Talk:Polish cavalry

Old talk

I Ask ....Why does all this read so much like the propagandized version of soviet bolshevik propoganda from the 50/60 sixties? This was not real history but a carfully orchestrated version of misinformation ie calling german propeganda officers as worthy while degrading the polish victims. What is the source of this mis -information David Irving ? why is this information so pro nazi and pro stalin communist ?

It's strange that the page is on Polish cavalry, then it is talking about Ułani, and then it does not talk at all about Ułani and instead describes hussaria!!!! What the hell?!

Indeed, but what do we do about it? Halibutt 13:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I could made article about Uhlan, with a little help. There is already article about hussaria, which someone could polish a bit. "Polish cavalry" could reference both and be more general article, but i'm affraid i'm "too thin in ears" to make it ;) Szopen 14:49, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

why do we have a picture of a hat as the main picture in the introduction? Shouldnt we have a picture of polish cavalry or at least something a bit more relevant? --Bonus Onus 22:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup, "disputed" tag, etc.

I added a cleanup notice to the top of the article, and a disputed notice to this section. I'm not sure if that's the right tag, but as the article stands, all it says is basically here's one side's propaganda, which isn't true but it doesn't say anything else (for example, what is true), so I hoped to bring some sort of relevant attention to it.

— J’raxis 16:23, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Fixed Halibutt 01:11, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks. — J’raxis 05:02, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Assault weapons

I'm curious about the use of the term assault weapons in the first section. I had not previously seen this term used outside of a modern American political context. I wonder if the author is American, and perhaps could not think of a better term to use, or perhaps there is a Polish term that couldn't be translated any other way. Of course, it's entirely possible that this term has definitions that I was not aware of. Please advise. Gregmg 14:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

No idea. I guess the author meant something similar to offensive weapons or sophisticated weaponry (as opposed to cold steel)? As far as I know there were no assault rifles anywhere in the world before WWII... Halibutt 14:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion by assult weapons the author simply meant weapons used during a Charge (warfare)62.179.66.138

Definitely not. The whole point was, AFAICT, to tell the reader that the cavalry had not only the standard weaponry used by cavalry during a charge since time immemorial, but also other kinds of weaponry like rifles, MGs, artillery, AT carbines, AT guns and so on. What would be the point in informing the reader that the cavalry had... cavalry weapons? Halibutt 08:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The reference has since been removed, so I suppose it's a moot point. If anyone reinserts this reference, I'd like to discuss the use in this context so that I can expand the Assault weapon definition. Thanks. Gregmg 22:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

World War II

• In contrast with its traditional role in armed conflicts of the past (even in the Polish-Bolshevik War), the cavalry was no longer seen as able to break through enemy lines. Instead, it was used as a mobile reserve of the Polish armies and was using mostly infantry tactics: the soldiers dismounted before the battle and fought as a standard (yet fast) infantry. Technically speaking, in 1939 Poland had 11 brigades of mounted infantry and no units of cavalry as such.

When I was in high school my history teacher related how the modern German Panzers rolled over the antiquated but heroic Polish Cavalry, evoking images of sabers vs howitzers. And I've seen a similar view in other surveys. But the truth is apparently more interesting. Because of the prevalence of this mistake it would be helpful to put some reference to the role of the cavalry in WWII in the introduction of this article, right up front. Would any other editors who are more expert be interested in adding the more accurate, and no less heroic, truth in a short sentence near the top? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Cavalry charges and Nazi propaganda"

The section Cavalry charges and Nazi propaganda makes for very interesting reading:

• "...there were 16 confirmed cavalry charges during the 1939 war. Contrary to common belief, most of them were successful ... 29 men killed and 50 wounded (as compared with 800 German losses)... German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic... the Germans withdrew towards their positions...the Germans withdrew... the Poles broke through... After the Germans were beaten and started to retreat ...impose fear on the German infantry... ... the Germans welcomed the Polish uhlans with their hands up ... the Polish unit broke through and was the first to reach Warsaw ... the Germans withdrew... the Soviet forces withdrew in panic...the Germans sent an envoy with a white flag ... the Germans withdrew."

One expects to read next that

• "...the Polish Calvary reached the Rhine on September 27, the Wolga on September 28, with both Germans and Soviets surrendering immediately after. World War II ended on October 1, 1939 with total victory of Poland."

Please rename this very POV section to Cavalry charges and Polish propaganda. Thanks in advance. --Matthead 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi The above does seem a little strange, seems as if someone equates German and Nazi as the same thing and has made changes oh well

I agree this is odd. I wasn't aware of a dispute that the Poles had tried to resist with Cavalry. I also don't know why this would be embarrassing as they were the victims of a "surprise" attack by a vile enemy. If they fought tanks they weren't stupid, they were desperate and brave. 173.36.196.6 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

had to clean up a lotta insinuating remarks and very bad english for a page written so well to almost convolute history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.223.51 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 February 2006

why did Deltabeignet redit back the poorly written and unreseached page except to satisfy his own version of history ? his version sound very bais to me

Matthead - a few tactical victories do not necessarily mean a campaign victory - see e.g. Napoleon's 1814 campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.219.232.135 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You claim that H. Guderian and G. Grass, both people of some reputation, are wrong, but you don't give any evidence that they in fact are. 125.63.146.109 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

enter's edits

there is no need to describe anti-tank weapons in the article to try to prove they never charged tanks. the tank guns were inneffective at combat ranges (avg. 2000 yards, not 300-600 yards as the guns were useful for). Because the weapons existed didnt mean that they were necessarily used. The Polish cavalry also had swords and lances, so they must of used those as well, since they were weapons, and they had them. But wait, according to you, the cavalry never used their lances or swords. Your reasoning obviously has holes in it. please explain your rationale. and explain why information on tank guns should be included in an article on cavalry, and especially in the section you put it.

--Jadger 19:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, neither swords nor lances. The cavalry indeed had sabres, but the lances were withdrawn from service in 1936. They were still held in the tabors, but throughout my life I only read one account of a soldier actually using the lance - and it was before the war, during a demonstration.

As to charges - these are explained in a separate section. Apart from the 16 mentioned charges in which both sabres and cavalry carbines were used, the cavalry was nothing more than a mounted infantry. They left the horses to koniowodni (a number of ordinary soldiers taking care of the horses) and entered combat as a standard infantry, without sabres or lances or whatnot. If such reasoning has holes in it then please quote some exact places. {{fact}} tags are good for that. //Halibutt 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jader's Imagings ?

What you are basing you statements on? Ahhh but it seems very obvious. Your imaginings are not fact and are far from true. I notice you reedited a lot of quotations to dress down historical fact without any basis. Your treatment of history is to use the propaganda of the Stalinist era in an edited manner to reflect a rather pro Nazi stand with a dash of David Irving historical reality.

Why don't you stick to fact?! No lance charge was ever done by Polish Calvary against tanks, except in Nazi propaganda as approved by Gobles.

Likewise 40 years of Soviet misinformation, that you base your history on is incorrect and misleading. It insults the name of any allied soldiers and the good people who were involved. Soviet misinformation sources were made to propagate the kind of stuff and you’ve taken the bait and are using total fabrication.

Why do you quote a poet ignorant of the actual facts seemingly just to belittle the Polish? This all rings of David Irving "from a site near Toronto" speaking on the internet as in the early 90's?

31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of your Slander user:Enter (that is who added the above anonymous post). stop calling me a Bolshevik or a Stalinist, I am not either of them, I am dedicatedly anti-communist, voting conservative in the Federal Election only a few months ago.

• the lance attack part was not added by myself if you care to look at the history, but someone else. provide a reputable source that states opposite of what is stated in the article and I will be glad to remove it myself.
• I did not add the quote from the poet, it was added by user:Radomil I believe. why do you blame me for everything you dont agree with? I am not the only editor, many of these edits you hate for not displaying your POV come from Polish editors.

that poem does not belittle the Polish, instead it portrays them as courageous and great men (however ill-fated), much like the poem Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

As for Polish cavalry not attacking tanks, I assume you are refering to my use of the memoirs of Hans von Luck? well he led the reconnaisance section of one of the Panzer divisions, and he clearly talks about it in his memoirs if you care to read it.

--Jadger 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Claims

Before changing anything, I'd like to know the source of the following claim: "Borowa Góra - September 2 - 1st squadron of the 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment encountered a squadron of German cavalry in the village of Borowa. A charge was ordered, but the Germans withdrew." No cavalry unit operated around Borowa Gora. Or at least I could not find anything in the following positions:

• Wyrzycki, 1992 Wyrzycki, S. (1992). 2 Pułk Piechoty Legionów. Ajaks, Warsaw Pruszkow.
• Zalewski, 2000 Zalewski, W. (2000). Piotrków 1939. Bellona Dom Wydawniczy, Warsaw.
• Zarzycki, 1999 Zarzycki, P. (1999). 2 Pułk Artylerii Lekkiej Legionów. Ajaks, Warsaw Pruszkow.

I'd like to add that I was born 10 miles south of Borowa Hill and never (altough I research the subject for almost one year) have encountered any tales of Polish Cavalry doing anything in the region.

best,

jinxs

First of all, there are two hills and two villages named Borowa Góra in Poland. In addition, there are some 10 villages named Borowa, many of them in the modern Łódź Voivodship, in the area where the fights in 1939 took place. Now then, the cavalry charge is explicitly mentioned here and here. You might want to check with Andrzej Skiba (1971) Boje 19 Pułku Ułanów Wołyńskich w kampanii wrześniowej.

It seems also possible that the author of that page has mistaken the fights of the Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade in the area with the fights of the 2nd Legions Infantry Division in the area of Borowa Góra proper. And the unit did also have an organic cavalry unit, however the battle of Borowa Góra took place on September 5, not on September 2. However, it's but my assumption as I don't have the source at hand. //Halibutt 17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. Perhaps we should specify that the battle in question was fought in the area of Mokra. Furthermore, we should change the ref to Borowa Gora Battle to Battle of the Borowskie Hills.

The area next to Belchatow where 2 LID fought with 1/4 Panz. D. is usually described as Borowskie Hills (there were 3 hills before the battle, later on they were merged into one).

This view is further supported by the book by the commander of 2 LID Czyżewski Ludwik in his book "From Borowskie Hills to Zakroczym" (if I recall correctly, the Polish title was something like "Od God Borowskich do Zakroczymia", but my memory aint like it used to be.

I'll introduce the change, plus prepare the article on Borowskie Hills Battle, Already have plenty of materials, just have to organize it.

best,

jinxs

Perceptions of Polish cavalry

The history of the "cavalry versus tanks" story needs to be covered more thoroughly. At least through the 1960's history books in the U.S. and some scholarly World War 2 histories maintained that Polish cavalry units were slaughtered charging tanks. with sabers. Maybe this was wrong, but it had real world effects. See Time magazine [1] for August 19, 1940, which says "That first week in September the famed Polish cavalry threw itself into the path of the German mechanized columns, and was swept out of the way like rubbish." The New York Times and other major papers during and after World War 2 also repeated the story. The U.S. Army greatly cut back its cavalry units after the defeat of Polish cavalry and other armed forces by the Nazis and Soviets. Was the belief in the truth of the claimed fiasco the force behind this cutback in cavalry units in other armed forces? The Time article noted that the Germans still used cavalry, and that cavalry could move faster through woods, across creeks and swamps an in hill country than any mechanized force. "History of the war in Europe," published by the Associated Press May 8, 1945 (Viewed via Newspaperarchive (subscription) as printed in The Bradford Archive, May 8, 1945, p 25) said ""Amazing armored spearheads sliced through the Polish cavalry divisions to the Wisla (Vistula), trapping a huge army in to Kutnowest of Warsaw, and another at random to the south." "On borrowed time: How World War 2 began" by Leonard Mosley (1969) presents without question the accounts of Polish cavalry charging German infantry and Germans in open cars, who withdrew to reveal Guderian's German tanks, which slaughtered the charging Polish cavalry. Mosley was a reporter in Europe before and at the start of the war. Some U.S. Generals believed in the truth of the "myth" as in this address delivered at the Air Force Academy in 1981: "It was this kind of thinking that led to the presence of two regular horse cavalry divisions at the Army maneuvers in Louisiana in 1940, long after courageous but futile Polish cavalry lancers had been decimated when charging invading Nazi panzer columns." from [2] Air University Review, September-October 1983, "Of Saber Charges, Escort Fighters, and Spacecraft; the search of doctrine" by Major General I. B. Holley, Jr., Air Force Reserve (Ret). He cited as references for the statement: George T. Hoffman, "Tactics vs Technology: The U.S. Cavalry Experience" 82 Armor, September 1973, p. 14." and J. K. Herr and Edmond S. Wallace, "The Story of the U.S. Cavalry" (Boston, 1953),page 256. "Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War " by Paul Fussell, 1989, Oxford University Press, page 5 still presents the account of the Polish cavalry being slaughtered in a few minutes when charging German tanks. When did the point of view presented in this article first prevail, if it in fact does among military historians, that the "sabers against tanks" cavalry charge never took place? Are there varying schools of thought about the truth of it today? If so to have a neutral point of view those with reliable sources should be covered in the article. Edison (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please quote specific events. What unit, what place, date etc. Till today no one was able to find any example pof charge against the tanks. The events which were most similar to this German Nazi propaganda are covered already (e.g. Krojanty). Quotes you gave only confirmed what I knew already: western sources simply repeat what Russians or Germans wrote without any criticism or afterthought, and most of them does not know a zilch about Polish history Szopen (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see what Polish sources are cited from the time of the battle, to refute the German sources claiming that the Polish cavalry was slaughtered by German armor. We generally do not completely ignore accounts of a battle from the generals or official military records of the losing side. As for "what unit, what battle, etc this appears to refers to what is termed in Wikipedia the Krojanty affair. Another question is how much more successful sabers would be against armored cars from which machine guns were being fired, than against tanks from which machine guns were being fired.Were WW2 cavalry sabers able to penetrate the armor on German armored cars? Edison (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Krojanty was not charge on tanks. Krojanty was charge on infantry, effect of unexpected meeting of Polish cavalry and German unit, with decision on charge taken within maybe few seconds. POlish participants confirm, that they charged infantry, and then suddenly they were under fire from "tanks". But we know from elsewhere that there were no tanks there, just armoured cars. Guderian was not witness there, he just wrote what he heard, that's all. As for your joke about sabers, i presume it was a joke, right? Szopen (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really a joke, just the observation that it would be just as one-sided a contest when men on horseback with sabers, pistols or carbines fought against tanks which were firing machine guns or against armored cars firing machine guns. The account in Moseley says that the infantry and open cars were seen by the cavalry leading to a charge, at which time they withdrew and tanks were there behind them. The presence of the tanks/armored cars may have been "unexpected" only on the part of the cavalry. What are the sources used to support the newer accounts of Krojanty against the earlier accounts I listed? Are there official Polish military archives to set against the official German ones? Did Polish cavalry who participatd in the battle publish accounts of it? Edison (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please wait few days. I will go to my home library and note few accounts. Because, of course, there such documents. Szopen (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bitwa pod Komarowem w 1920 roku.jpg

The image Image:Bitwa pod Komarowem w 1920 roku.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

CAVARLY UNITS GOT ALL THE GLORY WHILE THE INFANTRY WAS NEVER MENTION ITS ALL LIES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.195.147 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polish cavalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040816154205/http://www.chakoten.dk/polryt07.html to http://www.chakoten.dk/polryt07.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)