Remember, Britain didn't have to go to war. They could have turned their backs on Poland completely and just ignored the promises made. Hell, they could have joined the Germans, it's not like they were friendly towards France. How many wars have Britain and France fought. You say Brits didnt do their part but they stuck by their words and did declare war on Germany for invading Poland. It's just they were thought it would be WW1 again and got caught out by tactics of WW2.
@GoyDefenseArmy The Soviets took the measure of the Wehrmacht. We can never forget that 3/4 of German casualties were inflicted by them. For us that meant that when we finally invaded Europe, we suffered far fewer casualties beating the Germans than we would have if the Soviets hadn't doen their job. So Stalin or no Stalin, we must be grateful!
@realdealforsure Yes, well. . . My uncles who fought, died and survived the war against the Nazis in the British and American armies were not chicken, and neither was Jean Moulin, leader of the French resistance whom the Nazis tortured to death and who never talked.
@mc0558 in 1939 there was a chance to beat Germans by the three countries since 80% of Wehrmacht was tied up in Poland all you had to do is strike them hard from the rear. But of course you had no nerve to get blooded so you sacrificed Poland "who cares about Poland anyway" rather than be a man of honor and win the war. You paid for it later with the humiliating defeat in France 1940. For Poland there is a lesson to learn never ally with you. Rather pick Germans or Russian.
@realdealforsure You're right but, one thing is clear, the British government in 1939 were determined NOT to commit another generation of British youth to the kind of war their fathers had fought in the trenches of World War I. They wanted victory on the cheap--and that was seen as massive bombing. They sent about 250 thousand to the defense of France in 1939, and at the first sign of trouble evacuated them. As a result both Poland and France fell.
@mc0558 I think many Brits must have contrasted the experience of the Napoleonic Wars with WWI. In the former, the Brits were driven out of Holand and lost its European allies several time. They made a 5 year commitment to the Iberian peninsula were army and navy could work together to give Br an advantage. WWI instead was a hard slog with hundreds of thousands of casualties and near defeat.I think the Br model for WWI was the Nap Wars.
Noch ist Polen nicht verloren.
Ade Polenland
Gruss aus Japan
HeiligesReich2 9 months ago
Remember, Britain didn't have to go to war. They could have turned their backs on Poland completely and just ignored the promises made. Hell, they could have joined the Germans, it's not like they were friendly towards France. How many wars have Britain and France fought. You say Brits didnt do their part but they stuck by their words and did declare war on Germany for invading Poland. It's just they were thought it would be WW1 again and got caught out by tactics of WW2.
gortmundy01 10 months ago
@GoyDefenseArmy The Soviets took the measure of the Wehrmacht. We can never forget that 3/4 of German casualties were inflicted by them. For us that meant that when we finally invaded Europe, we suffered far fewer casualties beating the Germans than we would have if the Soviets hadn't doen their job. So Stalin or no Stalin, we must be grateful!
mc0558 1 year ago
Where is France and Great Britain fucken chickens...the Russians did their part!
realdealforsure 2 years ago
@realdealforsure Yes, well. . . My uncles who fought, died and survived the war against the Nazis in the British and American armies were not chicken, and neither was Jean Moulin, leader of the French resistance whom the Nazis tortured to death and who never talked.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 in 1939 there was a chance to beat Germans by the three countries since 80% of Wehrmacht was tied up in Poland all you had to do is strike them hard from the rear. But of course you had no nerve to get blooded so you sacrificed Poland "who cares about Poland anyway" rather than be a man of honor and win the war. You paid for it later with the humiliating defeat in France 1940. For Poland there is a lesson to learn never ally with you. Rather pick Germans or Russian.
realdealforsure 1 year ago
@realdealforsure You're right but, one thing is clear, the British government in 1939 were determined NOT to commit another generation of British youth to the kind of war their fathers had fought in the trenches of World War I. They wanted victory on the cheap--and that was seen as massive bombing. They sent about 250 thousand to the defense of France in 1939, and at the first sign of trouble evacuated them. As a result both Poland and France fell.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 I think many Brits must have contrasted the experience of the Napoleonic Wars with WWI. In the former, the Brits were driven out of Holand and lost its European allies several time. They made a 5 year commitment to the Iberian peninsula were army and navy could work together to give Br an advantage. WWI instead was a hard slog with hundreds of thousands of casualties and near defeat.I think the Br model for WWI was the Nap Wars.
mc0558 1 year ago
The truth about the beginning of the Weltkrieg...
arisgr86 3 years ago