So Roosvelt was the worst form those 3 leaders. Stalin was our enemy and he did what he wanted, Churchill was trying to help but all in all he didnt (in some cases he could really help) , Roosvelt could help, pretended to be friend but all in all cooperated with Stalin.
One could, but not would, one should but not could, and one was... well one was Stalin. :) Oh my, this is getting to complicated for me. :)
lmao, the worst thing is,if we actualy told them how much we were taught about Poland in school.....
ok,here goes; On 1st of september Poland was invaded by nazi germany,on the 3rd Britain declared war on germany..........here endeth the lesson.
Actually I did expect that.
(exactly how much of western history were you taught? coz Ive sat with MA graduates through a film,"They died with their boots on" about custers last stand,everyone of them wanted to know what happened at the end and hoped custer and his dashing cavelry would escape the redskins. it works both ways.
I would say too much at times. I still don't get it why was it so important to put the war of the roses in polish curriculum... As for the US history, we are limited to learn only about the revolution war, the civil war and the 20th century period.
When you are the country that shaped the modern world through the industrial revolution and the invention of damm near everything (apart from polonium) used to this day,railways,motor cars,telephones etc etc adnauseum you do tend to find your history lessons a little too packed to also fit in a thouragh history of ,at the time I was at school,an enemy country behind the iron curtain.
That is perfectly understandable.
Oh, and you lot are all partially right and wrong in the WWII issue. But the problem is that both groups, the Poles and the Brits, have the tendency to interpret the history in a biased way, according to your liking. Threes really no hope for you people.
