News2 mins ago
poland or france?
in terms of minutes, which game was over quicker?
germans taking over poland?
germans taking over france?
i think frank bruno lasted longer against mike tyson!
germans taking over poland?
germans taking over france?
i think frank bruno lasted longer against mike tyson!
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by helpmetoo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I suspect that like me you have been lucky enough to grow up (and in my case grow old) never having to think twice about whether your next minute was going to be your last as someone started a shooting war on your doorstep. I respectfully (or not as you choose) suggest that you keep your 'opinions' to yourself.
A lot of Poles died charging machine guns and tanks on horseback. Others died at the hands of the Russians and in the ghetto. Still others made their way to Britain and fought in the RAF, the Navy and the Army. Poles were airborne troops at Arnhem. Poles got the plans of the Enigma machine to Britain before the war and as a result made a decisive contribution to the overall defeat of Germany.
We tend to make much of the "little ships" of Dunkirk. It is as well to remember that a fair percentage of the troops who were evacuated were Free French and the fact that the perimeter was held for as long as it was, allowing the evacuated to reach freedom, was because Frenchmen died holding the line, knowing that they themselves stood no chance of getting away. Many fought on long after they had been told their war was over. Frenchmen and Frenchwomen were the backbone of the resistance in Europe. Many spent the war hiding Jews and many were involved in the escape routes that smuggled allied airmen to Spain. There were fainthearts and collaborators, but there were many in this country as well who spoke against the War and would have worked just as hard to ensure a German victory had they been placed in the same situation.
Judge not that ye be not judged.
A lot of Poles died charging machine guns and tanks on horseback. Others died at the hands of the Russians and in the ghetto. Still others made their way to Britain and fought in the RAF, the Navy and the Army. Poles were airborne troops at Arnhem. Poles got the plans of the Enigma machine to Britain before the war and as a result made a decisive contribution to the overall defeat of Germany.
We tend to make much of the "little ships" of Dunkirk. It is as well to remember that a fair percentage of the troops who were evacuated were Free French and the fact that the perimeter was held for as long as it was, allowing the evacuated to reach freedom, was because Frenchmen died holding the line, knowing that they themselves stood no chance of getting away. Many fought on long after they had been told their war was over. Frenchmen and Frenchwomen were the backbone of the resistance in Europe. Many spent the war hiding Jews and many were involved in the escape routes that smuggled allied airmen to Spain. There were fainthearts and collaborators, but there were many in this country as well who spoke against the War and would have worked just as hard to ensure a German victory had they been placed in the same situation.
Judge not that ye be not judged.
a fair answer. And if you're wondering why Britain lasted longer, helpmetoo, remember (a) it was getting help from the Americans even before they entered the war; and (b) the Germans rashly decided to fight Russia at the same time. If Britain had been georgraphically where Belgium is, it would not have lasted any longer than Belgium did.
There is a vast difference between poland surrendering and France's fall, poland was 'stuck' between russia and germany who were allied at the time. France however could've (and should've) made a much better stand than they did. they had much better equipment and in many cases superior man power at the beginning of the war.
I suspect some of us might return as well when you prove you've got something between your ears other than half-baked theories and prejudice. I think we're all pretty much agreed it's you who have the blinkers on.
For your information I'm not a euro apologist if by that you mean someone who thinks a United States of Europe would be a great idea. I like the status quo just fine; friends and neighbours who can organise the summer fete together but otherwise don't live in each others' pockets. I do like French people though, and Italians, most Spaniards I've met and definitely the Dutch. Oh I almost forgot the English, they're pretty cool as well. As a youngster, however, I was an unrepentant Scot Nat. I couldn't wait for the day that we went it alone. Obviously we were being held back by those English b*st*rds south of the border. Then I met my future wife, English and proud of it. Then I got a job in England. 35 years later my kids are English and so are most of my work colleagues. They turned out to be living, breathing human beings who don't spend the livelong day trying to do down the Scots. In fact they don't think about the Scots any more than they worry about the people in the next county. Maybe that's the problem - Scots won't like it when you ignore them!
10000 years ago no one lived in this country. Every living soul on these islands descends from someone who got off a boat as an immigrant. All you're arguing about is the time it got here.
What would make you happier; that the rest of the world decided that the thought of finding British people as their neighbours made them want to go away and never darken our door again (oops, bang goes our tourist trade!) or that they all agreed with you that this is the Promised Land and came over on a permanent basis?
Rant over, honest!
For your information I'm not a euro apologist if by that you mean someone who thinks a United States of Europe would be a great idea. I like the status quo just fine; friends and neighbours who can organise the summer fete together but otherwise don't live in each others' pockets. I do like French people though, and Italians, most Spaniards I've met and definitely the Dutch. Oh I almost forgot the English, they're pretty cool as well. As a youngster, however, I was an unrepentant Scot Nat. I couldn't wait for the day that we went it alone. Obviously we were being held back by those English b*st*rds south of the border. Then I met my future wife, English and proud of it. Then I got a job in England. 35 years later my kids are English and so are most of my work colleagues. They turned out to be living, breathing human beings who don't spend the livelong day trying to do down the Scots. In fact they don't think about the Scots any more than they worry about the people in the next county. Maybe that's the problem - Scots won't like it when you ignore them!
10000 years ago no one lived in this country. Every living soul on these islands descends from someone who got off a boat as an immigrant. All you're arguing about is the time it got here.
What would make you happier; that the rest of the world decided that the thought of finding British people as their neighbours made them want to go away and never darken our door again (oops, bang goes our tourist trade!) or that they all agreed with you that this is the Promised Land and came over on a permanent basis?
Rant over, honest!
What's puzzling is why you talk in terms of minutes and boxing or a game
Is this how you normally think of history? That's not exactly the way of Macaulay or AJ P Taylor, is it?
I'm pleased though that you have been born in an age when world wars and invasions costing the lives of millions are so far from your knowledge, experience and understanding that you can be light-hearted about them. In a way that's a compliment to those who fought and died to make your world that way. They might have taken some comfort from the fact that you have such innocent ignorance and can laugh in peace.
By the way, what is your belief? That the Germans were truly much superior or that the people of the countries they invaded were much inferior ? And is that a view based on your belief in the relevant superiority of one race or people, or is it one based on your belief in the purely military superiority of the Germans at the time ?
Is this how you normally think of history? That's not exactly the way of Macaulay or AJ P Taylor, is it?
I'm pleased though that you have been born in an age when world wars and invasions costing the lives of millions are so far from your knowledge, experience and understanding that you can be light-hearted about them. In a way that's a compliment to those who fought and died to make your world that way. They might have taken some comfort from the fact that you have such innocent ignorance and can laugh in peace.
By the way, what is your belief? That the Germans were truly much superior or that the people of the countries they invaded were much inferior ? And is that a view based on your belief in the relevant superiority of one race or people, or is it one based on your belief in the purely military superiority of the Germans at the time ?
i am very serious,
ground lost is generally far more difficult to (re)gain and costly in terms of life than ground defended resolutely,
sorry if its un pc to question resolution and application,
i apologise for the misuse of the term 'game' it was poorly chosen, 'contest' would be more appropriate,
my father risked his backside for freedom on numerous occasions over germany, however one suspects that most correspondents on this question will deplore the use of bombs to bring down an enemy,
the germans were without doubt militarily superior, that together with their resolve and application albeit a touch fanatical was enough to make such swift progress towards their goal,
within months britain stood alone within europe and i believe the british would have fought to the last man, therein lies the difference
ground lost is generally far more difficult to (re)gain and costly in terms of life than ground defended resolutely,
sorry if its un pc to question resolution and application,
i apologise for the misuse of the term 'game' it was poorly chosen, 'contest' would be more appropriate,
my father risked his backside for freedom on numerous occasions over germany, however one suspects that most correspondents on this question will deplore the use of bombs to bring down an enemy,
the germans were without doubt militarily superior, that together with their resolve and application albeit a touch fanatical was enough to make such swift progress towards their goal,
within months britain stood alone within europe and i believe the british would have fought to the last man, therein lies the difference
1 to 11 of 11
