7 ms·

It's shocking how much delusion around the world there was about Poland being able to defend itself against Hitler's invasion. Are we similarly deluding ourselv

It's shocking how much delusion around the world there was about Poland being able to defend itself against Hitler's invasion. Are we similarly deluding ourselves about Ukraine?

nickff 5y ago
Poland was completely conquered in 5 weeks (35 days), after having been attacked from two sides (by Germany and the Soviet Union). We are currently 26 days into this war, and Ukraine is holding up much better. This map shows how far the Germans got in two weeks, and it's much more than what the Russians have done so far in Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg
- epolanski 5y ago
  German invasion involved a much larger army. Germans invaded with 1.5M infantry soldiers alone. Russia barely has 15k, 100 times less, right now in Ukraine, most are mechanized. The scale of the war is immensely different. edit: I know there's a higher estimated Russian count but it's not infantry.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - yrgulation 5y ago
    Russia has at least 150k troops in Ukraine and the estimate doesn't include those from Syria and Chechnya.
    - epolanski 5y ago
      And of those a small part is infantry as I said, mostly those are mechanized units.
      - yrgulation 5y ago
        Thanks for the clarification - do you have a link to detailed stats about the invading army? Cant find a detailed breakdown.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    The number would be closer to 100 000 russian soldiers according to the pentagon, with 70-80% of it engaged inside ukraine already. But yes that's still just a fraction of the total russian army, and the ukrainian army had very similar numbers on the ground at the start of the war. So it's not equivalent to ww2 at all. But yes, the current situation is actually very different to WW2 with even the few similarities being at most superficial. But every war is compared to WW2 since it's a nice way to push for escalation under the pretext of stopping the next hitler. Yet WW1 is almost always a more appropriate example, but a pretty inconvenient one since it does not fit into war mongering narratives. Because I'm just not sure that saving serbia back in 1914 was really worth the lives of 10 million people in hindsight.
- lumost 5y ago
  The invasion of Poland was much bloodier than is often recalled. The Germans and Soviets invaded with 2 million soldiers and incurred 59 thousand casualties. The Russians are conducting direct combat operations with every major Ukrainian city except for Lviv and Odessa. The center of Ukraine is largely farmland and small villages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- sb057 5y ago
  Keep in mind that while the popular conception of WWII is as a mechanized war, everyone (especially the fuel-starved Germans) was still incredibly reliant on foot and horse-based movement. I don't believe the German army even had experimental APCs at the start of the war. The commonly cited number for how fast a traditional army can march is 20 miles per day, unopposed. The BTR-80 is rated for 50 miles per hour. Obviously APCs have to deal with refueling and maintenance and the like, but surely a modern mechanized army shouldn't moving slower than a comparable unmechanized one from 80 years ago.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- IAmGraydon 5y ago
  Actually, Poland was defeated in 26 days. The invasion started on Sept 1 and concluded on Sept 27.
- explaingarlic 5y ago
  It's extremely misleading, that sort of map view of a war like liveuamap tries to create. There is going to be no attempt to defend farmland, little towns or villages etc. The fact is that the administrative and economic centres of Ukraine are Ukraine. Once they are under Russian control, there is very little anyone can do. The sort-of map view of a war is too flawed. It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc. - and it lends itself nicely to video games (which, let's face it, are most people's only experience of grand strategy and warfare). It's just not how warfare works, and the victory condition for the Russian army is maybe a month and a half away at current pace, by my estimation. The information in the map that you linked is meaningful for sure, but it neglects the details that actually determine any side's performance in the war - you cannot extract the war's velocity from it.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    “ It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc.” This seems to describe Ukraine after Russia destroyed the city center…
- lleb97a 5y ago
  How can you compare two wars 80 years apart given the advancements in nearly every area. Polish soldiers couldn't watch German soldiers moving around from the safety of a bunker via a phone screen. The available, basic intelligence alone could keep a war like this going for months. It's why I don't understand how it's happened. Wars like this - between modern countries - just should not exist as a matter of common sense (e.g. Mutual destruction theory).
- c0nducktr 5y ago
  Wars just don't happen as quick as they used to? It was 168 days from invasion to "First post-Saddam government" in 2003.
int_19h 5y ago
Based on what I'm seeing in mainstream Western press and especially memes that people share, yes. For starters, Russia lost ~10% of its forces so far - but so did Ukraine (side note: if seriously believe the figures that Ukrainian Ministry of Defense publishes for Russian casualties, I have a bridge to sell you). The difference is that Ukraine is already fully engaged - it's not like had a choice! - while Russia has used only a part of its forces for the invasion. Now it's true that the forces that spearheaded the invasion were supposed to be the best trained and equipped ones, and other units that they'd have to bring would have more conscripts and be otherwise less effective. But a conscript is still better than no soldier at all! Then there's the "missing" Russian Air Force. And it's not just strategic bombing, but also ground support. The notion that they're incapable of any of this is just plain ridiculous, given what we've seen before in Syria. Now, Ukrainians do have much better AA than Syrian rebels, so Russian losses in the air would be high - but if they go all-in, it won't matter. So, the people who are dying defending Ukraine right now are basically buying time for the West to get over its fears and hesitations and truly help them. But, ironically, the ferocity of the defense led to the popular misconception that Ukraine can basically do it through grit alone. So I hope they do get help before it's too late, but I'm also pessimistic about it.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  They won't get help in the form of military intervention. The US wants the war to drag on because it's bad for Russia, but there is no way they will risk their own skin in a nuclear war. Ukrainians are discovering what Kurds, Afghans, Georgians and South Vietnamese learned: It is more dangerous to be buddies with the US, than to be their enemies.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    That's exactly why I'm pessimistic. The real problem is that once nuclear threats work, it's unclear why Russia should stop using them. For example, they now have a major security problem with Kaliningrad being an exclave - it's completely surrounded by unfriendly countries, and now even air cannot be reliably used to supply it; only shipping via the Baltic, which is itself a route that's easy to threaten. So suppose they demand that Lithuania gives them a land corridor from Belarus to Kaliningrad, or else? Lithuania is a NATO member, and would, of course, invoke Article 5 - but would Americans be willing to risk their own skin in a nuclear war for the sake of Lithuania anymore so than they did for the sake of Ukraine, regardless of NATO membership? OTOH it's also unclear why Russia should respond with nukes to a conventional intervention in Ukraine. Worst case, they lose Ukraine; is that worth a nuclear war in which they lose Russia itself? Mind you, this is assuming that Putin is rational, which is itself questionable. But if he's truly insane, then only he knows if and when he's going to press that button, and all these attempts to guess what not to do to prevent him from doing so are very likely to be futile in the long run.

It's shocking how much delusion around the world there was about Poland being able to defend itself against Hitler's invasion. Are we similarly deluding ourselves about Ukraine?

nickff 5y ago

Poland was completely conquered in 5 weeks (35 days), after having been attacked from two sides (by Germany and the Soviet Union). We are currently 26 days into this war, and Ukraine is holding up much better. This map shows how far the Germans got in two weeks, and it's much more than what the Russians have done so far in Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg

epolanski 5y ago
German invasion involved a much larger army. Germans invaded with 1.5M infantry soldiers alone. Russia barely has 15k, 100 times less, right now in Ukraine, most are mechanized. The scale of the war is immensely different. edit: I know there's a higher estimated Russian count but it's not infantry.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- yrgulation 5y ago
  Russia has at least 150k troops in Ukraine and the estimate doesn't include those from Syria and Chechnya.
  - epolanski 5y ago
    And of those a small part is infantry as I said, mostly those are mechanized units.
    - yrgulation 5y ago
      Thanks for the clarification - do you have a link to detailed stats about the invading army? Cant find a detailed breakdown.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  The number would be closer to 100 000 russian soldiers according to the pentagon, with 70-80% of it engaged inside ukraine already. But yes that's still just a fraction of the total russian army, and the ukrainian army had very similar numbers on the ground at the start of the war. So it's not equivalent to ww2 at all. But yes, the current situation is actually very different to WW2 with even the few similarities being at most superficial. But every war is compared to WW2 since it's a nice way to push for escalation under the pretext of stopping the next hitler. Yet WW1 is almost always a more appropriate example, but a pretty inconvenient one since it does not fit into war mongering narratives. Because I'm just not sure that saving serbia back in 1914 was really worth the lives of 10 million people in hindsight.
lumost 5y ago
The invasion of Poland was much bloodier than is often recalled. The Germans and Soviets invaded with 2 million soldiers and incurred 59 thousand casualties. The Russians are conducting direct combat operations with every major Ukrainian city except for Lviv and Odessa. The center of Ukraine is largely farmland and small villages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
sb057 5y ago
Keep in mind that while the popular conception of WWII is as a mechanized war, everyone (especially the fuel-starved Germans) was still incredibly reliant on foot and horse-based movement. I don't believe the German army even had experimental APCs at the start of the war. The commonly cited number for how fast a traditional army can march is 20 miles per day, unopposed. The BTR-80 is rated for 50 miles per hour. Obviously APCs have to deal with refueling and maintenance and the like, but surely a modern mechanized army shouldn't moving slower than a comparable unmechanized one from 80 years ago.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
IAmGraydon 5y ago
Actually, Poland was defeated in 26 days. The invasion started on Sept 1 and concluded on Sept 27.
explaingarlic 5y ago
It's extremely misleading, that sort of map view of a war like liveuamap tries to create. There is going to be no attempt to defend farmland, little towns or villages etc. The fact is that the administrative and economic centres of Ukraine are Ukraine. Once they are under Russian control, there is very little anyone can do. The sort-of map view of a war is too flawed. It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc. - and it lends itself nicely to video games (which, let's face it, are most people's only experience of grand strategy and warfare). It's just not how warfare works, and the victory condition for the Russian army is maybe a month and a half away at current pace, by my estimation. The information in the map that you linked is meaningful for sure, but it neglects the details that actually determine any side's performance in the war - you cannot extract the war's velocity from it.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  “ It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc.” This seems to describe Ukraine after Russia destroyed the city center…
lleb97a 5y ago
How can you compare two wars 80 years apart given the advancements in nearly every area. Polish soldiers couldn't watch German soldiers moving around from the safety of a bunker via a phone screen. The available, basic intelligence alone could keep a war like this going for months. It's why I don't understand how it's happened. Wars like this - between modern countries - just should not exist as a matter of common sense (e.g. Mutual destruction theory).
c0nducktr 5y ago
Wars just don't happen as quick as they used to? It was 168 days from invasion to "First post-Saddam government" in 2003.

int_19h 5y ago

Based on what I'm seeing in mainstream Western press and especially memes that people share, yes. For starters, Russia lost ~10% of its forces so far - but so did Ukraine (side note: if seriously believe the figures that Ukrainian Ministry of Defense publishes for Russian casualties, I have a bridge to sell you). The difference is that Ukraine is already fully engaged - it's not like had a choice! - while Russia has used only a part of its forces for the invasion. Now it's true that the forces that spearheaded the invasion were supposed to be the best trained and equipped ones, and other units that they'd have to bring would have more conscripts and be otherwise less effective. But a conscript is still better than no soldier at all! Then there's the "missing" Russian Air Force. And it's not just strategic bombing, but also ground support. The notion that they're incapable of any of this is just plain ridiculous, given what we've seen before in Syria. Now, Ukrainians do have much better AA than Syrian rebels, so Russian losses in the air would be high - but if they go all-in, it won't matter. So, the people who are dying defending Ukraine right now are basically buying time for the West to get over its fears and hesitations and truly help them. But, ironically, the ferocity of the defense led to the popular misconception that Ukraine can basically do it through grit alone. So I hope they do get help before it's too late, but I'm also pessimistic about it.

a0-prw 5y ago
They won't get help in the form of military intervention. The US wants the war to drag on because it's bad for Russia, but there is no way they will risk their own skin in a nuclear war. Ukrainians are discovering what Kurds, Afghans, Georgians and South Vietnamese learned: It is more dangerous to be buddies with the US, than to be their enemies.
- int_19h 5y ago
  That's exactly why I'm pessimistic. The real problem is that once nuclear threats work, it's unclear why Russia should stop using them. For example, they now have a major security problem with Kaliningrad being an exclave - it's completely surrounded by unfriendly countries, and now even air cannot be reliably used to supply it; only shipping via the Baltic, which is itself a route that's easy to threaten. So suppose they demand that Lithuania gives them a land corridor from Belarus to Kaliningrad, or else? Lithuania is a NATO member, and would, of course, invoke Article 5 - but would Americans be willing to risk their own skin in a nuclear war for the sake of Lithuania anymore so than they did for the sake of Ukraine, regardless of NATO membership? OTOH it's also unclear why Russia should respond with nukes to a conventional intervention in Ukraine. Worst case, they lose Ukraine; is that worth a nuclear war in which they lose Russia itself? Mind you, this is assuming that Putin is rational, which is itself questionable. But if he's truly insane, then only he knows if and when he's going to press that button, and all these attempts to guess what not to do to prevent him from doing so are very likely to be futile in the long run.