Dan, dont matter who you word it, you are missing the point in almost everything you highlighted;
How? By invading germany,no offence to the heros of bzura et al but Poland was in about as good a position as GB to attack Germany at this time.
Yes, exactly. I surmise that Poland would have honoured the promise and done just that. I think that's a reasobnable assumption, going off histroical precedents.
would they,really,Poland had a long standing strategic plan,of defense. If they had tried to strike hitler first,with an un mobilised army,just how long do you think Poland would have lasted?
WW3? Where did that come into it? The meaning of the sentence is quite clear. There was an alliance between GB and Poland (and others to to be fair). The Poles fulfilled their part of the contract and GB (and the allies) did not, ergo, there was no payment in kind.
Well dan, just how could GB have freed Poland at the end of the war,are you forgetting the little matter of the Red Army being in control of the entire area. Do you think Uncle Joe would have just said,"oh,ok you can have your country back"? Do you really? So ,to "fullfill its promise" ,(which,if you know,was to free Poland from the Nazis,which was done) GB would have had to go to war with the USSR,how long do you think that would have lasted,do you really think GB was obligated to go to war with the Soviets to "free" Poland( a Poland that had two competing govts,one there one here),and at the cost of how many lives? Do you really think the wartime Poles weere fighting for GB,if you do Im afraid you have been sadly mislead and dont seem to fully understand the nature of the wartime alliancess.
As to the mine detectors, please dont resort to idiosyncratic contributions as suggestive of evidence that they were the only contributions made. It's poor form to receive help then question the helper as to the volume and method of delivery of that help.
You were the one wanting a tally,not me. I gave one example out of many possibilities to show how futile any atempt to say "we did more than you" is as an argument,you try to turn this around,well,sorry chum,you got the wrong end of the stick.
ok,so why do you think its any different to your rather distastfull premise that there should be some sort of tally of who did what for who? Is the british life lost over warsaw any less worthy than the Polish life lost over london?
Why is it distasteful? Because it causes discomfiture when the deeds and misdeeds are brought to account.
Simply that in war,no one thought that way,everyone was fighting a commen enemy,so I say again,trying to "score points" for "your" team,is distastefull and disrespectfull. as Polson agrees;
we all know that ww2 was a combined effort
Yeah, exactly :)
and Mr Cat,
I know, but numbers like those certainly help. Eliminated that 12% of thousands of German aircraft and what do you get? More bombing of England. I was just merely pointing out that others were there and they made their presence known...
yep,sorry to give wrong impresion, all the guys that fought the Hun were valuable,all contributed something just by being there,even the American volunteers who didnt actualy have any "killls" during the battle were vital. Like I say,every British schoolboy has,at the very least,seen the old movie " Battle of Britain" and you can hardly say that classic bit of British flag waving ignores the Polish contribution.