Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on December 21, 2004, 02:27:56 pm

Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: aldo_14 on December 21, 2004, 02:27:56 pm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/21/patents_dropped/
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Liberator on December 21, 2004, 02:36:06 pm
Okay, so there's actually a fight going on to allow patents to enter the public domain after reasonable amount of time?:confused:
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: IceFire on December 21, 2004, 02:36:45 pm
What is it exactly?  I'm a little confused on the details.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: aldo_14 on December 21, 2004, 02:43:08 pm
The EU had planned on using the Fisheries and then Farming Comissions to push through laws which would affect the sotware industry; 3 specific problems are;

1. To be considered patentable, a computer-implemented invention must involve a so-called inventive step, that is, it must make a technical contribution. However, despite a tiny last-minute change to placate the Germans the directive does not define the term "technical", leaving the lawyers a lot of room to play in.

2. Patent holders are not required to make an all-comers general license available to parties who want to write software that interoperates with the patented process.

3. The draft allows for program claims, so that even supplying patented code, as opposed to running it on a computer, will be an infringement of the patent. This will make it impossible to post sections of code on websites, common practice in developer communities.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: IceFire on December 21, 2004, 02:46:27 pm
Good for the Poles then.  Makes me even more proud of my heritage.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: an0n on December 21, 2004, 03:02:18 pm
You remember losing to the Germans, right?
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Fr3z3r on December 21, 2004, 03:39:16 pm
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
You remember losing to the Germans, right?

Losing a battle != losing a war, an0n.

Ice, where exactly did your ancestors live?
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: an0n on December 21, 2004, 07:27:11 pm
The Polish didn't win the war either. They lost, the government legged it and the Allies wiped the floor with the Germans.

Saying Poland won is like saying France won. They simply didn't.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Kosh on December 21, 2004, 07:47:23 pm
Germany wiped the floor with Poland. They fell even faster than France.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: .::Tin Can::. on December 21, 2004, 08:28:19 pm
Who really cares who the Germans wiped the floor with? All that matters is that we used the Germans to mop up the mess latter on. :D:yes:
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Gank on December 21, 2004, 08:32:28 pm
No you didnt the russians did.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: WMCoolmon on December 21, 2004, 09:10:00 pm
Go Poland Minister of Science and Information Technology!
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Liberator on December 21, 2004, 09:32:59 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
No you didnt the russians did.


It was a team effort, the Americans/British didn't use their troops as fodder for their tanks and it slowed them down.  Patton could've been in Berlin weeks before if he hadn't been desupplied.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Kosh on December 21, 2004, 11:16:19 pm
The war would have lasted a lot longer if Hitler didn't take away soldiers and equipment from the eastern front. That allowed the Russians to break through the thin German lines rather easily. They were advancing 120 KM per day in some cases. It had nothing todo with the Americans/British not using their troops as fodder for their tanks. Their tanks were pieces of crap anyway.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 21, 2004, 11:34:43 pm
The Germans could never have actually defeated the Red Army, but they could have inflicted casualities even Stalin would have balked at. To do so, however, they needed all their troops. That was the plan for the Ardennes offensive. It was Hitler's only hope; he might be able to defeat the western Allies, then make peace with the Russians. (Of course, it would have spelled ruin for Germany anyways, because then in the summer of 1945 the US 8th Airforce, secure in its bases in England, would have dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin.)

Ultimately, while the Wehrmacht bled on the Russian steppes, it died in the Ardennes and the Rhine River valley. That was where its best units and best equipment went, and that was where those units and equipment were destroyed.

Eisenhower refused to race the Russians to Berlin. Montgomery wanted to go. Patton wanted to go. They could have made it, too. Eisenhower asked Bradley what he thought it would cost in terms of casualities. Bradley said probably about a hundred thousand, which was an awful lot for a prestige objective that would have to be turned over to the Russians anyways, because of the decisions made at the Yalta conference. So Eisenhower said no, they weren't going to Berlin. And considering the experience of the Red Army in Berlin, Eisenhower surely made the right choice.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: WMCoolmon on December 22, 2004, 12:31:56 am
Quote
Originally posted by someone far wiser than I
Rule of Internet Politics Discussion 1: All internet politics discussions must involve a mention of or reference to Hitler or Nazi Germany
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: IceFire on December 22, 2004, 01:01:20 am
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
The Polish didn't win the war either. They lost, the government legged it and the Allies wiped the floor with the Germans.

Saying Poland won is like saying France won. They simply didn't.

My grandfather, the only Polish relation I have, was with the Polish army during WWII.  During the opening weeks, they fought as best they could but were totally not prepared to face combined german infantry, tanks, mechanized everything, and the modernity of the Luftwaffe.

He escaped, he was in Egypt, Iraq, Israel, moved to England after the war...then moved to Canada.  Thats my family history (on one side, the other side has been in Canada for a while!).

That all said, and despite being occupied, the Polish put up a hell of a defense despite being outnumbered, out gunned, and totally unprepared for war.  Take the standard Polish fighter at the time.  The P.11.  Fixed gear, high wing, gull design, monoplane.  In 1932, it was the fastest most modern fighter in the world.  By 1938 it was obsolete.  The Bf-109 used by the Germans was the supreme fighter of that period (soon to be equaled by the likes of the British Spitfire).   In any case, the Polish managed to shoot down somewhere in the neighborhood of 200-300 Luftwaffe fighters and dive bombers.  Despite the fact that their planes had less than half the armament, armor, or speed of their opponents.  They did REALLY well.

Also, Poland was one of the first countries to kick out communism at the end of the cold war.

Although having little connection to my Polish roots, from what I can take from my grandpa (who lived to a very respectable age) Polish people are generally a fircely proud bunch.  Survivors.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: IceFire on December 22, 2004, 01:10:04 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kosh
Germany wiped the floor with Poland. They fell even faster than France.

Ever hear of the Phoney War?  The first year of WWII...France, Britian, and I submit even Germany was unprepared.  But Germany could have taken France down just as quickly as Poland...France was just as poorley prepared.

Remember, the depression was a major factor here.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Fr3z3r on December 22, 2004, 01:38:29 am
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
The Polish didn't win the war either. They lost, the government legged it and the Allies wiped the floor with the Germans.

Fair enough, that's one point of view. :D Lost battles/wars are what happens when you are situated in Central Europe - politically the WORST place to be (well, maybe Israel can compete here... but we're talking about 1939).

Polish army - unprepared, poorly equipped and mobilized too late (in order "not to provoke Hitler") put up one hell of a fight, to be honest. The fact is, REGULAR army units fought to early 1940 using guerilla tactics. Then the "real" guerilla forces - AK, AL, GL and a couple of other formations - became a real pain in the ass for Germany.

Here are the most accurate loss statistics known to date:

Men:
Poland - ca. 200.000 (killed AND wounded)
Germany - 16343 killed, 27280 wounded, 320 missing

Armor:
Poland - 755
Germany - 993

Other vehicles:
Poland - ?
Germany - 11.000

Aircraft:
Poland - 300
Germany - 564

Artillery:
Poland - ?
Germany - 370

Firearms:
Poland - ?
Germany - 14620

You can safely assume that "?" means "excessive losses, probably close to 100%, because they were captured". Germans used much of the captured equipment later in the war (AT weaponry comes to mind).

Yes, Polish army was outnumbered, outclassed, unprepared (most of the units weren't on their designated positions on September 1st), chaotically commanded (no one expected the Blitzkrieg and Polish units lacked mobility). And I'm not trying to find an "excuse", just trying to show that the Polish September wasn't a "cakewalk" that Hitler planned it to be.

Just look at the losses again and then think WHY Hitler wasn't able to invade France straight away, in 1939. The fact that the Western Allies learned NOTHING from the September Campaign is another story.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 22, 2004, 01:45:08 am
The French just kinda crapped out, though. They gave up before the majority of their army could even see, much less fire at, a Germany soldier. Had they actually attempted to make a fight of it, they might have won. They actually had better equipment then the Wehrmacht did at that stage.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Fr3z3r on December 22, 2004, 01:58:29 am
Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The French just kinda crapped out, though. They gave up before the majority of their army could even see, much less fire at, a Germany soldier. Had they actually attempted to make a fight of it, they might have won. They actually had better equipment then the Wehrmacht did at that stage.

Morale and apathy was one thing, but - again - the tactics was the key. The French relied heavily on the Maginot line. The Germans poured into France and the Allied units became disorganized very quickly.

Then the Germans broke through in Sedan area... And the rest is history. The Polish lesson was ignored - the Allies believed that the war would turn into a WWI-style fight. Short-minded (or just plain incompetent).
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 22, 2004, 02:06:55 am
When the Germans broke through, the French just threw up their hands, though. Before there had even been a serious engagement. Tactics had nothing to do with it, they just plain didn't try to fight.

Don't knock the Maginot Line too much, either...it was used for its intended purpose in 1944, during Operation Nordwind. And it worked quite well, holding up two panzer divisions for several days.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Fr3z3r on December 22, 2004, 02:21:53 am
Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
When the Germans broke through, the French just threw up their hands, though. Before there had even been a serious engagement. Tactics had nothing to do with it, they just plain didn't try to fight.

I read reports about Frech units that fought fiercely and caused Germans some serious trouble. So it's not like I have "French = coward" in my mind (a very common approach in Poland, sad to say).

Quote
Don't knock the Maginot Line too much, either...it was used for its intended purpose in 1944, during Operation Nordwind. And it worked quite well, holding up two panzer divisions for several days.

Of course, I know that episode. All I'm saying is that the Line didn't work as planned in 1940.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Tiara on December 22, 2004, 02:48:44 am
software patent directive -> WWII

Yes, I see the connection... oh, wait... :p
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: IceFire on December 22, 2004, 05:04:39 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
When the Germans broke through, the French just threw up their hands, though. Before there had even been a serious engagement. Tactics had nothing to do with it, they just plain didn't try to fight.

Don't knock the Maginot Line too much, either...it was used for its intended purpose in 1944, during Operation Nordwind. And it worked quite well, holding up two panzer divisions for several days.

Thats not entirely true and completely unfair for history.

The French were spread very thin because they were not prepared.  Much like Poland was not prepared.  They were attempting to guard the most likely places for invasion and as mentioned by another poster, were hoping the Germans would throw themselves at the Maginot line (which was never completed to full realization).

The Germans intead came through the least likely location that was the most treatcherous for tanks.  But they managed it anwaysy and they encircled the Maginot line, they were able to move very quickly through the countryside...and there was just not enough RAF Hurricanes and French D.520's to hold back the Luftwaffe and their airbases were too quickly overrun.

But this does by no means indicate the French "threw up their hands and surrendered".  Absolutely proposterous...while they did fight they fought pretty hard.  Ultimately, all it did was buy a little more time for the British to evacuate to Dunkirk and launch the largest scale operation to that date of a cross channel evacuation of the BEF using ever ship, barge, tug, and plane available.  A minor victory when all the cards were essentially in Germanys favor.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Deen on December 22, 2004, 06:08:36 pm
Excuses for why a country lost a war/battle are not really a valid argument. We are all on the same planet, and all countries had to work with the situation they were in at the time.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: IceFire on December 22, 2004, 06:30:17 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Deen
Excuses for why a country lost a war/battle are not really a valid argument. We are all on the same planet, and all countries had to work with the situation they were in at the time.

Thats absolutely preposterous.  Have you studied history at all?

I could write for hours on why this is wrong but consider:
- population
- social policy
- politics
- economics
- science
- focus of interest
- organization
- land size
- internal and external pressures (treaties, national politics)

The list goes on and on.  All of these have elements of why a country won or lost.  The belief that France just laid down their arms the moment a Panzer tank rolled across the border is ignorance.  I'm not arguing this because I'm french (I'm not), I'm not arguing it because I have some sort of agenda, I'm arguing it because statements here are absolutely historically false and illconcieved in the very least.

I've read innumerable source documents from the period (I've had to write essays on this stuff) mostly pertaining to the efforts of the BEF and the RAF during this time (my interest area) but that also covers significant elements of why France lost, what factors were involved, and what the timeline was.

Lets move from the Battle of France to the Battle of Britain.  Did the Luftwaffe and the RAF have the same situation because they were on the same planet?  Heck no!  The RAF was on its home front, it had fewer than 32 fighter squadrons when the battle began, the Luftwaffe outnumbered them in planes by three to one.  But what were the crucial differences?

1) Britain is an island.  Invasion by conventional means is impossible, it has to be a naval operation at some point.  Germany in the 1940's could not hope to compete with the Royal Navy.
2) Britain had developed and excellent defensive method using radar, command and control, and airfield dispersals to attack the enemy.
3) People like Lord Beaverbrook were able to rally the British industries to build fighters, repair fighters, take two damaged fighters and make one good one.  By the end of September 1940 Britain was capable of sustaining its losses in terms of planes (not pilots) while the Luftwaffe was totally unable to replace its planes (Germany did not even reach full production capacity until 1944!!).

Etc, etc, etc.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: aldo_14 on December 22, 2004, 06:36:02 pm
Britain not England, please.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: IceFire on December 22, 2004, 07:09:55 pm
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
Britain not England, please.

Sorry...I end up using them interchangably even when I know the difference.  Its the English soccer jersey I'm wearing...I swear :D  

Fixed.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Tiara on December 23, 2004, 02:40:27 am
IceFire; :):yes:
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: aldo_14 on December 23, 2004, 03:09:32 am
Quote
Originally posted by IceFire

Sorry...I end up using them interchangably even when I know the difference.  Its the English soccer jersey I'm wearing...I swear :D  

Fixed.


Bah; what are you wearing that raggedy old tat for?
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Clave on December 23, 2004, 08:07:37 am
This is the flag of the United Kingdom - A general mish-mash of countries that's been joined together for a few years now.  

(http://homepage.mac.com/clave/flags/flaguk.gif)

They are:

England: Obviously the centre of the known universe and bringer of civilisation to the outer reaches.  Cream teas, cricket, Shakespeare, The Beatles, yada, yada...

(http://homepage.mac.com/clave/flags/flagengland.gif)

Scotland:  Men in skirts, invented Television and bagpipes, bringers of mayhem to the civilised world, despite being shut behind a wall by the Romans....

(http://homepage.mac.com/clave/flags/flagscotland.gif)

Wales:  Dull, dull, dull...  Well, ok they had that poet guy, Dylan Thomas.  Oh and lots of sheep live there...

(http://homepage.mac.com/clave/flags/flagwales.gif)

Northern Ireland:  Absolutely mental!  Drinking and fighting, or fighting and drinking are the four favourite occupations.

(http://homepage.mac.com/clave/flags/flagnorthernireland.gif)







Edit: Big space inserted here to keep people happy *sigh*







Southern Ireland aka Eire:  Just as mental as the North, but with better scenery

NB: Eire is NOT part of the UK, and has different laws, currency etc. etc.

(http://homepage.mac.com/clave/flags/flageire.gif)
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Gank on December 23, 2004, 12:51:57 pm
Please dont put our flag in along with the rest of the UK, we fought long and hard to get out of it, the least you could do is respect that.

Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
It was a team effort, the Americans/British didn't use their troops as fodder for their tanks and it slowed them down.  Patton could've been in Berlin weeks before if he hadn't been desupplied.


I was refering to poland.

Quote
Originally posted by Kosh
The war would have lasted a lot longer if Hitler didn't take away soldiers and equipment from the eastern front. That allowed the Russians to break through the thin German lines rather easily. They were advancing 120 KM per day in some cases. It had nothing todo with the Americans/British not using their troops as fodder for their tanks. Their tanks were pieces of crap anyway.


Hitler didnt take any troops away from the eastern front to the western, unless they'd been very badly mauled and needed regrouping.

Quote
Originally posted by IceFire
A minor victory when all the cards were essentially in Germanys favor.


Dunkirk was a victory? I thought it was a rout.

Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The Germans could never have actually defeated the Red Army, but they could have inflicted casualities even Stalin would have balked at. To do so, however, they needed all their troops. That was the plan for the Ardennes offensive. It was Hitler's only hope; he might be able to defeat the western Allies, then make peace with the Russians.


I dont think Hitler was under any illusions as to the effect the Bulge battle would have had on the outcome of the war, he knew he was ****ed and wanted to go down fighting. The Ardennes was the only place he could realisticly do so.

Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Ultimately, while the Wehrmacht bled on the Russian steppes, it died in the Ardennes and the Rhine River valley. That was where its best units and best equipment went, and that was where those units and equipment were destroyed.

The wermacht died long before this, what happened here was the last of its reserves were used up. losses here were 100,000 compared to an overall of millions. Some would say the killing blow was stalingrad, everything after that was just prolonging it.

Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Eisenhower refused to race the Russians to Berlin. Montgomery wanted to go. Patton wanted to go. They could have made it, too. Eisenhower asked Bradley what he thought it would cost in terms of casualities. Bradley said probably about a hundred thousand, which was an awful lot for a prestige objective that would have to be turned over to the Russians anyways, because of the decisions made at the Yalta conference. So Eisenhower said no, they weren't going to Berlin. And considering the experience of the Red Army in Berlin, Eisenhower surely made the right choice.

Actually operation Market Garden blew the allied chances of getting to Berlin before the Russians.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: aldo_14 on December 23, 2004, 01:00:04 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Please dont put our flag in along with the rest of the UK, we fought long and hard to get out of it, the least you could do is respect that.


He didn't, though; he put it there making explicitly clear it wasn't part of the uk (but it is still part of the British isles).
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Clave on December 23, 2004, 02:06:35 pm
Oh, did I mention how crazy the Irish were? ;)
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: IceFire on December 23, 2004, 02:32:28 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Clave
Oh, did I mention how crazy the Irish were? ;)

Thats the other part of my heritage.  I'm a crazy Polish/Irish/English mix.  Probably means I can drink and eat perogies like there is no tommorow.  Oh and I get sunburn in September and October :D


I call Dunkirk a minor victory because otherwise the BEF would have been totally lost.  Its a small miracle they were able to evacuate what they could at the time and under the conditions.  It wasn't a victory in terms of equipment or holding territory...maybe I should call it a military miracle?  Its certainly up there for most impressive thing organized in such a short period of time under such conditions and pressure from the enemy.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Martinus on December 23, 2004, 02:44:17 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Please dont put our flag in along with the rest of the UK, we fought long and hard to get out of it, the least you could do is respect that.

[color=66ff00]I often think that saying that kind of thing is a bit of a slap in the face for those that did actually put their lives on the line to liberate the island.

I know for a fact that I've taken up no arms to fight and would not wish to downplay their efforts by claiming that I put in as much work as they did.
[/color]
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Clave on December 23, 2004, 03:31:35 pm
Edited........................................
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Gank on December 23, 2004, 05:12:56 pm
No offence meant Clave,  I know you put in a disclaimer, just that you wouldnt believe the amount of people who do actually think its part of the UK.

Maeg, seeing how the war of independance ended over 80 years ago I dont think anybody would actually take it that I was impling I fought in it. As for you, iirc you're british, no?
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Martinus on December 23, 2004, 05:15:49 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
No offence meant Clave,  I know you put in a disclaimer, just that you wouldnt believe the amount of people who do actually think its part of the UK.

Maeg, seeing how the war of independance ended over 80 years ago I dont think anybody would actually take it that I was impling I fought in it. As for you, iirc you're british, no?

[color=66ff00]Nope, Irish, Armagh.
[/color]
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Gank on December 23, 2004, 07:39:33 pm
Which is part of great britain.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Martinus on December 23, 2004, 08:38:46 pm
[color=66ff00]The land is British property but we get to freely choose our nationality up here. We state Irish/British on the census and can apply for British or Irish passports (or both). [/color]

Quote
Irish Citizenship by Birth
Anyone born in Ireland, except for children of parents holding diplomatic immunity in Ireland, are automatically granted Irish citizenship. You are also automatically considered an Irish citizen if you are born outside of Ireland to a mother or father who was born in Ireland. A person born in Northern Ireland after December 1922 with a parent or grandparent born in Ireland prior to December 1922 is automatically an Irish citizen.

Even if you always assumed that your grandparents were English, you might want to check their birth records to learn if they really meant England - or if they were possibly born in Ulster, the province which is Northern Ireland. Although occupied by the British, the Irish constitution claims Northern Ireland to be part of the Republic of Ireland, therefore most people born in Northern Ireland prior to 1922 are Irish by birth. If this applies to your parent or grandparent, then you are also considered to be an Irish citizen.


[color=66ff00]You didn't know this? I thought you would considering how appalled you seemed.
[/color]
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Goober5000 on December 23, 2004, 11:06:38 pm
So Northern Ireland is "occupied territory", eh? :p
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Clave on December 24, 2004, 10:26:03 am
Don't go there...

The whole Loyalist vs Nationalist thing will bite you.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Gank on December 24, 2004, 10:32:18 am
I did maeg I was just getting a dig in at you because you're not fully liberated, therefore couldnt have fought for such. I'm well aware of Irsih claims on the north, we've even a phone area code reserved for it.

Goober, aye, there was no Northern Ireland before 1922 and the province of Ulster has nine counties, three of which were left out of the partition because they were mainly catholic.
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: aldo_14 on December 24, 2004, 10:36:52 am
'liberated'
Title: *Applauds Poland*
Post by: Gank on December 24, 2004, 01:09:51 pm
his word not mine, and ya it does apply. To the south anyways, norths bit more complex due to the gerrymandering that went into its creation.