Hey man we could take survey's in your country. But 49% of the people don't have phones.

uhh i take that as an insult?

Also IMHO Polish people are much smarter. Europeans in general are. IMHO.

give me a link to support where 49% of polish people don't have phones.

You must be kidding. India has the 2nd largest Muslim population in the world. What you probably meant was that Americans think that the majority of people in India are Muslims.

Remember there are over 1 billion people in india. Given a small % are Muslims still makes out to be a huge number.

Oh yah... I hate it when i say things the wrong way. :blush: English is my third language.. Or maybe it was Arabic Population? lol i forgot

Has anyone pointed out that Poland didn't last longer than France?

Phony war doesn't count. And they surrendered. We didn't. We never surrendered.

Edit: Someone beated me to it.

Phony war doesn't count.

Bright day
I think it is on page 3 or 4. Without counting Phony War, but only the invasions.

Phony war doesn't count. And they surrendered. We didn't. We never surrendered.
Well gee, the Free French never did either, so you can't get a clear cut "we're betten than those guys" over this.

The Vichy government got in a position to demand terms under circumstances close enough to a coup d'état to make its legality an issue. One might as well slag off the Norwegians because Quisling took it upon himself, and his little party of crazies, the "Nasjonal Samling", to proclaim a Norwegian government and make a deal with the Germans. Except for some reason people don't want Quisling to be representative of the Norwegian nation, but they DO want Vichy to represent France. Somebody tell me why...

It's one thing to call for recognition of Polish valour and effort. It's a lot less clear cut if this is somehow assumed to simultaneously work as an indictment of the French, which is what this thread has demonstrated.

Why things would be framed like this escapes me. Unless somehow all the US French-surrender jokes has somehow made people internationally assume the WWII invasion of France didn't involve actual fighting by the French? Which is a mistake, something this thread has also explained.

uhh i take that as an insult?

Also IMHO Polish people are much smarter. Europeans in general are. IMHO.

Oh yah... I hate it when i say things the wrong way. :blush: English is my third language.. Or maybe it was Arabic Population? lol i forgot


How do you determine "smartness"?

Just because someone doesnt know whether the majority of Indians are Hindu, does that make them dumb? Why because you think that everyone should know that. How does one set the standard for what is dumb and what is smart.

How did you determine that Europeans are smarter then Americans? Yea its in your opinion but how did you determine it?

Why should some people in the United States or another country care about the demographics of other countries or other countries' histories? In general much more peeple are more concerned with getting their life together, working, children, spouse etc.

Offtopic so no more response from me:)
These are all rhetorical questions. Since my comment is all offtopic.:D

uhh i take that as an insult?

Also IMHO Polish people are much smarter. Europeans in general are. IMHO.

give me a link to support where 49% of polish people don't have phones.




Shocker somebody from the most nationalistic country on earth thinks that their population is the smartest. Also I only said 49% of polish people don't have phones to point out the greater wealth of the average american. Also Poland would still be commi's if it weren't for us. Then 49% of you actually wouldn't have phones.
Also would you care to explain how were dumb. We have the 3rd larges population and the 3rd larges incom per capita. A very impressive feat. If our country sucks so much why do immigrants risk their lives to cross the border. If our country sucks so much why do we have the biggest economy on the planet. If euro's are so smart why aren't the americans part of the polish hegemony. Why isn't Poland putting up a missile defense sheild to save us from big bad Russia. (I'm using small words so you can understand.) Why doesn't are defense rely entirely on "idiots".
The reason why a poll's never been done on Poland and beleif that india is the largest Muslim country is because people don't care about making it look stupid. Also would you care to give me a link.

i'm busy right now so i'll quickly answer a few things.

1. I never said Americans were stupid.
2. i should've said that europeans are better (see not smarter) at geography and History.
3. i'm only targeting americans aged 18-24.
4. I never said all. I said some.

i'll answer the rest later.

Phony war doesn't count.

It indeed doesn't. France still holds out longer than Poland if you take that out.

Oh, and India DOES have the world's largest Muslim population, after Indonesia.

Yah i phrased myself wrongly. I meant the majority of India's population is muslim.

Also apearentally 25% of Americans aged 18-24 think that the Amazon is in Australia.

:lol: :lol:

I've never heard that before, but I can believe that. I'm proud to be better than 25-33% of the US population. :D

Anyways, why was French armor so damn weak?

It may be more Ignorance then lack of knowledge though.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm. Ingonarance is lack on knowledge i believe you mean instead of intelligence.

Yah i phrased myself wrongly. I meant the majority of India's population is muslim.

Also apearentally 25% of Americans aged 18-24 think that the Amazon is in Australia.

The majority of India's population is Hindu, apparently some Poles are ignorant abuot that.

Source for Amazon in Australia quote?

Goddamit, I hate nationalists.

You're giving our country a bad name, give it up.

:lol: :lol:

I've never heard that before, but I can believe that. I'm proud to be better than 25-33% of the US population. :D

Anyways, why was French armor so damn weak?
French Armor was far superior to German armor. The biggest problem was they were used as an infantry support weapon, because the French lacked the vital mechanize/motorization of the other components of the army that the Germans had by this time, and the tanks lacked radios.
Only one tank of such a large group (I forget how many exactly) would be given a radio, and he would have to direct all the tanks under his command, while every single Panzer had a two way radio.

why was French armor so damn weak?
As said, it wasn't.
France had heavier tanks, with heavier guns than the Germans.

What they did have was:
- A two-gun solutions for the heavy tanks, one big and one small, which turned out to be a bad design solution.
- A centralised command of the tanks, highly recognisant of the hierarchy of command, very rational and very French in that way, i.e. most functions in the tank had been slapped on the commander. He was in charge of picking the direction, spotting the enemy and even firing the gun. The poor guy simply had too much on his plate, unlike the German crews with a functional division of labour between commander, driver and gunner. There are reports of German tanks driving right up to heavier French tanks without being spotted, since apparently the French crew was too busy operating the damn thing to notice.
- Bad mileage, French tanks had short operational radiuses, since they were mostly intended for infantry support.
- No radio. That's a big one, and slow communications was a general French problem, motorcycle messengers over radio etc. All German tanks were equipped with radio sets for communication and coordination. Most French tanks weren't. You had to order them to a pre-set spot, stop, and parley with the individual tank commanders what to do next. It might work in a relatively static environment like WWI, but in the fluid fighting in 1940, it was useless.
- No independant armoured divisions, with the exception of de Gaulle's unit, which he spent a decade nagging the top brass to get, and when he did, it was too little too late.

And if this looks bad compared to the German stuff, the British tanks at the same time were even crappier; one close infantry support tank was designed to be impregnable to anti-tank guns but would crawl along at something like 5 mph or so. It has been said that a good point of Dunkirk was that it allowed the British army to ditch a lot of useless junk.

Phony war doesn't count.
Phony war started in September 1939, when France declared war on Germany following their attack on Poland.
Including Phony war: 10 months.
Including only the battle of France : 6 weeks.
Including the Polish forces who continued the war from Britain, and the Free French who carried on from the colonies, and went with the other allies all the way to Germany: 6 years.
Now, can we just stop this stupid contest? Perhaps we can then try to see who can pee the farther away?

French Armor was far superior to German armor.

The most numerous tank the French had in 1940 was the FT-17, which had a 37mm gun and dated from 1917, the second most was the Renault R35 also with the 37mm. Both of these had a crew of 2. The Char B1 was a slow monster, whose main armament couldn't be used hull down.

Better than the PZ III or IV? I don't think so. Most of the French armour captured by the Germans was either converted to self propelled artillery or used for training purposes. On the other hand, the Germans made good use out of the Czech 38(t).

The most numerous tank the French had in 1940 was the FT-17, which had a 37mm gun and dated from 1917, the second most was the Renault R35 also with the 37mm. Both of these had a crew of 2. The Char B1 was a slow monster, whose main armament couldn't be used hull down.

Better than the PZ III or IV? I don't think so. Most of the French armour captured by the Germans was either converted to self propelled artillery or used for training purposes. On the other hand, the Germans made good use out of the Czech 38(t).
At the time of the battle of France, PzIII F, also used 37 mm tank, and had 30mm of armour.
The R35 had 43mm of armor, and a 37 mm gun
Ths Somua S35 had 47mm gun, and 47 mm armor.
The B1 had one 47mm gun, and one 75mm gun, and 60 mm armor.

Some Pz III Fs were fitted with 50mm guns, and the German 37 was a better anti tank gun than the French version.

The Somua was poorly designed and as a result couldn't carry much ammunition for the main gun and only had 3 crew.

The Char B1 had plenty of armour, but putting the 75mm in the hull was a big mistake.

the tittle of this topic is wrong

campaign of Poland : 3 weeks
campaign of France : 6 weeks (after campaign of Norway)

German casualties in Poland

16 663 dead or missing,
27 280 wounded
217 tanks and more than 300 planes destroyed

German casualties in France

45 218 dead or missing
111 034 wounded
1236 planes destroyed (+ 323 other damaged) and 839 panzers destroyed + severals hundreds other damaged.

Per day German casualties in France have been more importants than during 3first month of Barbarossa.

We can add also battle of alps
85 000 French without any planes and tanks have defeated 300 000 Italian helped by German between 21 and 25 june 1940.

casualties

150 French killed or wounded against 6 000 Italians killed or wounded.

All is said

Another thing France didn't capitalute in 1940, it was just an armistice while Poland didn't exist any more after this campaign of 3 weeks.

the two caimpagns are incomparables .

The French have made losing wars into an art form. If anyone can lose a war, it's them.

:joke:

Yes and that's why no other nation in history won more battles and wars than france.....

Racists are really stupids

Poland was invaded on 1.IX.1939 by Germany and 17.IX.1939 by Soviet Russia (both aggressions were without declaration of war). Warsaw fell on 27.IX.1939. Last battle of September campaign ended on 6.X.1939, so it is in total 35 days = 5 weeks.

Hitler declared campaign of poland was over the 18 september...
so 17 days....

Who is right ?


But it was on 3/4 June when French and British troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, so fight was shorter than a month

Anything.
German suffered more casualties after the fall Dunkirk.
German casualties between 10 may and 4 june approximetaly 64 000 soldiers
German casualties between 5 june and 25 june approximetaly 100 000 soldiers.

Its not casualties, its time that's the debate here.

No, that was sorted out pages ago.

How can you sort it out. I'm the op. It's time not casulties.

i was always taught that poland hold out longer then france.

(in both Canada and Poland.)

i was always taught that poland hold out longer then france.

(in both Canada and Poland.)

Civfanatics has hopefully brought you enlightenment then.

What else did they teach you? :D

nothing much. I learned that Iceland had the first constitution not poland. (i learned that in Poland btw) so don't bring that up against me. :D

But give me the numbers again. Exclude the Phony War as it wasn't a war. ;)

Its not casualties, its time that's the debate here.
The point is that France did hold out longer. But people seem to get this idea that France collapsed instantaneously once the Tommies left, and so we should stop counting at this point.

nothing much. I learned that Iceland had the first constitution not poland. (i learned that in Poland btw) so don't bring that up against me. :D

But give me the numbers again. Exclude the Phony War as it wasn't a war. ;)

Poland:
Sept 1, 1939 - Germany crosses the border
Sept 3 England and France declare war on Germany in resoponse. No meaningful support during the Polish campaign.
Sept 8 Advance German armored corps reaches outskirts of Warsaw
Sept 9-10 Warsaw surrounded
Sept 9-19 Battle of Bzura, main defenses in the west are surrounded and defeated
Sept 13 Warsaw put under siege
Sept 17 Soviet forces attack in the west
Sept 17-20 Crippling of Polish Armies Krakow and Lublin (sp?)
Sept 22 Capture of Lwow (Lvov)
Sept 28 - Capture of Warsaw
Sept 29 Capitulation of Modlin Fortress north of Warsaw
October 6 - Last operational unit of the Polish army capitulates
Total time: 36 days

France:
May 10, 1940 - Beginning of the battle of France (late May 9, occupation of Luxemburg)
May 12 - German Army reaches Meuse line
May 13 - In the north, Germans reaches Rotterdam. In the center, Germans begin to cross the Meuse River.
May 14 - Dutch Army surrenders
May 16 - German motorized infantry moves swiftly west threatening to cut off forces to the north and west. Final French reserve armored division committed to battle. New reserve divisions being hastily assembled from Maginot line units.
May 18 - Rommel's unit takes Cambrai
May 20 - Forward German units reach coast, beginning encirclement of forces to the North
May 21 - Limited British counterattack delays German advance for a day
May 22 - British move back to Vimy Ridge. French attempt at counterattack further south fails.
May 23 - Retreat order given at Dunkirk
May 24 - Germans attack Calais
May 26 - Beginning of evacuation of Dunkirk
May 28 - Fall of Calais, Surrender of Belgian Government
June 4 - Evacuation of Dunkirk complete
June 5 - Germans renew attack at the Somme, pushing for Paris
June 10 - French government flees Paris
June 14 - German Wermacht enters Paris
June 15-20 - Evacuation of 2nd BEF from France
June 22 - Remains of French Army Group 2 (encircled east of Paris) surrender
June 25 - France formally Surrenders
Total time: 45 days

Guys, as a hardcore American nationalist, let me give you some advice.

Saying "We got conquered and humiliated in 10 more days than you!" is not something to brag about. Instead of making it the topic of discussion, when it's mentioned try to change the subject to something else. Such as Austerlitz or Jena if you're on the French side, or if you're on the Polish side, um....winged hussars? I dunno, you figure that out.

You don't see me talking about the failed invasion of Canada or about the White House getting burned after all, do you?

Saying "We got conquered and humiliated in 10 more days than you!" is not something to brag about.

Nobody's bragging. Reasonable people have just been telling ignorant people who consistently fail their reading comprehension that this is the fact.

Such as Austerlitz or Jena if you're on the French side, or if you're on the Polish side, um....winged hussars? I dunno, you figure that out.

You mean Battle of Vienna where the Ottomans sieged Vienna and Sobieski came down with a relief force and stopped Austria from becoming a muslim state of the ottomans?

You mean Battle of Vienna where the Ottomans sieged Vienna and Sobieski came down with a relief force and stopped Austria from becoming a muslim state of the ottomans?

It certainly wouldn't have resulted in Europe becoming Muslim. France was actually allied with Ottomans in opposition to the Hapsburgs, so the loss of Hapsburg power would only have benefited France and perhaps made it a greater European power than it was. Charles Martel might have been more influential in checking an Islamic inroad into Europe.

This thread still around? Gee, why are people so passionate about this subject whenever it pops up in a forum?

That's the real question I'd like answered. Another thing, do British people actually see the Battle of France has a battle they've lost? Or did WW2 really started during the Battle of Britain in some people's mind?

I had a good arguement with some Americans online about how they were there for Europe. Where were you in 39-41 and the 1st American troops on the ground in Europe was in November 1942 in Operation torch. They got upset when I told them they missed half the war and they knew very little about the earlier battles like France or Tobruk, Crete etc.

They could tell you about Normandy all day long though. Didn't believe me that much when I told them the Soviets destroyed 80% of the Wehrmacht.

That's the real question I'd like answered. Another thing, do British people actually see the Battle of France has a battle they've lost? Or did WW2 really started during the Battle of Britain in some people's mind?

In my experience the first part of the battle for France is usually glossed over, most basic documentaries I've seen tend to concentrate on Dunkirk and only mention the events leading up to it as a kind of FYI bit. Its rather sad really as there is pleanty of interesting events during the battle of France outside of Dunkirk.

You don't see me talking about the failed invasion of Canada or about the White House getting burned after all, do you?

You just did :crazyeye:

In my experience the first part of the battle for France is usually glossed over, most basic documentaries I've seen tend to concentrate on Dunkirk and only mention the events leading up to it as a kind of FYI bit. Its rather sad really as there is pleanty of interesting events during the battle of France outside of Dunkirk.

Arras ? The French also smacked down the italians (but thats the Italians for you)

The French did not build the Maginot Line with the expectation of German onslaught directly across the Rhine regions. They were build to funnel the German onslaught towards north. As a matter of fact, the best French reserves were placed in the north, with the anticipation of Germans marching into the Low Countries, thereby outflanking the Line. Up to this point, the French did not guess wrong.

What screwed up the French was that as soon as the Germans began their onslaught into the Netherlands and Belgium, the Franco-British reserves were promptly sent to stop the Germans over there. Afterwards, the Germans punched through the Ardennes. By then, the French had no mobile reserves to stop this unexpected German onslaught. (Even if the French had the reserves to counter the Germans gaping into the Ardennes, I doubt they would have had much luck, though that might have prolonged the campaign.)

Even with the 'northern' French strategy, there were some major headaches. It was politically out of the question to ask the Dutch and the Belgians into fighting withdrawal in the face of German onslaught, even though this course of action would be correct militarily.

"In Soviet Russia, who don't believe that people continue making threads saying that Poland needs to be a civilization is YOU!!!"

Even with the 'northern' French strategy, there were some major headaches. It was politically out of the question to ask the Dutch and the Belgians into fighting withdrawal in the face of German onslaught, even though this course of action would be correct militarily.

They might have done better to get the Belgians and Dutch on side before hostilities commenced. This would have enabled a more unified, co-ordinated opposition.

Either way, the French and BEF still would have copped a flogging.

They might have done better to get the Belgians and Dutch on side before hostilities commenced. This would have enabled a more unified, co-ordinated opposition.

Either way, the French and BEF still would have copped a flogging.
These two would still have been savagely spanked by the Germans, even if they prepared better. :D

The problem they will never sort out is the constipation inherent in running forces from different nationalities under a coalition command. (Obviously, the Germans did not have this issue to worry about.)

Even in a much different and brighter 1944 (compared to 1940), the US-led Allied command was plagued by the constipation of running a coalition warfare. Militarily, it would have been better for Eisenhower to provide the lion's share of Allied supplies to Patton after the breakout from Normandy. Instead, he chose Montgomery, with the Allied politics at that time in mind. The Allies successfully cleared the Germans out of France, but failed to destroy the Germans, setting up for the Battle of the Bulge soon after.

well partly becuz the germany started one of the largest army the world had ever seen and because of the german's strategy,they could advance into france faster.

well partly becuz the germany started one of the largest army the world had ever seen and because of the german's strategy,they could advance into france faster.

Faster than what? :rolleyes:

Did you notice is location? I'll start to have some doubts about some education system.

Did you notice is location? I'll start to have some doubts about some education system.

The education we get is the ignorant version on the planet.

History lessons start at Sec 1, Where we learn basically the existence of Qin Shi Huang, Chandra Gupta and Pameswarma. Sec 2 is Singaporean History which is a slighty onesided goverment view and over emphasive too make Singapore sound better. Then, unless you take Sec 3 history which is the 20th century, thats all most Singaporeans ever know. "Smart" Singaporeans only know things in the text book, ask them about something outside of it and watch them stare blankly at you. So thats why I have fun arguing with Aelf because all my friends are ignorant @#$%^. At least Aelf is smart.

So go ahead doubt our education system, I dont blame you. The students at Raffles have no emotions.....

The problem is not only the ... hmm... "down to essential perimeter" of your history teaching program, but more in the thinking method itself.
First step of widsom is to acknowledge your ignorance.

For instance, I would not go in a thread about Singapore invasion by the Japanese and make bold claim about it, as it's a part I don't know well.

The wise man said "Sometimes, it's better to remain silent and pass for a fool, than to speak and leave no doubt about that"

The problem is not only the ... hmm... "down to essential perimeter" of your history teaching program, but more in the thinking method itself.
First step of widsom is to acknowledge your ignorance.

For instance, I would not go in a thread about Singapore invasion by the Japanese and make bold claim about it, as it's a part I don't know well.

The wise man said "Sometimes, it's better to remain silent and pass for a fool, than to speak and leave no doubt about that"

I get your drift, I already did that remenber? Or is it the Polish one we are getting into.

I get your drift, I already did that remenber? Or is it the Polish one we are getting into.
It's a general remark about posters coming and saying non-informed things in being sure they contribute much, in all seriousness.

Feel free to think you are concerned if you want. It's up to you.

It's a general remark about posters coming and saying non-informed things in being sure they contribute much, in all seriousness.

Feel free to think you are concerned if you want. It's up to you.

Im a little tired now, so I had to read that a few times to get the meaning.


One more thing... You arent sure of the Fall of Singapore :eek: Thats impossible! You are the History genius that bullys people in the Forum!

One more thing... You arent sure of the Fall of Singapore :eek: Thats impossible! You are the History genius that bullys people in the Forum!
I know that Singapore fell. But I would not comment about the relative efficiency of the Japanese or British army there, because I don't know much about it.
I'm not an History genius, many people here are far more knowledgable than me.
I don't bully people in the Forum either, I merely show them the path to enlightment, and I usually do that only on subjects that I know well enough.
For instance, in a thread about France, if you noticed.

Charles Martel might have been more influential in checking an Islamic inroad into Europe.
Pushing back a raiding force with low casualties on both sides wasn't nearly as crucial as Leōn III's victory at the 717 Siege of Constantinople, IMHO. Destroying a vast Muslim fleet with the superweapon of the Dark Ages and crushing a vast besieging army in conjunction with Terbelis' Bulgars probably had a bigger impact on history.

Sorry about that, carry on. :p

Bah! Singapore's education system does not teach people how to think. It only teaches people how to recognise trigger words or signs. For example 'Nazi Germany' means big army, lots of tanks, heil Hitler and concentration camps, despite whatever deeper information that may been presented in a discussion. I think the system is more suitable for training lab rats.

Pushing back a raiding force with low casualties on both sides wasn't nearly as crucial as Leōn III's victory at the 717 Siege of Constantinople, IMHO. Destroying a vast Muslim fleet with the superweapon of the Dark Ages and crushing a vast besieging army in conjunction with Terbelis' Bulgars probably had a bigger impact on history.

Perhaps. But I think it was still more significant that the Battle of Vienna.

I thought this thread was about Poland and France not Singapore :| and like I stated earlier in this thread, AFAIK France DID hold out longer than Poland, by 3 weeks.

I thought this thread was about Poland and France not Singapore :| and like I stated earlier in this thread, AFAIK France DID hold out longer than Poland, by 3 weeks.

Yes. And we are remarking on how it just doesn't sink in no matter how many times it is repeated and why that is so in a specific case.

Yes. And we are remarking on how it just doesn't sink in no matter how many times it is repeated and why that is so in a specific case.

ah.. ok.. :lol: I've haven't been to this thread for a while and wondering why it was still alive.....

ah.. ok.. :lol: I've haven't been to this thread for a while and wondering why it was still alive.....

It comes back to life everytime some new guy says "'cause the Nazis are kickass", "The Poles are much braver. Yeehaw!" or "'cause the French thought that the Germans wouldn't come through Belgium and were hence busy eating breakfast at the Maginot Line."

It comes back to life everytime some new guy says "'cause the Nazis are kickass", "The Poles are much braver. Yeehaw!" or "'cause the French thought that the Germans wouldn't come through Belgium and were hence busy eating breakfast at the Maginot Line."

So the usual spammers and flammers keep it alive.. If I was a mod I'd tag it
CLOSED

The French lasted one week longer, but with more than three times the forces and only one front.

So hypothetically, if only looking at the "numbers" the French should have lasted at least six months by putting up as much resistance as the Poles.:satan:

The French lasted one week longer, but with more than three times the forces and only one front.

So hypothetically, if only looking at the "numbers" the French should have lasted at least six months by putting up as much resistance as the Poles.:satan:

First, France had a second front to against Italy. And we opened a third in Norway.
Second, we had 3 times your forces, but the German were almost twice has much. So the ratio isn't so big.
Third, the German had 3 times more casualties against the French.
Fourth the French had twice more casulaties than the Poles.

So when looking at number, I'd say we performed roughly the same.


Poland:
Polish forces: 950,000. Casualties: 66,000 dead, 133,700 wounded
German forces: 1,800,000 Casualties; 16,343 dead, 27,280 wounded

France:

French forces: 2,862,000. Casualties 360,000 dead or wounded
German forces: 3,350,000 Germans. Casualties: 45,000 dead, 110,000 wounded.

First, France had a second front to against Italy. And we opened a third in Norway.
Second, we had 3 times your forces, but the German were almost twice has much. So the ratio isn't so big.
Third, the German had 3 times more casualties against the French.
Fourth the French had twice more casulaties than the Poles.

So when looking at number, I'd say we performed roughly the same.


Poland:
Polish forces: 950,000. Casualties: 66,000 dead, 133,700 wounded
German forces: 1,800,000 Casualties; 16,343 dead, 27,280 wounded

France:

French forces: 2,862,000. Casualties 360,000 dead or wounded
German forces: 3,350,000 Germans. Casualties: 45,000 dead, 110,000 wounded.

Your right the ratios where not so big, but still there where twice as many Germans as Poles, whilst there where only ten percent more Germans than French, and I would like to claim the the Soviets to be more threatening than the Italians.

The Italians where roughly as threatening as the Slovaks who attacked Poland from the south, in a "third front".

So it is 2 times 3 still equals 6.:D

The Poles inflicted 0.9 percent casualties on a twice as large foe, as the French inflicted 1.34%.

That means that 2 times 0.9 is 1.8, Which means that the Poles where 25% better at killing Nazis.

Not to mention that the French had help from Polish forces.:devil:

Your right the ratios where not so big, but still there where twice as many Germans as Poles, whilst there where only ten percent more Germans than French, and I would like to claim the the Soviets to be more threatening than the Italians.

The Italians where roughly as threatening as the Slovaks who attacked Poland from the south, in a "third front".

So it is 2 times 3 still equals 6.:D

The Poles inflicted 0.9 percent casualties on a twice as large foe, as the French inflicted 1.34%.

That means that 2 times 0.9 is 1.8, Which means that the Poles where 25% better at killing Nazis.

Not to mention that the French had help from Polish forces.:devil:
It tooks about 21.77 poles to kill or wound a German, and 9 Germans to kill or wound a Pole.

Then, 18.46 French to kill or wound a German, and 9.3 German to kill or wound a French.

This is an obvious evidence that the French where better at killing Germans than Poles, and slightly better at not being killed by Germans than the Poles.

It tooks about 21.77 poles to kill or wound a German, and 9 Germans to kill or wound a Pole.

Then, 18.46 French to kill or wound a German, and 9.3 German to kill or wound a French.

This is an obvious evidence that the French where better at killing Germans than Poles, and slightly better at not being killed by Germans than the Poles.

A, a, a, a, a, a!:nono:

First you write and base your calculations on wounding and killing combined, and then you infer things from that about killing only. I am not convinced!:smug:

I agree this important subject needs a more thorough study.

So:

It requires
- 59.4 Poles to kill a German,
- 35.5 Poles to wound a German,
- 27.7 Germans to kill a Pole
- 13.4 Germans to wound a Pole

- 63.6 French to kill a German
- 26.0 French to wound a German
- 37.2 Germans to kill a French
- 12.4 Germans to wound a French

So the Poles were slighlty better than the French to kill German, but the French quite better at wounding the German.

The French were quite better at avoiding being killed by German, and Poles slightly better at avoiding being wounded.

So the Poles enjoyed only a sligth advantage when they are first, and the French a clearer advantage when they are first.

Beside, it's well known that would you kill an ennemy soldier, one soldier is out. But when you wound them, you take two soldiers out: the wounded, and the guy who has to take care of him.

So the fact that French were more "German wounder" than "German killer" than the Poles clearly shows that the French had a better grasp of military strategy.

Arent there corps and divisions whose entire purpose is to heal the wounded?

But wont killing be a bit better? The dead cannot come and fight again, but the wounded may.

Yes this is very interesting in deed.

And I claim that the decisive advantage that the French had, which specifically made them more efficient "wounders" was help from British and Polish troops.

Otherwise everything is plainly illogical to me.

But wont killing be a bit better? The dead cannot come and fight again, but the wounded may.
Depends how you wound. The woundeds suffer longer, suck resources to get healed, and when they come back they can tell how horrible the figthing was.

Other interesting comparison!
German forces = 200% of Polish Forces
Polish Casualties = 462% of German Casualties

So ratio = 462/200 = 2.31

German Forces= 117% of French Forces
French casualties = 230% of German casualties

So ratio = 230/117 = 1.97

Again a blatant proof of the great superiority of the French other the Poles.


I hope nobody is thinking I'm taking all these silly computation seriously

guys, you are somehow disgusting.

But then again, Poles have contributed alot to the war, Fighting in Egypt, Poland, Eastern Front, Norway, England, Western Front, Italy, Northern Africa, and i rmemeber there was even a regimet in Iraq.

Compare that to the french!

and Poland actually fought on 3 fronts, Slovakia, Soviet, and german,

France only Italy and Germany.

Poland had no help.

France had the help of England Canada and Poland.

French troops were obviously better equiped.

and there were a greater number of french to fight against Germany.

That really tells you something... :mischief:

Depends how you wound. The woundeds suffer longer, suck resources to get healed, and when they come back they can tell how horrible the figthing was.

Other interesting comparison!
German forces = 200% of Polish Forces
Polish Casualties = 462% of German Casualties

So ratio = 462/200 = 2.31

German Forces= 117% of French Forces
French casualties = 230% of German casualties

So ratio = 230/117 = 1.97

Again a blatant proof of the great superiority of the French other the Poles.


I hope nobody is thinking I'm taking all these silly computation seriously

Well obviously if you have two guys shooting at you you not only have twice the chance of getting shot compared to one enemy but you also have half the chances to shoot back!

So this only proves further that Poles where not only better at killing Germans, but also at wounding them! Because they only had half as many chances at shooting a German they must have been twice as good as a Frenchman to reach the same kill/wound ratio.:groucho:

Only as long as I'm winning!:joke:

Well, since Poland was surrounded, it knew it would be pwned, so they might as well as kill as many Germans before they fell. ;)

But then again, Poles have contributed alot to the war, Fighting in Egypt, Poland, Eastern Front, Norway, England, Western Front, Italy, Northern Africa, and i rmemeber there was even a regimet in Iraq.

Compare that to the french!

The French didn't fight in North Africa, Italy and the Western Front? And they actually did quite a lot.

and Poland actually fought on 3 fronts, Slovakia, Soviet, and german,

France only Italy and Germany.

Poland had no help.

Poland also had the advantage of not facing the German army at its most efficient. Soviet army of that time? :lol:

France had the help of England Canada and Poland.

Canada? Poland? How much did they account for in the war effort? This must be a joke, or else you are nuts.

And the BEF was quite small and performed no better than the French forces because it was defeated in the same way.

French troops were obviously better equiped.

and there were a greater number of french to fight against Germany.

Same things apply for the Germans.

That really tells you something... :mischief:

That you are a blind Polish nationalist?

Although I agree with aelf on the fronts, the rest I will give to the last one.

DO NOT underestimate the forces of Russia at that time. Remember, they FAR outnumbered the Polish, and that excludes the Germans.

Canada and Poland were actually vital to the liberation of France. They landed on the beaches, and helped close the Falaise Gap, in which otherwise the Germans could escape and kill may more Allied Forces. The Polish also had an armored division, in which I haven't heard the Free French had one.

Also, i don't get 'the same thing applies for the Germans'.

Canada and Poland were actually vital to the liberation of France. They landed on the beaches, and helped close the Falaise Gap, in which otherwise the Germans could escape and kill may more Allied Forces. The Polish also had an armored division, in which I haven't heard the Free French had one.
Then I give you the "2e Division Blindée" (that's an armoured division to the anglophones), formed on 24 August 1943 in Témara, Morocco, commanded by General Leclerc!:goodjob:

It was refitted with US Shermans in late 1943 and then debarked in Normandy. It was the division de Gaulle badgered the Allied command to dispatch to capture Paris, once the Parisians had started their uprising against the German occupiers.
Otherwise the "2e DB" was one of the crack divisions Patton had at his disposal for beating up German armour, which they did with a certain gusto. Patton was full of praise for the unit. He recognised a good thing when he saw it.

Apparently they were part of General de Lattre de Tassigny's 1st French Army to pitch into the German forces holding Alsace and Lorraine. The 2e DB captured Strassbourg on 23 November 1944.
Since de Gaulle demanded it as a political necessity for the reconstituted French army to take indepedant action, the 1st French Army then crossed the Rhine into German proper. It was the "2e DB" who arrived first at Hitler's villa at Berchtesgaden as well, a couple of hours before the US 101 Airborne.

The division lost 1 687 men KIA, 3 300 WIA. It lost 58 for 118 German tanks destroyed (including taking out a Tiger positioned at the Place de la Concorde itself, managing not to blow up the obelisque of Ramses II right beside it, for no own losses). It killed 4500 Axis soldiers and captured another 8800. It had a 2:1 kill rate of German late-war Panzers, using Shermans. Not too bad.

The unit is kind of ridiculously famous in France, if enough Anglophones were only paying attention.;)

As for the French not landing on the beaches of Normandy on D-day, that's because Roosevelt didn't really want to have French troops liberating France at the time. There were 400.000 French troops in allied service by then, so nothing was really preventing the planners from giving them a beach of their own to storm, had they wanted to.

Otoh a little while later an entire French army hit the beaches of the Mediterranean and overran the German garrisons fortified in Toulon and Marseilles at absolutely break-neck speed.
So the French army was actually fighting like devils more or less independantly in the south and east of France, not under the immediate supervision of Canadians, Poles, British, Americans etc. in the west and north.;)

The French didn't fight in North Africa, Italy and the Western Front? And they actually did quite a lot.
I didn't say they didn't.

poland also had the advantage of not facing the German army at its most efficient. Soviet army of that time?

so that somehow is equal to Poland only being a country for 20 years, even less efficient Germany, and very poor equiped, while facing opponents on 3 fronts?

Canada? Poland? How much did they account for in the war effort? This must be a joke, or else you are nuts.

And you call me nuts? you don't know how canada contributed to France in WW2?

[/quote] Same things apply for the Germans. [/quote]

Yes but the differince between German froces to Polish Forces is greater then the differince between German-French Forces.

That you are a blind Polish nationalist?

yes, i am, excpet for the Blind part... my eye-sight is fine thank-you.

As for the French not landing on the beaches of Normandy on D-day, that's because Roosevelt didn't really want to have French troops liberating France at the time. There were 400.000 French troops in allied service by then, so nothing was really preventing the planners from giving them a beach of their own to storm, had they wanted to.

Actually, a few French did land during DDay, the Kiefer commando captured Ouistreham.

guys, you are somehow disgusting.

What are you talking about? This just became my favorite thread in World History.

What are you talking about? This just became my favorite thread in World History.

sorry, didnt want to spoil the party. but the recent posts turned a bit pathetic and it reminds me of kids in their sandbox, arguing about who has got the better toys.

i dont have a clue who has been killed less by the nazis and who has a higher kill ratio of killing them.

the thread turned from a historical or military analysis to a mere competitive kindergarten rebellion.

the french and poles can be equally proud of what their grampas achieved or what not. instead some individuals cling to their nationalities and boast about things they didnt even achieve themselves. if it makes them feel good, ok! but i dont share that point of view.

but to each his own.

the thread turned from a historical or military analysis to a mere competitive kindergarten rebellion.
This thread always was a Kindergarten rebellion, since it was based on the faulty premise that the French didn't do squat in WWII, while the Poles were fine and plucky fellows.

It keeps coming back through some ridiculous challenge like: "Oh, the Free Poles had an armoured division, but I'm pretty sure the Free French didn't!"

Which allows someone, me in this case, to rattle off some more French military trivia (the 2e DB has this ridiculously detailed French wiki-site all of its own, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/2e_division_blindée), the lack of knowledge of which is still indicative of just how little attention often gets paid to the French come-back in WWII, as opposed to the French crumbling in 1940. This lack of attention to the French is of course beat by the general lack of knowledge people tend to have about what the Poles contributed in WWII at all.

The weird bit is that here it's the Poles (well, a Pole mostly) who tends to circle back to a rather unfounded perception of French uselessness, which is what prompts the lobbing in of new WWII French military facts.:)

You should read the spoiler. As I know some people still aren't very aware of my irony, I've included one, just for readers like you.
This "use figures to compute silly statistics and see who killed the most Germans" was done on purpose, to emphasis how ridiculous this kind of comparison can become when pushed to far.

Frankly, can you believe I was serious with statement such as "14.756 Poles were needed to kill a German, and 14.755 French were needed to kill a German, so the French are clearly better at killing German?"

You should read the spoiler.

aha. here is my mistake. i didnt read that after all those numbers. they made me dizzy...

still there seems to be an urge to let the world know again and again what the french were capable of doing in ww2.

i can even understand why a pole feels the need to do so, because their efforts to winning ww2 actually werent recognized as much as the french ones. an example could be their exclusion of the victory parade in london in 1945, pressurized by the soviets.

but the french seem to be easily getting upset and have a soft spot there, too. so every "poisoned dwarf", scamp and squirt exploits that.

"the wiser man gives in (not up)" ;)

Well I guess that a lot of people find this topic very emotionally loaded (including me when I am depressed), but I also thought that the joke would be quite evident. I found it very therapeutic, giggling away as I wrote my retort...

I didn't say they didn't.

You said "Compare that to the French!"

Now that your ignorance has been exposed, you never said anything, right?

so that somehow is equal to Poland only being a country for 20 years, even less efficient Germany, and very poor equiped, while facing opponents on 3 fronts?

Yup. I don't see why age has to be a measure of anything. Young countries have performed remarkably well in wars, including Republican France.

I know Germany was less efficient at that time. I said that.

What did the Slovaks do again?

And you call me nuts? you don't know how canada contributed to France in WW2?

And if it wasn't there France wouldn't have been liberated?

Yes but the differince between German froces to Polish Forces is greater then the differince between German-French Forces.

And there were more German casualties in France.

yes, i am, excpet for the Blind part... my eye-sight is fine thank-you.

Your brain is not, apparently.

Why are you, aelf, being so rude?

Why are you, aelf, being so rude?

Where? What did I say that does not reflect the truth?

still there seems to be an urge to let the world know again and again what the french were capable of doing in ww2.

i can even understand why a pole feels the need to do so, because their efforts to winning ww2 actually werent recognized as much as the french ones. an example could be their exclusion of the victory parade in london in 1945, pressurized by the soviets.
still there seems to be an urge to let the world know again and again what the french were capable of doing in ww2.

i can even understand why a pole feels the need to do so, because their efforts to winning ww2 actually werent recognized as much as the french ones. an example could be their exclusion of the victory parade in london in 1945, pressurized by the soviets.

QFT.

The French WW2 history is clearly overshadowed by the fact they fell so quickly.

And the Iron curtein thing pretty much stopped any polish history from escaping eastern europe.

You said "Compare that to the French!"

Now that your ignorance has been exposed, you never said anything, right?

Yes i contradict myself to often...

What did the Slovaks do again?

It's the funny thing about the war! the slovaks only had a force of 1000! :lol:

also how much italians were fighting france on frances "second front" ?

And if it wasn't there France wouldn't have been liberated?


Yes France would've still be likely to be liberated edventually but the Canadians played a vital role in liberating France. France would've probably just stayed in german possestion for another few months or a year or 2.

Where? What did I say that does not reflect the truth?

Your brain is not, apparently.

there i believe.

Yes France would've still be likely to be liberated edventually but the Canadians played a vital role in liberating France. France would've probably just stayed in german possestion for another few months or a year or 2.


Are you insane?
Nazis Germany would of been able to hold onto France for anything up to and including TWO years if Canada hadn't been fighting?
That is the most ridiculous thing i've seen in this thread!

The French WW2 history is clearly overshadowed by the fact they fell so quickly.

And the Iron curtein thing pretty much stopped any polish history from escaping eastern europe.

Poland still fell more quickly. Only The Pianist remains to remind people of Poland in WW2 :p

Also, the French did a fine job in Italy throughout the war.

Yes i contradict myself to often...

Glad you know.

It's the funny thing about the war! the slovaks only had a force of 1000! :lol:

also how much italians were fighting france on frances "second front" ?

Many more than the Slovaks?

there i believe.

So tell me why you persist with a serious (I love this phrase) 'penis size comparison'.

Are you insane?
Nazis Germany would of been able to hold onto France for anything up to and including TWO years if Canada hadn't been fighting?
That is the most ridiculous thing i've seen in this thread!

i don't even remember posting that....

I think i had to much vodka... :blush:

^^How can you buy evil Russian alcohol, you hypocrite?! Don't you remember what the nasty Russians did to your country twice (maybe more)?

^^How can you buy evil Russian alcohol, you hypocrite?! Don't you remember what the nasty Russians did to your country twice (maybe more)?

Vodka is a Slavic word for "small water", so basically there is a number of countries claiming to be its inventors, amongst them Poland.

And if I remember correctly "vodka" is grammatically incorrect in Russian, but is actually quite correct in Polish.

But nobody is really sure what nation is the birthplace of vodka, it is only because of the Iron Curtain that the west has attributed its invention to the main Foe, perhaps as a way of easy identification, i.e: Russians: people with big fur hats, freezing weather, communism and vodka. Whilst the presence of "lesser countries in the Warsaw pact was largely omitted as uninteresting.

Furthermore, vodka is at least as big a part of Polish culture as Russian.

And by the way, the reason I called you rude is because you write as if you know everything, claiming your antagonists brain is inferior, because he has perhaps missed a thing or two or confused something or an other, when clearly you yourself also have blank spots in your knowledge and are perhaps just as confused.:thumbsdown:

Let's just end this circus by agreeing that French and Polish girls are way prettier than their German counterparts, shall we?

Let's just end this circus by agreeing that French and Polish girls are way prettier than their German counterparts, shall we?

A strike of genius!:goodjob:

Let's just end this circus by agreeing that French and Polish girls are way prettier than their German counterparts, shall we?

now, do you have to call me into action again? :D

Let's just end this circus by agreeing that French and Polish girls are way prettier than their German counterparts, shall we?
That makes me sad. :p

Besides, German beer is far superior to vodka and champagne combined!

Let's just end this circus by agreeing that French and Polish girls are way prettier than their German counterparts, shall we?
Nein.

Zehn Char.

Why are you, aelf, being so rude?

Actaully, he is very polite today, he usually can do better, maybe theres something in the water?

No! The swedish are way better than the other 3

[offtopic]

QFT.
also how much italians were fighting france on frances "second front" ?

Remember the Italians attacked late, 4 days before the Armistice, so the French army was already severly beaten by the Germans, and the French army of the Alps had been weaken by sending reinforcments to the North.
And when the Italians attacked, the Germans were already in the rear of the Alps, so the French forces had to be splitted in two/

June 21st

Italian assault launched in the Alps. At dawn, 19 of the 32 Italian divisions massed in the area launched attacks on the French positions [That's about 312,000 men initially).

The Alpine Army had been heavily drawn upon to bolster the crumbling forces in the north. They now consisted of the fortified sectors of Savoy (north), Dauphine (centre) and Alpes-Maritimes (south), manned by fortress units and the 64th, 65th & 65th Reserve "B" Infantry Divisions. Also, as the Italians pushed from the east, the Germans were moving down the Rhone valley and endangering the Alpine Army's rear. General Olry responded by splitting his forces into two groups: one facing north-west against the Germans, the other south-east against the Italians.

The Italians were attacking the French all along the line. In the north, 12 battalions advanced on Bourg-Saint-Maurice, via the Seigne, Petit Saint-Bernard and Mont passes. Despite facing only 4 battalions and 44 guns in this area, they only succeeded in surrounding a small fortified post near the Petit Saint-Bernard pass, but could not take it.

In Maurienne the Italians made a strong advance on Modane, seeking to force the Mont-Cenis, Sollieres, Bellecombe & Clapier passes. At 5:30 a.m. they shelled the La Turra fort with a heavy bombardment, but it continued to resist. Further south, however, French reconnaissance units were outflanked by 2 battalions and driven back from Le Planey to the La Tuille dam.

In Briancon an artillery duel between the Italian fort at Chaberton and a battery of French 280mm howitzers resulted in the silencing of Chaberton within hours.

By the end of the day, the Italians were held everywhere except on the Le Queyras headland where they had managed to encircle the village of Abries.

June 22nd

Italians resumed their attacks along the front. Held everywhere except along the coast, where they made progress in the area east of Menton.

June 23rd

Italians brought up substantial reinforcements, and renewed their assault, but without success.

June 24th

French positions still intact on both northern and eastern flanks in the Alps.

At 9 p.m. order received to cease hostilities on all fronts, effective 12:35 a.m. French Summer Time.

At 10p.m., General Olry stated that:

"Of the thirty-two divisions in the Italian army, nineteen were wholly or partly engaged against the outposts - and in a few cases the main elements - of our six divisions.

"We were outnumbered seven to one in Tarentaise, four to one in Maurienne, three to one in Brianconnais, twelve to one in Queyras, nine to one in Ubaye, six to one in Tinee, seven to one in L'Aution and Sospel, and four to one in Menton.

"Our adversary only made contact with, or approached, our main positions in Tarentaise and near Menton. All our fortified advance posts held out, even when encircled..."

June 25th

At 12:35, bugles sounded the cease-fire all along the front. The Franco-Italian armistice came into effect (only due to pressure from Germany).

June 30th

Mussolini drove to Lanslebourg, in Maurienne, to congratulate the Italian troops who had fought on the Alpine front. On the way down from the Mont-Cenis pass he noticed a fort on his left flying the French tricoleur. This was the La Turra fort, 9000 feet above sea level, defended by Sub-Lieutenants Prudhon and Chandesris with nine NCOs and forty-one Chasseurs and gunners. They had held out, despite being surrounded by several divisions, for ten days. Mussolini ordered them to be freed with honours of war.

when clearly you yourself also have blank spots in your knowledge and are perhaps just as confused.

I dispute that.

And what I was talking about wasn't exactly historical rocket science.

I dispute that.

And what I was talking about wasn't exactly historical rocket science.

It isn't "rocket science" if you know it. Rocket science is based on maths and physics, so if you are good enough at match and physics you can figure most stuff out. In history, if you do not know, you just do not know and it has nothing to do with intelligence, a person might as well have been unlucky and read the wrong books or come from a country where a particular historical "fact" is viewed differently.

So what I am saying is that if you go around and think yourself better than others not keeping the things above in mind, you are confused.

^^How can you buy evil Russian alcohol, you hypocrite?! Don't you remember what the nasty Russians did to your country twice (maybe more)?

It was finnish vodka. You know the type where hey decorate the glass?


Furthermore, vodka is at least as big a part of Polish culture as Russian.

lmao it's even bigger in poland.

Let's just end this circus by agreeing that French and Polish girls are way prettier than their German counterparts, shall we?

Absalutely.

Besides, German beer is far superior to vodka and champagne combined!

What no way! Vodka is superior!

Besides, German beer is far superior to vodka and champagne combined!
Well, if you don't like vodka and champagne combined, try them separately.

So what I am saying is that if you go around and think yourself better than others not keeping the things above in mind, you are confused.

There is something about repeating stuff that has already been debunked many times in the same thread. Have you thought about that?

There is something about repeating stuff that has already been debunked many times in the same thread. Have you thought about that?

Yeah, but that doesn't change who you are, besides, he was drunk the last time.

'Tis all a matter of opinions.

Now aelf and Pokurcz, stop this flaming/spamming. :p

Yeah, but that doesn't change who you are, besides, he was drunk the last time.

:confused: So who do you think I am?

:confused: So who do you think I am?

A "Besserwisser", with a capital B!

A "Besserwisser", with a capital B!

:lol: Whatever you say, o, wise one! I said nothing to that effect.

Anyway, this exchange is getting ridiculous. First you justified his position by saying that he might not have learnt the facts. And then when I pointed out that what he kept insisting on had been debunked time and again in the same thread, you acknowledged it but said that it changes nothing :confused: I might not know everything and might not be able to expect others to know everything, but I can certainly expect people to have to good sense to read and understand something that has been repeatedly explained in the same thread. Also, the fact that he was drunk the last time was only revealed later.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying then it's fine. You can have the last word now. I'm not going to waste anymore time talking to you. See you in the next life, Dalai Lama.

:lol: Whatever you say, o, wise one! I said nothing to that effect.

Anyway, this exchange is getting ridiculous. First you justified his position by saying that he might not have learnt the facts. And then when I pointed out that what he kept insisting on had been debunked time and again in the same thread, you acknowledged it but said that it changes nothing :confused: I might not know everything and might not be able to expect others to know everything, but I can certainly expect people to have to good sense to read and understand something that has been repeatedly explained in the same thread. Also, the fact that he was drunk the last time was only revealed later.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying then it's fine. You can have the last word now. I'm not going to waste anymore time talking to you. See you in the next life, Dalai Lama.

He is from a different country than you, and as I mentioned, that means that he most probably has a different set of "facts" than you, some of them more true than the facts of your country, no country has a complete grasp of absolute truth. And then you went on and claimed his brain is faulty.

Anyway, the point of the matter is that you are a rude know-it-all, there is nothing more to "understand".:p

Anyway, the point of the matter is that you are a rude know-it-all, there is nothing more to "understand".:p

Since you are so kind as to call me names on your part, I shall add that you are a delusional hypocrite. I doubt you have the capacity to actually understand anything that is outside your own quirky way of thinking. You can't even practice what you preach, so I don't see any right on your part to talk about how evil I am (you fail to even establish that what I said wasn't true, by the way) and only see a misguided holier-than-thou individual behind the facade of righteousness. If you are such a kind soul, you should be praying for me quietly instead of doing the very same thing you are talking about.

Busted, buddy.

What ever, man.

Well, if you don't like vodka and champagne combined, try them separately.
:rotfl:

:lol: Steph where do these reply ideas come to you from? :lol: It's incredible (and not only this one, I mean that you posted hundreds by now!).

Well, they come to me completly naturally.

I've upset more than one person with them. :D

He is from a different country than you, and as I mentioned, that means that he most probably has a different set of "facts" than you, some of them more true than the facts of your country, no country has a complete grasp of absolute truth. And then you went on and claimed his brain is faulty.
Facts are the same in every country. That is why we call them facts.

Facts are the same in every country. That is why we call them facts.

In a perfect world...

For example, in the USA it is a "fact" that the USA saved the world from the Nazis in WW2, whilst in Russia it is a "fact" that the USSR saved the world from the same. Who is right!?!

Well the obvious answer is that neither could have managed without the other, so they're both right and wrong at the same time.

So you might now understand that just because someones "facts" differ from yours, it has nothing to do with that someones brain capacity, as certain people seem to perceive it.

So you might now understand that just because someones "facts" differ from yours, it has nothing to do with that someones brain capacity, as certain people seem to perceive it.
Right, they may not be stupid, they are however, wrong.

Right, they may not be stupid, they are however, wrong.
Who is? The US view or the Soviet view?

Who is? The US view or the Soviet view?
In this case, both are wrong. But neither of those are "American facts" or, "Russian facts", they are both Simply wrong.

In a perfect world...

For example, in the USA it is a "fact" that the USA saved the world from the Nazis in WW2, whilst in Russia it is a "fact" that the USSR saved the world from the same. Who is right!?!

Well the obvious answer is that neither could have managed without the other, so they're both right and wrong at the same time.


Your 'facts' are incorrect. I'm American and I've always been taught since grade school that the combined forces of the Allies defeated Nazism. Where did you hear such a thing that it was just the 'Americans' that saved the world? In a Nutshell, the defeat of Hitler can be summed up in three steps.
1) Losing the air battle of the UK
2) Losing at Stalingrad
3) D-day from the west, and the soviet push from the east.

The only axis country that the U.S. played a major role in defeating was Japan.

Your 'facts' are incorrect. I'm American and I've always been taught since grade school that the combined forces of the Allies defeated Nazism. Where did you hear such a thing that it was just the 'Americans' that saved the world? In a Nutshell, the defeat of Hitler can be summed up in three steps.
1) Losing the air battle of the UK
2) Losing at Stalingrad
3) D-day from the west, and the soviet push from the east.

The only axis country that the U.S. played a major role in defeating was Japan.

I guess you are lucky, and a good normal person.
There are plenty enough of unlucky, not so good and not seldom abnormal people around. Especially on forums, where their inhibitions are shed.

What I am trying to say is that I have met my share of narrow minded people who have rather nationalistic views of history, and there are always numbers large enough of those in every country to support a claim that it is a "truth" in that country.

Now of coarse there is a number of truths in every country, because every country is comprised of many individuals and groups, but that was not important for my argument, so I did not bring it up. It was not my intention to write an essay.

But that is still no excuse not to read the lengthy and clear explanations already provided in the same thread for the less privilleged.

Aelf, whatever you said before, you where rude whilst your opponent wasn't.

Aelf, whatever you said before, you where rude whilst your opponent wasn't.

Ah, you fall into your own trap. It is entirely possible that I would consider his bellicose repetition of a false and already disproved remark rude because of my cultural background.

It's like having a discussion in a large group about a certain issue and the discussion having cleared up some bad misconceptions about the issue, when suddenly someone within that group pronounces very bluntly and assertively the same misconceptions as if he hadn't been listening all these while. That would be rude to me.

so according to your logic you where not rude by being rude because he was rude on a different plane yet still so before you, where rude?

gee man get over it and watch you temper in the future.

so according to your logic you where not rude by being rude because he was rude on a different plane yet still so before you, where rude?

gee man get over it and watch you temper in the future.

Your last premise was I was rude and he wasn't. If we were both rude (or not) then there's no need to play the higher moral ground card and we can focus on facts and reading comprehension.

Your last premise was I was rude and he wasn't. If we were both rude (or not) then there's no need to play the higher moral ground card and we can focus on facts and reading comprehension.


You said that he was rude, not I. :D

But you were rude, explicitly so, even if he was rude, according to your own far fetched theory, he did not do it on purpose.

And do not try to claim that you where not rude, I have a third party witness:

Quote:
"Originally Posted by Pokurcz View Post
'Why are you, aelf, being so rude?'
Actaully, he is very polite today, he usually can do better, maybe theres something in the water?"
(post 348)

:cool:

Won't this thread ever be allowed to die?

The issue of who is ruder is still in doubt. Inquiring minds want to know.

In this case, both are wrong. But neither of those are "American facts" or, "Russian facts", they are both Simply wrong.
But facts aren't wrong according to you?

You might think me facetious for pouncing on something like this, but I actually think you've hit a real nerve where history writing is concerned.:)

I'll just submit for consideration that:

If one looks at those facts Americans or Russians, or anyone with an agenda for that matter, bring up when claiming something like "We won WWII", then every single thing they put forwards in their argument will almost always be factually perfectly correct.

The other part of this is otoh how facts are established. That goes on the much tricker subject of how we know things; how all these facts about what happened in something like WWII (or anything in history) gets established. How do we come to know these facts?

But what's really at stake is interpretation and comparison. And that is a lot harder than simply stating facts. You still have to establish what a fact means.

Like one historian looking at the Egyptologist attempt at writing the history of the campaigns in Syria of Thutmosis III:
Lots of facts... We even have entire army records for parts of his reign (things like how many, marching where, how far travelled in a day, flour consumed in baking bred for the men, goats and sheep stolen from locals). Yeah, lots of facts, but absolutely no way of putting them in any meaningful relationship to anything. This makes the knowledge of these facts interesting, but almost entirely opaque to interpretation, i.e. answering "what does this mean?"

Verbose, your so refreshingly intelligent and knowledgeable!

Your hitting right on the spot!

Just today when I read the morning newspaper I stumbled on something similar, the facts needed for a correct understanding of a situation where there, so I could not complain, but how would people interpret those facts, and would they actually reveal anything new for those people?

With a sigh of defeatism I realized that the insight of the greater picture most probably goes most people by, because they interpret the facts in a way so that the facts fit whatever they are holding for the truth at that moment.

I didn't quite manage to organize that in my own mind before I read your post.

Its a perfect thing to discuss on the "How do you view history ?" thread.

You said that he was rude, not I. :D

Yes, because I think so. But the last thing you said was I was rude too, and I pointed out that it didn't matter.

But you were rude, explicitly so, even if he was rude, according to your own far fetched theory, he did not do it on purpose.

Now, now, what happened to all your empathy? Doesn't extend to non-Europeans, I presume? :p

Anyway, given the circumstances, it's hard to believe that it was not done on purpose. It's either he was trolling or there's something really wrong with his reading comprehension skills.

And do not try to claim that you where not rude, I have a third party witness:

Quote:
"Originally Posted by Pokurcz View Post
'Why are you, aelf, being so rude?'
Actaully, he is very polite today, he usually can do better, maybe theres something in the water?"
(post 348)

:cool:

You're quoting aronnax now? :lol: You should ask Steph about that ;)

Maybe his comprehension of English is not that fantastic...

What makes you think that I am filled with empathy?
I am a very irritable and annoying person, thats why I believe I have a pretty good grasp on you.:p

The only axis country that the U.S. played a major role in defeating was Japan.

What China nad Australia did nothing?

*edit* reads Major role, well you can put this comment to the side...

Ah, you fall into your own trap. It is entirely possible that I would consider his bellicose repetition of a false and already disproved remark rude because of my cultural background.

I was drunk! what did you expect? :p

Your last premise was I was rude and he wasn't. If we were both rude (or not) then there's no need to play the higher moral ground card and we can focus on facts and reading comprehension.

The difference was that i was drunk while being rude which is 100% not my fault, while you were being rude on purpose.

*edit* I was thinking, it isn't necicsarily 100% not my fault, i mean it was my fault i got drunk in the first place... ok i'm confusing myself...

Anyway, given the circumstances, it's hard to believe that it was not done on purpose. It's either he was trolling or there's something really wrong with his reading comprehension skills.

Or i was drunk...

What makes you think that I am filled with empathy?
I am a very irritable and annoying person, thats why I believe I have a pretty good grasp on you.:p

:lol: If you thought a confession would extract another, well.

:lol: If you thought a confession would extract another, well.

I made a pun stating that your an annoying person...

At least you could have thought up a funny retort, but no, you had to be dull.

I made a pun stating that your an annoying person...

At least you could have thought up a funny retort, but no, you had to be dull.

It's not even a pun, my friend. You confessed you are an annoying person and I said that it's not going to make me say the same about myself. Well, you know yourself best, right? ;)

It's not even a pun, my friend. You confessed you are an annoying person and I said that it's not going to make me say the same about myself. Well, you know yourself best, right? ;)

Your more than dull, you don't have a sense of humor, at least not when your Ego feels threatened.

It was a pun, but a friendly one, one which gave with the other hand, but you had to go for the cheap childish degrading answer, I guess that pinpoints the ego malfunction.

If you would have taken the thing with a sense of humor, the situation might have been different, but don't call me your friend.

Let's cut the crap. The worst f*ckup in WW2 were the Russians.

Your more than dull, you don't have a sense of humor, at least not when your Ego feels threatened.

It was a pun, but a friendly one, one which gave with the other hand, but you had to go for the cheap childish degrading answer, I guess that pinpoints the ego malfunction.

If you would have taken the thing with a sense of humor, the situation might have been different, but don't call me your friend.

Look in the mirror, comrade. What do you think is the whole point of my calling you a friend? :crazyeye:

This is ironic and mildly amusing, but I shall stop now because it will only be pointless to continue. I had my fun :D

As long as we had fun...

and still nobody quoted me... :(

Are we still obsessed with comparing the girths and the lengths of penises of the Poles, the French, and the Russians?!? However, it was the Germans who penetrated each one of their sphicters and no Vaseline nor KY-Jelly were used by the Germans, unless supplied by the other three!

Are we still obsessed with comparing the girths and the lengths of penises of the Poles, the French, and the Russians?!? However, it was the Germans who penetrated each one of their sphicters and no Vaseline nor KY-Jelly were used by the Germans, unless supplied by the other three!
You forgot the British BEF, whom the Germans had their wicked way with at their leisure in 1940 as well.

They would have done the same to the US, had they only cared to show up for the 1940 party in France too.:p

Simple question with a even simpler answer, refer to my attachment.

Google Web Slike Grupe Imenik

Napredno pretraživanje
Postavke
Pretraži: web stranice na hrvatskom jeziku stranice iz zemlje: Hrvatska

Web Rezultati 1 - 10 od približno 1.210.000 za french military victories. (0,15 sek.)
Savjet: Uštedite vrijeme pritiskom na "Enter" umjesto klikom na "traži"

french military victoriesYour search - french military victories - did not match any documents. Suggestions:. - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords. ...
www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html - 11k - Spremljeno u privremenu memoriju - Slične stranice

Text / The Complete Military History of FranceNormans proceed to become just about the only positive military bonus in ... The mistaken belief that 1066 was a French victory leads to the Third Rule of ...
www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html - 17k - Spremljeno u privremenu memoriju - Slične stranice

French Military VictoriesFrench Military Victories. With a history dating as far back as the Roman Empire (as the Gauls and later as the Franks), the French military exploits (and ...
www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp - 137k - Spremljeno u privremenu memoriju - Slične stranice

US Military Alphabet CodeFrench Military Victories - The Real Deal red arrow Glock Handguns Identification red arrow History of Chainmail Technology red arrow ...
www.militaryfactory.com/military_alphabet_code.asp - 35k - Spremljeno u privremenu memoriju - Slične stranice

French Military Victories - Google Search ResultsScreen capture of Google search results for 'French military victories.'
politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-frenchmilitaryvictories.htm - 22k - Spremljeno u privremenu memoriju - Slične stranice

French Military Victory History in a NutshellThe complete military history of France, from the Gallic Wars to the War on Terrorism.
politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokefrenchmilitaryhistory.htm - 27k - Spremljeno u privremenu memoriju - Slične stranice
[ Više rezultata za politicalhumor.about.com ]

Internet Parody Hands French Military a DefeatBut a miffed Canadian student is actually behind a prank that says no documents are found in a Google search for "French military victories." ...
www.google-watch.org/newsday.html - Slične stranice

Military history of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe second stage saw the establishment of French Indochina (covering modern Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) and a string of military victories in the Scramble ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France - 173k - Spremljeno u privremenu memoriju - Slične stranice

YTMND - I'm Feeling Lucky - French Military Victoriesauthor:, TheMaitch - site profile. vote:. image:. sound:. keywords:. Click here to go back to YTMND.com.
frenchmilitaryvictories.ytmnd.com/ - 5k - Spremljeno u privremenu memoriju - Slične stranice

Urban Dictionary: french military victoriesNote: The following list of French military victories is necessarily incomplete. It also includes actions in which only French peoples participated or in ...
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=french+military+victories - 48k - Spremljeno u privremenu memoriju - Slične stranice

^ Pannonius, it was a joke... We all know it's fake. It's not even supposed to be serious.

Well, as you can see above, I found 1 250 000 matches for FMV on Google.
The first link is particularly interesting.
Btw, if nowhere else, the French won at Yorktown.

Thats not fake.. rofl

Goto google and type in "French Military Victories"

^ :D

French Military Victories (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html)

Let's cut the crap. The worst f*ckup in WW2 were the Russians.

*sigh* If the Russians were anything in World War Two, it was that thing that's the exact opposite of a "f*ckup."

Simple question with a even simpler answer, refer to my attachment.
Oh, thanks! I wish someone could have shown us that twenty pages ago, would've saved us a lot of time! :rolleyes:

^ Pannonius, it was a joke... We all know it's fake. It's not even supposed to be serious.
I think it is.

"In France, nothing kills as efficiently as ridicule." - Voltaire.

I know a lot of people think jokes are somehow not serious, that they don't really matter.

That's a bloody naive view.

First of all, somebody's going to have to explain to me how 01SEP - 06OCT is a larger amount of time than 10MAY - 22JUN, because right now I'm really just not getting the premise of this thread... other than the circus of personal attacks on which it seems to thrive.

Ah, but that's what nationalism is - a circus.

Oh, is that fake google page still around? Tell you something, it's ANCIENT and it has NEVER BEEN FUNNY.