Model, his Polish mentor Albert Brudzewski could be considered part of that, having discovered the proper Rotation of the Moon.

Poland was #1 in Science before the Partitions.

Post Partitions Germans, land Russians limited, or even eliminated Polish education.

Soviets stifled creative potential.

But, Poland's done some pretty good things for Science, once again.

Not that it ever stopped.

This was a pretty important Polish Physicist of the 20th century, for example.

Marian Smoluchowski - Wikipedia

 

[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.

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.

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.

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

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'.

Poland spent far less on Military than Nazis, or Soviets.

Military Expenditures, Strategic Raw Materials, Oil Production

Wartime expenditures during the Second World War 1939-1945
Country Billion U.S. dollars (for prices in 1946: $1 = c.£0.25 = c.RM 2.22)
U.S.A. $ 341.491
Germany $ 270.000
Soviet Union (Russia) $ 192.000
China c.$ 190.000 (estimate for 1937-1945)
United Kingdom $ 120.000
Canada $ 15.680
Italy $ 94.000
Japan $ 56.000
France $ 15.000
Belgium $ 3.250
Poland $ 1.550
Netherlands $ 0.925
Latin American countries (total) $ 1.000
Greece over $ 0.220
Yugoslavia over $ 0.200#

 

[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.

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

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.

Actually Nazis + Soviets in WW2 had been about 8 X the population size of Poland in WW2.

The difference is Nazi Germany, unlike Poland had reliable allies.

Nazi Germany had Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia, and Bulgarian in Operation Barbarossa.

You keep ignoring this, like Nazi Germany did everything on it's own, it didn't.

Even in the Western front, Vichy France was fighting regular France.

So, it's not quite what you're saying.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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

The start of the Scientific Revolution is considered generally when Polish Copernicus formulated the Heliocentric Model, his Polish mentor Albert Brudzewski could be considered part of that, having discovered the proper Rotation of the Moon.

Poland was #1 in Science before the Partitions.

Post Partitions Germans, land Russians limited, or even eliminated Polish education.

Soviets stifled creative potential.

But, Poland's done some pretty good things for Science, once again.

Not that it ever stopped.

This was a pretty important Polish Physicist of the 20th century, for example.

Marian Smoluchowski - Wikipedia

you think your assertions and anecdotes prove things, they don't

supply the link or analysis that shows Poland number 1 at science right up to 1772, supply it or admit you just made shit up

meanwhile, congrats to Poland on ranking well behind Sweden in scientific contribution in 2016 despite having 4 times as many people. Ranked number #24, gee I can see why you think Poland is real science powerhouse

The World's Best Countries in Science [Interactive]

 

[NCC1701]

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

 

[NCC1701]

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Actually Nazis + Soviets in WW2 had been about 8 X the population size of Poland in WW2.

The difference is Nazi Germany, unlike Poland had reliable allies.

Nazi Germany had Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia, and Bulgarian in Operation Barbarossa.

You keep ignoring this, like Nazi Germany did everything on it's own, it didn't.

Even in the Western front, Vichy France was fighting regular France.

So, it's not quite what you're saying.

as I said dumshit, the war in Poland was essentially over before the soviets entered it. Stalin waited until the germans had Poland on the mat.

 

[NCC1701]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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'.

Poland spent far less on Military than Nazis, or Soviets.

Military Expenditures, Strategic Raw Materials, Oil Production

Wartime expenditures during the Second World War 1939-1945
Country Billion U.S. dollars (for prices in 1946: $1 = c.£0.25 = c.RM 2.22)
U.S.A. $ 341.491
Germany $ 270.000
Soviet Union (Russia) $ 192.000
China c.$ 190.000 (estimate for 1937-1945)
United Kingdom $ 120.000
Canada $ 15.680
Italy $ 94.000
Japan $ 56.000
France $ 15.000
Belgium $ 3.250
Poland $ 1.550
Netherlands $ 0.925
Latin American countries (total) $ 1.000
Greece over $ 0.220
Yugoslavia over $ 0.200#

aw god dumbshit, seriously? Poland was gone in 5 weeks in 1939 and you want to somehow claim it was due to spending after that?

so do tell, what kind of dumbass country watches their hated neighbor arm up to their eyeballs and do nothing about it? oh poor Poland, outspent.... blah blah, since when do warriors make excuses?

 

[NCC1701]

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.

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.

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?

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 you have a lack of substance.

You've not shown any Battles of the ones you think did better like Nazis, WHO LOST at near even numbers in Operation Barbarossa.

You've ignored all the Battles I've posted, and just have moved everything to WW2 which is 1 out of 1,000's of Wars Poland was in.

Spartans also lost some battles, so it doesn't really matter if Poles sometimes lost.

You're just looking like one with some serious bone to chew with Poland for no reason at all.

you want to claim great battles where the poles lost both the battle and the war, but dismiss anyone else who did the same.

 

[NCC1701]

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.

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.

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?

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

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 1.

Poland for 800 years didn't fall in perpetual war, they fought the Mongols, Kievan Rus, Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Turks, Russia, Sweden, Tatars, and others.

So, actually Poland achieved better results than Nazi Germany had.

That Wikipedia link says Nazi Germany had more personnel than Soviets had.

So, that's NOTHING compared to the list of Polish wins, when outnumbered.

and I explained the wiki link. So then, do explain how the soviets can have 4.7 million casualties out of 2.9 million soldiers, that is what your link says. Your stupid claim that Germany outnumbered the soviets flies in the face of all accepted history

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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

The start of the Scientific Revolution is considered generally when Polish Copernicus formulated the Heliocentric Model, his Polish mentor Albert Brudzewski could be considered part of that, having discovered the proper Rotation of the Moon.

Poland was #1 in Science before the Partitions.

Post Partitions Germans, land Russians limited, or even eliminated Polish education.

Soviets stifled creative potential.

But, Poland's done some pretty good things for Science, once again.

Not that it ever stopped.

This was a pretty important Polish Physicist of the 20th century, for example.

Marian Smoluchowski - Wikipedia

you think your assertions and anecdotes prove things, they don't

supply the link or analysis that shows Poland number 1 at science right up to 1772, supply it or admit you just made shit up

meanwhile, congrats to Poland on ranking well behind Sweden in scientific contribution in 2016 despite having 4 times as many people. Ranked number #24, gee I can see why you think Poland is real science powerhouse

The World's Best Countries in Science [Interactive]

In the Renaissance Poland was superior in Science.

- Albert Brudzewski's proper rotation of the Moon.

- Copernicus's Heliocentric model.

- Michal Sedziwoj's discovery of Oxygen.

- Jozef Struthius's modern Pulse taking methods.

- Jan Heweliusz first map of the Moon

- Kazimierz Siemienowicz Delta wing multistage rocket.

- Marcin Bylica critique of existing Astronomy.

- Alexius Polonus pioneering in sunspot detection.

-Maria Cunitz new tables in Astronomy.

- Maciej Miechowita's pioneering work in benefits of sanitation against epidemics.

- Jan Brozek's theory of numbers, and discovery of why Bee's make Hexagons for storage.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

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 you have a lack of substance.

You've not shown any Battles of the ones you think did better like Nazis, WHO LOST at near even numbers in Operation Barbarossa.

You've ignored all the Battles I've posted, and just have moved everything to WW2 which is 1 out of 1,000's of Wars Poland was in.

Spartans also lost some battles, so it doesn't really matter if Poles sometimes lost.

You're just looking like one with some serious bone to chew with Poland for no reason at all.

you want to claim great battles where the poles lost both the battle and the war, but dismiss anyone else who did the same.

No, you want to ignore Polish victories, and harp on Nazi German's lost.

Why?
Who knows you're a clown.

 

[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

The start of the Scientific Revolution is considered generally when Polish Copernicus formulated the Heliocentric Model, his Polish mentor Albert Brudzewski could be considered part of that, having discovered the proper Rotation of the Moon.

Poland was #1 in Science before the Partitions.

Post Partitions Germans, land Russians limited, or even eliminated Polish education.

Soviets stifled creative potential.

But, Poland's done some pretty good things for Science, once again.

Not that it ever stopped.

This was a pretty important Polish Physicist of the 20th century, for example.

Marian Smoluchowski - Wikipedia

you think your assertions and anecdotes prove things, they don't

supply the link or analysis that shows Poland number 1 at science right up to 1772, supply it or admit you just made shit up

meanwhile, congrats to Poland on ranking well behind Sweden in scientific contribution in 2016 despite having 4 times as many people. Ranked number #24, gee I can see why you think Poland is real science powerhouse

The World's Best Countries in Science [Interactive]

In the Renaissance Poland was superior in Science.

- Albert Brudzewski's proper rotation of the Moon.

- Copernicus's Heliocentric model.

- Michal Sedziwoj's discovery of Oxygen.

- Jozef Struthius's modern Pulse taking methods.

- Jan Heweliusz first map of the Moon

- Kazimierz Siemienowicz Delta wing multistage rocket.

- Marcin Bylica critique of existing Astronomy.

- Alexius Polonus pioneering in sunspot detection.

-Maria Cunitz new tables in Astronomy.

- Maciej Miechowita's pioneering work in benefits of sanitation against epidemics.

- Jan Brozek's theory of numbers, and discovery of why Bee's make Hexagons for storage.

there it is again, the patented polish dumbfuck method of proof - only list polish anecdotes, ignore all others and pronounce Poland superior.

 

[NCC1701]

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 you have a lack of substance.

You've not shown any Battles of the ones you think did better like Nazis, WHO LOST at near even numbers in Operation Barbarossa.

You've ignored all the Battles I've posted, and just have moved everything to WW2 which is 1 out of 1,000's of Wars Poland was in.

Spartans also lost some battles, so it doesn't really matter if Poles sometimes lost.

You're just looking like one with some serious bone to chew with Poland for no reason at all.

you want to claim great battles where the poles lost both the battle and the war, but dismiss anyone else who did the same.

No, you want to ignore Polish victories, and harp on Nazi German's lost.

Why?
Who knows you're a clown.

no I don't want to ignore polish victories, but I want you to ignore polish losses if you are going to ignore everyone else's losses. It is called being objective and fair. Why don't you want to be objective when making your claims? I don't know, maybe you have a polish penis stuck up your ass?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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

The start of the Scientific Revolution is considered generally when Polish Copernicus formulated the Heliocentric Model, his Polish mentor Albert Brudzewski could be considered part of that, having discovered the proper Rotation of the Moon.

Poland was #1 in Science before the Partitions.

Post Partitions Germans, land Russians limited, or even eliminated Polish education.

Soviets stifled creative potential.

But, Poland's done some pretty good things for Science, once again.

Not that it ever stopped.

This was a pretty important Polish Physicist of the 20th century, for example.

Marian Smoluchowski - Wikipedia

you think your assertions and anecdotes prove things, they don't

supply the link or analysis that shows Poland number 1 at science right up to 1772, supply it or admit you just made shit up

meanwhile, congrats to Poland on ranking well behind Sweden in scientific contribution in 2016 despite having 4 times as many people. Ranked number #24, gee I can see why you think Poland is real science powerhouse

The World's Best Countries in Science [Interactive]

In the Renaissance Poland was superior in Science.

- Albert Brudzewski's proper rotation of the Moon.

- Copernicus's Heliocentric model.

- Michal Sedziwoj's discovery of Oxygen.

- Jozef Struthius's modern Pulse taking methods.

- Jan Heweliusz first map of the Moon

- Kazimierz Siemienowicz Delta wing multistage rocket.

- Marcin Bylica critique of existing Astronomy.

- Alexius Polonus pioneering in sunspot detection.

-Maria Cunitz new tables in Astronomy.

- Maciej Miechowita's pioneering work in benefits of sanitation against epidemics.

- Jan Brozek's theory of numbers, and discovery of why Bee's make Hexagons for storage.

there it is again, the patented polish dumbfuck method of proof - only list polish anecdotes, ignore all others and pronounce Poland superior.

This is easier to prove, because battles are too much to post, or to even grasp.



The most important Renaissance astronomers are Copernicus of Poland, Galileo of Italy, Kepler of Germany, Albert Brudzewski of Poland, Tycho Brahee of Denmark, Jan Heweliusz of Poland, Giordano Bruno of Italy, and Christian Huygens of Holland.

That out of 8 of those, 3 of them are from Poland.

The most important Renaissance Physicians are Flemish Andreas Vesalius, Polish Jozef Struthius, English William Harvey, Italian Leonardo DaVinci, French Jacques Dubois,
and French Ambroise Pare.

1 out of 6 are from Poland.

Out of the 2 pioneers of Rocket Science during the Renaissance.

Polish Kazimierz Siemonowicz, and Conrad Hass an Austrian are the 2 most important.

In Miscellaneous science the most important are Polish Albert Brudzewski, English Francis Bacon, Fausto Venzio from Croatia,
and German Martin Behain.

1 out of 4 are from Poland.

That out of 18 noble scientist of the Renaissance period, 5 are from Poland, 2 are from Germany, 2 from Italy, 2 from England, 2 from France, 1 from Austria, 1 from Holland, 1 from Denmark, 1 from Croatia, and 1 from Flanders.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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 you have a lack of substance.

You've not shown any Battles of the ones you think did better like Nazis, WHO LOST at near even numbers in Operation Barbarossa.

You've ignored all the Battles I've posted, and just have moved everything to WW2 which is 1 out of 1,000's of Wars Poland was in.

Spartans also lost some battles, so it doesn't really matter if Poles sometimes lost.

You're just looking like one with some serious bone to chew with Poland for no reason at all.

you want to claim great battles where the poles lost both the battle and the war, but dismiss anyone else who did the same.

No, you want to ignore Polish victories, and harp on Nazi German's lost.

Why?
Who knows you're a clown.

It is called being objective and fair. Why don't you want to be objective when making your claims? I don't know, maybe you have a polish penis stuck up your ass?

Objective?

You haven't even come close....None of the groups you mentioned are even competition for Poland's Golden Age...

The best military commander is definitely Genghiz Khan... But... Polish Boleslaw Chrobry, and Jan Sobieski are very close, in fact so are some others.

Furthermore, Poles have a more consistent victory margin than Mongols.

Also Swedes come very close to Poles in victories when outnumbered.

Yes Spartans for only a very brief period.

It's not Nazi Germany, or Confederates, who are even in question.... You sound like a moron to even discuss that.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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

The start of the Scientific Revolution is considered generally when Polish Copernicus formulated the Heliocentric Model, his Polish mentor Albert Brudzewski could be considered part of that, having discovered the proper Rotation of the Moon.

Poland was #1 in Science before the Partitions.

Post Partitions Germans, land Russians limited, or even eliminated Polish education.

Soviets stifled creative potential.

But, Poland's done some pretty good things for Science, once again.

Not that it ever stopped.

This was a pretty important Polish Physicist of the 20th century, for example.

Marian Smoluchowski - Wikipedia

meanwhile, congrats to Poland on ranking well behind Sweden in scientific contribution in 2016 despite having 4 times as many people. Ranked number #24, gee I can see why you think Poland is real science powerhouse

The World's Best Countries in Science [Interactive]

1.) #24 out of roughly 200 countries in this World is not bad.

2.) I never said Poland was #1 today, just that it's doing some pretty good things for Science, once again.

3.) Presumably in this list, a lot of the recorded papers, and patents aren't ground-breaking, I'd imagine that when you account ground breaking ones, Poland's probably ahead of Sweden, today in totals at least.

4.) This list, probably doesn't account for Polish brain-drain.

Some of the best Polish scientists of today are in the U.S.A.

Like Nikoderm Poplawski who came up with the theory that every Black Hole has another Universe.

Nikodem Popławski - Wikipedia

Like Aleksander Wolszcazn who discovered the first Pulsar planets, and Planets outside of our Solar System.

Aleksander Wolszczan - Wikipedia

Like Maria Siemionow who pioneered face transplant surgery, and having did the first one in the U.S.A.

Maria Siemionow - Wikipedia