01-Aug-2021 13:41 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Forum] MicroAmiga available in October.ANN.lu
Posted on 28-Aug-2004 19:07 GMT by drHirudo126 comments
View flat
View list
After some delay, the first Next generation Amiga at affordable
price will be available at the dealers in start of October. More info is Here The suggested end user price for these boards is as follows:

µ-A1-C - gbp349/euro499/USD599 (ex VAT/sales tax)
µ-A1-I - gbp399/euro599/USD699 (ex VAT/sales tax)
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1JoannaK28-Aug-2004 19:26 GMT
Comment 2ehaines28-Aug-2004 20:05 GMT
Comment 3Lando28-Aug-2004 20:19 GMT
Comment 4Lando28-Aug-2004 20:20 GMT
Comment 5coldfire28-Aug-2004 20:37 GMT
Comment 6Anonymous28-Aug-2004 21:11 GMT
Comment 7Anonymous28-Aug-2004 21:17 GMT
Comment 8Anonymous28-Aug-2004 21:44 GMT
Comment 9Anonymous28-Aug-2004 21:53 GMT
Comment 10Lando28-Aug-2004 22:15 GMT
Comment 11Lando28-Aug-2004 22:20 GMT
Comment 12Anonymous28-Aug-2004 22:56 GMT
Comment 13ABM$28-Aug-2004 23:43 GMT
Comment 14Anonymous28-Aug-2004 23:45 GMT
Comment 15Ronald St-Maurice29-Aug-2004 00:18 GMT
Comment 16drHirudo29-Aug-2004 02:01 GMT
Comment 17JoannaK29-Aug-2004 03:02 GMT
Comment 18DarrinRegistered user29-Aug-2004 03:49 GMT
Comment 19DarrinRegistered user29-Aug-2004 03:52 GMT
Comment 20DarrinRegistered user29-Aug-2004 04:13 GMT
Comment 21JoannaK29-Aug-2004 04:24 GMT
Comment 22DarrinRegistered user29-Aug-2004 04:50 GMT
Comment 23Anonymous29-Aug-2004 07:41 GMT
Comment 24The_Gunner29-Aug-2004 08:12 GMT
Comment 25Anonymous29-Aug-2004 08:39 GMT
Comment 26Don CoxRegistered user29-Aug-2004 08:47 GMT
Comment 27SeerRegistered user29-Aug-2004 09:23 GMT
Comment 28DarrinRegistered user29-Aug-2004 09:24 GMT
Comment 29Amon_ReRegistered user29-Aug-2004 09:28 GMT
Comment 30Amon_ReRegistered user29-Aug-2004 09:36 GMT
Comment 31Amon_ReRegistered user29-Aug-2004 09:44 GMT
Comment 32Anonymous29-Aug-2004 09:45 GMT
Comment 33Amon_ReRegistered user29-Aug-2004 09:51 GMT
Comment 34Anonymous29-Aug-2004 09:53 GMT
Comment 35Don CoxRegistered user29-Aug-2004 09:56 GMT
Comment 36Anonymous29-Aug-2004 10:09 GMT
Comment 37Anonymous29-Aug-2004 10:11 GMT
Comment 38Fei29-Aug-2004 10:33 GMT
Comment 39Anonymous29-Aug-2004 10:43 GMT
Comment 40itix29-Aug-2004 10:57 GMT
Comment 41Anonymous29-Aug-2004 11:09 GMT
Comment 42Amon_ReRegistered user29-Aug-2004 11:29 GMT
Comment 43Amon_ReRegistered user29-Aug-2004 11:32 GMT
Comment 44Anonymous29-Aug-2004 12:29 GMT
Comment 45Anonymous29-Aug-2004 12:34 GMT
Comment 46Dan29-Aug-2004 12:37 GMT
Comment 47Anonymous29-Aug-2004 13:09 GMT
Comment 48Don CoxRegistered user29-Aug-2004 13:56 GMT
Comment 49marcik29-Aug-2004 14:22 GMT
Comment 50Anonymous29-Aug-2004 14:44 GMT
Comment 51AdmV29-Aug-2004 15:15 GMT
Comment 52DarrinRegistered user29-Aug-2004 15:27 GMT
Comment 53marcik29-Aug-2004 15:58 GMT
Comment 54Don CoxRegistered user29-Aug-2004 15:58 GMT
Comment 55marcik29-Aug-2004 16:03 GMT
Comment 56Anonymous29-Aug-2004 16:10 GMT
Comment 57Don CoxRegistered user29-Aug-2004 16:18 GMT
Comment 58Anonymous29-Aug-2004 16:26 GMT
Comment 59Anonymous29-Aug-2004 16:38 GMT
Comment 60Anonymous29-Aug-2004 16:43 GMT
Comment 61Don CoxRegistered user29-Aug-2004 17:05 GMT
Comment 62Fei29-Aug-2004 17:24 GMT
Comment 63marcik29-Aug-2004 18:36 GMT
Comment 64Anonymous29-Aug-2004 19:33 GMT
Comment 65AdmV29-Aug-2004 20:01 GMT
Comment 66AdmV29-Aug-2004 20:03 GMT
Comment 67steve-o^29-Aug-2004 22:08 GMT
Comment 68coldfire30-Aug-2004 01:39 GMT
Comment 69hooligan/dcsRegistered user30-Aug-2004 02:15 GMT
Comment 70Amon_ReRegistered user30-Aug-2004 03:58 GMT
Comment 71Amon_ReRegistered user30-Aug-2004 03:59 GMT
Comment 72AdmV30-Aug-2004 06:14 GMT
Comment 73Anonymous30-Aug-2004 06:29 GMT
Comment 74Kronos30-Aug-2004 06:34 GMT
Comment 75Anonymous30-Aug-2004 06:37 GMT
Comment 76Anonymous30-Aug-2004 06:44 GMT
Comment 77Anonymous30-Aug-2004 07:01 GMT
Comment 78Anonymous30-Aug-2004 08:14 GMT
Comment 79priest30-Aug-2004 08:15 GMT
Comment 80Anonymous30-Aug-2004 08:17 GMT
Comment 81steve-o^30-Aug-2004 08:49 GMT
Comment 82marcik30-Aug-2004 08:58 GMT
MicroAmiga available in October. : Comment 83 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV on 30-Aug-2004 10:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 82 (marcik):
'So why they gave guarantees to Poland? Polish troops expected, that second front on the west will be opened (it was part of military pact). Look at this from polish side. You were invaded, but you have guarantees from your allies.'

The world had been in an economic decline in the late 20s-early 30's, and quite frankly the alliances and pacts were real, being able to really act on them was not. In any alliance, there are still limits.

'So you fight with all your forces, and wait for reactions from you allies, which never came. I perefectly understood that it was in GB interest not to invade Germans in Sep 1939, but it wasn't in polish interest for sure.'

What forces? British Mobilisation had not even started, and even in defending france were were only able to move four and then 6 divisions. If you wish to talk of the pact between France and Poland, then:

On 4 September in Paris was signed the French-Polish interpretation agreement, being an addendum to the French-Polish alliance of 1921, and to the French-Polish military convention of 19 May 1939. According to this convention the French side was under the obligation to undertake, on the fifteenth day since the general mobilization a general offensive with the forces of at least 40 divisions to support Poland. Those divisions had to break the German defence between the Rhine and Moselle, it means within a 180km wide sector, and to seize Mainz. Moreover the agreement foresaw, that the immediate reaction of the powers to the German military actions would be retaliatory strikes of French-British air forces. On top of that Great Britain promised to deliver fifteen fighter planes and one hundred modern bombers to Poland.

And under that Britain failed to deliver 15 fighters, and 100 modern bombers. The fact that Britain had no modern bomber aircraft is I suppose besides the point. 90% of the Polish Airforce was destroyed on the first day, it is not logical to assume that the 2000 aircraft Poland started with would somehow have been turned into an effective force even with this. Now, in terms of France, they built themselves into a defensive force based around their Maginot line, for all the good it did them. Britain attacked German shipping and ran blockades, declared war against Germany. Britain was not ready for war with Germany.

> Britain declared war against an enemy of superior size, and capability.
> This was done in support of Poland.

'I couldn't agree, that support of Poland was main reason for it. GB declared war, because they know, that sooner or later they'll attack by German forces.'

No, Britain declared war because Germany invaded Poland. You should note carefully that Hitler tried on several occasions to offer Peace with Britain and WAS always refused.

> Many many British and commonwealth and many others went to war on that
> premise my friend. Do not be so quick in your sharp tongue.

'I was too agressive in my previous post - that's true. But'll never agree, that GB troops went to war to defend Poland.'

Sorry it on record that and I quote 'As to the war in the air, it started on 4 September 1939 with the British raid on German ships anchored in Wilhelmshaven and Brunsbuttel, after which RAF was mostly busy with dropping leaflets over Germany.'

The RAF really did not have any startling capability. Perhaps they could do more or less.

> You should consider that Millions of people tried to defend Poland, just
> because they failed does'nt make them somehow evil.

'Millions of peoples were fighting agains Nazi, not to defend Poland.'

War was declared against Germany for invading Poland. Thus , it was done in defense of Poland.

'They forgot about their old ally, becuase of new, very powerfull one. I know it's a political decision, but it was very sad to Poland...'

The allies thought Stalin would allow elections, and behave differently than he did. The cold war was a direct result and an indicator about how wrong the west was about him. It was not intentional, and it was not wanted, planned, desired, acceptable. Despite the advantage of nuclear weapons the west spent the entire cold war in fear of Russian Tank armies, and Rocket forces arrayed against them. Anyone who thinks the fall of eastern europe and the way it went as being deliberate is off their rocker.
Jump...
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 84DarrinRegistered user30-Aug-2004 10:36 GMT
Comment 85Don CoxRegistered user30-Aug-2004 11:49 GMT
Comment 86Olegil30-Aug-2004 12:57 GMT
Comment 87Fei30-Aug-2004 14:24 GMT
Comment 88Fei30-Aug-2004 14:27 GMT
Comment 89Don CoxRegistered user30-Aug-2004 14:35 GMT
Comment 90DarrinRegistered user30-Aug-2004 14:40 GMT
Comment 91pixie31-Aug-2004 00:08 GMT
Comment 92coldfire31-Aug-2004 01:33 GMT
Comment 93hooligan/dcsRegistered user31-Aug-2004 01:36 GMT
Comment 94Fei31-Aug-2004 04:06 GMT
Comment 95takemehomegrandmaRegistered user31-Aug-2004 07:02 GMT
Comment 96AdmV31-Aug-2004 07:12 GMT
Comment 97priest31-Aug-2004 07:54 GMT
Comment 98priest31-Aug-2004 07:56 GMT
Comment 99takemehomegrandmaRegistered user31-Aug-2004 08:30 GMT
Comment 100Olegil31-Aug-2004 09:04 GMT
Comment 101Sammy Nordström31-Aug-2004 09:26 GMT
Comment 102pixie31-Aug-2004 10:35 GMT
Comment 103Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user31-Aug-2004 10:49 GMT
Comment 104MarkTime31-Aug-2004 18:51 GMT
Comment 105coldfire01-Sep-2004 01:42 GMT
Comment 106Fei01-Sep-2004 03:50 GMT
Comment 107AdmV01-Sep-2004 06:38 GMT
Comment 108priest01-Sep-2004 07:31 GMT
Comment 109Olegil01-Sep-2004 08:13 GMT
Comment 110Don CoxRegistered user01-Sep-2004 11:13 GMT
Comment 111Amon_ReRegistered user01-Sep-2004 11:20 GMT
Comment 112Fei01-Sep-2004 13:08 GMT
Comment 113Anonymous01-Sep-2004 15:23 GMT
Comment 114Abuse01-Sep-2004 16:17 GMT
Comment 115hammer02-Sep-2004 00:13 GMT
Comment 116hammer02-Sep-2004 00:31 GMT
Comment 117coldfire02-Sep-2004 03:07 GMT
Comment 118Anonymous02-Sep-2004 03:25 GMT
Comment 119priest02-Sep-2004 05:28 GMT
Comment 120hammer02-Sep-2004 11:21 GMT
Comment 121hammer02-Sep-2004 11:26 GMT
Comment 122hammer02-Sep-2004 11:31 GMT
Comment 123John Block02-Sep-2004 11:51 GMT
Comment 124hammer02-Sep-2004 21:13 GMT
Comment 125hammer02-Sep-2004 21:17 GMT
Comment 126hammer04-Sep-2004 08:25 GMT
Back to Top