NationStates Jolt Archive

Just for those folks across the Pond. Create a scenario in which the EU would realistically react with unifed force of arms.

Just for those folks across the Pond. Create a scenario in which the EU would realistically react with unifed force of arms.
There wouldn't be a unified response, as France would immediately surrender.

Germany and other EU countries would do a great job of defending their continent, even when the French begin to collaborate.

The US nukes... Canada. Everyone loves Canada. Even Osama bin Laden can't hate on them.

Return of the USSR and they want Poland! :eek:

I'm not sure what exactly would P.O. the EU into war with us, but I'd sure as Hell fight back!

Just for those folks across the Pond. Create a scenario in which the EU would realistically react with unifed force of arms.
If any nation would attack Europe I guess.
Say America would invade they would meet the full fury of European might.

There wouldn't be a unified response, as France would immediately surrender.

Germany and other EU countries would do a great job of defending their continent, even when the French begin to collaborate.

Do all Americans hate France? Why? In WWII many other countries fell to German occuption and had to surrender, including France. France would not immediately surrender, they would put up at least some of a fight, as they always have done.

As for Germany and other EU nations, yes I aggree.

Germany decides it shouldn't have to share power in the EU with France and decides to invade and set up a puppet government. While they're at it they decide to expand into Poland, the Czech republic, and a few others.

If any nation would attack Europe I guess.
Say America would invade they would meet the full fury of European might.


The US could send in its Postal Employees as shock troops and over run the fury of the european might in a day or two.

If any nation would attack Europe I guess.
Say America would invade they would meet the full fury of European might.

Aaaaaahahahahahahahah! We can't respond to American aggression! We'd be fucked! Y'know what the best chance we have is? The UK has a nuclear arsenal. That's about it, y'know. Oh, and the one weapon France has. That'd be about it, and we wouldn't use it, because we know what would happen to us in return. However, under the circumstances, and considering the relatively peaceful nature of most of the EU (compared to the USA) I'd be willing to be Russia or China would back us up, just to stop American expansionism. Now that would be another MAD scenario.

let me move the realistic in front of scenario. I can't forsee anyone in North America attacking the EU.

What if China invades Tiawan? Or more Philippine territory (they've invaded the Spratley Islands with it's untapped oil reserves). Seizes EU economic interests in China?

US declares war on North Korea --> China steps in --> Europe tries to start peace-talks --> It won't work --> We intervene. Not sure on which side though...

No wait, that's not realistic...the US is economically to dependant on China.

a little side-note: Although we all love to make fun of France here, we should never underestimate their pride and their willingness to defend their own country. That's why we had such a tought time in WW I. We were almost in artillery-range of Paris. And they mobilized everything, from army, to police...heck they even used cabs...they lost nothing of this spirit believe me.

What do you think all the small neutral EU nations (like Ireland) would do if an EU nation was attakced?

The US could send in its Postal Employees as shock troops and over run the fury of the european might in a day or two.


Their arsenal would consist of illegal fireworks siezed by the postal inspectors

There wouldn't be a unified response, as France would immediately surrender.

Germany and other EU countries would do a great job of defending their continent, even when the French begin to collaborate.
Honestly.

Germany decides it shouldn't have to share power in the EU with France and decides to invade and set up a puppet government. While they're at it they decide to expand into Poland, the Czech republic, and a few others.
Sound familiar :D
SIEG HEIL!

I`m guessing a large offensive against a EU country or a nuclear terrorist atack on one of the big countries (that should piss them off).

oh come on, that would be so uncreative. even we have more imagination as to do the same thing twice ;)

I watched a History Channel documentary on the FFI (French Resistance) and how they threw down in Paris before the Allies arrived. The FFI took Paris back before the regular French forces rolled into town. I got a new respect for the FFI. WW2 France put all their hopes on the Maginot Line. They are mobile now.

China has the largest air force in the world. Russia might cooperate, claiming an inability to stop and allow flyovers against targets in Europe.

Do all Americans hate France? Why?

All the smart ones. And it has little to do with WWII, and much to do with everything since them.

Besides, our hatred of them pales when compared to their hatred of us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/books/14conn.html?ex=1115870400&en=4a739ba0bdb755aa&ei=5070&oref=login

Next month, the University of Chicago Press will publish a book that attracted much attention when it first appeared in France, in 2002: "The American Enemy: The History of French Anti-Americanism" by Philippe Roger

Mr. Roger, who teaches at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, almost single-handedly creates a new field of study, tracing the nuances and imagery of anti-Americanism in France over 250 years. He shows that far from being a specific reaction to recent American policies, it has been knit into the very substance of French intellectual and cultural life.

As for "Le Resistance..." Even the History Channel vastly overestimates their effectiveness.

The US could send in its Postal Employees as shock troops and over run the fury of the european might in a day or two.

Improbable.

Improbable.


You havent seen our postal workers-they're sociopaths and they carry mace. the EU wouldnt stand a chance.

[QUOTE=Bastard-Squad]Do all Americans hate France? Why? QUOTE]

All the smart ones. And it has little to do with WWII, and much to do with everything since them.

Besides, our hatred of them pales when compared to their hatred of us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/books/14conn.html?ex=1115870400&en=4a739ba0bdb755aa&ei=5070&oref=login

Their hatred is justified. Yours is not. Well it might be justified if you consider mere disaggreement over American foreign policy to be a reason to hate another country. Which you do.

I know what macatai would do in this situation. Make the most of it! :)

I would wait until everyone had streched there forces thin then slowly expand my borders, until I had a very large land mass.

When I have finished I would form a united communist union and pray on all of the countries that came out worse for ware. :)

But whilst in war...meh let the big guns fight it out, i am but the pistol held agianst there back ;)

You havent seen our postal workers-they're sociopaths and they carry mace. the EU wouldnt stand a chance.

LoL to you sir.

LoL to you sir.


Thank you.

Most French are all about hating America. The FFI could not act openly because of mass executions of innocents by German troops. They gathered valuable intelligence, smuggled thousands of Allied pilots and let the Germans have it at the first opportunity. Too bad the FFI doesn't run France today.

About smaller states in the EU...they'd probably just send smaller units than other countries. The Dutch are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those guys would come home to defend the EU.

There wouldn't be a unified response, as France would immediately surrender.

Ahhh. Common, lets stop these stupid assumption. France as greater war history than most of the world. They easely stand next to UK when it come to history of world domination.

Accusing France of being whimpy surrender because they did'nt enter your fake war for liberation against an almost un-armed dictator you putted in place is pure bullshit. Espacially when american war tactic consist most of the time in bombing the place to death while local people does the hard job of occupying the land.

I somehow doubt that the US would attack the EU - too damaging to their economy.

There's only a few countries left that would rather fight the EU than compromise (North Korea, maybe), and I doubt it would take much pressure to change their minds.

Ahhh. Common, lets stop these stupid assumption. France as greater war history than most of the world. They easely stand next to UK when it come to history of world domination.

Yeah I surpose, but theres a difference between the two. The British usually won :)

Ahhh. Common, lets stop these stupid assumption. France as greater war history than most of the world. They easely stand next to UK when it come to history of world domination.

Accusing France of being whimpy surrender because they did'nt enter your fake war for liberation against an almost un-armed dictator you putted in place is pure bullshit. Espacially when american war tactic consist most of the time in bombing the place to death while local people does the hard job of occupying the land.


No one was talking about the Iraq war. Or even when we needed to bomb libya a while back.

Yeah I surpose, but theres a difference between the two. The British usually won :)


The British didnt lay down and accept the Nazis either.

The British didnt lay down and accept the Nazis either.

They did in the Channel Islands (The only part of the UK to suffer Nazi ocupation).

*stir, stir*

They did in the Channel Islands (The only part of the UK to suffer Nazi ocupation).

*stir, stir*


they werent washing Nazi laundry and putting on plays for them. No one pampered the Nazi's every whim and desire like the hospitable french.

Yeah I surpose, but theres a difference between the two. The British usually won :)

*coughNapoleoncoughcough*

Ahhh. Common, lets stop these stupid assumption. France as greater war history than most of the world. They easely stand next to UK when it come to history of world domination..

I agree with that. They've had a lot of small action operational experience in West Africa.




Accusing France of being whimpy surrender because they did'nt enter your fake war for liberation against an almost un-armed dictator .

Wasn't what he was in 1991 Saddam wasn't disarmed or almost so.

you putted in place is pure bullshit.

He forcibly removed his uncle as leader of the Ba'ath Party in the late 1970's. Maybe you're thinking about us supplying military technology to him during the Iraq/Iran War 25 years ago. Enemy of my enemy...much like Russia, France and Germany selling arms to Saddam until the January of 2003. Stand against America by supplying Saddam and stalling in the UN.

Espacially when american war tactic consist most of the time in bombing the place to death

The American military used a tactic named Rolling Thunder. To limit the number of civilian deaths and fear of being hit with chemical weapons they rushed Baghdad and made it there in less than three weeks.

while local people does the hard job of occupying the land.

2000 some odd Iraqi National Guard troops have died fighting the insurgency. The ING is a voluntary force, not a compulsary force. 1500 American men and women have died. hardly an easy job

Hitler didn't even want to fight Britain. He hoped he could get a peace agreement.

The US could send in its Postal Employees as shock troops and over run the fury of the european might in a day or two.

If you don't mind some of them getting lost in the post.

New Watenho']*coughNapoleoncoughcough*

Bad example, he got his ass kicked.

Twice

New Watenho']*coughNapoleoncoughcough*

LoL. Napoleon was good, yes. But at least we got him in trafalgar and then the winter stopped him....Lol.

New Watenho']*coughNapoleoncoughcough*


*coughnapoleonwasn'tfrenchcough*

I think that if any EU country is attacked by another country, it should be treated as an attack on all EU members. Kind of like that NATO clause.

There wouldn't be a unified response, as France would immediately surrender.
Why would the French surrender? Do you have any idea about how ridiculously patriotic they all are? They're even "worse" than you Americans like that!

I'm not sure what exactly would P.O. the EU into war with us, but I'd sure as Hell fight back!
That was not the question.

The US could send in its Postal Employees as shock troops and over run the fury of the european might in a day or two.
Way to flamebait!

Most French are all about hating America.

:rolleyes:
Seriously, the ignorance. The French are people too, with lives, and (mostly) they have much better things to do than anti-American ranting.

Too bad the FFI doesn't run France today.

Maybe they would be better than the Gaullists, but history shows that no matter how glorious and patriotic an armed insurgent group may be, they tend to make an absolute mess when it comes to actually running a country. See the ANC in South Africa. Hell, see most countries in Africa and Asia that used to be colonies.

The British didnt lay down and accept the Nazis either.
By virtue of geography. Being an island is quite convenient in such a situation.

*coughnapoleonwasn'tfrenchcough*
He was French, and even if he was not, the men he commanded certainly were.

*coughnapoleonwasn'tfrenchcough*
coughnapoleonwasemperoroffrancecough coughallthoseguysinthearmywerefrenchcough

coughnapoleonwasemperoroffrancecough coughallthoseguysinthearmywerefrenchcough
Napoleon was french...

(Coriscan, technically, but it was a french protectorate at that time, and thus french)

Napoleon was french...

(Coriscan, technically, but it was a french protectorate at that time, and thus french)

Technically speaking, he had French Citizenship, but he lived in Corsiga untill he went to the Ecole Militarie, IIRC. But, is he really French if he was not born IN France.

Would someone born on Guam consider themselves Guamian, or American? Would somone born on Martinique consider themselves Martiniquecase or French, first?

I'm not quite sure what would unify Europe enough for a war, but I'd be willing to bet that for the EU to bring enough force to bear, they'd have to up their military spending. After all, EU nations spend a whopping 1% of GDP on military, a puny number, as compared to the US, which spends 4.5% GDP on military.

Also, the EU would have to upgrade it's force projection capabilities (read: much bigger Navy), and probably make a unified nuclear command.

While some nations maintain a relatively professional military, others are not so capable. For example, France, Germany and Britain have a good ability to get a relatively trained force into the field in some semblance of time, but what do Luxembourg, Austria, Sweden and the like have? It would take a rather long time to build up a sufficient force.

I've got to go to class, I'd finish my analysis, but I've got to go.

The one big thing that would make the EU take up arms would be a renewed Russian/Soviet threat. They would be eager to demonstrate that they could deal with the renewed threat without the help of the US.

EU vs. US would just result in mass death and no gains....they're borth too far apart andwell-defended.

Unless the EU managed to strategically place troops on US soil by means of spurious international military parades. In which case we'd kick your untrained US asses!

Do all Americans hate France? Why? In WWII many other countries fell to German occuption and had to surrender, including France. France would not immediately surrender, they would put up at least some of a fight, as they always have done.

As for Germany and other EU nations, yes I aggree.

I give France two weeks, just like 1940.

EU vs. US would just result in mass death and no gains....they're borth too far apart andwell-defended.

Unless the EU managed to strategically place troops on US soil by means of spurious international military parades. In which case we'd kick your untrained US asses!


We've got more hicks with guns.

I've got to go to class, I'd finish my analysis, but I've got to go.

thanks for positive topic steering

I have been amazed at the advanced technological level of Sweden's military. Sweden was the first military in the world to equip every soldier with direct cellular equipment and that was in the late 80s. Superior communication increases one's economy of force critically.

Well this thread was probably flamebait but i'll bite...

There are two situations that could bring peaceful nations like the EU to war -
1. Russia wants to rebuild the emipre it had, either Soviet or Imperial, doesn't matter. Maybe communists come back into fashion? Maybe it's right wing nationalists this time? Maybe Putin is a madman? Russia seems like the only nearby nation big enough to start a major war with Europe.

2. The US does something INCREDIBLY pig-headed... which I wouldn't put past us. Say we try and bring "democracy" to Canada. Or invade a respected nation that calls for world assistance. The EU might end up in that war the same way the US joined vietnam, slow aid enevitably turning into full-scale military deployment. Or simpler, the EU just gets sick and tired of the bullshit coming from over here, especially the violent Anti-French bull, and relations deteriorate to the point of war.

Oh, and a side-note for the french haters - French military was better prepared than US military at the outbreak of WWII. If by some trick of geography the US had been next to Germany, it wouldn't have taken much effort for Hitler to kick ass. Lots of ass. And if the issue is the Iraq war, please for the sake of humanity do something incredibly dangerous right now, please.

There wouldn't be a unified response, as France would immediately surrender.




HAWH AHW HAW SHEEIT I TELL YOU WHAT

YOU WAN SOME FREEDOM FRY WITH THATY!?

Well this thread was probably flamebait but i'll bite...

There are two situations that could bring peaceful nations like the EU to war -
1. Russia wants to rebuild the emipre it had, either Soviet or Imperial, doesn't matter. Maybe communists come back into fashion? Maybe it's right wing nationalists this time? Maybe Putin is a madman? Russia seems like the only nearby nation big enough to start a major war with Europe.

2. The US does something INCREDIBLY pig-headed... which I wouldn't put past us. Say we try and bring "democracy" to Canada. Or invade a respected nation that calls for world assistance. The EU might end up in that war the same way the US joined vietnam, slow aid enevitably turning into full-scale military deployment. Or simpler, the EU just gets sick and tired of the bullshit coming from over here, especially the violent Anti-French bull, and relations deteriorate to the point of war.

Oh, and a side-note for the french haters - French military was better prepared than US military at the outbreak of WWII. If by some trick of geography the US had been next to Germany, it wouldn't have taken much effort for Hitler to kick ass. Lots of ass. And if the issue is the Iraq war, please for the sake of humanity do something incredibly dangerous right now, please.

Prepaired tactically, perhaps. Prepaired in a strategic way, no. They staked everything on the maginot line, and it ended up being crap in a handbasket.

I can't think of a situation that would pose a genuine military threat to the EU that would rate a strong military response.

Remember, they dont believe in the world-wide muslim arab "overthrow christianity" conspiracy/army.

AH! I am tired of listening to ignorant Americains attacking the French based on their stance towards US Foreign Policy and their defeat in the Second World War. There are 5 military powers in the world they are The United States, China, Russia, The United Kingdom, and France. Frances military has been drastically changed since their liberation after the second world war, and even more so since the end of the cold war. They are by no means a militarily weak nation. Saying that avoid military conflict out of fear is proposterous.They are and have been constantly engaged in conflicts in Africa where they have done a job commendable in comparison to the strategic quagmire we have created in the middle east. The French Foreign legion is one of the best trained and most elite special forces groups in the world. Historically France has been amoung the few great military nations of the world. Up until the 20th century France was the greatest rival of the British Empire, and despite numerous defeats remained a rival never falling behind the top 4 nations in Europe. In the First World War, France lost more troops in combat than anyother nation, and was considered one of the 3 leading nations in the world by the end of the war. Their defeat in the second world war can be traced to their reliance on the maginot line, and their own political problems in the country pror to the war. The Left insisted on downsizing and decreasing spending on the already low funded and ill equiped military. Hitlers invasion of Poland mean war for France despite their unpreparedness, they were by no means reluctant to fight the Germans. The Collapse of the country did not stop their patriotism or spirit. The real french people fought on, not stopping till allied forces assisted in liberating their country from nazi control. France owes nothing to the United States, or the world. They are a sovreign nation and their decision not to go to war in Irag was just as justified as the United States decision to go to war. If France had participated in a war in Irag, they would be facing the similar problems in their military that the United States now is (which are numerous). Fortunately for France they are not.

Ok, i'll stop rambling

Just for those folks across the Pond. Create a scenario in which the EU would realistically react with unifed force of arms.

The Martian Pirate Cyclops Aliens from Venus invade and try to lay waste to European cultural sites (they looked them up in the UNESCO world cultural heritage catalogue) with their anti-monument lasers forcing the EU to get their act together and kick some serious alien butt the whole way back to Pluto (where the Martian Pirate Cyclops Aliens from Venus are actually from).

o_O

I'll shed some light on the other nations that are not Germany, France, or UK. Sweden, for example, did not participate in any world wars and was not run over by the Soviets or gouded(mispelt i think) into either side for 1 main reason: their policy of enforced neutrality. Every person of military age must do basic training, every few years they go on 3 week tours and remain in ther reserves. At the age of 43ish, they enter a civilian reserve force where they no longer have ot go on tours. In 2 weeks time Sweden is able to mobilize a fully trained and well equipped fighting force of 750 000 soldiers and 100 000 reserves. 750 000 in 2 weeks. That is quite the huge accomplishment. I highly suggest you look more into the other nations military capabilities before going on about how they cannot compare to the 3 above mentioned nations.

The Martian Pirate Cyclops Aliens from Venus invade and try to lay waste to European cultural sites (they looked them up in the UNESCO world cultural heritage catalogue) with their anti-monument lasers forcing the EU to get their act together and kick some serious alien butt the whole way back to Pluto (where the Martian Pirate Cyclops Aliens from Venus are actually from).

o_O


Milk came out my nose. Lol to you.

..



Hear hear! I second that. Finally somebody with reason that won't join in on the useless and absolutely stupid whining and yelling against the French. Btw, I'm german, technically I should be the one bragging against the french. But so much ignorance together just doesn't deserve german support. :p

Hear hear! I second that. Finally somebody with reason that won't join in on the useless and absolutely stupid whining and yelling against the French. Btw, I'm german, technically I should be the one bragging against the french. But so much ignorance together just doesn't deserve german support. :p

ignorance is unforgiveable

In all fairness, the French don't have the best war record as of late.

I'm just saying...

The EU, going to war, United? Major kick ass power.

450 Million people, a GDP of lots of millions, all turned to churning out Leopard's, EuroFighters, and the likes, plus, a shit load of people that throughout history, didnt did anything better than to slaughter themselves for kicks (Im getting nervous: No living relative of mine ever killed a European in a war: I swear I think i belong to the first generation of Europeans that can claimed that.. and i'm not that very happy with it.).

Geared up for war, in a unified command, Europe would kick major ass: ESA would immediatly start putting comunication and military satelites in large numbers, giving us a coverage as large as of the US. There are plenty of countries in the EU with military experience (britain, france), which could compensate the other countries lack of war in recent times (sweden, ireland).

God knows how many people in a fighting age are here, but they must mount to the millions.

We are rich enough to provide them with excelent weapons.

And in case of bigger problems, we can nuke people.

And we all got homicidal genes. We are all lil' hitlers and stalins, inquisitors, Caesars and Napoleons. You don't want to piss us off.

I like the idea that the only reason the EU would go to war is because they were directly attacked. what about action in former controled areas. what about a response to genocide in Africa no war to fix that. if so the EU military is a waste and should sit on the side lines with the UN who also don't think this should be stoped.

AH! I am tired of listening to ignorant Americains attacking the French based on their stance towards US Foreign Policy and their defeat in the Second World War. There are 5 military powers in the world they are The United States, China, Russia, The United Kingdom, and France. Frances military has been drastically changed since their liberation after the second world war, and even more so since the end of the cold war. They are by no means a militarily weak nation. Saying that avoid military conflict out of fear is proposterous.They are and have been constantly engaged in conflicts in Africa where they have done a job commendable in comparison to the strategic quagmire we have created in the middle east. The French Foreign legion is one of the best trained and most elite special forces groups in the world. Historically France has been amoung the few great military nations of the world. Up until the 20th century France was the greatest rival of the British Empire, and despite numerous defeats remained a rival never falling behind the top 4 nations in Europe. In the First World War, France lost more troops in combat than anyother nation, and was considered one of the 3 leading nations in the world by the end of the war. Their defeat in the second world war can be traced to their reliance on the maginot line, and their own political problems in the country pror to the war. The Left insisted on downsizing and decreasing spending on the already low funded and ill equiped military. Hitlers invasion of Poland mean war for France despite their unpreparedness, they were by no means reluctant to fight the Germans. The Collapse of the country did not stop their patriotism or spirit. The real french people fought on, not stopping till allied forces assisted in liberating their country from nazi control. France owes nothing to the United States, or the world. They are a sovreign nation and their decision not to go to war in Irag was just as justified as the United States decision to go to war. If France had participated in a war in Irag, they would be facing the similar problems in their military that the United States now is (which are numerous). Fortunately for France they are not.

Ok, i'll stop rambling

"Till allied forces assisted in liberating their country from Nazi control"? I'm not sure that you can say that the French resistance was successfully driving the Nazis out without all those extra tanks, planes and hundreds of thousands of men....

"France owes nothing to the United States" Well apart from the help in WI and WWII lets not forget the Marshall plan, NATO, or the help they gave in Vietnam before they took over....

I'm not anti-French, although being a Brit we've had our dust ups, and you could turn round to the Yanks and suggest the help you gave them in their War of Independence against us, I'm just not sure about some of your statements....

And to answer the original post....the EU Rapid Reaction Force is such a laughable concept....if Britain is in something that impedes her right to act as a sovereign nation, like in the case of France not engaging in Iraq, I wonder of its usefulness. We'll have all the same probs as the Americans did when they helped us out in the Balkans (when us Europeans absolutely failed to sort out our own probs in our own backyard), who controls what, who's giving the orders, and then the language barriers have to be considered. Should we command our forces in and thus have our commanders learn English, French, German, Dutch?

I think for the foreseeable future we'll have to rely on the Americans until we understand that we need a strengthened EU military force that ahs some idea of what its doing and who's doing what.....

We've got more hicks with guns.
That's true, but the statistics show they'll mostly kill themselves and each other, and the survivors will be taken out by friendly fire from the US Army ^_~

I'd like to point out that the French military and foreign policy at this point are laughable. The fact that the military hasn't won a fight since the late 1800's should tell you some thing. Also if you look at the miltary since the 1940's it has slowly being crippled due to it personal weapons program which costs far to much money and gets the french into weapons dealings with countries it shouldn't be. And if you look at frech foreign policy over the last 50 years it has also showing to be complete crap. And finally haw did that whole thing with bombing the Ivory coast work out are you still in control of their economy. French colonialism still alive today.

And i'm not an american just thought i'd point these things out.

[QUOTE=First of Two]

Their hatred is justified. Yours is not. Well it might be justified if you consider mere disaggreement over American foreign policy to be a reason to hate another country. Which you do.

Of course. the very fact that the hatred is against America automatically makes it justified. :rolleyes:

Oh, and in case you're wondering, the United States has the best military training and technology in the world, which is why we can kick the arse of a force three times larger than us.

Training at the NTC is actually tougher than real war, and the OpFor is pretty small.

Training, technology, and information is what makes an army win, and we have the best of all three. Granted, the Russians will never be beat when it comes to HumInt (Heck, their infiltration of virtually every major power's counterintelligence agency by the ex-KGB isn't exactly a small feat), but the US is the best overall, and will be for quite some time.

So, in an EU/US war, which is what people seem to be leaning towards, the United States would win. Depending on our tactics, though, we would probably sustain heavy casualties.

An invasion of the United States by the EU, though, would first off be nearly impossible, but assuming it was accomplished, the insurgents in Iraq would look like hippies in a flower power parade in the 60's.

You see, America has a large population, and lots of that population is armed. Plus, our superior military would kick just about everything that came up to it's arse.

And that's not nationalism speaking (well, that's part of it), either -- it's just plain fact.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, the United States has the best military training and technology in the world, which is why we can kick the arse of a force three times larger than us.

Yea, the Japanese had all that in the beggening of WW2, and that didnt helped them much.. the US had a bigger weapon: Its economy.



Training, technology, and information is what makes an army win, and we have the best of all three. Granted, the Russians will never be beat when it comes to HumInt (Heck, their infiltration of virtually every major power's counterintelligence agency by the ex-KGB isn't exactly a small feat), but the US is the best overall, and will be for quite some time.


The two first can be bought. The third.. well, we saw the third working in Iraq :p


So, in an EU/US war, which is what people seem to be leaning towards, the United States would win. Depending on our tactics, though, we would probably sustain heavy casualties.

An invasion of the United States by the EU, though, would first off be nearly impossible, but assuming it was accomplished, the insurgents in Iraq would look like hippies in a flower power parade in the 60's.

You see, America has a large population, and lots of that population is armed. Plus, our superior military would kick just about everything that came up to it's arse.

And that's not nationalism speaking (well, that's part of it), either -- it's just plain fact.

Curiously, the reverse is also true..

Bitter from there constant rejection by the EU, Turkey forges an alliance with China and N. Korea. After the discovery of vast fields of untapped olive oil the Turkish economy surges ahead and the government begins a massive military build up.
Using the battle cry, Forward to Vienna, The Turkish army launches a surprise attack into Bulgaria and the Balklan states. Greece is bought off to secure the Turkish left flank. Rapid progress is made as Turkish armies sweep across southeast Europe.
The largely French and German controlled EU at first turns a blind eye to this, believing that Vienna isn't worth fighting for. They do mobilize much of their military however. The UK and Italy argue a stand should be made but are out voted.
Vienna falls and the Turks, heady with victory and tired of classical music decided the time is ripe to turn westward. The Swiss quickly declare nuetrality and offer the Turks a 10% interest rate on all new bank accounts opened before the end of June.
Forced to fight the newly created EU Rapid Response force organizes and marches off to war. The people of France immediately strike because the war might mean they will miss some vacation time and the work week will have to be increased by one hour.
Newly elected US prez Condi Rice offers to send help. . .but the Turks refuse saying they can handle the situation. Italy suddenly switches sides and joins the marching Turkish armies.
The UK looks for a strike deep in Turkish held territory selecting a viable landing site near a small town named Gallipoli, they quickly land a large contingent of Australian troops who have come to help defend the UK. However, this time the Australians have wised up and they dupe the English into attacking the cliffs while they sit on their beach taking in the sun.
In the end Istanbul falls but the Turks hold the eastern side of the Bosphorus (spl?) and Italy switches sides again.

In a blanket statement, as of now, it would be impossible for the European Union to sucessfully invade the United States. The very concept is laughable.

Bitter from there constant rejection by the EU, Turkey forges an alliance with China and N. Korea. After the discovery of vast fields of untapped olive oil the Turkish economy surges ahead and the government begins a massive military build up.
Using the battle cry, Forward to Vienna, The Turkish army launches a surprise attack into Bulgaria and the Balklan states. Greece is bought off to secure the Turkish left flank. Rapid progress is made as Turkish armies sweep across southeast Europe.
The largely French and German controlled EU at first turns a blind eye to this, believing that Vienna isn't worth fighting for. They do mobilize much of their military however. The UK and Italy argue a stand should be made but are out voted.
Vienna falls and the Turks, heady with victory and tired of classical music decided the time is ripe to turn westward. The Swiss quickly declare nuetrality and offer the Turks a 10% interest rate on all new bank accounts opened before the end of June.
Forced to fight the newly created EU Rapid Response force organizes and marches off to war. The people of France immediately strike because the war might mean they will miss some vacation time and the work week will have to be increased by one hour.
Newly elected US prez Condi Rice offers to send help. . .but the Turks refuse saying they can handle the situation. Italy suddenly switches sides and joins the marching Turkish armies.
The UK looks for a strike deep in Turkish held territory selecting a viable landing site near a small town named Gallipoli, they quickly land a large contingent of Australian troops who have come to help defend the UK. However, this time the Australians have wised up and they dupe the English into attacking the cliffs while they sit on their beach taking in the sun.
In the end Istanbul falls but the Turks hold the eastern side of the Bosphorus (spl?) and Italy switches sides again.


That, friend, was hilarious!

I'd like to point out that the French military and foreign policy at this point are laughable. The fact that the military hasn't won a fight since the late 1800's should tell you some thing. Also if you look at the miltary since the 1940's it has slowly being crippled due to it personal weapons program which costs far to much money and gets the french into weapons dealings with countries it shouldn't be. And if you look at frech foreign policy over the last 50 years it has also showing to be complete crap. And finally haw did that whole thing with bombing the Ivory coast work out are you still in control of their economy. French colonialism still alive today.

And i'm not an american just thought i'd point these things out.

Um excuse me, The French did not lose WW1, and don't give me the crap that they would've if it hadn't been for the US, i don't have time for that BS. The French have successfully restored order to any number of their former colonies over the last 40 years, each of which were military operation just as volatile as the US war in afghanastan. And the French Military is probably around 5th or 6th in the world right now, so i wouldn't call it laughable. Do you care to explain how you came to the conclusion that France's foreign policy has turned out to be crap over the last 50 years, because last i checked France has one of the best international relations in the world after countries like the Netherlands and Canada.

Um excuse me, The French did not lose WW1, and don't give me the crap that they would've if it hadn't been for the US, i don't have time for that BS. The French have successfully restored order to any number of their former colonies over the last 40 years, each of which were military operation just as volatile as the US war in afghanastan. And the French Military is probably around 5th or 6th in the world right now, so i wouldn't call it laughable. Do you care to explain how you came to the conclusion that France's foreign policy has turned out to be crap over the last 50 years, because last i checked France has one of the best international relations in the world after countries like the Netherlands and Canada.

Where would i even start with a list of failings of the french foreign policy. I would start with it's involvement with Vietnam, then possibly the war in Algeria, then Haiti, then maybe Senegal the Ivory coast. Also restored order or put back under French control. also then the selling of weapons to interesting choice of countries in Africa and the Middle east. Followed by it's complete failure to raly any support world wide to any recent causes. or in some cases not even ask (Ivory coast) Then on to the military. The fact that you won WW1 is questionable to start the whole war was fought in France and was most deffientaly would have lost with out the British let alone the US. Then ever since the failed wars in North Africa military recruitment has gone down funding and training has gone down because of the need to build their own nukes and not buy them from the US. Leading to the inabilty to fund the military properly. Now do you have any thing to add to your side and i remind you it is ranked 6th(maybe) more like 20th at best or right behing all the other nuke capable countries. because of it's nuke capability. I'd say this would be a good start. And what do you mean by best international relations. ( and if it's bombing soverign countries for protests still talking about the Ivory Coast here then maybe)

The EU, going to war, United? Major kick ass power.

450 Million people, a GDP of lots of millions, all turned to churning out Leopard's, EuroFighters, and the likes, plus, a shit load of people that throughout history, didnt did anything better than to slaughter themselves for kicks (Im getting nervous: No living relative of mine ever killed a European in a war: I swear I think i belong to the first generation of Europeans that can claimed that.. and i'm not that very happy with it.).

Geared up for war, in a unified command, Europe would kick major ass: ESA would immediatly start putting comunication and military satelites in large numbers, giving us a coverage as large as of the US. There are plenty of countries in the EU with military experience (britain, france), which could compensate the other countries lack of war in recent times (sweden, ireland).

God knows how many people in a fighting age are here, but they must mount to the millions.

We are rich enough to provide them with excelent weapons.

And in case of bigger problems, we can nuke people.

And we all got homicidal genes. We are all lil' hitlers and stalins, inquisitors, Caesars and Napoleons. You don't want to piss us off.
we certainly do have plenty of experience killing things... thousands of years... that can't be overlooked

I'll shed some light on the other nations that are not Germany, France, or UK. Sweden, for example, did not participate in any world wars and was not run over by the Soviets or gouded(mispelt i think) into either side for 1 main reason: their policy of enforced neutrality. Every person of military age must do basic training, every few years they go on 3 week tours and remain in ther reserves. At the age of 43ish, they enter a civilian reserve force where they no longer have ot go on tours. In 2 weeks time Sweden is able to mobilize a fully trained and well equipped fighting force of 750 000 soldiers and 100 000 reserves. 750 000 in 2 weeks. That is quite the huge accomplishment. I highly suggest you look more into the other nations military capabilities before going on about how they cannot compare to the 3 above mentioned nations.
I think we can see from recent history that a technologically superior professional military is much better trained than what is basically a conscripted national guard. I hate to deride Sweden, but that's the truth, sure, they train three weeks a year, and 750,000 troops can be called up in two weeks, but varying other impacts (such as on the economy, losing such a large percentage of the workforce so rapidly does not help economies one bit), and other potential strategic issues (deployment, force projection) are not very strong. The Swedish military is basically a domestic defense force from what I understand..

The EU, going to war, United? Major kick ass power.

450 Million people, a GDP of lots of millions, all turned to churning out Leopard's, EuroFighters, and the likes, plus, a shit load of people that throughout history, didnt did anything better than to slaughter themselves for kicks (Im getting nervous: No living relative of mine ever killed a European in a war: I swear I think i belong to the first generation of Europeans that can claimed that.. and i'm not that very happy with it.).

Geared up for war, in a unified command, Europe would kick major ass: ESA would immediatly start putting comunication and military satelites in large numbers, giving us a coverage as large as of the US. There are plenty of countries in the EU with military experience (britain, france), which could compensate the other countries lack of war in recent times (sweden, ireland).

God knows how many people in a fighting age are here, but they must mount to the millions.

We are rich enough to provide them with excelent weapons.

And in case of bigger problems, we can nuke people.

And we all got homicidal genes. We are all lil' hitlers and stalins, inquisitors, Caesars and Napoleons. You don't want to piss us off.


As usual, the time it would take to activate and create such a force and the economic shock that would result from a sudden switchover would be very, very painful. For the EU to pull the same amount of military behavior as the US would takes years.

Had this topic focused on America you can bet people would shake their heads at how foolish the Americans look as they talk about how powerful their own military is.

As usual, the time it would take to activate and create such a force and the economic shock that would result from a sudden switchover would be very, very painful. For the EU to pull the same amount of military behavior as the US would takes years.

Which is why the EU needs to be making changes now. The changes to make a defence force for all of the EU should be taking place for a continued deeping of the EU. Also if they do plan on forming a military which they should it would be important to add Turkey since thats the vital man power the EU would need could come from. their going to join sooner or later might as well add them in now.

Beyond that, the current generation of, say, German troops is totally combat non-tested. We have absolutely no idea how they'd perform in an actual war. It can be seen a little bit about the French, and the UK in loads, but other than that...nothing.

Where would i even start with a list of failings of the french foreign policy. I would start with it's involvement with Vietnam, then possibly the war in Algeria, then Haiti, then maybe Senegal the Ivory coast. Also restored order or put back under French control. also then the selling of weapons to interesting choice of countries in Africa and the Middle east. Followed by it's complete failure to raly any support world wide to any recent causes. or in some cases not even ask (Ivory coast) Then on to the military. The fact that you won WW1 is questionable to start the whole war was fought in France and was most deffientaly would have lost with out the British let alone the US. Then ever since the failed wars in North Africa military recruitment has gone down funding and training has gone down because of the need to build their own nukes and not buy them from the US. Leading to the inabilty to fund the military properly. Now do you have any thing to add to your side and i remind you it is ranked 6th(maybe) more like 20th at best or right behing all the other nuke capable countries. because of it's nuke capability. I'd say this would be a good start. And what do you mean by best international relations. ( and if it's bombing soverign countries for protests still talking about the Ivory Coast here then maybe)

To respond to your remarks about the French Foreign Policy, May i remind you that each of the conflicts you listed that it was involved with were inevitable results of post colonialism, and The British faced similar problems, though theirs were milder due to chance of location. It was however not a result of French diplomatic direction, but the hole all of the colonial powers dug for themselves by siezing control of so many peoples. Their weapons sales have been for the most part indescriminatory, as have Russias, Germanies, and Chinas. Though their exchange with the "questionable parties" has hardly hurt their standing in the International Community. In fact a recent international poll (in which i believe 30 countries participated), ranked France 1st or second as a positive influence in the world, with nations like China, the United States, and Russia, ranked as negative influences. True that the French did not respond as enthusiastically to Bushes crusade as the Brit's, but that is hardly to say that they have not made an effort to support any major modern international movements. In fact, the containment of terrorism is probably the only cause the US has supported since the end of the Cold War. While France has assisted in leading Nuclear Proliferation, Anti - Globalisation, and international cooperation in aiding underdeveloped countries. On to WW1. The whole war was not fought in France, and the participation of the US in the Great War was hardly as contributary as that of the Brits. I don't know what you're schools and history books have told you, but When the US entered the war it's military was ranked 16th behind Portugal and Switzerland. Your involvement was less signifigant than that of Austrialia, Canada's, and Belgiums (despite the fact that they were overrun almost immediately).
Without the US France Probably would have lost Paris eventually, even with the slow Klauswitzian tactices implemented in the German Army, though the belief they would have lost, that is debateable. On to the modern military, you are correct about Frances training program decreasing in quality and spending. Infact, our military training has decreased in quality to the point where it almost matches Britains in spending and efficiency, though we still come out better off than our Island Rival. We are the 3rd Greatest Nuclear power actually if you would check your facts. Russia having the most in quantity, followed by the US, and then France. Also, our military funding is the highest in Europe statistically. So i wouldn't say it's gone down too dramatically. And by best international relations i meant it's standing in foreign countries, France is one of the most revered nations in Europe, and is seen as one of the most positive influences in the world.

Not to say that I'm opposed to a strong EU, in fact, I'm incredibly in favor of it! A militarily unified Europe would be strong and useful ally to the US, and hopefully another challenge to the growing threat of China. If we could see NATO become more of a partnership of equals (instad of big US and bunch of little Euros) I'd also be happy.

To respond to your remarks about the French Foreign Policy, May i remind you that each of the conflicts you listed that it was involved with were inevitable results of post colonialism, and The British faced similar problems, though theirs were milder due to chance of location. It was however not a result of French diplomatic direction, but the hole all of the colonial powers dug for themselves by siezing control of so many peoples. Their weapons sales have been for the most part indescriminatory, as have Russias, Germanies, and Chinas. Though their exchange with the "questionable parties" has hardly hurt their standing in the International Community. In fact a recent international poll (in which i believe 30 countries participated), ranked France 1st or second as a positive influence in the world, with nations like China, the United States, and Russia, ranked as negative influences. True that the French did not respond as enthusiastically to Bushes crusade as the Brit's, but that is hardly to say that they have not made an effort to support any major modern international movements. In fact, the containment of terrorism is probably the only cause the US has supported since the end of the Cold War. While France has assisted in leading Nuclear Proliferation, Anti - Globalisation, and international cooperation in aiding underdeveloped countries. On to WW1. The whole war was not fought in France, and the participation of the US in the Great War was hardly as contributary as that of the Brits. I don't know what you're schools and history books have told you, but When the US entered the war it's military was ranked 16th behind Portugal and Switzerland. Your involvement was less signifigant than that of Austrialia, Canada's, and Belgiums (despite the fact that they were overrun almost immediately).
Without the US France Probably would have lost Paris eventually, even with the slow Klauswitzian tactices implemented in the German Army, though the belief they would have lost, that is debateable. On to the modern military, you are correct about Frances training program decreasing in quality and spending. Infact, our military training has decreased in quality to the point where it almost matches Britains in spending and efficiency, though we still come out better off than our Island Rival. We are the 3rd Greatest Nuclear power actually if you would check your facts. Russia having the most in quantity, followed by the US, and then France. Also, our military funding is the highest in Europe statistically. So i wouldn't say it's gone down too dramatically. And by best international relations i meant it's standing in foreign countries, France is one of the most revered nations in Europe, and is seen as one of the most positive influences in the world.

Alright where to start here. I know your nuclear capabilities and that was not the point it was the fact that this is the only reason the military is ranked in the top ten. and as far as nuclear programs Isreal has the most advanced in the world right now. The fact that Frances foreign conflicts is very important to their foreign policy just as the US and UK have to deal with their conflicts in the past. the fact that the US and the UK were able to move out of those conflicts with out as much trouble should tell something about their foreign policy. The fact that they are still tangled with these conflicts is an even further showing of faliure. they are still involved in North Africa and the the Ivory Coast. just because they are part of past colonialism which is foreign policy is besides the point they have been handled poorly and are stilled handeled poorly. WW1 my comment did include the UK and it's allies and yes i would say hat the US was pretty crappy by the time they came into the war i said no less(maybe you havn't noticed i'm not american) and all of the war involving France was fought in France there was an eastern front but that didn't seem to stop the Germans from stomping all over France. I also have no problem with France not signing on the the US lead invasion of Iraq it was a smart move on their part. they still have to many problems in their backyard(Africa). It also would cause their secular country into and uncomfortable position. and to top it off it finally thrust them back on to the world stage something lacking in recent years. And the fact that their part of other international programs does not mean their leading them in any way shape or form. This and the decrease in military training and funding also bring question on how well the French military can function. In Iraq the british have to use a majority of US equipment their radios don't work for an example so they have to use the US to relay messages. I'm sorry to say if thats who you compare your self to then it further prove the military is in disary and in need of a change. Like signing on to the EU constitution and the forming of a EU military and combined foreign Policy.

Alright where to start here. I know your nuclear capabilities and that was not the point it was the fact that this is the only reason the military is ranked in the top ten. and as far as nuclear programs Isreal has the most advanced in the world right now. The fact that Frances foreign conflicts is very important to their foreign policy just as the US and UK have to deal with their conflicts in the past. the fact that the US and the UK were able to move out of those conflicts with out as much trouble should tell something about their foreign policy. The fact that they are still tangled with these conflicts is an even further showing of faliure. they are still involved in North Africa and the the Ivory Coast. just because they are part of past colonialism which is foreign policy is besides the point they have been handled poorly and are stilled handeled poorly. WW1 my comment did include the UK and it's allies and yes i would say hat the US was pretty crappy by the time they came into the war i said no less(maybe you havn't noticed i'm not american) and all of the war involving France was fought in France there was an eastern front but that didn't seem to stop the Germans from stomping all over France. I also have no problem with France not signing on the the US lead invasion of Iraq it was a smart move on their part. they still have to many problems in their backyard(Africa). It also would cause their secular country into and uncomfortable position. and to top it off it finally thrust them back on to the world stage something lacking in recent years. And the fact that their part of other international programs does not mean their leading them in any way shape or form. This and the decrease in military training and funding also bring question on how well the French military can function. In Iraq the british have to use a majority of US equipment their radios don't work for an example so they have to use the US to relay messages. I'm sorry to say if thats who you compare your self to then it further prove the military is in disary and in need of a change. Like signing on to the EU constitution and the forming of a EU military and combined foreign Policy.

In response to your statement regarding Frances entanglements in Africa, they are mostly due to the hostile inhabbitants. The British were fortunate enough to colonize predominately less violent peoples, the French got some of the real nasties, like the vietnamese, and those that continue to give them problems in Cote d'ivoire. And please by all means name to me the countries that would knock france out of the top ten were it's nuclear capabilities removed (aside from Germany, whose military strength i am quite familiar with). The British despite their inability to supply their troops similarly to the United States has one of the best trained fighting forces in the world. France is fortunate enough to not only be able to properly supply their troops but also train them with the same thoroughness as the United Kingdom. The French Military is the best in Europe, it would be foolish to argue otherwise, and I am tired of hearing crap about their inferiority.

An invasion of the United States by the EU, though, would first off be nearly impossible, but assuming it was accomplished, the insurgents in Iraq would look like hippies in a flower power parade in the 60's.

I don't know about that. Although armed, Americans are comfortable and very unused to fighting war. I have doubts that Americans could fight more viciously than the Iraqi insurgents. I doubt they would tolerate sustaining as many causalties. I doubt they would bring themselves to decapitating their enemies.

Etc.

In response to your statement regarding Frances entanglements in Africa, they are mostly due to the hostile inhabbitants. The British were fortunate enough to colonize predominately less violent peoples, the French got some of the real nasties, like the vietnamese, and those that continue to give them problems in Cote d'ivoire. And please by all means name to me the countries that would knock france out of the top ten were it's nuclear capabilities removed (aside from Germany, whose military strength i am quite familiar with). The British despite their inability to supply their troops similarly to the United States has one of the best trained fighting forces in the world. France is fortunate enough to not only be able to properly supply their troops but also train them with the same thoroughness as the United Kingdom. The French Military is the best in Europe, it would be foolish to argue otherwise, and I am tired of hearing crap about their inferiority.

I really don't think inferior would be the words i would use. Now obviously Germany would be my choice, as you seemed to remove them your self and who are we counting as the other 6. they have proven themselves in Afghanistan and so has the French special forces which many American forget are helping the US army to hunt down Osama. And yes i would say their choice in countries to take over kinda sucked in the end. The fact is that the British had a better time disengaging from their foreign commitment then the French. british leaveing Afghanistan when the french decided to fight it out in Algeria. They thought they were better and could push them around they were wrong and this decision was made time and time again in Africa and some other countries. this was a foreign policy dicision and who was it De Gaulle who reversed this idea.

I don't know about that. Although armed, Americans are comfortable and very unused to fighting war. I have doubts that Americans could fight more viciously than the Iraqi insurgents. I doubt they would tolerate sustaining as many causalties. I doubt they would bring themselves to decapitating their enemies.

Etc.

have you seen some american car bombs i remember seeing pictures of Oklahoma city. that building was gone.

seems there is a new book-

The Arrogance of the French
Why They Can't Stand Us - and Why the Feeling is Mutual

Personally- I don't know enough about the french to hate them, although I am kinda getting a feeling they hate us. I did hear something about some president of thiers being all chummy with saddam. And they do seem kind of arrogant.... but I don't know how far I'd take it- that "freedom fries" buisness was ridiculous.

I really don't think inferior would be the words i would use. Now obviously Germany would be my choice, as you seemed to remove them your self and who are we counting as the other 6. they have proven themselves in Afghanistan and so has the French special forces which many American forget are helping the US army to hunt down Osama. And yes i would say their choice in countries to take over kinda sucked in the end. The fact is that the British had a better time disengaging from their foreign commitment then the French. british leaveing Afghanistan when the french decided to fight it out in Algeria. They thought they were better and could push them around they were wrong and this decision was made time and time again in Africa and some other countries. this was a foreign policy dicision and who was it De Gaulle who reversed this idea.

I can find truth in alot of that, except the decision to just abondon a country has some pretty heavy reprecussions, what happened when Britain left Afghanastan? And Iraq? And Egypt, Sudan, the list goes on and on. Simply abandoning a country when faced with oposition is not always the best longterm foreign relations decision.

In all fairness, the French don't have the best war record as of late.

I'm just saying...

Yes, hmm... Lets compare them to the germans?

30 years war: Screwed up either way

Kept for hundreds of years in seperate states(nearly 300), especially by French pressure on them. They weren't winning any wars then.

Napoleonic wars: Prussians were constantly defeated, despite having much larger numbers. France was only defeated when beaten in russia, and pushed back with russian and british doing the majority of signifigant work against the French(The point im going for is, this can be either a win or a loss. Whichever you choose, goes the same for france in ww2).

Franco-prussian: Ok, they get this one. Bismark gets a gg.

WW1: Germans lose.

WW2: Germans lose.

So for major conflicts, they have 1 win, and 4 losses, with other toss-ups and minor conflicts.

My point is, few nations can give great military win records. Italy doesn't get many points either.

I don't know about the nation of france, but the french guy who lives down the hall from me is starting to smell...

In response to your statement regarding Frances entanglements in Africa, they are mostly due to the hostile inhabbitants. The British were fortunate enough to colonize predominately less violent peoples, the French got some of the real nasties, like the vietnamese, and those that continue to give them problems in Cote d'ivoire. And please by all means name to me the countries that would knock france out of the top ten were it's nuclear capabilities removed (aside from Germany, whose military strength i am quite familiar with). The British despite their inability to supply their troops similarly to the United States has one of the best trained fighting forces in the world. France is fortunate enough to not only be able to properly supply their troops but also train them with the same thoroughness as the United Kingdom. The French Military is the best in Europe, it would be foolish to argue otherwise, and I am tired of hearing crap about their inferiority.

Actually, germany would have little chance against France. They have better land forces, not as well trained but more men and equipment. However, France easily dominates Germany in air power, and in conventional war, air power is much more important than ground forces.

Alright where to start here. I know your nuclear capabilities and that was not the point it was the fact that this is the only reason the military is ranked in the top ten. and as far as nuclear programs Isreal has the most advanced in the world right now.


Ignorant much?

Israel has a couple hundred free fall nukes, at best. France has a large SSBM force that is constantly improving, as well as one of the best airforce-based nuclear forces. Aside from USA and Russia, France is the third strongest nuclear power. UK and China have less weapons, and worse deployability.

I imagine that Germany is still weak from World War II. I mean really we destroyed them. (We as in everybody but Japan and other Nazi allies, besides the Middle East who didn't help either side.) But I think that ALL of the european countries could take out America during an invasion. Until we used nukes of course. God I love nukes!

First off, I'd like to say that if someone in this country displays to me a rabid hatred of France, I usually will not like them, as that, I believe, is a symptom of something far worse in America today.

I think I learned somewhere that America used to be the leader of the free world, that we, with a strong economy, military might, and compassion, sought to help defend democracy. Nowadays, it seems that we feel that we are above the rest of the world, that we seemingly represent what the 'right' people should think, even if the UN, EU, and hundreds of thousands of protestors say otherwise.

Am I against the Iraq War? If it was fought under other pretenses, with the support of the free world, I would have been for it. As it is, I think it was a war started by false statements, and one that had squandered decades of good will.

But, I digress. The question of the thread was "Can you think of a conceivable situation in which a peaceful EU might go to war?"

Now, I don't know much about Europe's military sophistication, size, or readiness, but I can see three possible scenarios:

1) A new Cold War. Russia, in an attempt to gain back its Empire, or to form a new one, attempts a takeover of Eastern European and Baltic states. The EU would need to intervene to defend member nations, and to halt any further advances. I would note that the United States would probably assist the EU with this.

2) A conflagration of war erupts in the Pacific. North Korea invades South Korea, and China invades Taiwan, possibly Japan. Both of the countries begin to entrench their positions. The United States, in order to liberate and defend her allies in the area, would call upon the EU for troops and naval support. After all, the Brits aren't inexperienced with liberating far-away islands with smaller forces.

3) Second American Civil War. An American President, with a majority of Congress, makes an extra territorial power grab. Certain states side with the President, others against. The EU might make the choice to assist dissenting states, Most likely in heavy naval support and assistance to National Guard units.

Hell, I'm no military expert, and that last one was wishful thinking, so I'd welcome any corrections.

One last thing: Can someone explain to me why France sold Exocet missiles to Argentina, who then used them against the UK in 1982?

I’m not anti-French, but some things confuse me.

Ignorant much?

Israel has a couple hundred free fall nukes, at best. France has a large SSBM force that is constantly improving, as well as one of the best airforce-based nuclear forces. Aside from USA and Russia, France is the third strongest nuclear power. UK and China have less weapons, and worse deployability.
Random totally unrelated thought: I'd put the Chinese nuclear forces behind the UK's.

Can someone explain to me why France sold Exocet missiles to Argentina,


Nope

Random totally unrelated thought: I'd put the Chinese nuclear forces behind the UK's.

I would too

"Till allied forces assisted in liberating their country from Nazi control"? I'm not sure that you can say that the French resistance was successfully driving the Nazis out without all those extra tanks, planes and hundreds of thousands of men....

And the french helped drive the germans out in africa and italy. Easily some of the most courageous troops in the war were the French in italy, who took incredibly dangerous areas. It was a war, and allies help each other as possible. Nobody is saying Vichy France was a good thing.

"France owes nothing to the United States" Well apart from the help in WI and WWII lets not forget the Marshall plan, NATO, or the help they gave in Vietnam before they took over....

Marshal plan helped the US economy nearly as much as it helped the French one. NATO, again, helped the US with its policy of containment, just as much as it helped France defend itself. In vietnam, you gave lots of economic aid, but it pales in comparison to the failure of the Americans at Dien Bien Phu. The use of a small number of american bombers in Dien Bien Phu could have effectively changed the battle outcome, but Eisenhower decided not to get involved, as international opinion was increasingly against the war. Wow, I thought only the French folded against international pressure?

Replies in bold

Israel has a couple hundred free fall nukes, at best. France has a large SSBM force that is constantly improving, as well as one of the best airforce-based nuclear forces. Aside from USA and Russia, France is the third strongest nuclear power. UK and China have less weapons, and worse deployability.

Israel has the best ground force army in the world. Their like 8-0 or something with invading muslims so they've got to be tough!

And agreeing with some posts before, I dont feel like quoting them all, but I'm not the biggest fan of France. France isn't the biggest fan of the U.S. either though. Either way I think they are pretty brave and stuff, especially after Normandy. French beside Americans, how could they lose :-D??

Replies in bold
well, as far as the Dien Bien Phu bit...

-The French actually did have the airpower to knock out the Vietminh artillery, but at the time, the weather was absolutely dreadful, and made tactical airstrikes all but impossible. Eisenhower couldn't have helped by using air power.

to those of you who feel the need to incesently rag on the French...yes, they are the third most powerful nation in the world, behind the US and Russia respectively. and yes, I am an American (though i hate to admit it, what with the current state of affairs and all)

One last thing: Can someone explain to me why France sold Exocet missiles to Argentina, who then used them against the UK in 1982?

I’m not anti-French, but some things confuse me.

It was nothing personal. Germany, britain, and america sold iran weapons during the 50's(though I realize there are other reasons for that). America is selling F-16's to pakistan. Europe is considering selling to China now. Its just money, and with the exception of Iran(why did I even include it? lol), not based on ideological reasons.

well, as far as the Dien Bien Phu bit...

-The French actually did have the airpower to knock out the Vietminh artillery, but at the time, the weather was absolutely dreadful, and made tactical airstrikes all but impossible. Eisenhower couldn't have helped by using air power.

The weather wasnt that bad, flying missions was still possible. They were able to drop Napalm from C-47's, the weather interfered with the burning though. B-29's using HE bombs would have done the trick, especially since the artillery was on hills.

They also could have used nuclear weapons, as some proposed. Thats not tactical ^_^

It was nothing personal. Germany, britain, and america sold iran weapons during the 50's(though I realize there are other reasons for that). America is selling F-16's to pakistan. Europe is considering selling to China now. Its just money, and with the exception of Iran(why did I even include it? lol), not based on ideological reasons.

Really? I thought as much on the French to Argentina business, but I don't think it would be the right idea to give the Chinese better military technology at the moment.

China just worries me, that's all.

If any nation would attack Europe I guess.
Say America would invade they would meet the full fury of European might.

HAHHAAHAAA

Israel has the best ground force army in the world. Their like 8-0 or something with invading muslims so they've got to be tough!

The Israelis dont have a large number of forces, though training, equpment, etc is top notch. My point was about nuclear forces. They still refuse to say they even have them.

Really? I thought as much on the French to Argentina business, but I don't think it would be the right idea to give the Chinese better military technology at the moment.

China just worries me, that's all.

Well, nobody likes to be dethroned. Not to be used in a direct sense, but as erasmus is constantly quoted, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or, to adapt trumans idea of russia vs germany, just let US and China fight it out, supporting whoever is weaker at the time, until they kill each other off.

HAHHAAHAAA

I like laughing too. Its good for you.

The weather wasnt that bad, flying missions was still possible. They were able to drop Napalm from C-47's, the weather interfered with the burning though. B-29's using HE bombs would have done the trick, especially since the artillery was on hills.

They also could have used nuclear weapons, as some proposed. Thats not tactical ^_^
I've gotten a different slant on the weather at Dien Bien Phu than that. I've heard that it was absolutely crummy. But you might be right, I'm not an expert on Vietnam.

I've gotten a different slant on the weather at Dien Bien Phu than that. I've heard that it was absolutely crummy. But you might be right, I'm not an expert on Vietnam.

It certainly wasnt bright and sunny, but it was good enough to fly missions. Certianly effectiveness would be reduced, but its not very hard to find artillery, on a hill, firing.

I blame the Chinese and americans for DBP. The chinese for training the vietnamese artillery, and the americans for not destroying it ;)

[QUOTE=First of Two]

Their hatred is justified.(The French) Yours is not(US). Well it might be justified if you consider mere disaggreement over American foreign policy to be a reason to hate another country. Which you do.


They hate us why? Because Anglo-American forces had to liberate them? Maybe it was WWI and when we helped there. Could be when we built up a military power in Westren Europe to defend against the Warsaw pact. Wow i guess jealous and embarrasment does turn into a powerful hatred after all.

Yea, the Japanese had all that in the beggening of WW2, and that didnt helped them much.. the US had a bigger weapon: Its economy.

Oh, right. I forgot that part. :D My bad. Well, you have to HAVE an economy to get these things, no? Well, Japan did, but it forgot you also need an economy to KEEP them -- which we had. Big Whoopsie on their part.

The two first can be bought. The third.. well, we saw the third working in Iraq :p

I'm pretty sure I know what your thinking, but politics aside, we did, actually, see it working and NOT working in Iraq. Information and superior tactics, military, etc, got us Baghdad in three weeks. The lack of it is showing as we have not caught that bastard Zarqaui (sp butchered).


Curiously, the reverse is also true..

As in US occupying EU? I didn't say we could occupy the EU, but you'd have a tougher time occupying us than us you.

Well, nobody likes to be dethroned. Not to be used in a direct sense, but as erasmus is constantly quoted, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or, to adapt trumans idea of russia vs germany, just let US and China fight it out, supporting whoever is weaker at the time, until they kill each other off.

Got that right.

I must admit that I am somewhat apprehensive over China's overtaking of America. I'm more worried about China overtaking the US culturally, however. If American culture remained dominant, I would be less fearful.

And I should hope Europe's interest is less mercenary then that. Although I'm not saying that Europe should support us no matter the war, I hope that we havn't alieanated them so far as to have China viewed as a viable alternative.

They hate us why? Because Anglo-American forces had to liberate them? Maybe it was WWI and when we helped there. Could be when we built up a military power in Westren Europe to defend against the Warsaw pact. Wow i guess jealous and embarrasment does turn into a powerful hatred after all.

Hahahahaha couldn't say it better myself

[QUOTE=Bastard-Squad]


They hate us why? Because Anglo-American forces had to liberate them? Maybe it was WWI and when we helped there. Could be when we built up a military power in Westren Europe to defend against the Warsaw pact. Wow i guess jealous and embarrasment does turn into a powerful hatred after all.

Yay for picking choice evidence!

Perhaps its because the americans havn't had the french's best interests at heart with all this help? WW1 wasn't for the French benefit. Not ww2. Nor marshall plan, or nato. The Suez defidentally wasnt a nice thing. Refusing to help in dien bien phu, isnt a nice thing. The US hate toward France doesnt help either.

Im against either of the countries hating each other, though. They've both done good and bad things to each other. Just be civil, ffs.

Do all Americans hate France? Why? In WWII many other countries fell to German occuption and had to surrender, including France. France would not immediately surrender, they would put up at least some of a fight, as they always have done.

As for Germany and other EU nations, yes I aggree.
1. We bail them out of WWI
2. We bail them out of WWII
3. Then they quit nato? What is wrong with them?
4. They get us into vietnam
5. They make fun of us and call us uncultured idiots

The point is after all we've done for them they still show no respect to us what so ever. (Eventually France did get back in with nato)

I can find truth in alot of that, except the decision to just abondon a country has some pretty heavy reprecussions, what happened when Britain left Afghanastan? And Iraq? And Egypt, Sudan, the list goes on and on. Simply abandoning a country when faced with oposition is not always the best longterm foreign relations decision.

Hells yes i hear that. Know the US has to decide between the two policies they needed to learn wouldn't work. Back out screw the country in the long run or stay and fight and ruin themseleves. Learn from history thats what i'm saying on this one.

EU will never engage in a war. Rather they will engage in a war using NATO as a face if it just so happens Europe is involved in a war. It is more sensible to use NATO since military coordination adn sharing of information is done through NATO. Technically EU isnt supposed to be a military federation, only an economic one. The only EU forces are Inter-Europe(like Interpol)and coast gaurd on the medditeranian sea and atlantic. No military resources are allocated in EU because NATO takes care of that. Plus with NATO the US will be obliged to aid Europe in a war. Although I might add NATO has an unstable record of coming to the aid of its members. Such as it ignoring the Turkish invasion of Cyprus(Both were NATO members at the time and still are) among otehr things. Im not pointing fingers im just saying tis more sensible to use NATO as a means of military protection or however else you want to say it.

Ignorant much?

Israel has a couple hundred free fall nukes, at best. France has a large SSBM force that is constantly improving, as well as one of the best airforce-based nuclear forces. Aside from USA and Russia, France is the third strongest nuclear power. UK and China have less weapons, and worse deployability.

Read up. Isreal has larger bombs then any other country and the ability to use their own nuclear subs to launch them. Now where not knocking the frech program but as far a quality and capability i think Isreal has them beat.

Ok heres a site i found rough idea since no one knows the full extent of their weapons program. this guys just complaining but it goes over what they have. looking for more credible.
http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/steinbach.htm
and this will deal with the free fall BS
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/israel.htm

Personally- I don't know enough about the french to hate them, although I am kinda getting a feeling they hate us. I did hear something about some president of thiers being all chummy with saddam.
That's true, but so were Reagan and Rumsfeld.

I imagine that Germany is still weak from World War II. I mean really we destroyed them. (We as in everybody but Japan and other Nazi allies, besides the Middle East who didn't help either side.) But I think that ALL of the european countries could take out America during an invasion. Until we used nukes of course. God I love nukes!
1. Germany has recovered since WW2, as has the rest of Europe. We went from rubble to riches. Quite fantastic, aren't we. :D

2. The Middle East was mostly occupied by the Allies at the time.

3. France and the UK have nukes too. So does Russia.

Its just money, and with the exception of Iran(why did I even include it? lol), not based on ideological reasons.
I find that young Americans tend to be much more fixated on ideology than Europeans. Ideology seems to be a much bigger thing for Americans. Europeans tend to do what they think will work.

HAHHAAHAAA
Ah, an Intellectual!

Read up. Isreal has larger bombs then any other country and the ability to use their own nuclear subs to launch them. Now where not knocking the frech program but as far a quality and capability i think Isreal has them beat.
This may be true but Israel's nuclear weapons do not officially exist.

Read up. Isreal has larger bombs then any other country and the ability to use their own nuclear subs to launch them. Now where not knocking the frech program but as far a quality and capability i think Isreal has them beat.

Ok heres a site i found rough idea since no one knows the full extent of their weapons program. this guys just complaining but it goes over what they have. looking for more credible.
http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/steinbach.htm
and this will deal with the free fall BS
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/israel.htm

A. Larger bombs are less effective. Read up.

B. The submarine launched nuclear weapons are not ballistic missiles, but american cruise missiles modified to carry nuclear loads. Not nearly as powerful, or as long ranged, as the French M-51's, which are MIRV. France can strike pretty much anywhere within the world, with its submarines spread out a little.

C. Im not saying that the Israelis have a bad program, but its defidentally not better than the French one. Its smaller in scale, and while it suits Israels needs, it would have signifigant trouble against a nuclear power in a trade-off.

Ignorant much?

Israel has a couple hundred free fall nukes, at best. France has a large SSBM force that is constantly improving, as well as one of the best airforce-based nuclear forces. Aside from USA and Russia, France is the third strongest nuclear power. UK and China have less weapons, and worse deployability.

Eh? What kind of kaka is that. The UK uses trident II, it's the best system.

B. The submarine launched nuclear weapons are not ballistic missiles, but american cruise missiles modified to carry nuclear loads. Not nearly as powerful, or as long ranged, as the French M-51's, which are MIRV. France can strike pretty much anywhere within the world, with its submarines spread out a little.


Ok the M-51's have a service range of 6,000Km
which is the same as the new upgraded Shavit's system so i don't know range seems about equal. i think the sofistication and complexity of the Isreali system is also important compare to the french i'd say they are on very equal terms and the French will soon fall behind, which maybe a good thing France needs to channel more money to regular military and away from it's uclear program and have for a while.

Orrite now here's my 2 cents worth:

1. The EU is not set up to lauch full scale invasions of other countries. NATO has taken that role, but if American foreign policy will continue to be dominated by an ideology that is incompatible with European attitudes to war and violence, that may change soon. Smaller Peace-Keeping missions that involve many EU-countries are of course much more common and only have to be sanctioned by the UN (the only institution in the world with the authority to declare war, everything else is a "war of aggression", which was enough to hang the heads of the German Army in Nürnberg).

2. The French and the Americans hate each other for many reasons (if I can be so general). The French feel like their way of life is under threat from US-Imports, but that's hardly the whole reason. The Americans operate (once again) with stereotypes in mind, that lead every hick in (for example) Alabama to hate "the French" without having any idea why, but that's not the whole story either.
Yet "European Appliances" are appreciated nonetheless...

3. France has a long and glorious history of war. They conquered Britain (William of course being Norman, which came from France at the time), they defeated the British in the colonies. Afterall, the British didn't surrender to Washington, they surrendered to the French Fleet. Napoleon overthrew all of Europe with his charismatic leadership and innovative tactics. The French also fought valiantly in WW1. I would like to say that the Americans did not win that one. As far as I'm concerned, they weren't even involved for pretty much the whole time, joining when Germany was at the end of its' strength.
In WW2, the french army was well equiped and trained, but having learnt from WW1 a little too literally, it was tied up in the Maginot Line. Germany went around that and broke through at Sedan. It was only a small break-through though and it is one of the great mysterys in history how a little tactical retreat could spread like that. That is of course not a French thing, similiar things have happened in other armies at other times. After Sedan, there was no point in continuing the fight on the mainland. The British of course abandoned France before any decision to surrender was actually made.
Americans in general seem not to know or not to care. They think France surrendered for no reason at all, and America would of course have fought and defeated the Germans in no time at all.

4. Israel has nuclear weapons, which will be capable of striking any of its neighbours. More is not needed, as the rest can be covered from Washington. They don't need nukes of course, as their neighbours will not attack it anymore, nukes are no good against hamas or hisbollah and if they launch them, they get the radioactive fallout. The French have nukes too, which can strike at all kinds of places. They don't need them either. The Pakistanis and Indians have them too. They would only need them to blow each other to bits and that'll be bad for them and for us. And North Korea probably has them. At least they have some justification for them, since they are one of the countries most likely to be attacked by a much superior, hostile military power.

5. France didn't get the US into Vietnam. They decided it was enough after the Viet Minh (was that what it was called?) fought them for years, and they couldn't beat them. America later figured it had to intervene because of their ideological motives. The people that were in the Viet Minh decided to fight the foreigners once more and the Viet Cong (and the NVA of course) fought them until the US left. No more, no less.

If anyone disagrees, feel free to argue...

Civil war in Liechtenstein

Who would win Lichtenstein, Luxenburg, Andorra or The Vatican?

San Marino

Who would win Lichtenstein, Luxenburg, Andorra or The Vatican?
Vatican.
Andorra has no army (French (thihi) look after them)
hmmm...Luxemburg is very rich, maybe they could buy some other counry to fight for them. But so could Vatican.

San Marino
lol. They are the badasses of Europe

There wouldn't be a unified response, as France would immediately surrender.

Germany and other EU countries would do a great job of defending their continent, even when the French begin to collaborate.

Orrrr. Millions of French would heroically risk their lives defending the world against an evil dictator, America would sit back and profiteer selling weapons to both sides, only daring/bothering to lend a hand when their precious country is threatened, hang around for a year then act as if they won the war singlehandedly.
Perhaps.

But seriously i would say the Vatican. I think that around 10 million catholics would fight if the pope said it.

But seriously i would say the Vatican. I think that around 10 million catholics would fight if the pope said it.
The Vatican has that going for them, but Andorra and Lichtenstein might easier to defend, being in mountainous regions.

The Vatican has that going for them, but Andorra and Lichtenstein might easier to defend, being in mountainous regions.


And the fact that they have around 30000 inhabitants
:)

Aliens came and disintergrated Tony Blair so the EU unites to thank them?

Do all Americans hate France? Why? In WWII many other countries fell to German occuption and had to surrender, including France. France would not immediately surrender, they would put up at least some of a fight, as they always have done.

As for Germany and other EU nations, yes I aggree.

France burdened them with that bloody big statue that is trumpeting the values they're trying so hard to get rid of. It would be a heck of a lot easier to install a dictatorship if this huge metal figure wasn't there to remind people of what their country is supposed to symbolize.

Of course they're annoyed. Wouldn't you be? :p

It would have to be something majorly European-unfriendly. I rule something involving Russia or the US, since Schröder and Putin are close buddies and Blair and Bush are too. Maybe if the Arab League managed to unite itself (which is even less plausible than a united European foreign policy) and attacked Europe, Europe would unite. But NATO would probably play a bigger role in that.

Germany could never "rise again" against everyone and neither could any EU nation without a severe amount of time that would alert the others. France and Germany integrated their coal and steel industries in the 50s - hello how do we make guns without everyone else knowing about it? :rolleyes:

Not sure if this still applies to you Germans but isn't there a clause in your Basic Law (Constitution) that says that you can't get involved in an outside war unless it is humanitarian or aid-related? That was what most of the bother was about when you helped us in Kosovo. (Or was that just pacifists? :confused: )

American foreign policy at the moment just annoys the hell out of everyone I think and there doesn't seem much we can do about it - no amount of political pressure seems to stop your administration from doing whatever it likes. But whether we'd go to war with you to stop it is debateable, spesh as we've got Blair the Bush-kisser in No.10 mucking around with our personal freedoms in another attempt to emulate Bush :mad:

Seriously, where are you guys gonna stop?! Our "official opposition" the Conservative Party said before the election that they also would have taken us to war in Iraq. I mean what can you expect from people like this? They clearly do want to make the world a safer and nicer place, no doubt, it can't be COMPLETELY about oil, but shouldn't Bush and the gang have already gone to the UN to ask about going to war in Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea... Hey let's do it all at the same time eh? :rolleyes:

Back to the original topic (rant over :D ) the EU cannot collectively go to war at the moment. It is more possible that it could when / if the constitution is passed as we'd have a foreign minister, but now the EU would have no involvement unless every single country in it (that's 25 - big number) wanted to, and then the EU as a supranational force would have no control as war would be conducted between the allied countries and not as a EU vs. Whoever.

Bit laughable that you're all arguing about military history of the US here, since unless you're native american, your ancestors either came from Europe or some part of the world controlled by Europe (African Colonies were basically either French, Belgian or British. Germany I don't think had even one and Italy only had a couple).

So no one but the French has ever surrendered when faced with obliteration have they? Well we have. War of Independence - you get your freedom and your fancy statue (from the French themselves I might add). Every country that had colonies has due to the massive self-determination movements in the last century, which the USA backed politically, if not militarily (so you told us to do it basically).

Everyone laughs at the French. Everyone laughs at the Germans. Everyone laughs at the Americans. Everyone (I presume) laughs at us Brits. But few take it to the level that the US does against France. Plenty of other people were against the war in Iraq, so why pick on France specifically. If you want to know most of the population of the UK were against it too, it's just that the Government doesn't seem to listen to us, so why don't you start calling us tea-drinking, chippy-eating you-can't-even-control-your-own-government-monkeys?! See how far you can stretch Blair's support for you - go on! I dare ya! :D

A little while ago in this thread, someone made the amusing remark that US Postal workers would be an effective invading force against the EU.

This of course would be met by a EU Postal Worker's counter attack, notorious for their savage nature...

Also a little while ago in this thread, someone came up with the scenario that Turkey would go against the EU, paying off Greece.

I can assure you that Greece is one of those against Turkey joining the EU, because of bitter, bitter history, not least the issue of Cyprus, and my guess is that in such a scenario of Turkey invading nations, Greece would be the first to attack Turkey.

I have noticed just recently, on this forum website and others I frequent, that there is a growing trend that suggets The European Union is going to be America's new Cold War enemy, more so than China or Russia or North Korea, and that the EU will be allies with China.

Added to this belief is that the EU lives under Draconian laws, and is medieval.

We don't eat children. Honest.


Lastly, to counter the EU-China partnership claims, the EU signed a mutal defence and trade deal with Russia yesterday.

I don't think this is to be used against America, although if they attacked, than maybe it would, but rather, against China.

Russia borders China and also borders the EU, and Russia are concerned about China becoming even more powerful, who themselves, have signed a similar deal with India.

So the world is shaping up thus.

The US. The EU-Russia pact, China-India pact.

I do feel that there will be problems within the EU-Russia pact, not least the fact that many former soviet republics are joining the EU, which concerns Russia, 60 years ago, The Soviets expanded into Europe, now Europe's Union is expanding into the former Soviet Union. The one remaining loyal to Russia being Belarus.

The US. The EU-Russia pact, China-India pact.
1984 anyone?

1984 anyone?
:eek: *gets scared*

Replies in bold

What you're saying is very true. I'm not disparaging the fact that the French aren’t courageous or tough fighters, as a Brit we know how tenacious and how much élan they possess. My comment was over the fact that without the Allied forces, a large chunk being American, (although the Russians significantly helped our cause in the East and that never should be forgotten), the French resistance was not going to drive the Nazis out by itself, I don't see how you can say that irregular tactics (especially as it didn't have an ideology behind it, except maybe nationalism, but then French officials did collaborate with the Germans), was going to defeat a conventional armed force that wasn't bound by any restrictions of bad publicity or international condemnation. Only conventional force was going to do that. The comment should be "and the French resistance assisted the allies in driving the Nazis out"

Your second points are true but again I have queries with them.

Firstly Marshal aid rebuilt Western Europe after we had bankrupted ourselves so efficiently. I've no doubt that it helped America economically, (shit, the only way the Brits got the Liberty ships was after agreeing to significant loan repayments and allowing American bases on British territory etc), but it also helped us against Communism, and I'm not talking the happy clappy let's all share the wealth kind but the quite brutal and oppressive Stalinist kind that pervaded post-1945.

NATO did indeed help America with containment....but if there had been a Russian invasion, who would have been the one's to firstly suffer? West Germany, France, the lowlands, Spain, Italy, (other countries), and possibly Britain although I'm unsure of the Russian naval capability at the time for an invasion across the Channel. If it helped America, it also helped us out too.

It's true the Americans gave only economic aid, but that’s before you had Nixon and other Republican hawks stirring up the Red threat with the Domino's theory is South East Asia. It was JFK who started sending the first military "advisers" to South Vietnam, its one of those "what ifs...." if he would have escalated the conflict before LBJ ran with the ball....

And let's not forget the Americans stopped our adventure with the French in trying to stop Nasser and all those pesky Egyptians in 1956....the last hurrah of two dying empires.....

:eek: *gets scared*
*has a secret affair*

*gets rats on my face*

1984 anyone?

My point precisely. Now, if we wanted to refer to it deeper, we could look at the US-EU-Russia cold war scare story.

"We are at war with Eurasia, we are always at war with Eurasia"

Or, indeed should it be cold war with China, North Korea:

"We are at war with Eastasia, we are always at war with Eastasia."

Orwell predicted a World War II by 1940, but such an event was probably obvious by the 30's anyway, the same thing being said about superstates.

*has a secret affair*

*gets rats on my face*
*eats weetabix from a cats ass*


edit: am i missing something intellectual from 1984? :confused:
been years since i read it

What you're saying is very true. I'm not disparaging the fact that the French aren’t courageous or tough fighters, as a Brit we know how tenacious and how much élan they possess. My comment was over the fact that without the Allied forces, a large chunk being American, (although the Russians significantly helped our cause in the East and that never should be forgotten), the French resistance was not going to drive the Nazis out by itself, I don't see how you can say that irregular tactics (especially as it didn't have an ideology behind it, except maybe nationalism, but then French officials did collaborate with the Germans), was going to defeat a conventional armed force that wasn't bound by any restrictions of bad publicity or international condemnation. Only conventional force was going to do that. The comment should be "and the French resistance assisted the allies in driving the Nazis out"

Your second points are true but again I have queries with them.

Firstly Marshal aid rebuilt Western Europe after we had bankrupted ourselves so efficiently. I've no doubt that it helped America economically, (shit, the only way the Brits got the Liberty ships was after agreeing to significant loan repayments and allowing American bases on British territory etc), but it also helped us against Communism, and I'm not talking the happy clappy let's all share the wealth kind but the quite brutal and oppressive Stalinist kind that pervaded post-1945.

NATO did indeed help America with containment....but if there had been a Russian invasion, who would have been the one's to firstly suffer? West Germany, France, the lowlands, Spain, Italy, (other countries), and possibly Britain although I'm unsure of the Russian naval capability at the time for an invasion across the Channel. If it helped America, it also helped us out too.

It's true the Americans gave only economic aid, but that’s before you had Nixon and other Republican hawks stirring up the Red threat with the Domino's theory is South East Asia. It was JFK who started sending the first military "advisers" to South Vietnam, its one of those "what ifs...." if he would have escalated the conflict before LBJ ran with the ball....

And let's not forget the Americans stopped our adventure with the French in trying to stop Nasser and all those pesky Egyptians in 1956....the last hurrah of two dying empires.....

LBJ stirred up the Reds with talk, Nixon warmed relations more than any previous president. He started detente with the Soviets and with the Red Chinese. Later Republicans were much more hardliners but Nixon was not. Nixon was the first US Prez to visit Red China.

(although the Russians significantly helped our cause in the East and that never should be forgotten), .....

I think 26 million war and war-related dead is quite significant, although I should add that it was not just the Russians who made up The Soviet Union, there was Georgia, Ukraine, Mongolia and the Stans, and other countries that made up The Soviet Union.

*has a secret affair*

*gets rats on my face*

Ungood!

Orrite now here's my 2 cents worth:

1. The EU is not set up to lauch full scale invasions of other countries. NATO has taken that role, but if American foreign policy will continue to be dominated by an ideology that is incompatible with European attitudes to war and violence, that may change soon. Smaller Peace-Keeping missions that involve many EU-countries are of course much more common and only have to be sanctioned by the UN (the only institution in the world with the authority to declare war, everything else is a "war of aggression", which was enough to hang the heads of the German Army in Nürnberg).

2. The French and the Americans hate each other for many reasons (if I can be so general). The French feel like their way of life is under threat from US-Imports, but that's hardly the whole reason. The Americans operate (once again) with stereotypes in mind, that lead every hick in (for example) Alabama to hate "the French" without having any idea why, but that's not the whole story either.
Yet "European Appliances" are appreciated nonetheless...

3. France has a long and glorious history of war. They conquered Britain (William of course being Norman, which came from France at the time), they defeated the British in the colonies. Afterall, the British didn't surrender to Washington, they surrendered to the French Fleet. Napoleon overthrew all of Europe with his charismatic leadership and innovative tactics. The French also fought valiantly in WW1. I would like to say that the Americans did not win that one. As far as I'm concerned, they weren't even involved for pretty much the whole time, joining when Germany was at the end of its' strength.
In WW2, the french army was well equiped and trained, but having learnt from WW1 a little too literally, it was tied up in the Maginot Line. Germany went around that and broke through at Sedan. It was only a small break-through though and it is one of the great mysterys in history how a little tactical retreat could spread like that. That is of course not a French thing, similiar things have happened in other armies at other times. After Sedan, there was no point in continuing the fight on the mainland. The British of course abandoned France before any decision to surrender was actually made.
Americans in general seem not to know or not to care. They think France surrendered for no reason at all, and America would of course have fought and defeated the Germans in no time at all.

4. Israel has nuclear weapons, which will be capable of striking any of its neighbours. More is not needed, as the rest can be covered from Washington. They don't need nukes of course, as their neighbours will not attack it anymore, nukes are no good against hamas or hisbollah and if they launch them, they get the radioactive fallout. The French have nukes too, which can strike at all kinds of places. They don't need them either. The Pakistanis and Indians have them too. They would only need them to blow each other to bits and that'll be bad for them and for us. And North Korea probably has them. At least they have some justification for them, since they are one of the countries most likely to be attacked by a much superior, hostile military power.

5. France didn't get the US into Vietnam. They decided it was enough after the Viet Minh (was that what it was called?) fought them for years, and they couldn't beat them. America later figured it had to intervene because of their ideological motives. The people that were in the Viet Minh decided to fight the foreigners once more and the Viet Cong (and the NVA of course) fought them until the US left. No more, no less.

If anyone disagrees, feel free to argue...

I'll argue with you...

Point number 3: the French didn’t conquer Britain. France as a nation wasn't even born yet. Only after it kicked us out and united itself can you say that. The Normans, and Normandy, were Vikings. Normandy "means lands of the Vikings", given (if I can remember) by an indigenous noble (Roland? not sure) as a territory so they wouldn't keep raiding the place. 1066 and all that had the Anglo-Saxon, or the English if you prefer but the idea of an "England" or "France" in the nationalist sense wasn't yet a concept, was invaded, conquered, and dispossessed by a mixture of Scanadavian freebooters....hurrah!!!

If you want to say you beat us in the colonies than we can say we beat you many times in the Hundred Years War, the Austrian succession (with the help of others), the Spanish succession (ditto), the Napoleonic Wars (ditto), and stole all your colonies after 1786 and 1815, and kicked you out of India and Canada....hurrah for the British Empire!!! What does this prove, nothing, just wanted to say it.

WWI was fought valiantly by the French and British and it was primarily won by them. But let's not forgot that I doubt Ludendorff would have launched his last offensive in 1917 without the knowledge that the men and material that the US could supply would eventually squash them. With that offensive merely finally exhausting his armies.

If you look at WWII you'll see that the French were better equipped than the Germans, maybe not better trained, but they had more planes, tanks (the French actually possessed the best ones, just didn't use them right), artillery and probably men. We just faced an enemy that had innovative tactics, crazy élan like generals and some luck who cut us to pieces because they had learned the right lessons from WWI and the Brits and French had not. And why are you bitter that us Brits hopped over the Channel when you say the war was not worth fighting on the mainland....without the Brits and the island as a staging post I don't think D-Day would have occurred. Should we have stayed until a formal surrender? That's a very British attitude to have I suppose, very gentlemanly like.

1. We bail them out of WWI
2. We bail them out of WWII
3. Then they quit nato? What is wrong with them?
4. They get us into vietnam
5. They make fun of us and call us uncultured idiots

The point is after all we've done for them they still show no respect to us what so ever. (Eventually France did get back in with nato)


WW I: You came in when most of the fighting was done ans only because the german command tried to ally itself with mexico and was stupid enough to let the americans intercept the message.

WW II: Again, the peak was over. Germany had lost WW II already in Stalingrad. The invasion of the Normandy could have been stopped if they had used the german tank reserve in France. But only Hitler himself could order theses into battel and he was soudn asleep at the beginning of hte incasion.

They quit NATO? These dumbasses who aloud them to make strategic decision for themselves???

You got yourself into Vietnam. Nobody asked you to put that many ressources into it. You could have turned the french down. In the beginning it was just the french against the vietnamese, but with the involvment of the US it became another case of the Cold War.

Everybody makes fun of you, especially since you have elected such a president. Twice. Also you do the same to them.


I think people like you often tend to forget that the French supported you when you were fighting the british for your independence. To think the french owe you something without considering what they have done for you too is ignorant and arrogant

LBJ stirred up the Reds with talk, Nixon warmed relations more than any previous president. He started detente with the Soviets and with the Red Chinese. Later Republicans were much more hardliners but Nixon was not. Nixon was the first US Prez to visit Red China.

That's true. But you'll admit he was originally one of the hardliners who adhered and expoused the Domino theory to a great degree. But like a practical pollitican he saw the bigger picture. I'm not having a pop, just making a comment about why US involvement in Vietnam wasn't greater when the French were there.

WW I: You came in when most of the fighting was done ans only because the german command tried to ally itself with mexico and was stupid enough to let the americans intercept the message.

WW II: Again, the peak was over. Germany had lost WW II already in Stalingrad. The invasion of the Normandy could have been stopped if they had used the german tank reserve in France. But only Hitler himself could order theses into battel and he was soudn asleep at the beginning of hte incasion.

They quit NATO? These dumbasses who aloud them to make strategic decision for themselves???

You got yourself into Vietnam. Nobody asked you to put that many ressources into it. You could have turned the french down. In the beginning it was just the french against the vietnamese, but with the involvment of the US it became another case of the Cold War.

Everybody makes fun of you, especially since you have elected such a president. Twice. Also you do the same to them.


I think people like you often tend to forget that the French supported you when you were fighting the british for your independence. To think the french owe you something without considering what they have done for you too is ignorant and arrogant

Your second point. Would you rather have France liberated by the Russians?

Your fourth point, so then its imperialism/colonalism you were defending. And you made Algeria appear to be one of a Communist insurgency when it was really independence/nationalism.

And the French have in Jacques Chirac a leader that once he finally leaves office will be taken to court for corruption charges when he was mayor of Paris. The only reason he's not in court is because he's your President and can't be touched.

Firstly Marshal aid rebuilt Western Europe after we had bankrupted ourselves so efficiently. I've no doubt that it helped America economically, (shit, the only way the Brits got the Liberty ships was after agreeing to significant loan repayments and allowing American bases on British territory etc), but it also helped us against Communism And the question still remains.... Are they her to proctect us or have we been under occupation for over fifty years?? It's one of those evil snickery snick plans New Rome(USA) has!! One day a swarm of chicken fried eating- to fat to move will come in there fancy military shit and wack us all!! And then, perhaps they have stept in the salad, and joined history's irony as all great empires, it's inevitable; THEY WILL FALL!! (they are just streching for more and more, not true? try standing on a chair, put a box of cakes just within reach and while you stand on the chair strech, strech and strech)

by Tiocfaidh ar la

Your second point. Would you rather have France liberated by the Russians?

Your fourth point, so then its imperialism/colonalism you were defending. And you made Algeria appear to be one of a Communist insurgency when it was really independence/nationalism.

And the French have in Jacques Chirac a leader that once he finally leaves office will be taken to court for corruption charges when he was mayor of Paris. The only reason he's not in court is because he's your President and can't be touched.


He's not my president. I'm German, something you would have realized by looking under my nick. And since I don't know a single politican that is not in some way corrupt or recieves money from some company...well this doesn't shock me at all. Unfortunately, this behavior has beomce normal under politicians.

I don't know enough about the Algier-conflict, so I won't comment on that. But i didn't defend Imperialism, in never said that it was a good thing what happened. All i said that teh french didn't get you in Vietnam inevitably. It was not like the US didn't have a choice about it.

He's not my president. I'm German, something you would have realized by looking under my nick. And since I don't know a single politican that is not in some way corrupt or recieves money from some company...well this doesn't shock me at all. Unfortunately, this behavior has beomce normal under politicians.

I don't know enough about the Algier-conflict, so I won't comment on that. But i didn't defend Imperialism, in never said that it was a good thing what happened. All i said that teh french didn't get you in Vietnam inevitably. It was not like the US didn't have a choice about it.

I apologise. I didn't mean to refer to you as French, (and don't anyone who is French get the hump), I meant it in a general way, not directed at you.
Hey everyone thinks I'm American and refers to me as such.....

Leonstein: The British of course abandoned France before any decision to surrender was actually made.

Well I think the fact The German Army had overrun France, and were forcing the British Expeditionary Force to retreat to Dunkirk took any other alternative away.

The alternative being the British contingent stay and fight, and get encircled and slaughtered in the process by the panzers, leaving Britain exposed to attack by losing such manpower.

The French appealed for air cover, but Churchill could see France was lost, and to apply the British RAF to defend France, when Germany was turning to gain control over the skies of Britain would have been simply absurd and suicidal for Britain.

In short, if Britain had abandoned France, and the other countries attacked, it would have been through signing a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany after Dunkirk. As it was, Britain did not, and it fought on, aiding the French Resistance, and supplying The Soviet Union, fighting in the navy battles, in the air, and being a nerve base for Commando raids against The Third Reich.

In short, your statement shows your knowledge and grasp of the situation, and of the events that followed, to be very poor indeed.

Well, firstly, I am German, just so everyone knows where I'm coming from.

William was of course Norman. That is not the same as being Viking, since they had lived there for a long time and developed their own culture, which was substantially different from what we know as Vikings.
That doesn't make them French, but since they came from France, and the direct line of the French kings from that time has been severed, I would say modern day France can trace its' roots back to them as well as to the inhabitants of the rest of the country.

Ludendorff launched his offensive because Russia had just been defeated, and the extra material available allowed him to stage one last attack, bigger than anything seen before. Of course he would have been mindful of the Americans, which is why he attacked in early 1918 and not later. That hardly makes the Americans a war winning force. The French fought valiantly there and managed to stop "us" just in time. Another mention deserve the Australians, who defended long and often successfully where the British had left, already considering whether the war wasn't lost and one shouldn't start preparing for peace talks. (how about that for defusing a situation...)

WW2 as far as I am concerned was mainly fought in the East. The UK's army was relatively tiny and ill-prepared at that time when the French were defeated and so the French had no reason to believe the English would endure and come back. As such, the French were arguing whether it was better to end the war for good (for example Petain), or whether it would be better to continue the fight in the colonies (De Gaulle). There was no way they could have continued the fight on the mainland.
Some French generals were planning to create a fortress at the channel coast, and asked the English for help in these new operations. By that time however the English had decided to pull all troops out, sever contact with the French for all intents and purposes and ignore their requests for the evacuation for French forces to Normandy, from where they could have continued the fight. That was mainly for logistical reasons of course, but there were times in the end, when most British were evacuated, where it would have been possible to do.

The landing in Normandy was a pointless exercise. The war was probably not even shortened by six months. The Allies had waited long enough for the East to be decided before they landed. The ratios of the German Army's East/West deployment should underline that. Sure, one can be grateful for the French not being subjected to the same horror the German civilians were when the Russians (by that meaning Russians, Cossacks, Kazakhs, Mongolians and all the others) came. Which doesn't excuse anything that happened to the Russian civilans before that. But the fact is that, in the end, the USSR won the war, and the Allies were more or less auxilliary support. Anything that happened before was merely the prologue. (and I still don't understand why the German Air Force had to resort to bombing civilians in Britain, when the destruction of the RAF had been only days away).

As for my knowledge of the subject, i would suggest that I have read just as much about it as you have, possibly more, and when I didn't go into the tiniest detail, and simplified things for space reasons and that offended you, I am sorry. But think hard before you start dishing out insults to people you don't even know.

America was pretty much tied down in the Pacific to do much in Europe, though, remember. When Germany surrendered, we were still fighting the Japs.

Also, I believe Normandy DID help shorten the war by a few months, but I'm sure there was more to it.

Our alliance with the USSR was a classic case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I'm pretty sure FDR and his people forsaw that the USSR and America were not going to be friendly with each other after the war, so we went in to take as much of Europe away from the USSR before Stalin could dominate Europe and make the USSR and its puppet states extend further than it already did.

Think of it, though -- without the US taking as much of Europe as possible, USSR would have probably won the Cold War early on, and we'd be much worse off than we are now.

Your second point. Would you rather have France liberated by the Russians?

You act as though thats an inherently bad thing?

Here's the scenario:

08/11/05 The U.S. are still preoccupied with Afghanistan & Iraq, Syria looks critical and is invaded when Israel destroys the Irianian nuclear facilities which doesn't help to stabilize the Middle East.

09/11/05 China attacks Russias East to fuel its newly strengthened economy with Russian natural ressources. (The Bear & the Dragon)

10/11/05 The U.S. veto a NATO intervention in favor of a bilateral U.S.-Russian pact (which Russia rejects because the U.S. demand too much of Russias natural ressources.)

11/11/05 Being the good neighbor the E.U. is, we support the Russians defend their Federation, sending troops, producing weapons and such (in return of Russian natural ressources, of course for the next hundred years!).

12/11/05 The U.N. security council backs the precedings

01/11/06 China invades Taiwan

02/11/06 North Korea invades South Korea.

03/11/06 The U.S. attack North Korea which launches a nuclear strike against Tokyo in retaliation.

04/11/06 Meanwhile, Russia & China make peace talks under European mediation at the U.N. which results in a treaty of partnership.

05/11/06 Europaisian economy booms while the U.S. struggle to fight two wars, one in the Middle East, on in Asia.

06/11/06 Iran attacks Iraq & Afghanistan to liberate their brethren from U.S. occupation

07/11/06 Pakistan's military takes over and decides to take Kashmire by force, thus resulting in a dangerous but short exchange of nuclear strikes with its neighbor India.

08/11/06 The E.U., Russia & China convince India and the newly erected Muslime Empire (which streches from Egypt to Pakistan, Yemen to Tadschikistan) to a peace treaty. The Middle East & Indian economy strengthen with Africa and South America as their market.

09/11/06 Israel is guaranteed for by the E.U. as well as the Russian Federation.

10/11/06 Russia and the E.U. deliver weapons to China.

11/11/06 The U.S. pull their troops out of the Middle East, focusing on their struggle against the Koreans. First reports from North Korea speak of Russian Kalashnikovs and European assault rifles found at weapon storages, numbering in the 100,000s. Strangely enough, these trademark brands all carry a little sign "Made in China".

12/11/06 - 12/11/07 The U.S. installs military regimes in Indonesia, the Phillipines, and half of South America. The war in North Korea reaches a new hight.

05/11/08 The U.S. withdraw their 5 aircraft carriers which have been constantly bombing the Second Babylonian Empire of Persia: "Mission accomplished". They are directly rerouted to their new combat zone: Asia.

09/11/08 Several U.S. embassies are overrun or bombed in Africa, South America, Asia, the Middle East.

12/11/08 The U.S. withdraw their last troops from Europe to bring an end to the 2nd Korean War.

01/11/09 Canada opens its borders for U.S. citizens aging 17 till 45 who are dodging the draft in their hundreds each day. European embassies enforce a strict visa practice for U.S. citizens, including fingerprints, biometrics, the genetic fingerprint, a complete fiscal scan (to cover possible charges) as well as a complete family background scan jurisdictional investigation.

03/11/09 The South American continent is in constant turmoil, the U.S. enforce a strict anti-terrorist-diplomacy, sending troups and private security firms into their "backyard".

04/11/09 Fidel Castro dies.

05/11/09 The aircraft carriers U.S.S. Ronald Reagan (CVN 77) and the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush (CVN 78) join the Navy's newest carrier group around the U.S.S. George W. Bush (CVNX 79): "Pig Pay II - Big Payback".

06/11/09 Mexico closes its borders for U.S. emigrants, resulting in an economic embargo and military threats by the newly elected U.S. president Jeb Bush and his vice president Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Nasa receives enourmous funding for S.D.I. - Skylab.

07/11/09 Canada closes its borders for U.S. emigrants, resulting in an economic embargo and military threats by the newly elected U.S. president Jeb Bush and his vice president Arnold Schwarzenegger. The E.U. and Russia sign an entent cordiale, resulting in the biggest non-NATO maneuver in Canada "Frozen Ground - The Blizzard".

08/11/09 According to rumors supported by the New York Unterground* (*formerly known as the New York Times before governmental censorship) information of African, Arab and Asian mercenaries in South America has led to a deterioration of President Jeb Bush's health condition.

09/11/09 President Jeb Bush dies of a sudden heart attack, Vice-president Arnold Schwarzenegger steps in his place. On the day President Schwarzenegger's official inauguration, riots break out all over the United States. The president declares martial law and a general curfew.

10/11/09 Civil War. After several states seceded from the Union, the president recalls the military and the national guard deployed in a fruitless struggle in Asia and South America to bring peace and freedom to the American people.

11/11/09 The Republican States of America and the Democratic States of America fight over the control of the former United States military arsenal.

12/11/09 The U.N. puts Operation "Cold Steel & Hot Lead" into effect: Multinational Freedom forces from Africa & South America cross the Mexican-U.S. border in the South while European and Russian Forces aided by the Canadians advance unopposed accross the Canadian-U.S. border in the North.

01/11/10 Freedom is restored to the United States, the first democratic elections are scheduled for the end of 2012. Until then, the country is divided into zones of occupation under U.N. supervision, the largest weight falling on the shoulders of Canada and Mexico who are willingly supported by all the U.S. exiles returning home to help rebuilding their nation.

http://photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/?action=view&current=Usa2_2.gif

Well, firstly, I am German, just so everyone knows where I'm coming from.


Ok...





WW2 as far as I am concerned was mainly fought in the East.


Agreed, but let us not forget the other allies.


The UK's army was relatively tiny and ill-prepared at that time when the French were defeated and so the French had no reason to believe the English would endure and come back.


The British Army was in bad shape, but it endured, and it came back, a fact that would have been threatened if the British Army at Dunkirk had allowed themselves to be overrun.




As such, the French were arguing whether it was better to end the war for good (for example Petain), or whether it would be better to continue the fight in the colonies (De Gaulle). There was no way they could have continued the fight on the mainland.


But they did. In the form of The French Resistance, with the aid of British intelligence and training. Hardly abandonment of France by the UK.


Some French generals were planning to create a fortress at the channel coast, and asked the English for help in these new operations.


Such a fortress would have done little for logistics against invading German troops, apart from to sit on the edge of France for as long as they held out to the invaders, before probably being bombed to bits by the Luftwaffe.



By that time however the English had decided to pull all troops out, sever contact with the French for all intents and purposes and ignore their requests for the evacuation for French forces to Normandy, from where they could have continued the fight.


Again the British, not soley English, pulled their troops out for reasons already explained, as well as evacuating as many French troops as they could. They came to be known as 'The Free French'. Requests for evacuation for French forces were not ignored. Perhaps you take your conclusion from the majority of the evacuation being British, who were preparing themselves for German attack.





The landing in Normandy was a pointless exercise. The war was probably not even shortened by six months. The Allies had waited long enough for the East to be decided before they landed. The ratios of the German Army's East/West deployment should underline that. Sure, one can be grateful for the French not being subjected to the same horror the German civilians were when the Russians (by that meaning Russians, Cossacks, Kazakhs, Mongolians and all the others) came. Which doesn't excuse anything that happened to the Russian civilans before that. But the fact is that, in the end, the USSR won the war, and the Allies were more or less auxilliary support. Anything that happened before was merely the prologue. (and I still don't understand why the German Air Force had to resort to bombing civilians in Britain, when the destruction of the RAF had been only days away).


I would hardly say the D-Day landings were a pointless exercise. Without it, the war would have dragged on, the Soviets pushing the Germans back, possibly taking another few months to capture Berlin as they handled the Germans deployed in France first, but I agree, The Eastern Front was the main event.

It should also be noted, although not justified, that the reason German civillians were raped, pillaged, and killed with impunity by the Soviets in conquered German territory, was because the German Army and the SS had done the same to Soviet citizens in the Soviet Union as you briefly touched upon. It was revenge, although totally wrong.

It would not surprise me if the Luftwaffe were simply trying to bomb Britain into submission and starvation rather than actual invasion, thus why they bombed the cities, but on the other hand, perhaps the Luftwaffe were just not forward thinking on tactics, ie bombing towns and cities rather than RAF Airfields and what not.




As for my knowledge of the subject, i would suggest that I have read just as much about it as you have, possibly more, and when I didn't go into the tiniest detail, and simplified things for space reasons and that offended you, I am sorry. But think hard before you start dishing out insults to people you don't even know.


I don't know how you could say you have read more to gain knowledge on the subject than I have, seeing as you don't know how many books I have read. lol But it's not just books somebody should refer knowledge too, that has to be emphasised.

I thank you for your apology, but I don't think that I have dished out insults, but was rather making the acknowledgement that I felt of the observation you made and the knowledge you had of WW2 history in relation to Dunkirk, and UK-France realtions in WW2 to be poor, and for that, I can't apologise.

Indeed, I consider your thinking that the British abandoned France, when many British people gave their lives to liberate France in SOE Operations and at Dunkirk, at St. Nazaire, and later in Normandy, as an insult in itself.

@German Nightmare:
Well thought out, well done. So I guess Mexico will get Texas and the Southwest back after all :D

I think people like you often tend to forget that the French supported you when you were fighting the british for your independence. To think the french owe you something without considering what they have done for you too is ignorant and arrogant


They barely supported us and only because we had a common enemy. They came in when most of the fighting was over.

The french dont owe us anything but respect. We've already forgiven all their other debts to us.

German nightmare - Great Scenario :D

They barely supported us and only because we had a common enemy. They came in when most of the fighting was over.



Well, that is what you did...

Well, that is what you did...

Thats not even close to being true.

You act as though thats an inherently bad thing?

Errrr....my point made in earlier posts is that the Russians, (yes it was a mixture of others, although it's interesting how loved the Russians were in the Ukraine when the Nazis invaded the Germans were greeted as "liberators" with sizeable numbers fighting for the Nazis forces against the Soviet Red Army), at that time weren't really cuddly care bears. Ask many Polish, East German, Czechoslovakian, or other occupied nations after the war and for the next fifty years to see that they weren't very welcome. Especially as when most of East Europe was liberated many political liquidations occurred in a very short space of time. If you're referring to Russians before Communism or post-Communism I wouldn't say that, but we're not talking about them. Thus I don't think many French people would like to be liberated by the Russians. If Stalin had his troops in France the Cold War probably would have looked very different.

Well, firstly, I am German, just so everyone knows where I'm coming from.

William was of course Norman. That is not the same as being Viking, since they had lived there for a long time and developed their own culture, which was substantially different from what we know as Vikings.
That doesn't make them French, but since they came from France, and the direct line of the French kings from that time has been severed, I would say modern day France can trace its' roots back to them as well as to the inhabitants of the rest of the country.

Ludendorff launched his offensive because Russia had just been defeated, and the extra material available allowed him to stage one last attack, bigger than anything seen before. Of course he would have been mindful of the Americans, which is why he attacked in early 1918 and not later. That hardly makes the Americans a war winning force. The French fought valiantly there and managed to stop "us" just in time. Another mention deserve the Australians, who defended long and often successfully where the British had left, already considering whether the war wasn't lost and one shouldn't start preparing for peace talks. (how about that for defusing a situation...)

WW2 as far as I am concerned was mainly fought in the East. The UK's army was relatively tiny and ill-prepared at that time when the French were defeated and so the French had no reason to believe the English would endure and come back. As such, the French were arguing whether it was better to end the war for good (for example Petain), or whether it would be better to continue the fight in the colonies (De Gaulle). There was no way they could have continued the fight on the mainland.
Some French generals were planning to create a fortress at the channel coast, and asked the English for help in these new operations. By that time however the English had decided to pull all troops out, sever contact with the French for all intents and purposes and ignore their requests for the evacuation for French forces to Normandy, from where they could have continued the fight. That was mainly for logistical reasons of course, but there were times in the end, when most British were evacuated, where it would have been possible to do.

The landing in Normandy was a pointless exercise. The war was probably not even shortened by six months. The Allies had waited long enough for the East to be decided before they landed. The ratios of the German Army's East/West deployment should underline that. Sure, one can be grateful for the French not being subjected to the same horror the German civilians were when the Russians (by that meaning Russians, Cossacks, Kazakhs, Mongolians and all the others) came. Which doesn't excuse anything that happened to the Russian civilans before that. But the fact is that, in the end, the USSR won the war, and the Allies were more or less auxilliary support. Anything that happened before was merely the prologue. (and I still don't understand why the German Air Force had to resort to bombing civilians in Britain, when the destruction of the RAF had been only days away).

As for my knowledge of the subject, i would suggest that I have read just as much about it as you have, possibly more, and when I didn't go into the tiniest detail, and simplified things for space reasons and that offended you, I am sorry. But think hard before you start dishing out insults to people you don't even know.

As long as we're agreed that Anglo-Saxon England was not conquered by Frenchmen than I'm happy.

But instead of going on the offensive Ludendorff could have dug in and sat there, I believe the US made him gamble, a gamble that failed and exacerbated the ending of the war. I think their role cannot be underestimated, but more a psychological than physical winner. (I could annoy those of the French persuasion and say without the Royal Navy blockading Germany so effectively the war might have had more of a negative outcome. I don't understand the Australian comment.

I don't see how your comments about WWII deal with the fact that without the Allies liberating France the French weren't going to do it by themselves. And the Russians got significant amount of supplies in the war from both the British and the US so we did help them out a bit, (although 2 out of 3 German casualties occurred on the Eastern front so I'll agree with your comment that WWII was significantly decided on the East). But the problem is you should be still be grateful that Allies didn't fail in their D-Day landings because the first nuclear bombs were initially designed to be dropped on German cities not Japanese ones. And the reason why the Germans started bombing civilian targets is because the Brits had a tiny raid on Berlin and infuriated Hitler so much that he ordered Goering to change his targeting of the RAF and their bases, (although they didn't really deal with the radar stations which would have crippled the Brits response to German sorties).

I feel I should go off and watch the "Great Escape" or something....*whistles war time tune*

*coughnapoleonwasn'tfrenchcough*


*coughcoughbritishdescendfromnormandinvaisionscoghcough*

see I can make assanine claims too, he came from a province of France, thus he was French. Just because the island has allot of Italian influence, doesn't make it any less a province of France.

Technically speaking, he had French Citizenship, but he lived in Corsiga untill he went to the Ecole Militarie, IIRC. But, is he really French if he was not born IN France.

Would someone born on Guam consider themselves Guamian, or American? Would somone born on Martinique consider themselves Martiniquecase or French, first?


*asks the student in his class who was born in Guam*

yup she says shes American, considered the term Guamanian derogatory actualy.

*coughcoughbritishdescendfromnormandinvaisionscoghcough*


Well, that's not entirely true, as Britain is descended from a relatively diverse group of migrant Europeans, ranging from the "Briton" tribes, to the Romans, to the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans as well. I'd have to say that the Normans big contribution to Britain was an organized, centralized government, other factors not so much.

In WW1 France did the fighting by English and American supplies. In WW2 Soviet Union did the fighting supplied by those. It can be debated (=is debatable? Is that a word?) whether US has the greatest military history of 20th century. it ahs won some poor countries of the Third World (Granada, Iraq, Afganistan) and lost to others (Vietnam, Cuba partially).

Furthermore, France cant be accused of cowardness because of the surrendering in 1940. Wehrmach was overwhelming force in Europe, and in 1940 there was not a single nation in the world taht could have beaten it alone. It was later crushed by the whole world's industry and Russian soldiers. France never had a chance, but neither did anyone in those days. Any responcible leader of a nation would have surrendered under those conditions.

i believe that the french resistance and partisan groups set up did a hell of a lot of work for the allies, they blew up trains and radio stations prior to d-day and did alot throughout the entire war.
same for norwiegen and any other resistance troops in ww2.

What do you think all the small neutral EU nations (like Ireland) would do if an EU nation was attakced?

well as a member of the irish reserves i think we would put up a bloody good fight , legg it up to the wicklow hills with the guns and hide . you know good old IRA and 1916 stuff a guerilla war, make vietnam like a walk in the park

Furthermore, France cant be accused of cowardness because of the surrendering in 1940. Wehrmach was overwhelming force in Europe, and in 1940 there was not a single nation in the world taht could have beaten it alone. It was later crushed by the whole world's industry and Russian soldiers. France never had a chance, but neither did anyone in those days. Any responcible leader of a nation would have surrendered under those conditions.[/QUOTE]

By "overwhelming force" do you mean its size or tactics?

I'm unsure that you can say France never stood a chance.

i would put up a fight if any warring nation i happen to not like at the time decides to invade. give me a rifle and helmet and ill kill them

Here's the scenario: ] (quote reduced to save forum space)

interesting fantasy, also completely unlikely....

likely reasons the EU goes to war in the next 20 years:

1. Saudi Arabia, the supplier of most of the oil that Europe depends on, has a civil war or coup and becomes even more reactionary and anti Western than it is already. Fanatics decide to 'purify' the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia of all Western influences.... this creates a massive problem economically in money markets, oil supplies and is a direct and obvious threat to the basic economic survival of the West. With the US tied down elsewhere, only the Europeans have sufficient ground and air forces to intervene, and when unemployment and prices reach crisis levels, Europeans demand action.

German Armored forces, French airborne forces and various fleets assemble and off to war the Europeans go. With Israel and Egypt having the only sizeable port facilities close enough to the scene of the action to be useful, the Europeans make another deal with Israel (like the French and British did in 1956 during the Suez Crisis) and deploy through Haifa into southern Israel.

Finally, the Europeans drive southeast toward the oilfields, smashing the lavishly equipped but now poorly maintained Arabian armies.

In this scenario the Europeans act out of pure economic survival

2. Africa - Nigeria
The largest (in population) African country, which as it happens has a lot of oil, once again has a civil war, this time even bloodier than Biafra in 1962. Radicalized Moslems vs Christians and animists in a furious blood bath even worse than the Rwanda massacres. With the US busy elsewhere and not having troops to spare, this time the Europeans decide genocide cannot be allowed yet again, and the fact that world oil prices are skyrocketing force action. US, British, and French task forces deploy in the area, along with the French Force d'Interventiion, British paras and marines, German airborne troops and Italian paras, marines, and mountain troops (plus various other contigents including the Dutch Marines). The EU supports the Christian and Animist government over the rival Moslem fundamentalist government (which has more blood on its hands) and spends the next couple of years dealing with the mess (similar to Congo in the 1960s but on a much larger scale)

3. Russia goes Fascist (well, even more so than it appears to be headed now). Russia does something rash, in Belorus, the Ukraine or the Baltic states, the US, busy elsewhere makes noises but ignores it, and the EU compliciantly ignores as well. Emboldened, the Russian leader decides to reclaim alll former Soviet territory, starting in the West.

This scares the Europeans silly, especially as the Balts are NATO members, and a new Cold War emerges between the EU and Russians, that just might go hot.

4. China decides it wants Siberia back. The Russians seized Siberia from Chinese influence (not really control, just tributary status) in the 19th Century. China decides that it wants it back, as it has the technology to exploit the treasure drove of raw materials and oil there, the desperate need for them, and this move will immediately catapult China into superpower status. China also has sufficient nuclear weapons by this point to offset Russian nuclear weapons, making a nuclear exchange a matter of eleborate national suicide for both nations should they chose to endulge.

The Chinese have proximity to Siberia, a large and capable army, decent air force while the Russians have a proud traditiion, the remnants of their Cold War military, and are actually further away (European Russia) than the Chinese are. With both sides having neutralized each others nuclear capability, the Chinese launch a conventional invasion. NATO/EU assurances manage to persuade the Russians to try conventional fighting first.

This scares the Europeans silly when they realize that all of that Natural Gas they import from Russia is going to be cut off, and a dominant China is even a scarier prospect than a dominant US. The prospect of Chinese nuclear warheads hitting Russian cities, with the fallout going into Europe scares them even more. The EU sends expeditionary forces to help the Russians, as does the US.

This isn't a real likely scenario in the short run, but further down the line, say in 10 years, this one becomes very possible as China will be far more powerful than Russia economically, and probably militarily.

This would also be the ultimate test of the UN.

I can't think of any other likely or even probable situations that would demand a unified EU taking military action. Perhaps assisting the US in the War on Terror or in a fight with China, but anything else is highly unlikely and even getting involved in the War on Terror or against China is pretty iffy depending on circumstances.

incidently, the French military, although frequently disparged, isnt second rate by any standard. Although defeated in 1870 and 1940, they fought well on the tactical and operational level usually, but were poorly led strategically in the critical early stages of both of those campaigns, and the Germans achieved decision before the French could recuperate from the early disasters.

In 1914 the French held off the Germans, although the Belgians and British fought well, they were too few in numbers to have made a difference without the French recovering and holding the Germans long enough to launch a French counterattack at the Marne that stopped the German offensive for good.

The French tactically did a lot better than the British through 1914 - 1916, and were generally more sophisticated in the attack in 1917 and 1918 then the British and usually suffered fewer losses for more result. The American intervention was decisive however, as it provided the needed mass de maneuver and reserves critical for allowing the Allies to go on the final war winning offensive that brought about the collapse of the Germany Army the last few days of the war.

Free French units fought extremely well in North Africa, Italy, France and Germany during World War 2, and the Free French mountain troops made the victory and liberation of Rome in June 1944 possible by outflanking the Germans in the mountains, opening up the front.

The French fought extremely well in Indochina, but were simply too few to hold that country and fight the Vietminh, which became a first rate army by 1952. French strategic vision had its weaknesses, but in the end it was simply a poor decision to begin with in attempting to take back Indochina.

In Algeria, the French Army had actually broken the back of the Algerian Liberation Army by 1960, however, the cost of doing so in domestic politics, money, and the frequent atrocities (many of which were committed by ethnic French settlers in Algeria) caused the government to collapse and to re knit the country together De Gaulle had grant Algeria independence to prevent the high possibility of civil war in France.

So it wasn't the French Army who lost the war in Algeria.

French operations in Suez 1956, in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s, were exceptionally well conducted and models of their kind.

So give the French a break.

The US could send in its Postal Employees as shock troops and over run the fury of the european might in a day or two.would that be before USA "friendly fire" burnt all their mailsacks? :sniper:

Well, that's not entirely true, as Britain is descended from a relatively diverse group of migrant Europeans, ranging from the "Briton" tribes, to the Romans, to the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans as well. I'd have to say that the Normans big contribution to Britain was an organized, centralized government, other factors not so much.

well, that along with the fact that there are a lot of Norman French words in "English" might be an important thing to mention as well

would that be before USA "friendly fire" burnt all their mailsacks? :sniper:

haven't you heard the "going postal" jokes about the US Postal Service workers.... they are supposed to be a dangerous bunch after all (although they generally only shoot each other..... reference is a series of nasty work place situations back in the 1980s and 1990s, some of which involved shooting incidents)

So give the French a break.

I must say though the french are not as weka as they seem, have you ever wondered exactly why hitler decided to beat them up in WW2, the fuhrer had a really good reason, for you see.

Napoleon, split Germany into Prussia and Austria, and occupied them, then came the Franco-Prussian war, Germany struck back

then at the end of World War 1, at the treaty of versailles, Germnay was made to admit that it was WHOLLY responcible for the war, and it would pay war reparations AND it got a DMZ AND it was forbidden to unite with Austria..

Here's what people forget, in 1923 France INVADED GERMANY and occupied the Ruhr district and seize several german towns in the Rheinland. this was a blantant breach of international law, also they had just made Germany give up all its weapons and whatnot so it could hardly fight back. Then the french started an intensive propaganda for the separation of Rheinland from germany. Also in Bavaria, there were plans to turn Bavaria into it's own Catholic monarchy, which Napoleon orgianally did in 1805.

By Autumn of 1923, a Bavarian Monarchy was becoming a fact.
However on the night of November the 8th 1923, every Bavarian patriotic societies were gathered with the Bavarian prime minister to start the announcing of a separtist state...hitler broke this up personally and no parts of germany were ever cut up...

So infact the French really aren't all that good, well they were nothing but bullie to germany, and if i were hitler i would have invaded france....BUT iw ould not have invaded norway, holland, poland, czechoslovakia, USSR etc, OR killed any Jews, black people, communists, jehovahs witnesses, old people disable people etc.

...Saudi Arabia, the supplier of most of the oil that Europe depends on, has a civil war or coup and becomes even more reactionary and anti Western than it is already...

Current oil prices are a result of increased demand from industrializing China. The Chinese could use all of their oil. Imagine the neotheocracy in Saudi Arabia nationalizes all industry as the Ayatollah Khomeni did in Iran. It would cockblock the US and the EU with an oil embargo, threatening destruction on muslim nations who dealt with the Children of the Devil, causing a massive withdrawal of Western influence from the region or bringing war to the region. Islamofacist have this nasty habit of underestimating the courage of the Infidels.

China gets cheap oil and promises not to invade anymore Philippine territory. They lock down the Panama canal, a Peoples Liberation Army subsidiary corporation manages it now, and drive oil prices even higher. With limited oil reserves the Western world must act quickly.

haven't you heard the "going postal" jokes about the US Postal Service workers.... they are supposed to be a dangerous bunch after all (although they generally only shoot each other..... reference is a series of nasty work place situations back in the 1980s and 1990s, some of which involved shooting incidents)Ohh, right I didnae khow that.

They barely supported us and only because we had a common enemy. They came in when most of the fighting was over.

The french dont owe us anything but respect. We've already forgiven all their other debts to us.

lol, without the aid of the French the British could have starved your nation into oblivion, not to mention the havoc they would have been capable of reeking in the colonies if they didn't fear damage to their homeland from their enemies across the channel.

...The French fought extremely well in Indochina, but were simply too few to hold that country and fight the Vietminh, which became a first rate army by 1952. French strategic vision had its weaknesses, but in the end it was simply a poor decision to begin with in attempting to take back Indochina.

In Algeria, the French Army had actually broken the back of the Algerian Liberation Army by 1960, however, the cost of doing so in domestic politics, money, and the frequent atrocities (many of which were committed by ethnic French settlers in Algeria) caused the government to collapse and to re knit the country together De Gaulle had grant Algeria independence to prevent the high possibility of civil war in France.

So it wasn't the French Army who lost the war in Algeria. ...


That's what armies always say after a lost battle. "Back-stab by the left", said Hitler when he had to explain the defeat in the WW1.
"Hippies did it" said Americans after losing in Vietnam.
"The people was too weak for me" said our dear friend Adolf again, after the lost of the WW2. Same thing was explained by Runstedt and Guderian by saying that if they have had freedom to fight as they wanted, they would have won, Not their fault. Not ARMYS fault anyways. Cant be. its so great.
Examples are too numerous to be listed here.

If you ask generals, they have never lost anything. It has always been fault of someone else. France had years to fight in Indochina, and so did USA. And still they say that hippies or leftists in France caused the defeat by pulling the troops out. More time, more weapons, more troops, and "we would have won". i say that's bullshit and nothing more. French army fought a war, and their goal was to keep Indochina and Algeria. FNL and Vietminh wanted to liberate their country. Both wars took years, and in both cases -jsut look at the map. Natives won, and that's it.

If any nation would attack Europe I guess.
Say America would invade they would meet the full fury of European might.

...and quickly overpower it.

hehe

Why do trees line the streets of Paris?

Because the Germans like to march in the shade.

That's what armies always say after a lost battle. "Back-stab by the left", said Hitler when he had to explain the defeat in the WW1.
"Hippies did it" said Americans after losing in Vietnam.
"The people was too weak for me" said our dear friend Adolf again, after the lost of the WW2. Same thing was explained by Runstedt and Guderian by saying that if they have had freedom to fight as they wanted, they would have won, Not their fault. Not ARMYS fault anyways. Cant be. its so great.
Examples are too numerous to be listed here. .

I am using Bernard Fall, "Street Without Joy", considered the classic on the French Indochina War for my source, he (a journalist who was there the entire time) pretty much says that the French did pretty well considering they just didn't have the troop strength to win, and the politicians in France demanded that they (the Army) go in and then stay, while at the same time preventing conscripts from serving in Indochina (hence the troop strength problem)... that and the fact that France depended on US military and economic assistance to keep the war going pretty much points out that the political decision to go to war in the first place was a bad idea.

In Algeria, after DeGaulle ordered the French Army to stand down and agreed to peace terms and a pullout, elements of the French Army actually mutinied as they were angered that after crushing the Algerian Liberation Army's military arm, they felt they were sold out. This mutiny was crushed pretty hard. France was simply too war weary and divided to continue, and so, like the United States toward the end of the Vietnam conflict, were willing to take any way out when in fact they could have won on the battlefield. The price was too high for France itself to pay though, and thus the French pulled out of Algeria.

Many people may not realize it, but nearly 3 million ethnic French lived in Algeria at the time of the end of the Algerian War, and legally, Algeria was a department of France. It would be like California or Texas seceeding from the US or Wales seceeding from Great Britain. Even the Algerians were divided, as the population of 12 million ethnic Arabs, Berbers and misc other ethnicities continue to have their issues with one another to this day. (although now there are more of them of course)

Why do trees line the streets of Paris?

Because the Germans like to march in the shade.

I have always heard it as "Why are all the roads in France lined with trees? So the Germans could march in the shade."

But either way works.... although in truth the trees are actually there for troops to march in the shade. King Louis XIII had them planted to make things easier on his troops to march to the various borders ....

If the US wanted to it could bring to bear millions. In Pennsylvania alone there are 1 million hunters. 1 million people trained to use a gun. That is in 1 of 50 states. If by some odd quirk of fate the US was invaded they would have to face an army of trained snipers use to the terrain. They would not get past the east coast unless they burned down all the forests. They would not be able to bring enough force into one area.

A hunting rifle is easily sighted for 600 yards. With the small rounds of automatic weapons they would not get close enough to bring their weapons to bear. And while the patriotic people are rebeling against the invasion it gives the US government time to moblize its military. I wouldnt put it past the US government to use scroched earth policy. If they are about to fall nuke their own cities. Reduce their technology to almost nothing leaving their enemies with nothing of value but death. Or they would kill the world. Nuking every major city.

The US despite its polices is filled with good people. Who was the first to promise aid in Southeast Asia? Who is called when something goes wrong? Yes America needs other nations. But most nations need America as well. So we all play a dangerous game. The war in Iraq is not us using full force. If we brought our entire military to bear on a target there would be nothing left.

I do not believe the US would cause problems with the EU. To far apart and the whole needing each other thing. Russia might be the biggest threat to the EU. And China would square off with America. In either case none of the wars would be easily won. And it would most like kill the earth.



We didnt get better, we invented more ways to kill each other. All hail technology!

New Shiron, im not even questioning the fact that French army fought bravely in extremely hard conditions. Still, they fought battles and lost. They were outnumbered, yes, but Vietminh was outgunned. They used tactics french werent able to counter (=guerilla warfare), used the jungle and had the support of the people. In conditional battle, like the one in Dien Bien Phu, Vietminh STILL bet those frenchies. 2 armies, and one of them achieved their goals, other didnt.

In war, though, there is not only 2 armies facing each others. Since the Great War, army's capability to fight a war has bee almost the same as nations capability befind it. Therefore weakness of the government/people of the France is also A WEAKNESS OF THE ARMY.
'Cause if not, any victory one army achieves can be ignored by saying that the other nation, the other PEOPLE is weaker, and that makes this whole conversation useless as then we are not able to do any comparison over armies and their battles.

New Shiron, im not even questioning the fact that French army fought bravely in extremely hard conditions. Still, they fought battles and lost. They were outnumbered, yes, but Vietminh was outgunned. They used tactics french werent able to counter (=guerilla warfare), used the jungle and had the support of the people. In conditional battle, like the one in Dien Bien Phu, Vietminh STILL bet those frenchies. 2 armies, and one of them achieved their goals, other didnt.

In war, though, there is not only 2 armies facing each others. Since the Great War, army's capability to fight a war has bee almost the same as nations capability befind it. Therefore weakness of the government/people of the France is also A WEAKNESS OF THE ARMY.
'Cause if not, any victory one army achieves can be ignored by saying that the other nation, the other PEOPLE is weaker, and that makes this whole conversation useless as then we are not able to do any comparison over armies and their battles.

actually, at Dien Bein Phu the Viet Minh had four times as many artillery tubes present as the French did, and French air support was severely weakened by the hundreds of Viet Minh anti aircraft guns present...

but yes, in the Nations at War system that has existed since Napoleon the French people were defeated by the Algerian people. But not because they were weaker, but because the French realized that killing all of the Algerian dissidents went out with the previous century. Just as the American people realized that there was no justification for waging total war against North Vietnam or Iraq, which is why the US did not 'create a desert and call it peace' (to quote Tacitus) by using the full military capability of the US.

lol, without the aid of the French the British could have starved your nation into oblivion, not to mention the havoc they would have been capable of reeking in the colonies if they didn't fear damage to their homeland from their enemies across the channel.


This is no more than a totally cockeyed opinion.

This is no more than a totally cockeyed opinion.

Saying that someone's opinion is "cockeyed" without giving any further explanation is just too stupid to be even posted here. Almost like saying that You ARE AN ASSHOLE, just because you are.

Errrr....my point made in earlier posts is that the Russians, (yes it was a mixture of others, although it's interesting how loved the Russians were in the Ukraine when the Nazis invaded the Germans were greeted as "liberators" with sizeable numbers fighting for the Nazis forces against the Soviet Red Army), at that time weren't really cuddly care bears. Ask many Polish, East German, Czechoslovakian, or other occupied nations after the war and for the next fifty years to see that they weren't very welcome. Especially as when most of East Europe was liberated many political liquidations occurred in a very short space of time. If you're referring to Russians before Communism or post-Communism I wouldn't say that, but we're not talking about them. Thus I don't think many French people would like to be liberated by the Russians. If Stalin had his troops in France the Cold War probably would have looked very different.

Indeed the cold war would have looked different.

Vietnam would have become communist in the late fourties or early fifties, as well as most of the rest of the colonies. North korea would have been taken by UN forces and kept, possibly without any chinese intervention, because in this scenario the allies would have completely focused on the pacific(Well, america/britain/australia/china/etc). The soviets would have had less to worry about on the continent, and the military would be smaller, and deployed more eastern, with small forces near britain.

The cold war probably wouldnt have been as big of a deal. Russia would have less military need, as it had its buffer zone secure. It didnt want britain, and it knew it had no chance invading the US. With less tensions internationally, the USSR would have been able to focus more on internal issues, and would have been able to rise above what it had in real life cold-war.

Of course, this is going with my theory that international pressure was the largest factor against communism, and there is a large room for argument there.

They barely supported us and only because we had a common enemy. They came in when most of the fighting was over.

The french dont owe us anything but respect. We've already forgiven all their other debts to us.

Yay for pulling things out of your ass.

How about the fact that 90% of the ammunition for the americans was provided by the french? You cant rebel with out being able to fire back.

The french came when the fighting was still thick, not when it was nearly over. Im sure those french ships at yorktown were simply sitting around?

The French did for the US in the revolution, as the US did for Russia in WW2. It provided many of the basics(ammunition, guns, money, etc), it provided the naval power to counter the enemy(albiet the german navy wasnt that powerful, the submarines werent too fun). Its troops helped shorten the war, though they didnt play a key role. Its possible that they werent needed, but they were incredibly helpful either way.

The difference? France declared war on our enemy, who was not currently at war with France. America waited until it was attacked, and then war was declared on us.

Napoleon, split Germany into Prussia and Austria, and occupied them, then came the Franco-Prussian war, Germany struck back

then at the end of World War 1, at the treaty of versailles, Germnay was made to admit that it was WHOLLY responcible for the war, and it would pay war reparations AND it got a DMZ AND it was forbidden to unite with Austria..

Here's what people forget, in 1923 France INVADED GERMANY and occupied the Ruhr district and seize several german towns in the Rheinland. this was a blantant breach of international law, also they had just made Germany give up all its weapons and whatnot so it could hardly fight back. Then the french started an intensive propaganda for the separation of Rheinland from germany. Also in Bavaria, there were plans to turn Bavaria into it's own Catholic monarchy, which Napoleon orgianally did in 1805.

By Autumn of 1923, a Bavarian Monarchy was becoming a fact.
However on the night of November the 8th 1923, every Bavarian patriotic societies were gathered with the Bavarian prime minister to start the announcing of a separtist state...hitler broke this up personally and no parts of germany were ever cut up...

So infact the French really aren't all that good, well they were nothing but bullie to germany, and if i were hitler i would have invaded france....BUT iw ould not have invaded norway, holland, poland, czechoslovakia, USSR etc, OR killed any Jews, black people, communists, jehovahs witnesses, old people disable people etc.

1. Napoleon didnt split germany up. Germany had been split into 300 sections for hundreds of years. They didnt unite until the 1860's.

2. To be fair, Germany attacked France and Belgium without provocation(well, provocation post-franco prussian war).

3. France invaded because Germany wouldnt pay its debts. If you are so vehemently against this, are you also against the US intervention in latin america during the post-1898 period, many of which were for economic reasons?

4. That had nothing to do with France.

5. If you were hitler, you probably wouldnt have made the right decisions in Fall Gelb to beat the french, such as timing.

Here's the scenario:

08/11/05 The U.S. are still preoccupied with Afghanistan & Iraq, Syria looks critical and is invaded when Israel destroys the Irianian nuclear facilities which doesn't help to stabilize the Middle East.

09/11/05 China attacks Russias East to fuel its newly strengthened economy with Russian natural ressources. (The Bear & the Dragon)

10/11/05 The U.S. veto a NATO intervention in favor of a bilateral U.S.-Russian pact (which Russia rejects because the U.S. demand too much of Russias natural ressources.)

11/11/05 Being the good neighbor the E.U. is, we support the Russians defend their Federation, sending troops, producing weapons and such (in return of Russian natural ressources, of course for the next hundred years!).

12/11/05 The U.N. security council backs the precedings

01/11/06 China invades Taiwan

02/11/06 North Korea invades South Korea.

03/11/06 The U.S. attack North Korea which launches a nuclear strike against Tokyo in retaliation.

04/11/06 Meanwhile, Russia & China make peace talks under European mediation at the U.N. which results in a treaty of partnership.

05/11/06 Europaisian economy booms while the U.S. struggle to fight two wars, one in the Middle East, on in Asia.

06/11/06 Iran attacks Iraq & Afghanistan to liberate their brethren from U.S. occupation

07/11/06 Pakistan's military takes over and decides to take Kashmire by force, thus resulting in a dangerous but short exchange of nuclear strikes with its neighbor India.

08/11/06 The E.U., Russia & China convince India and the newly erected Muslime Empire (which streches from Egypt to Pakistan, Yemen to Tadschikistan) to a peace treaty. The Middle East & Indian economy strengthen with Africa and South America as their market.

09/11/06 Israel is guaranteed for by the E.U. as well as the Russian Federation.

10/11/06 Russia and the E.U. deliver weapons to China.

11/11/06 The U.S. pull their troops out of the Middle East, focusing on their struggle against the Koreans. First reports from North Korea speak of Russian Kalashnikovs and European assault rifles found at weapon storages, numbering in the 100,000s. Strangely enough, these trademark brands all carry a little sign "Made in China".

12/11/06 - 12/11/07 The U.S. installs military regimes in Indonesia, the Phillipines, and half of South America. The war in North Korea reaches a new hight.

05/11/08 The U.S. withdraw their 5 aircraft carriers which have been constantly bombing the Second Babylonian Empire of Persia: "Mission accomplished". They are directly rerouted to their new combat zone: Asia.

09/11/08 Several U.S. embassies are overrun or bombed in Africa, South America, Asia, the Middle East.

12/11/08 The U.S. withdraw their last troops from Europe to bring an end to the 2nd Korean War.

01/11/09 Canada opens its borders for U.S. citizens aging 17 till 45 who are dodging the draft in their hundreds each day. European embassies enforce a strict visa practice for U.S. citizens, including fingerprints, biometrics, the genetic fingerprint, a complete fiscal scan (to cover possible charges) as well as a complete family background scan jurisdictional investigation.

03/11/09 The South American continent is in constant turmoil, the U.S. enforce a strict anti-terrorist-diplomacy, sending troups and private security firms into their "backyard".

04/11/09 Fidel Castro dies.

05/11/09 The aircraft carriers U.S.S. Ronald Reagan (CVN 77) and the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush (CVN 78) join the Navy's newest carrier group around the U.S.S. George W. Bush (CVNX 79): "Pig Pay II - Big Payback".

06/11/09 Mexico closes its borders for U.S. emigrants, resulting in an economic embargo and military threats by the newly elected U.S. president Jeb Bush and his vice president Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Nasa receives enourmous funding for S.D.I. - Skylab.

07/11/09 Canada closes its borders for U.S. emigrants, resulting in an economic embargo and military threats by the newly elected U.S. president Jeb Bush and his vice president Arnold Schwarzenegger. The E.U. and Russia sign an entent cordiale, resulting in the biggest non-NATO maneuver in Canada "Frozen Ground - The Blizzard".

08/11/09 According to rumors supported by the New York Unterground* (*formerly known as the New York Times before governmental censorship) information of African, Arab and Asian mercenaries in South America has led to a deterioration of President Jeb Bush's health condition.

09/11/09 President Jeb Bush dies of a sudden heart attack, Vice-president Arnold Schwarzenegger steps in his place. On the day President Schwarzenegger's official inauguration, riots break out all over the United States. The president declares martial law and a general curfew.

10/11/09 Civil War. After several states seceded from the Union, the president recalls the military and the national guard deployed in a fruitless struggle in Asia and South America to bring peace and freedom to the American people.

11/11/09 The Republican States of America and the Democratic States of America fight over the control of the former United States military arsenal.

12/11/09 The U.N. puts Operation "Cold Steel & Hot Lead" into effect: Multinational Freedom forces from Africa & South America cross the Mexican-U.S. border in the South while European and Russian Forces aided by the Canadians advance unopposed accross the Canadian-U.S. border in the North.

01/11/10 Freedom is restored to the United States, the first democratic elections are scheduled for the end of 2012. Until then, the country is divided into zones of occupation under U.N. supervision, the largest weight falling on the shoulders of Canada and Mexico who are willingly supported by all the U.S. exiles returning home to help rebuilding their nation.

http://photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/?action=view&current=Usa2_2.gif

THe things in red will never happen, and the things in black bold have a higher-than-indifferent chance of happening, and those untouched have an unlikely chance of happening.

First off, the Governator will never become president -- he can't, the constitution forbids it, and I can guarentee you THAT won't be repealed any time soon. Also, Jeb Bush will most likely not ever be elected President.

Also, Russia will not take Chinese invasion lying down -- they will fight to their dying breath. Napoleon couldn't do it, Hitler couldn't do it, and the Chinese sure as hell won't do it either.

No international coalition will ever go against the United States, as none of the things you said leading up to it will ever happen. Besides, if that kinda crap happened, there'd be a revolution before anyone could get there, and if anyone decided to invade, we'd kick them out.

But if this was one massive joke, it was actually kinda funny. :D

You act as though [being "liberated" by the USSR] an inherently bad thing?

It would have been. Unless, of course, you like Stalinism. If the USSR was that powerful, the USSR probably would have never fallen, and we'd all be living under Marxism-Stalinism.

i believe that the french resistance and partisan groups set up did a hell of a lot of work for the allies, they blew up trains and radio stations prior to d-day and did alot throughout the entire war.
same for norwiegen and any other resistance troops in ww2.

What set the French Resistance apart though was the Brutality they faced was worse than brutality in any other occupied country (asside from Poland and USSR, that goes without saying) due to the German's feeling that most of their humiliation after the war was due to French additions to the Versailles treaty. And in turn, the resistance returned that brutality. The Norwegian resistance fought with the same patriotic valour and bravery, but they did not face the same savageness the Germans reserved for the French.

@German Nightmare:
Well thought out, well done. So I guess Mexico will get Texas and the Southwest back after all :D

Yes, Mexico gets a couple of Southwestern States. Alaska, Hawaii & California are independent, though.

German nightmare - Great Scenario :D
Well thank you - I really enjoyed that and hope that only the "good" things will happen ;)

Why do trees line the streets of Paris?

Because the Germans like to march in the shade.

That's funny. I like the "Pariser Einzugsmarsch" :D

But if this was one massive joke, it was actually kinda funny.

It was :p - and it was a hell lot of fun :D

Yes, Mexico gets a couple of Southwestern States. Alaska, Hawaii & California are independent, though.


Well thank you - I really enjoyed that and hope that only the "good" things will happen ;)



That's funny. I like the "Pariser Einzugsmarsch" :D



It was :p - and it was a hell lot of fun :D

Of course. I was about to track you down and rip your head off for the map you posted (I am an American Nationalist), but I figured it was one big joke, so I laughed it off.......

Here is what would happen. If every European country became part of the EU. The US would draft all of the people. And I mean 250 million people! (Not all 288 million because some are too old other too sick and still other too young.) Than the EU would bravely fight back! But whats this? Spain, Holland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Greece, Albania, France and Germany would become nuetral. Than, England, Italy, Russia, Portugal would give 10% of their army to the cause.

In conclusion the US would win in 11 minutes.

Here is what would happen. If every European country became part of the EU. The US would draft all of the people. And I mean 250 million people! (Not all 288 million because some are too old other too sick and still other too young.) Than the EU would bravely fight back! But whats this? Spain, Holland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Greece, Albania, France and Germany would become nuetral. Than, England, Italy, Russia, Portugal would give 10% of their army to the cause.

In conclusion the US would win in 11 minutes.

And then in 22 minutes, it would collapse from not having any internal structure.

It would have been. Unless, of course, you like Stalinism. If the USSR was that powerful, the USSR probably would have never fallen, and we'd all be living under Marxism-Stalinism.

If communism hadn't been opposed since its conception(1917, 1921, 30's with fascists becoming an obvious threat to the USSR, 45-89 with cold war, vietnam's constant invasions, cuba and bay of pigs, need I go on?), then communism might have had a chance. If the world had been taken by the USSR and communism(Stalinism in '45), there would have been no outer enemies, and so no need for a large army. There would probably be a long period of dictatorship, due to the higher echelons being afraid of internal revolt, but they would be the minority as each generation got more imbedded in the ideals.

Even if only europe was consolidated under communism, there wouldnt have been the need for huge forces in europe. The US wouldnt gain the kick-backs from marshall plan, and the communists would control every major country except the US, Japan, Australia, and possibly UK.

My point is, if the communists didn't have such outer aggression, then it would have been able to flourish. There would have been corruption, every society has it. However, as every new generation came, it would become more pure, as the people would grow up with the ideology, and the misgivings of the corruption of their leaders. It may have taken longer for the world to get to its level today, but the long term gains could have defidentally outweighed the short-term prosperity we have been having.

ok, we have some fierce nationalism here....

There is no way in the next 10 years that even an United Europe hostile enough to consider such a thing could defeat in the United States in a Total War.... the simple fact that the US still has roughly 6,000 nuclear warheads, 500 ICBMs, 12 Ohio class submarines each with nuclear tipped Trident missiles, and a fleet of very capable bombers makes that a non starter... it took the Soviet Union 10 years to go from absolute nuclear inferiority in 1962 to rough parity in 1972, and that is almost certainly the case for Europe as only 2 nations have any nuclear weapons, and they have very few delivery systems and all of the British weapons are US designs.

So lets look at the conventional warfare situation... the US Navy has more tonnage and more combat ships than the entirety of NATO and Japan combined and then some... so crossing the Atlantic is right out. The US Air National Guard has more combat aircraft than NATO combined as well, not counting the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, so flying is going to be tough, and at this point the Europeans and Japanese have no stealth aircraft of any kind, and neither do the Russians or Chinese.

So flying is out.

Armies don't swim well, so that isn't happening.

So why can't the Europeans build a navy and air force to match the US? Once again, it will take years and even Americans would notice that between watching Survivor and American Idol.

Most importantly, North America has one advantage that the Europeans do not have. All of the elements needed for an industralized economy can be found in North America.... oil, food, strategic metals, everything.... now without access to Mideast Oil the US would have enormous (probably 30%) economic shrinkage, but in the short run the US could survive with Mexican, Alaskan, Canadian and its own oil found in the 48 states. Except for the North Sea, the Europeans have practically no oil except some small remaining reserves in Rumania, some pretty close by in Libya and Algeria, and between North Sea, Rumanian, and North African oil that supplies roughly 24% of the total needed. There are no strategic minerals found in Europe (chromium for example), and nowhere near enough bauxite. So Europe has to control Africa and the Mideast to ensure its own supplies, vastly increasing its defense problems vs North America.

It would take an United Europe, plus an United Asia combined to successfully launch an invasion of North America.... a generation to prepare....

you "lets invade the US and teach them a lesson" types better get started... times a wasting!

Of course invading Europe would be just as tough for the US, but the US has a bigger military to start with, and a successful track history in doing so (the invasion of North Africa in 1942 was launched from the US East Coast and landed on the Moroccan coast), the US also has a huge lead in experience in moving material and men across the globe.. Europe (except for Britian) has never done anything remotely close... even the Germans and Napoleon stuck to land operations in Europe and close by territories.... somehow I don't see the British going along with invading North America either..

the most interesting point is this though. No English speaking nation has lost a naval war at sea since the 1600s when the Dutch and English fought to a tie in the 1st Anglo-Dutch War and William got across the Channel in the Glorious Revolution.

The US hasn't lost an air campaign since the Fall of the Philippines in 1942....and the US Air Force and Navy has more experience fighting air wars than anyone else, even the Israelis....

but keep dreaming...

ok, we have some fierce nationalism here....

There is no way in the next 10 years that even an United Europe hostile enough to consider such a thing could defeat in the United States in a Total War.... the simple fact that the US still has roughly 6,000 nuclear warheads, 500 ICBMs, 12 Ohio class submarines each with nuclear tipped Trident missiles, and a fleet of very capable bombers makes that a non starter... it took the Soviet Union 10 years to go from absolute nuclear inferiority in 1962 to rough parity in 1972, and that is almost certainly the case for Europe as only 2 nations have any nuclear weapons, and they have very few delivery systems and all of the British weapons are US designs.

So lets look at the conventional warfare situation... the US Navy has more tonnage and more combat ships than the entirety of NATO and Japan combined and then some... so crossing the Atlantic is right out. The US Air National Guard has more combat aircraft than NATO combined as well, not counting the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, so flying is going to be tough, and at this point the Europeans and Japanese have no stealth aircraft of any kind, and neither do the Russians or Chinese.

So flying is out.

Armies don't swim well, so that isn't happening.

So why can't the Europeans build a navy and air force to match the US? Once again, it will take years and even Americans would notice that between watching Survivor and American Idol.

Most importantly, North America has one advantage that the Europeans do not have. All of the elements needed for an industralized economy can be found in North America.... oil, food, strategic metals, everything.... now without access to Mideast Oil the US would have enormous (probably 30%) economic shrinkage, but in the short run the US could survive with Mexican, Alaskan, Canadian and its own oil found in the 48 states. Except for the North Sea, the Europeans have practically no oil except some small remaining reserves in Rumania, some pretty close by in Libya and Algeria, and between North Sea, Rumanian, and North African oil that supplies roughly 24% of the total needed. There are no strategic minerals found in Europe (chromium for example), and nowhere near enough bauxite. So Europe has to control Africa and the Mideast to ensure its own supplies, vastly increasing its defense problems vs North America.

It would take an United Europe, plus an United Asia combined to successfully launch an invasion of North America.... a generation to prepare....

you "lets invade the US and teach them a lesson" types better get started... times a wasting!

Of course invading Europe would be just as tough for the US, but the US has a bigger military to start with, and a successful track history in doing so (the invasion of North Africa in 1942 was launched from the US East Coast and landed on the Moroccan coast), the US also has a huge lead in experience in moving material and men across the globe.. Europe (except for Britian) has never done anything remotely close... even the Germans and Napoleon stuck to land operations in Europe and close by territories.... somehow I don't see the British going along with invading North America either..

the most interesting point is this though. No English speaking nation has lost a naval war at sea since the 1600s when the Dutch and English fought to a tie in the 1st Anglo-Dutch War and William got across the Channel in the Glorious Revolution.

The US hasn't lost an air campaign since the Fall of the Philippines in 1942....and the US Air Force and Navy has more experience fighting air wars than anyone else, even the Israelis....

but keep dreaming...

A. France's SSBM fleet is enough to destroy the major cities of the US, and completely obliterate it as a nation. So nuke wanking means nothing.

B. I havnt heard one person say that a European invasion of the US would happen, or be successful(not counting the one long post that was more of a story. It was mostly a joke, and had very big circumstances against the US).

A. France's SSBM fleet is enough to destroy the major cities of the US, and completely obliterate it as a nation. So nuke wanking means nothing.

B. I havnt heard one person say that a European invasion of the US would happen, or be successful(not counting the one long post that was more of a story. It was mostly a joke, and had very big circumstances against the US).

the French only have 6 submarines with missiles... generally one is under refit, and only one or two are on patrol... the US Navy is the worlds leader in trailing submarines, only the British are close in capability.

Most experts on nuclear warfare figure that in a wartime launch situation, up to a third of all missiles launched aren't going to work for some reason. So those French subs aren't as impressive as they would seem. The French also have about a dozen ICBMs as well, all with single warheads just like the US ones. These same rules of course apply to the US but then the US has more nukes to wank as you put it so diplomatically. As far as nuking cities go, the French would have to keep theirs in reserve to keep some kind of creditable threat to keep the US from nuking their cities... same Cold War logic regarding MAD applies in this kind of situation, just like it does in the US vs China situation.

As far as realistic or reasonable scenarios for the EU going to war, see my earlier posts... I was merely pointing out that the 'joke' post earlier is pretty much fantasy.

the French only have 6 submarines with missiles... generally one is under refit, and only one or two are on patrol... the US Navy is the worlds leader in trailing submarines, only the British are close in capability.

Most experts on nuclear warfare figure that in a wartime launch situation, up to a third of all missiles launched aren't going to work for some reason. So those French subs aren't as impressive as they would seem. The French also have about a dozen ICBMs as well, all with single warheads just like the US ones. These same rules of course apply to the US but then the US has more nukes to wank as you put it so diplomatically. As far as nuking cities go, the French would have to keep theirs in reserve to keep some kind of creditable threat to keep the US from nuking their cities... same Cold War logic regarding MAD applies in this kind of situation, just like it does in the US vs China situation.

As far as realistic or reasonable scenarios for the EU going to war, see my earlier posts... I was merely pointing out that the 'joke' post earlier is pretty much fantasy.

The French submarines carry multiple missiles though, which are MIRV. New york would only take one MIRV from a french sub. So would san fran, los angeles, chicago, detroit, etc etc. Even if "only" the top 20 cities are gone out of the 100 or so missiles that would be fired off, the US is still obliterated as a country.

the French only have 6 submarines with missiles... generally one is under refit, and only one or two are on patrol... the US Navy is the worlds leader in trailing submarines, only the British are close in capability.

Most experts on nuclear warfare figure that in a wartime launch situation, up to a third of all missiles launched aren't going to work for some reason. So those French subs aren't as impressive as they would seem. The French also have about a dozen ICBMs as well, all with single warheads just like the US ones. These same rules of course apply to the US but then the US has more nukes to wank as you put it so diplomatically. As far as nuking cities go, the French would have to keep theirs in reserve to keep some kind of creditable threat to keep the US from nuking their cities... same Cold War logic regarding MAD applies in this kind of situation, just like it does in the US vs China situation.

As far as realistic or reasonable scenarios for the EU going to war, see my earlier posts... I was merely pointing out that the 'joke' post earlier is pretty much fantasy.


It is easier to lose a nuclear war than it is to lose in the powerball lottery.

The French submarines carry multiple missiles though, which are MIRV. New york would only take one MIRV from a french sub. So would san fran, los angeles, chicago, detroit, etc etc. Even if "only" the top 20 cities are gone out of the 100 or so missiles that would be fired off, the US is still obliterated as a country.

under the START treaty, no one currently has MIRVs

under the START treaty, no one currently has MIRVs

Fine, MRV if you want to nit-pick

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/france/m-4.htm

Le Triomphant can carry 16 M-45's. Thats 80 warheads a submarine. 2 submarines would ruin the US.

What set the French Resistance apart though was the Brutality they faced was worse than brutality in any other occupied country (asside from Poland and USSR, that goes without saying) due to the German's feeling that most of their humiliation after the war was due to French additions to the Versailles treaty. And in turn, the resistance returned that brutality. The Norwegian resistance fought with the same patriotic valour and bravery, but they did not face the same savageness the Germans reserved for the French.

China occupied by Japan.
the Philipines under the Japanese boot.
Indochina under both the French, and the Japanese.

By way of comparison, the French had it really easy under the German occupation.

China occupied by Japan.
the Philipines under the Japanese boot.
Indochina under both the French, and the Japanese.

By way of comparison, the French had it really easy under the German occupation.

Yep. Both maquisard and Norwegian - I even dunno why it is mentioned here- resistance were NOTHING compared to Polish, Russian and -what seems to be forgotten by most- YUGOSLAVIAn partisan warfare were. In Russia, tens of thousands of partisans fought as organized brigades keeping large areas re-occupied from Germans in the Brjansk region, Polish resitance made up several revolts and real battles. But in yugoslavia, Germans had to keep 300,000 (!!) troops between 42 and 44 to keep it under control. Which they still were unable to do, as Tito was able to keep up his army of several divisions, airforce, artillery and even armoured units! Norwegians blew up few factiories and Maquisard.. ummm... collected information. That revolt in Paris was started by Communist Liberation Army, not the west-helped Maquis, and it would have miserably failed if Americans wouldn't come to save their asses.

So, when you talk about resistance in occupied Europe, forget the hype of French and Norway - the REAL partisans were in the east and in the balkans.

Personally speaking I think the EU should not develop a military capability, in the same way that I do not want it to gain sovereign rights over its member states (sod federalism).

A new pan-european strategic alliance would be good (without need for the US) but even then before it can operate effectively it needs to expand its global reach capacities.

Once this is achieved the European nations could probably deploy the most effective peacekeeping forces available using 'softly, softly' tactics, and drawing upon the wealth of military, political, diplomatic and cultural experience that is in the EU states.

Cynically one could say that the EU could turn Africa into its sphere of interest.

Optimistically one could say the EU could support legitimate (and hopefully democratic/benevolent) governments in Africa to bring peace to various regions (like the DRC - why hasnt this been sorted out?)

Indeed the cold war would have looked different.

Vietnam would have become communist in the late fourties or early fifties, as well as most of the rest of the colonies. North korea would have been taken by UN forces and kept, possibly without any chinese intervention, because in this scenario the allies would have completely focused on the pacific(Well, america/britain/australia/china/etc). The soviets would have had less to worry about on the continent, and the military would be smaller, and deployed more eastern, with small forces near britain.

The cold war probably wouldnt have been as big of a deal. Russia would have less military need, as it had its buffer zone secure. It didnt want britain, and it knew it had no chance invading the US. With less tensions internationally, the USSR would have been able to focus more on internal issues, and would have been able to rise above what it had in real life cold-war.

Of course, this is going with my theory that international pressure was the largest factor against communism, and there is a large room for argument there.

Why did you pick up my last comment and run with it? (and I think your extrapolations of "What if" History is too dependent on too many variables) Can you agree that many French citizens would have feared Soviet liberation compared to Allied liberation?

Personally speaking I think the EU should not develop a military capability, in the same way that I do not want it to gain sovereign rights over its member states (sod federalism).

A new pan-european strategic alliance would be good (without need for the US) but even then before it can operate effectively it needs to expand its global reach capacities.

Once this is achieved the European nations could probably deploy the most effective peacekeeping forces available using 'softly, softly' tactics, and drawing upon the wealth of military, political, diplomatic and cultural experience that is in the EU states.

Cynically one could say that the EU could turn Africa into its sphere of interest.

Optimistically one could say the EU could support legitimate (and hopefully democratic/benevolent) governments in Africa to bring peace to various regions (like the DRC - why hasnt this been sorted out?)


Africa as EU sphere of influence? Now that would be interesting....what did Montgomery say in 1945? "Give me 500,000 men and I'll give you Africa", a bit
like Patton's "We should just keep on-going"....Scary stuff....

Fine, MRV if you want to nit-pick

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/france/m-4.htm

Le Triomphant can carry 16 M-45's. Thats 80 warheads a submarine. 2 submarines would ruin the US.

I was mistaken,... France didn't enter into the START Treaty...

current French nuclear capability
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/frnukes.html

5 submarines, 2 usually at sea, no ICBMs, plus some aircraft. The French cannot reach North American targets greater than 4,000 kms from the submarine which means at best reaching targets on the East Coast and maybe the Gulf of Mexico... assumng both submarines aren't destroyed by US SSNs, which make a point of trailing submarines that have nuclear missiles aboard.

My point essentially was that with the overwhelming superiority the US has in strategic nuclear weapons, a hostile EU wouldn't be able to discount the possibility of a US Counterforce strike on the EUs nuclear capability that would have a high probability of success.... which also applies to the Chinese in our real world situation (who have a less capable strategic arsenal). Without a nuclear deterrent at that point, the EU would be in serious trouble if a counter force strike succeeded.

France, like the Chinese, depend on their nuclear forces as a deterrent against someone launching a first strike against them.... and thats pretty iffy. The French got away with it in the Cold War because most of the Soviet weapons were pointed at the US and China, leaving only theater weapons to be split between nuclear and conventional targets in Europe, and the Soviets weren't very good at trailing SSBNs.

My other point was that this situtation isn't likely to change without at least a 10 year lead time, assuming the political will and economic capability exists to change that situation by any would be power seeking parity with the US.

The only power that has even close to parity with the US at this point is Russia, and their strategic weaponry isn't anywhere what it used to be for a lot of different reasons.

If communism hadn't been opposed since its conception(1917, 1921, 30's with fascists becoming an obvious threat to the USSR, 45-89 with cold war, vietnam's constant invasions, cuba and bay of pigs, need I go on?), then communism might have had a chance. If the world had been taken by the USSR and communism(Stalinism in '45), there would have been no outer enemies, and so no need for a large army. There would probably be a long period of dictatorship, due to the higher echelons being afraid of internal revolt, but they would be the minority as each generation got more imbedded in the ideals.

Even if only europe was consolidated under communism, there wouldnt have been the need for huge forces in europe. The US wouldnt gain the kick-backs from marshall plan, and the communists would control every major country except the US, Japan, Australia, and possibly UK.

My point is, if the communists didn't have such outer aggression, then it would have been able to flourish. There would have been corruption, every society has it. However, as every new generation came, it would become more pure, as the people would grow up with the ideology, and the misgivings of the corruption of their leaders. It may have taken longer for the world to get to its level today, but the long term gains could have defidentally outweighed the short-term prosperity we have been having.

You're giving the Soviet Politburo too much credit. Just about everyone up to Gorbatov (sp?) -- and even him, a lot of times -- was a powerhungry egocentric meglomaniac. They would not give up their power for the populus -- the Politburo people deserved that power and luxury, remember, according to thir political ideology.

China occupied by Japan.
the Philipines under the Japanese boot.
Indochina under both the French, and the Japanese.

By way of comparison, the French had it really easy under the German occupation.

I was reffering to Fortress Europe, and it would be foolish and insensitive to say anyone had it "easy" under the yoke of Nazi oppression.

You're giving the Soviet Politburo too much credit. Just about everyone up to Gorbatov (sp?) -- and even him, a lot of times -- was a powerhungry egocentric meglomaniac. They would not give up their power for the populus -- the Politburo people deserved that power and luxury, remember, according to thir political ideology.

Yes, and actually analyse these leaders. Lenin and Stalin were revolutionary leaders, its hard for them to be expected to not give up power. Khruschev denounced Stalin's tactics, and was leading toward detente; Then he was deposed by Breznev(sp?), which wouldnt have happened if international issues hadn't given the warhawks a good reason. Everyone after Breznev was moving toward detente, and looking out for the people moreso than their predecessors. The outer influences were the ones that turned this reform into a capitalist revolution.

You need strong leaders in wartime, which the cold-war can have the same idea applied to it. Its why FDR chose to re-run for his last two terms.

I was mistaken,... France didn't enter into the START Treaty...

current French nuclear capability
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/frnukes.html

5 submarines, 2 usually at sea, no ICBMs, plus some aircraft. The French cannot reach North American targets greater than 4,000 kms from the submarine which means at best reaching targets on the East Coast and maybe the Gulf of Mexico... assumng both submarines aren't destroyed by US SSNs, which make a point of trailing submarines that have nuclear missiles aboard.

My point essentially was that with the overwhelming superiority the US has in strategic nuclear weapons, a hostile EU wouldn't be able to discount the possibility of a US Counterforce strike on the EUs nuclear capability that would have a high probability of success.... which also applies to the Chinese in our real world situation (who have a less capable strategic arsenal). Without a nuclear deterrent at that point, the EU would be in serious trouble if a counter force strike succeeded.

France, like the Chinese, depend on their nuclear forces as a deterrent against someone launching a first strike against them.... and thats pretty iffy. The French got away with it in the Cold War because most of the Soviet weapons were pointed at the US and China, leaving only theater weapons to be split between nuclear and conventional targets in Europe, and the Soviets weren't very good at trailing SSBNs.

My other point was that this situtation isn't likely to change without at least a 10 year lead time, assuming the political will and economic capability exists to change that situation by any would be power seeking parity with the US.

The only power that has even close to parity with the US at this point is Russia, and their strategic weaponry isn't anywhere what it used to be for a lot of different reasons.

4000km? Try 6000, with the M-45 which is the current standard. A submarine at marseilles could hit Washington DC. Anything reasonably close to the the US, in either the atlantic or pacific, could hit most of america. Most of the important cities are on the coasts, anyways.

My point is, it doesnt matter how many weapons the US has. France can completely ruin America with its arsenal, which is MAD.

4000km? Try 6000, with the M-45 which is the current standard. A submarine at marseilles could hit Washington DC. Anything reasonably close to the the US, in either the atlantic or pacific, could hit most of america. Most of the important cities are on the coasts, anyways.

My point is, it doesnt matter how many weapons the US has. France can completely ruin America with its arsenal, which is MAD.

I am quoting from the link, which seems pretty thorough... and yes, MAD would prevent the French from launching a nuclear attack against the US

I don't believe a threat would come from without, but from within. Turkey has somewhat unstable relations with Greece, especially when it comes to Cyprus. English relations with Ireland may lead to small-armed conflicts. Of course, the Russians may attempt to reclaim their former glory, as pointed out earlier.

North Korea presents an interesting enemy. They are small, but fierce and apparently have basic nuclear weaponry. Any conflict with NK would also bring China into the mix, how or when is still up for speculation. If China enters the conflict on NK's side, the US would probably join with the EU's offensive/defensive. This would lead to either the collapse of the Chinese economy, and their withdrawal from the war or the detriment of the United States economy, the degree of harm is up for speculation. If China decides to invade NK, the end of the conflict would be there. China could easily take out NK.

China is also eyeing Taiwan. If they were to invade Taiwan, which they said they would do, the US could jump in to defend the small island nation. The EU would have some part in this, but how or when is up to speculation.

The prospect of a US Vs EU war would only end in a draw, as their are comparable in many aspects. The EU is very young and untested in warfare or even international politics. Also, some EU nations are in NATO, which could lead to dissent in either group. On the other hand, the EU does have a larger population when compared to the US... this would be a problem, but the United States is extremely well armed.

Never underestimate a militia, this was one of the key mistakes the British made in the American Revolutionary War. They attempted to fight a conventional war against unconventional foes. That and the support coming from THE FRENCH spelled the doom of the British efforts on the mainland US, up until the war of 1812.

The American military is well trained, but it is somewhat smaller than it has been in the past. Many European nations have compulsive civil service, many of those civil servants enter the military and receive basic training, this is not true for all EU nations.

A nuclear or even a biological war would spell doom for both parties, so I do not believe either group would seek this option.

I tried to be fair to all nations mentioned when writing this.

I don't believe a threat would come from without, but from within. Turkey has somewhat unstable relations with Greece, especially when it comes to Cyprus. English relations with Ireland may lead to small-armed conflicts. Of course, the Russians may attempt to reclaim their former glory, as pointed out earlier.

North Korea presents an interesting enemy. They are small, but fierce and apparently have basic nuclear weaponry. Any conflict with NK would also bring China into the mix, how or when is still up for speculation. If China enters the conflict on NK's side, the US would probably join with the EU's offensive/defensive. This would lead to either the collapse of the Chinese economy, and their withdrawal from the war or the detriment of the United States economy, the degree of harm is up for speculation. If China decides to invade NK, the end of the conflict would be there. China could easily take out NK.


China is also eyeing Taiwan. If they were to invade Taiwan, which they said they would do, the US could jump in to defend the small island nation. The EU would have some part in this, but how or when is up to speculation.

The prospect of a US Vs EU war would only end in a draw, as their are comparable in many aspects. The EU is very young and untested in warfare or even international politics. Also, some EU nations are in NATO, which could lead to dissent in either group. On the other hand, the EU does have a larger population when compared to the US... this would be a problem, but the United States is extremely well armed.

Never underestimate a militia, this was one of the key mistakes the British made in the American Revolutionary War. They attempted to fight a conventional war against unconventional foes. That and the support coming from THE FRENCH spelled the doom of the British efforts on the mainland US, up until the war of 1812.

The American military is well trained, but it is somewhat smaller than it has been in the past. Many European nations have compulsive civil service, many of those civil servants enter the military and receive basic training, this is not true for all EU nations.

A nuclear or even a biological war would spell doom for both parties, so I do not believe either group would seek this option.

I tried to be fair to all nations mentioned when writing this.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is not unconcievable, but i could never see China supporting south Korea's northern neighbor. Not again.

Do all Americans hate France? Why? In WWII many other countries fell to German occuption and had to surrender, including France. France would not immediately surrender, they would put up at least some of a fight, as they always have done.
You see most other countries put up a fight before they surrendered, the nazi's flippin strolled into Paris and said "This place is ours", even Belgium put up a response! Its evened out by their valiant reply to war in 1914-1918! As for the whole "If ____ attacked Europe", i reckon it would be in response to something fucked up we did on them!

I fear, as well, that the most possible "war-scenario" in Europe will come from within its borders. The gluttonous expansion of the European Union seeks to nullify all past and current differences between the nations involved. The Union used to be "so we'd never fight again", now it's more like "did we ever fight? Can't seem to remember". The Union does have a historic basis, yet this basis is all but forgotten by the most recent European political movements. It has become more of an economic project, nowadays. The Union most fanatically looks foward, but in doing so creates a fissure between the haves and the have-nots, the want and the want-nots. The Union can do loads of good for Europe, yet I fear this might drown in separatist voices very, very soon. Old differences will be dug out not for their own sake, but as a means to an end in an argumentative debate on economic and social matters.

You see most other countries put up a fight before they surrendered, the nazi's flippin strolled into Paris and said "This place is ours", even Belgium put up a response! Its evened out by their valiant reply to war in 1914-1918! As for the whole "If ____ attacked Europe", i reckon it would be in response to something fucked up we did on them!

actually, if you read about the Fall of France in 1940 you will discover that the French put up a pretty good fight.. they were simply outgeneraled about as bad as could be

I don't believe a threat would come from without, but from within. Turkey has somewhat unstable relations with Greece, especially when it comes to Cyprus. English relations with Ireland may lead to small-armed conflicts. Of course, the Russians may attempt to reclaim their former glory, as pointed out earlier.


A war between Ireland and Britain? Not likely. I think diplomatic terms between the two countries are quite good - Irish and British Prime Ministers have been working together to sort out the problems of Northen Ireland.

New Watenho']Aaaaaahahahahahahahah! We can't respond to American aggression! We'd be fucked! Y'know what the best chance we have is? The UK has a nuclear arsenal. That's about it, y'know. Oh, and the one weapon France has. That'd be about it, and we wouldn't use it, because we know what would happen to us in return. However, under the circumstances, and considering the relatively peaceful nature of most of the EU (compared to the USA) I'd be willing to be Russia or China would back us up, just to stop American expansionism. Now that would be another MAD scenario.
Hahaa, but the USA has big guns stationed across Europe. We would just take them and thretaen them with their own weapons! And let's not forget how much trouble the Americans have at the moment with Iraq, now imagine them fighting a larger, more modern, better motivated nations...
But, it goes vice versa.

Turkey has somewhat unstable relations with Greece, especially when it comes to Cyprus.

Yeah, but it's not something they'd go to war about. I think it's in the same vein as Spain-Gibralatar-Britain. Of course, on Cyprus itself, it's a bit different (compared with Gibraltar...althought the Spanish Govt do cause a lot of hassle in crossing the border), but Turkey and Greece aren't all that directly involved.


English relations with Ireland may lead to small-armed conflicts.

Err....no.

Really, why?? I mean, seriously, why? The only issues are in Northern Ireland between the Northern Irish and....the Northern Irish. The UK and Ireland are just fed up with Northern Ireland, they don't really care who gets it. (Although interestingly, in recently declassified documents it war revealed that Ireland had considered an invasion of Northern Ireland in the 50s/60s But that would have been stupid, and it certainly wouldn't happen now)

WAR IN EUROPE -

Any war in the Balkans or civil war in ex-Warsaw Pact/USSR state that borders the EU would probably see a joint action from the EU, but that would be a peacekeeping mission rather than military aggression. But beyond that, I don't think there's anything in the foreseeable future that would make Europe go to war. Europe's main aim is stability, hence why it would only go on peacekeeping missions.

WORLD WAR.

I think that if there were going to be any serious wars involving Europe (as a whole) would be reasonably far in the future. I think the world is undergoing a serious regionalisation process just now. Chinese-India relations are unusually good just now, and between them they seem to be trying to shift power away from Japan so that the focus of the region is shifted in on itself.

In Africa, the African Union is talking about Unified forces entering Sudan, and the aims of the AU appear to be similar to those of the EU, although obviously they are incomparable in terms of progress in unification and economic power.

Brazil is increasing its power and influence in Latin America, and democratisation is on the rise there, leading to the possibility of serious regional development in the future.

Obviously the US is effectively a region of its own, but its power and influence are decreasing in comparison to China, India and the EU. I think it has now lost its title as the world's only superpower since China, India and the EU all have nuclear weapons, both China and the EU now have bigger economies that the US , China has a bigger army and the EU has comparable technology even if the possibility of unified action is uncertain.

The UN Security council is going to be redrawn to reflect the increasing power of all these states. Future world conflict will be determined by how these regions develop and it is possible that there could be conflict now that there is once again more than one superpower

Return of the USSR and they want Poland! :eek:
governments never cared about poland before. why would they start now?

Hahaa, but the USA has big guns stationed across Europe. We would just take them and thretaen them with their own weapons!

Yeah, don't underestimate us Belgians - we're a subversive lot, that's what we are. We KNOW where the US is stationing their nukes in our country, and we know how to get there...

*cough* Kleine Brogel *cough* (Oops, now I've said it :p )

The US nukes... Canada. Everyone loves Canada. Even Osama bin Laden can't hate on them.

No, I don't.

Do all Americans hate France? Why? In WWII many other countries fell to German occuption and had to surrender, including France. France would not immediately surrender, they would put up at least some of a fight, as they always have done.

I don't hate France, its people, or its culture. However, I have heard it's not exactly a pleasant place to visit. Everyone I know who traveled there was treated with much prejudice.

I don't hate France, its people, or its culture. However, I have heard it's not exactly a pleasant place to visit. Everyone I know who traveled there was treated with much prejudice.

That's just how the French are, for the most part. It's part of their cultural identity. (Just like many Americans eat fast-food.) I dare say, it is not something personal when the French treat you with prejudice.

Edit: and Paris is a wonderful city. Although the Parisians might be considered stuck-up, but that's alright by me - to each his own, as they say. If you're stuck-up in return, they'll very easily accept you!

The French aren't arrogant, or discriminatory. Parrisienes are of course, if you visit the country the people are quite accomidating, and not at all prejudice to travellers or foreigners.

Et voilà, Psov agrees. So there, there is nothing wrong with "ze French". "Ils aiment tous les autres", comme il faut.

haven't you heard the "going postal" jokes about the US Postal Service workers.... they are supposed to be a dangerous bunch after all (although they generally only shoot each other..... reference is a series of nasty work place situations back in the 1980s and 1990s, some of which involved shooting incidents)

MIB II.?

Of course. I was about to track you down and rip your head off for the map you posted (I am an American Nationalist), but I figured it was one big joke, so I laughed it off.......

I think I stated what I will work to make happen quite clearly. :D

EuroWars III, The Revenge of Denmark

After centuries spent brooding and biding their time the leaders of Denmark decide to finally strike a blow for Danish domination. Since the end of WWII, Denmark, scourge of the seven seas, has been secretly building a nuclear arsenal. Hiding behind their smallness and "wooden shoes stereotype" (aw crap, was that Denmark or the Netherlands, I always confuse those two when it comes to culture) they have managed to build hundreds of ICBM's capable of reaching China, the US and Belize.
They storm onto the world stage with a lighting commando strike on the British Parliament. 17 Danish commandos assasinate the entire British government in 8 minutes, except for John Galloway who is in the US testifying before the US Senate for some reason.
Next, another small group of commandos hit the US capital. They fly a small plane toward the White House causing all in the Congress, White House, Pentagon and local burger joints to flee in a mad panic. They then pick them off as they run from the buildings. John Galloway manages to escape and remains the only elected member of either country alive. He manages to seel both countries to Iran for a few million barrels of oil and retires to a life of luxury.
The Danes sweep across Europe. The Germans apologize for everything and surrender. The French refuse to apologize for anything and then surrender. The Spanish and Italians take a nap and wake up with their countries occupied, but since nothing really changes they don't care.
Only the Poles, the dowdy Poles put up a good fight. Eventually a stalemate is achieved and the Russians thank the Poles for stopping the onslaught.

Danish glory, Danish might, Danish housing styles rule Europe!

EuroWars III, The Revenge of Denmark

After centuries spent brooding and biding their time the leaders of Denmark decide to finally strike a blow for Danish domination. Since the end of WWII, Denmark, scourge of the seven seas, has been secretly building a nuclear arsenal. Hiding behind their smallness and "wooden shoes stereotype" (aw crap, was that Denmark or the Netherlands, I always confuse those two when it comes to culture) they have managed to build hundreds of ICBM's capable of reaching China, the US and Belize.
They storm onto the world stage with a lighting commando strike on the British Parliament. 17 Danish commandos assasinate the entire British government in 8 minutes, except for John Galloway who is in the US testifying before the US Senate for some reason.
Next, another small group of commandos hit the US capital. They fly a small plane toward the White House causing all in the Congress, White House, Pentagon and local burger joints to flee in a mad panic. They then pick them off as they run from the buildings. John Galloway manages to escape and remains the only elected member of either country alive. He manages to seel both countries to Iran for a few million barrels of oil and retires to a life of luxury.
The Danes sweep across Europe. The Germans apologize for everything and surrender. The French refuse to apologize for anything and then surrender. The Spanish and Italians take a nap and wake up with their countries occupied, but since nothing really changes they don't care.
Only the Poles, the dowdy Poles put up a good fight. Eventually a stalemate is achieved and the Russians thank the Poles for stopping the onslaught.

Danish glory, Danish might, Danish housing styles rule Europe!

That's an interesting prediction..

That's an interesting prediction..

Its the housing styles prediction that puts it over the top. I mean, it is unrealistic to think those housing styles could become dominant even when military victory was achieved. I tried for too much and it ruined my credibility.

Its the housing styles prediction that puts it over the top. I mean, it is unrealistic to think those housing styles could become dominant even when military victory was achieved. I tried for too much and it ruined my credibility.

I don't know, it's not totally unconcievable.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is not unconcievable, but i could never see China supporting south Korea's northern neighbor. Not again.

The Chinese couldn't risk offending the US. They depend on the multibillion dollar trade deficit we have with them -- they would never support the invasion.

At least, not openly.

I think I stated what I will work to make happen quite clearly. :D

If you did, I missed it.