How did Poland hold out longer than France.

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.


Spoiler :
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:

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

TheLastOne36 said:
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:

TheLastOne36 said:
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.

TheLastOne36 said:
French troops were obviously better equiped.

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

Same things apply for the Germans.

TheLastOne36 said:
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.
 
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?

TheLastOne36 said:
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?

TheLastOne36 said:
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?

TheLastOne36 said:
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.

TheLastOne36 said:
yes, i am, excpet for the Blind part... my eye-sight is fine thank-you.

Your brain is not, apparently.
 
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.

TheLastOne36 said:
Yes i contradict myself to often...

Glad you know.

TheLastOne36 said:
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?

TheLastOne36 said:
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:
 
Back
Top Bottom