NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, we didn't have a good France thread for a while, right, so here I go.

There is many misconceptions about France's behaviour in WW2. They didn't surrender easily of course. Why would they? They have a splendid military history, they had fought bravely to keep the Republic intact during WW1, and came out the victor.

Now some facts:
In 1939, France's army was one of the most powerful armies in the world. After WW1 however, they built a huge fortification system called the "Maginot Line". That was meant to act as a defence against another German attack, and it was therefore built along the border with Germany. It cost France billions of Francs (think of it like today's US spending on Iraq) and manning it required a large portion of the French army.
Then Germany attacked Poland, Britain and France declared war on them, and the war began. In Winter 1939-40 there was nothing going on along the border, other than a small French offensive that was stopped because the French strategy focussed on defence and the Maginot line.
When the Germans were done with Poland, they developed a new plan for attacking France. Parts of the old Schlieffen plan were taken, as well as bits and pieces of other ideas, until a new plan was developed.
That plan included an attack through Holland and Belgium, so the Maginot Line wasn't gonna be any good for the French.
When this offensive begun, important bridges and so on were captured by German paratroopers in days, rather than the weeks anticipated by the allies. Britain was still getting its forces coordinated, while they were already under fire in Belgium.
Generally, allied command still assumed though that the main German offensive went against the Maginot Line, and so much of the French army was left there.
As the Germans proceeded through into France, it dawned on the Allies that this may be a serious threat, and they reacted. German tank units were going very quick (mainly Rommel and Guderian deserve mention), and the goal was going to be Sedan.
In Sedan, French forces were ready for the attack, but for reasons still debated today, the adventurous and daring crossing of the local river by the Germans brought the French plans into such disarray that chaos broke out. Some units were fighting valiantly though, including DeGaulle’s unit.
Many French soldiers believed the Germans had broken through somewhere and in order not to be encircled they retreated. In reality, no German breakthrough had occurred just yet, but with massive confusion, no communication and thousands of refugees on all roads, there was no easy way of stopping the retreat.
By the time all units had been reorganised, German forces had taken most important towns in the area and the damage was irreparable. New lines of defence frequently failed to impress, and there were first voices acknowledging that the war may be lost. During all this time however, many troops were still along the Maginot Line.
The British meanwhile were also ready to concede defeat and moved their forces toward Dunkirk for evacuation, without telling the French about it.
In short, Paris was taken as the French troops didn’t want to see the city destroyed by war, the French government retreated to the South, and the war was essentially lost.
There was no choice but to ask for peace, as the French army was defeated and the British were rescuing their own soldiers, leaving much material behind.
The French fleet was evacuated by their crews and moved to North Africa, were they were later attacked by the British, who didn’t want the ships to fall into German hands.
All in all, France did well. The circumstances were bad, their Generals were usually far removed from the fighting and their communication equipment was inadequate.

How that allows for making up these stories about French surrender, especially by Americans, is beyond me.

You described failure, that is never something to be proud of in war. There is no patting the loser on the back for "good effort" out of "good sportsmanship." They lost and they called for peace.

There was simply nothing impressive in your post, at all. Except of course on the part of the Germans but that isn't really the point.

Um, given that the Germans had attacked Belgium in the first WW and then attacked France, why exactly didn't the French fortify that border? I mean, Hitler obviously knew of the existence of the Maginot line, given that it would be a bit hard to conceal. He also probably knew how far it extended. Combined with the fact that the Belgians had too small of a population to defend their country it seems quite obvious how any semi-intelligent commander would attack France. Apparently the French high command didn't think this one through. Also, since the French and British were essentially the direct cause for the econoimc situation that allowed Hitler to rise to power as easily as he did, I have little sympathy for them.

It is true, French high command wasn't exactly useful. But that is not the fault of the French people, nor of the French Government.

Did I mean to be impressive?
These are the facts, that's what happened. I don't know what you want to achieve by discounting French efforts and keeping the myth that France somehow couldn't fight.

:yawn:

The French were

Out maneuvered
Out gunned
Out soldiered
Out right, fucking screwed.

And they did surrender. They just got their asses handed to them first.

Actually, to be fair to the french, after Dunkirk, and the collapse of the french high command, the french fighting man fought incredibly bravely for an already lost cause. The army suffered tens of thousands of casualties (I believe 100,000 but i can't remember off-hand) in a few weeks.

Frances problem was it had a terrible strategy, poor Generals and no command and control, i.e, the high command was in a builfing without telephones. Often by the time te high command had decided upon a point to dig in and repulse the Germans, that area had already been over-run.

You can't say that the average french soldier was a coward despite the behavior of his bosses. (Many of who were rightful hung at the end of the war by the french themselves).

Um, given that the Germans had attacked Belgium in the first WW and then attacked France, why exactly didn't the French fortify that border? I mean, Hitler obviously knew of the existence of the Maginot line, given that it would be a bit hard to conceal. He also probably knew how far it extended. Combined with the fact that the Belgians had too small of a population to defend their country it seems quite obvious how any semi-intelligent commander would attack France. Apparently the French high command didn't think this one through. Also, since the French and British were essentially the direct cause for the econoimc situation that allowed Hitler to rise to power as easily as he did, I have little sympathy for them.

The Marginot line was planned to extend to the sea eventually, however, by the time the german's had remillitarized the Rhineland, money and time constraints prevented it happening.

And since the Germans were going so fast (I think they took less than a week to bust Belgium/Holland) it was impossible to make any real defenses on the Belgian border.

they did not fight valiantly. the spring blitzkrieg was at best for the french a catastrophic ass-handing. they didn't even fare as well as the poles.

Thankyou. You summed that up with a lot more intelligence and a lot more civility than one Frenchman I once had the ill-fortune to encounter online, who basically summed up the matter as "French soldiers are teh l33t! French were far better than English or Americans, and would have fought back teh Germans if it hadn't been for their politishuns making tem surrender!!!!11eleven!"

As I understand it, a major factor which caused the eventual collapse of the French army was their overall battle doctrine: they had concluded from WW1 that the way to win a war was to fortify heavily, bombard the enemy with massive amounts of artillery, take a bit of ground, fortify it, bombard heavily...

While not a bad strategy, it was one which was completely unsuited to fighting against an army based around the concept of mobile warfare like the Germans were using. The French were decent soldiers, but crippled by a battle doctrine which gave all the initiative to the enemy.

what was frances plan to defeat Germany? Plan 17? (maybe that was WW1 Im not sure) I remember hearing about it somewhere can you fill me in?

they did not fight valiantly. the spring blitzkrieg was at best for the french a catastrophic ass-handing. they didn't even fare as well as the poles.
Why do people insist on using the word blitzkrieg rather than just calling it, ahem idunno...lightning warfare for example? Do you know how stupid that sounds to a German?

Oh, and how did the Poles do any better?

Be fair. The fact that the French infrastructure was largely intact probably helped with spy operations being carried out by the allies as well as french resistance.

Not a complete loss. Just goes to show you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.

The French did have a small portion of their population that fought very bravely, after of course the government and command structure was out of their way. Unfortunately documentaries of the huge number of collaberators and tratiors that undermined their efforts and cost many thousands of lives, lived on long after the wars end, even though many of them did not. Well, the male ones anyway. Male tratiors were shot, females were humiliated. This was extensivley filmed and reported on, I am sure in places other than France.

Why do people insist on using the word blitzkrieg rather than just calling it, ahem idunno...lightning warfare for example? Do you know how stupid that sounds to a German?

Oh, and how did the Poles do any better?

The poles were outnumbered 3 to 1 (this isn't even including the huge numbers thrown at eastern Poland by the soviet union). As opposed to 114 french divisions against 142 German.

Poland held out for five weeks. France (with british assistance) lasted 12 days.

Why do people insist on using the word blitzkrieg rather than just calling it, ahem idunno...lightning warfare for example? Do you know how stupid that sounds to a German?


Blitzkrieg sounds better, is quicker to type and, TBH the germans kinda coined the phrase.

As an American, I think the only way most of us could sympathize with the valiant effort of the French would be if a similar situation put U.S. soil at stake. Historically, Americans are always on the offensive. The idea of surrender doesn't occur to most of us as viable, let alone dignified. Without experiencing occupation in the modern era, it's easy to see why US citizens posess such a blind spot. I think. But what do I know? :rolleyes:

Do you all masturbate to the myth of the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys?

:rolleyes:

Poland held out for five weeks. France (with british assistance) lasted 12 days.
September 1st - Germany invades Poland.
September 17th - Soviet Union invades eastern Poland.
September 27th - Surrender of Warsaw.

May 10th - Germany invades Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg.
June 14th - German army enters Paris.
June 22nd - France signs armistice with Germany.
July 11th - Petain becomes head of French Vichy Government.

12 days, huh?

You also have to remember morale.

When the Magniot Line proved useless, it also hit a hard blow to morale for the French.

Personally, I don't like the French Surrender jokes. France was a major military power at the start of WWII, not some third-rate armed militia.

The problem is that, as the victors of the last war, they decided to stick with the strategy that one them the war, as opposed to the losers (Germany) who had to find a new strategy.

One which I prefer once you hit the industrial age, mobile warfare. The French of 1939 were guilty of bad planning and bad command-and-control. They were not guilty of cowardice in the face of the enemy, nor were they guilty of surrendering as soon as things looked bad.

France surrendered once they lost the war. There is nearly no point to keep on fighting when there is no chance of winning, and the leadership of France at that point decided not to risk losing ALL of France to Germany.

Given the situation, it was the right decision to make. South is a nominally-German ally, Spain. North and East is Germany itself. England, which was France's main ally, was across the Channel, abandoned France without warning, and withdrew its troops before France surrendered.

In fact, the leaders of England at the time made the SAME BAD MISTAKES their French counterparts did, in regards to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

It was the British PM Chamberlain who said he achieved peace in our time, while the French PM (Or President. I forget who exactly) stated, "The fools, why are they cheering" in regards to the same event, leading me to believe that the French had the better grasp of reality at this time.

Yet, nobody makes jokes about English troops or English mistakes.

What strikes me as odd is that the initial Russian Collapse was even more dramatic than the French. (For many of the same reasons). Is it the fault of the french soldier that france had roads, was without thousands of miles to retreat into, lacked a mud season and an artic winter?

If you do not call the Russians cowards, it is hardly fair to do the same to the french. They did not fare any better in 1941, and they had already seen what happened to the french!

It is only because of conditions outside the control of the Russian army, and German confusion as to the nature and conditions of the territory they would have to fight upon, that the Russians were allowed a breathing space to re-organize and draw upon fresh troops from the east.

The average french soldier is just as brave as one from any other nation (except scotland, of course). Unfortunately, they tend to be commanded by wingnuts.

If I can admit this, then surely anyone can.

As an American, I think the only way most of us could sympathize with the valiant effort of the French would be if a similar situation put U.S. soil at stake. Historically, Americans are always on the offensive. The idea of surrender doesn't occur to most of us as viable, let alone dignified. Without experiencing occupation in the modern era, it's easy to see why US citizens posess such a blind spot. I think. But what do I know? :rolleyes:

At the time of the American Revolution, nearly every major city in New England was occupied by English troops. Its amazing that we even won that war.

Dear lord, I can list three times the USA was attacked on its own soil, excluding the Civil War...

Revolutionary War,
War of 1812 (They burned Washington in revenge for us burning Ottowa)
World War 2 (Pearl Harbor, Phillipenes...)

England, which was France's main ally, was across the Channel, abandoned France without warning, and withdrew its troops before France surrendered.

That's not exactly true. And indeed, prior to the completetion of Dynamo, the British released the french from the no seperate peace (surrender) pact.

Initially, there were hopes that the BEF could be withdrawn and rejoin the Battle for france further west. Conditions changed so rapidly that it became impossible.

It is true, French high command wasn't exactly useful. But that is not the fault of the French people, nor of the French Government.

Given that the French High Command was appointed by the government it is at least partially their fault.

One thing to note with Russia in particular is that the Wehrmacht were, without doubt the finest line infantry of the age. Russian soldiers on-for one were not nearly as good and with their command staff raped by Stalin they couldn't muster any organisation for a long time.

What strikes me as odd is that the initial Russian Collapse was even more dramatic than the French. (For many of the same reasons). Is it the fault of the french soldier that france had roads, was without thousands of miles to retreat into, lacked a mud season and an artic winter?

If you do not call the Russians cowards, it is hardly fair to do the same to the french. They did not fare any better in 1941, and they had already seen what happened to the french!

It is only because of conditions outside the control of the Russian army, and German confusion as to the nature and conditions of the territory they would have to fight upon, that the Russians were allowed a breathing space to re-organize and draw upon fresh troops from the east.

The average french soldier is just as brave as one from any other nation (except scotland, of course). Unfortunately, they tend to be commanded by wingnuts.

If I can admit this, then surely anyone can.

1. General Winter pwns all.

2. It has been my plan for a long time to take over Canada, then France. Take the French Army, replace the officers with Canadians. I'd win every war.

3. Ratha loves numbered posts

4. Russia also had the luck of the large nations, being able to fall back and spend land for time. They also were invaded... what, Hitler was the third person? The guy who founded the HRE (Some German king, oy), and Napolean *A FRENCH DUDE* (Okay, Corsican...), and both failed... due to General Winter.

Dear lord, I can list three times the USA was attacked on its own soil, excluding the Civil War...


Revolutionary War,
War of 1812 (They burned Washington in revenge for us burning Ottowa)
World War 2 (Pearl Harbor, Phillipenes...)

The nearest anyone got to your mainland in the best part of 200 years was Hawaii. Everyone in Europe has been conquered or at least invaded several times in that period barring the UK who had the next best thing (20 miles from the most capable army in the world relying on an inexperienced and outnumbered airforce, brown pants time).

The most salient contribution the French made to WWII was covering the beaches at Dunkirk so the Brits could get out. And I won't slight them; they fought like tigers. Too bad they didn't fight that way from the beginning. Their whole war effort was like it was still shell-shocked from WW1.

One thing to note with Russia in particular is that the Wehrmacht were, without doubt the finest line infantry of the age. Russian soldiers on-for one were not nearly as good and with their command staff raped by Stalin they couldn't muster any organisation for a long time.

Hell, even as late as 1944 (when you think they'd have thier shit together), they were losing 6 to every German 1.

They also provided pilots and soldiers, the Free French fought alongside the Poles and Czechs that got out in the Battle of Britain (amongst other contributions, as I recall the Foreign legion played a part in Africa).

The most salient contribution the French made to WWII was covering the beaches at Dunkirk so the Brits could get out. And I won't slight them; they fought like tigers. Too bad they didn't fight that way from the beginning. Their whole war effort was like it was still shell-shocked from WW1.

So was Poland's, so was England's, so was Luxemburg, Belgium, and the third Low Country I can't remeber offhand.

You have to remeber, England failed on the continent as well, with the exception of Dunkirk.

Pretty much the entire world was in shock by the speed of Germany's movement.

At the time of the American Revolution, nearly every major city in New England was occupied by English troops. Its amazing that we even won that war.

Dear lord, I can list three times the USA was attacked on its own soil, excluding the Civil War...

Revolutionary War,
War of 1812 (They burned Washington in revenge for us burning Ottowa)
World War 2 (Pearl Harbor, Phillipenes...)

One small quibble: Ottawa didn't exist at the time of 1812. Maybe you're thinking of York (now Toronto) or Newark (today's Niagara-on-the-Lake)?

Ah, you're right. Toronto.

My field is Roman and WWII.. >.>;

So was Poland's, so was England's, so was Luxemburg, Belgium, and the third Low Country I can't remeber offhand.

You have to remeber, England failed on the continent as well, with the exception of Dunkirk.

Pretty much the entire world was in shock by the speed of Germany's movement.

Very true. But England is not and was not a Continental power. People expected more, much more, from the mighty French army.

Very true. But England is not and was not a Continental power. People expected more, much more, from the mighty French army.

They still shared the same operational views and organization and battleplans - at least, in their basic tactics - as the French.

The German movement's speed should not have been a suprise to anyone. The Soviets used similar tactics in Mongolia against the Japanese and anyone who had any participants in the Spanish Civil War (including Britain, the US and France), should have noticed the German strategy radically changing and by 1938 had completely developed into the strategies of World War II.

The German movement's speed should not have been a suprise to anyone. The Soviets used similar tactics in Mongolia against the Japanese and anyone who had any participants in the Spanish Civil War (including Britain, the US and France), should have noticed the German strategy radically changing and by 1938 had completely developed into the strategies of World War II.

And thus, the power of hindsight.

Remeber, though, England, US, and France had no official and direct involvement in the Spanish Civil War, and who'se going to pay attention to what the Russians are doing to the asiatics on the far side of their realm?

England and France were still in the mindset of WWI, Trench Warfare.

Did you seriously thought France could resist Germany? no country in Europe could there was no victory, except perhaps the british with their special agents and superb air strategy, and the russians who turned out to be a really powerful foe, but eventhough France had a respected army they were no match to the Wehrmacht, i mean look at the technology Germany used at that specific time.

The only remarkable thing i could say about frenchies is their resistance nothing more.

Hm! So far as I know, the reason that the Maginot Line didn't extend along the Belgian border was political and moral. How could France -during peacetime- build a defensive wall against one of its allies? You have to realise that WWII wasn't always happening... there was peace before. Walling out the Belgians, treating them like enemies, and leaving them to the slaughter was unthinkable. The Belgians themselves had forts and other static defences and their own defence plans established, and the French just had to trust that these would be sufficient in the short term (the story of German captures of Belgian forts is surely as interesting as the French collapse, no?).

More than that, the French people just didn't want a war after what they'd suffered in the Great War. It is a bit dodgey to question them without having gone through what they did. That doesn't mean their decisions were sensible, but does put apathy and unreadiness into some context.

Oh, and if the USA were connected by land to Europe, it would have fallen -mile for mile or man for man- faster than France did, I'd put money on that.

The German movement's speed should not have been a suprise to anyone. The Soviets used similar tactics in Mongolia against the Japanese and anyone who had any participants in the Spanish Civil War (including Britain, the US and France), should have noticed the German strategy radically changing and by 1938 had completely developed into the strategies of World War II.

The british colonial forces made extensive use of the machine gun before WWI, the I.G.S. didn't get the memo then either.

The british were even planning a automated trench diggin machine as late as the spring of 1940. It was called cultivator no.9 I believe. I'll see if I can find a link.

Edit: Cultivator no.6. Damn dyslexia!!!. Originally called White Rabbit no.6. I can't find a link.

Did you seriously thought France could resist Germany? no country in Europe could there was no victory, except perhaps the british with their special agents and superb air strategy, and the russians who turned out to be a really powerful foe, but eventhough France had a respected army they were no match to the Wehrmacht, i mean look at the technology Germany used at that specific time.

The only remarkable thing i could say about frenchies is their resistance nothing more.

Think 1940 though and put that into context (I like to be fair, even if my last post was in defence of the French). German armour was largely inferior to French armour. French aircraft were largely inferior, but they had the support of some BEF aircraft, many of which were a match for the Germans (even the Defiants scored dozens of kills, with half the battery of a Hurricane and without even having any forward-firing guns!). German technical superiority was not really all that pronounced at any single point in the war, I'd say. They had a lot of fantastic scientists and ideas, for which many enthusiasts now remember them, but a Panzer II was no match for a Somua S-35, nor a stolen Czech tank for a Char B1bis.

I mean D-Day wasn't that important, the german troops that were in France on that time were only stupid kids that had never tasted combat, and look a handfull of germans kicked the shit out of the americans and english, but yeah Britain fought well, they made some impressive battles, I don't remember the name but there was this one on a bridge on D-Day that was a good battle, americans where being killed like cattle, russians fought like devils, my father was holding off russians on that time and he told that russians were devils.

US had the advantage of being in another continent, that gave them huge advantage, french resistance used well-made guerilla operations.

Hm! So far as I know, the reason that the Maginot Line didn't extend along the Belgian border was political and moral. How could France -during peacetime- build a defensive wall against one of its allies? You have to realise that WWII wasn't always happening... there was peace before. Walling out the Belgians, treating them like enemies, and leaving them to the slaughter was unthinkable. The Belgians themselves had forts and other static defences and their own defence plans established, and the French just had to trust that these would be sufficient in the short term (the story of German captures of Belgian forts is surely as interesting as the French collapse, no?).

More than that, the French people just didn't want a war after what they'd suffered in the Great War. It is a bit dodgey to question them without having gone through what they did. That doesn't mean their decisions were sensible, but does put apathy and unreadiness into some context.

Oh, and if the USA were connected by land to Europe, it would have fallen -mile for mile or man for man- faster than France did, I'd put money on that.

Only if it were connected by California and it would have stopped right there. Everything east of there has a long history of fighting to the last man if need be.

D-Day was important. Without that third front, Germany could have easily stopped Russia's advance, and without a secured landing spot on the continent, US and England couldn't land any forces in a large enough ammount to do anything useful.

English troops did a terrific job - at Dunkirk. Before, the English armies did as well as the French, Polish, Dutch, Belgic, and Luxumburg armies.

I mean D-Day wasn't that important, the german troops that were in France on that time were only stupid kids that had never tasted combat, and look a handfull of germans kicked the shit out of the americans and english, but yeah Britain fought well, they made some impressive battles, I don't remember the name but there was this one on a bridge on D-Day that was a good battle, americans where being killed like cattle, russians fought like devils, my father was holding off russians on that time and he told that russians were devils.

US had the advantage of being in another continent, that gave them huge advantage, french resistance used well-made guerilla operations.

hahahahaha

Liverbreath']Only if it were connected by California and it would have stopped right there. Everything east of there has a long history of fighting to the last man if need be.

I... really don't care, and I don't think that the Wehrmacht would have cared, either. Americans are no more or less human than anyone else on earth, your comment is baseless nationalism which, so far as I'm concerned, is the same as Fascism and racism. It isn't worth consideration in tactical or strategic terms. Plenty of armed men don't fight in a hopeless situation even with training, structure, and support, let alone a lack of all the above.

Hm! So far as I know, the reason that the Maginot Line didn't extend along the Belgian border was political and moral. How could France -during peacetime- build a defensive wall against one of its allies? You have to realise that WWII wasn't always happening... there was peace before. Walling out the Belgians, treating them like enemies, and leaving them to the slaughter was unthinkable. The Belgians themselves had forts and other static defences and their own defence plans established, and the French just had to trust that these would be sufficient in the short term (the story of German captures of Belgian forts is surely as interesting as the French collapse, no?).

More than that, the French people just didn't want a war after what they'd suffered in the Great War. It is a bit dodgey to question them without having gone through what they did. That doesn't mean their decisions were sensible, but does put apathy and unreadiness into some context.

Oh, and if the USA were connected by land to Europe, it would have fallen -mile for mile or man for man- faster than France did, I'd put money on that.

Techinically belgium wasn't an ally until 1940. Really the shortness of the maginot line was due to financial constraints.

The french attitude towards fighting hitler is interesting, not least because during the 1934-40 period, they were initially far less appeasement minded than the british. Indeed, by all accounts they were prepared to make an issue of Czechoslovakia until the british interceded, basically pressuring them to break their treaty with the Czechs. Further, while the british were quite content to let germany re-arm, they were paridoxically pressuring the french to disarm at the same time. (Go figure).

It is not surprising therefore, that when the british finally decided to make an issue of it - because Chamberlain was embarrased - their attitude was somewhat ambivalent.

As to the invasion of the US. You are correct. In 1940, the US effectively had no army to speak of, so it would have been a push-over.

Heh. I don't know how D-day can be unimportant. Without it, it'd have been the horribly improprerly named soft-underbelly all the way.

Techinically belgium wasn't an ally until 1940. Really the shortness of the maginot line was due to financial constraints.

The french attitude towards fighting hitler is interesting, not least because during the 1934-40 period, they were initially far less appeasement minded than the british. Indeed, by all accounts they were prepared to make an issue of Czechoslovakia until the british interceded, basically pressuring them to break their treaty with the Czechs. Further, while the british were quite content to let germany re-arm, they were paridoxically pressuring the french to disarm at the same time. (Go figure).

It is not surprising therefore, that when the british finally decided to make an issue of it - because Chamberlain was embarrased - their attitude was somewhat ambivalent.

As to the invasion of the US. You are correct. In 1940, the US effectively had no army to speak of, so it would have been a push-over.


Ah, yes, I must admit, the British position was a bit... less than a point of pride back then. Although of course it would be at least as easy to blame the French for the rise of Hitler in the first place, after pushing hard for really unfair terms after the Great War, while Britain was generally less enthused about that idea.

I suppose there's a question over what... or rather who defines French opinion and mood. Element X may have been all for kicking Hitler in the groin, while Element Y may have been totally sick of the whole idea. I suppose France had a large, clueless youth ready to finish off Jerry, but that wasn't an attitude pervasive through French society and government, was it?

Anyway, yes, maybe Belgium wasn't an official ally, but the sentiment remains, I think. They really couldn't wall Belgium out. I am not denying financial constraints on the wall, by a long shot! I do believe that it would have continued across the Belgian border had Belgium been, say, largely pro-German, though. Certainly not in full completion as ideal, but a real barrier none the less.

(Heh, this is bringing back memories of old Age of Empires conflicts, one in particular where my ally and I launched an invasion of our enemy's island, and on landing my men rushed forwards and my ally's... built a wall behind us, establishing a beachhead for themselves and leaving me out in the cold (a la Belgium if France had completed the northern end of the Line). Of course, I went on to sack the enemy base anyway and then switched sides and came back for my ex-ally, but that's beside the point :) )

D-Day... lol... oi, what did the Allied encouter? 200,000 Germans and a few tanks... And they still nearly got their ass kicked, thanks to a really bad prepared landing operation. Look what the Russians faced at Kursk alone... some 800,000 Germans and some 3,000 tanks, and that was just Kursk, one large battle on the eastern front. If the Germans would have diverted units from there against the Allies in France, good night Allied forces.

And people always forget that D-Day opened up the 3rd front, not the 2nd, people always seem to forget Italy and the fact that the Allied used Sicily and the rest as airbases for raids as well.

Also, prior to WW2... everyone kissed Hitler's ass. Daladier wasn't really strong against him, and Chamberlain had his fair share in appeasing the little corporal... Or the Americans, who also merely watched and twiddled their thumbs (until they were caught with their pants down). Good thing Churchill was elected and went "Oh no you little bitch, you won't take another country"

And well... the Philipines were never US soil, darn colonists. There was a pro-US puppet government, similar to what was on Cuba before Castro kicked them in the balls. And Pearl, well, they caught you with the pants down and kicked you in the ass.

And face it... without French help there wouldn't even be a USA. Washington's inability to fight the war against the English led right to that. If the French wouldn't have come for help...

D-Day... lol... oi, what did the Allied encouter? 200,000 Germans and a few tanks... And they still nearly got their ass kicked, thanks to a really bad prepared landing operation. Look what the Russians faced at Kursk alone... some 800,000 Germans and some 3,000 tanks, and that was just Kursk, one large battle on the eastern front. If the Germans would have diverted units from there against the Allies in France, good night Allied forces.

And people always forget that D-Day opened up the 3rd front, not the 2nd, people always seem to forget Italy and the fact that the Allied used Sicily and the rest as airbases for raids as well.

Also, prior to WW2... everyone kissed Hitler's ass. Daladier wasn't really strong against him, and Chamberlain had his fair share in appeasing the little corporal... Or the Americans, who also merely watched and twiddled their thumbs (until they were caught with their pants down). Good thing Churchill was elected and went "Oh no you little bitch, you won't take another country"

And well... the Philipines were never US soil, darn colonists. There was a pro-US puppet government, similar to what was on Cuba before Castro kicked them in the balls. And Pearl, well, they caught you with the pants down and kicked you in the ass.

And face it... without French help there wouldn't even be a USA. Washington's inability to fight the war against the English led right to that. If the French wouldn't have come for help...

You seem to forget the contribution that US Eighth Airforce and the RAF made to the eastern front.

Had it not been for Allied strategic bombing the Russians would have been in deep doo-doo. (As they were when it was withdrawn in the run up to D-day).

Also, exactly how many men and how much material do you think the Germans wanted to station permanently under the reach of heavy bombers with fighter escorts.

Allied air power was probably the single biggest key to winning WWII.

D-Day... lol... oi, what did the Allied encouter? 200,000 Germans and a few tanks... And they still nearly got their ass kicked, thanks to a really bad prepared landing operation. Look what the Russians faced at Kursk alone... some 800,000 Germans and some 3,000 tanks, and that was just Kursk, one large battle on the eastern front. If the Germans would have diverted units from there against the Allies in France, good night Allied forces.

And people always forget that D-Day opened up the 3rd front, not the 2nd, people always seem to forget Italy and the fact that the Allied used Sicily and the rest as airbases for raids as well.

Also, prior to WW2... everyone kissed Hitler's ass. Daladier wasn't really strong against him, and Chamberlain had his fair share in appeasing the little corporal... Or the Americans, who also merely watched and twiddled their thumbs (until they were caught with their pants down). Good thing Churchill was elected and went "Oh no you little bitch, you won't take another country"

And well... the Philipines were never US soil, darn colonists. There was a pro-US puppet government, similar to what was on Cuba before Castro kicked them in the balls. And Pearl, well, they caught you with the pants down and kicked you in the ass.

And face it... without French help there wouldn't even be a USA. Washington's inability to fight the war against the English led right to that. If the French wouldn't have come for help...


Heh, this is an interesting post. I passionately disagree with parts of it, and wholeheartedly support others. The continued implication that D-day was relatively insignificant is a little daft, though I do appreciate larger recognition for the Soviets, who really kicked arse when given the means to try it, and almost certainly out-fought the French, British, Americans, Canadians, and other British imperial and dominion troops. As well as, of course, the Axis.

I don't think all that much of Churchill, either, but can't disagree with criticism of the others.

All that about the Philippines and Cuba is backed by me, if something of an odd tangent.

And of course, it is a shame that the French had to butt in to the colonial wars just to spite the British to whom they'd lost out. It really wasn't a good long-term movement.
"Hey! Let's arm these British Republi... oh, shit, French Republicans are wrecking-up the place!"

But, anyway, on D-day, there was surely only really one beach that got hung-up? And casualty rates over-all were lower than expected. It seems almost too obvious to point out German failure (yeah, I think you can wake up Hitler for this, really) was responsible for the *relatively* light opposition that the allies faced... it's not like the allies are at fault, the German failure was directly a result of western-allied efforts in the field of deception, of course, which is inarguably part of war-fighting. Soviet masses may have fought harder and sacrificed more, but the western allies fought a smarter campaign than either the Soviets or the Axis. No?

Woah woah woah woah there tiger.

1. I said D-Day opened the third front.

2. There was a problem at one of the landing beaches, yes, but it was overcome.

3. Sitting not too far away were enough German troops and tanks to kick the Allies off the continent again. They stayed put. So luck played a part as well.

4. Ratha loves numbered posts.

5. Of course everyone kissed Hitler's ass. Want to know why? The Germans looked to him to rebuild their shattered nation. And nobody else wanted another war as disasterous as the Great War, at least on the victorious side, so of course they're going to look for solutions leading to peace.

6. The American's weren't sitting, watching, and twiddling their thumbs. They were in the middle of something we call 'The Great Depression' when our country nearly fell apart. If not for FDR, it probably would have. We were in the middle of rebuilding from the collapse of 1929 still, and it took WWII's mobilization of our industrial plant to really fix things.

7. Churchill kicks arse.

8. Until recently, the Philipenes belonged to the US. At the time, it so belonged. Ergo, US soil, or at least soil to be defended with the blood of US troops just like it was Los Angeles or New York.

9. Actually, in terms of objectives, Pearl Harbor failed. The goal was to neutralize the US Pacific Fleet. The US Pacific Fleet was not neutralized, ergo, it was a failure. In both short term and long term effects. Yes, they caught us with our pants down, but then again we were not expecting an attack. Hell, the US and Japan concluded sales of scrap metals just a couple days before Pearl.

10. Erm, why bring this up? I admitted as such...

..and actually, no colony has successfully rebelled from its colonizers without outside assistance. Ever. The America Colonies were the first to successfuly do so, yes, but the fact that we were 'sucking' before the French helped us out doesn't matter. The Redcouts outclassed the Continental Army. They had the weight of an industrialized nation, and only luck, pluck, and a cold frozen winter river let the Continental Army last as long as it did. (Ticonderoga, anyone?)

WWII paid back the debt owed by the US to France. France helped us become a soverign country, we helped them regain their sovreignity. Debt over.

WWI and WWII sure you fought Valiantly but for how long 2 months and 4 Weeks respectivly then it was left up to the real Soldiers from New Zealand and Australia!

The Somme was Britains 'contribution to prove to the French they were their to fight while Sooky France wanted to complain oh boo hoo we dont want to fight!

Crazy French not wanting to fight.

Belgium didnt want to get involved in WWII France always saw Belgium as their little Bitch.

France wanted a new war if it ever arrised to be fought on Belgian Soil.
Got to love those French.

The Maginot line was pretty choice really 'part from the fact it didnt reach far enough.

Who actually knows that the french campaign actually continued after Dunkirk?

a few points....

The Maginot Line actually was fairly effective and performed as designed. It was supposed to act as a base of maneuver so that the main force of the French Army could move into Belgium and meet the Germans at the Dyle River, and there beat them with firepower. The French Army was designed for a slugfest and a straight fight. Regretably for them, the German Army was designed for maneuver and shock action, and the Manstein plan (which was actually a late choice, and a lucky one for Hitler) played to the German strengths and French weaknesses.

Even the inadequately trained and poorly led reservists fought hard at Sedan before they collapsed. French courage on the battlefield was first rate. The problem was that the moral courage of the French government and senior leadership was destroyed after Dunkirk, never to return for the duration of the Battle of France. Losing the best third of their army was the critical blow as well, and France never recovered.

In World War II, a lot of people forget that Free French mountain troops are the ones who outflanked the Gustav Line and allowed the Allies to take Monte Cassino. The courage of the Free French soldiers in Italy and France (1944 on) is uncontestable. As was their courage in the French Indochina War and the Algerian War. Its just that again and again they were poorly led at the strategic level, and misused by the politicians in France. Poor bastards.

Yes, the US would not have won the Revolution without France, and if you ever visit Yorktown you will see the French flag flying alongside the American flag there. The Continental Army was broke, running out of supplies and the Continental Congress had also exhausted its resources. French gold, French engineers and the French Fleet made Yorktown and victory possible. France was also good enough to sell the US what is roughly one third of its territory in the Louisiana Purchase. (although only because Napoleon needed the money and the Haitian Rebellion and Yellow Fever drove France out of the position it needed to move into North America).

Its just easy to pick on the French who lost four out of its last five major wars and only won World War I because of British seapower, British Imperial and US manpower, and because the Germans bit off more than they could chew. It was still a damned close run thing in 1918, and it could have gone the other way.

Heh. I don't know how D-day can be unimportant. Without it, it'd have been the horribly improprerly named soft-underbelly all the way.
What do you mean?
Italy? or the Southern France landings to compliment D-Day?

a few points....

*snipped the few points*



Word. Agreement. And other positive words of support.

What do you mean?
Italy? or the Southern France landings to compliment D-Day?

Ah, operation anvil. One of the silliest diversions of millitary manpower in history.

I just want to clarify that there's not as much disagreement between myself and some of the recent posters as may have been perceived. If I don't respond to points it's not so much because I'm backing down as because I agree with them.

I know, of course, that German armour was waiting close by on D-day, and think I made reference to it with the whole it's time to wake Hitler thing (as he had the authority to move them). And the idea that this seems too obvious to bother bringing-up.

Pearl Harbour... yeah, something of a failure in that the carriers were coincidentally not in port that day. Fancy that. But I don't agree that it was totally unexpected. You can't push an overtly expansionist empire that has never declared war before making its first attack, and cut-off its oil supply -which every idiot knows means that it has to roll over and submit or lash out in a fast and serious way to win outright- without expecting it to, well, to lash out in a fast and serious way in a bid to win outright.

What's this thread about? Oh, France... yeah... the French fought about as well as anyone else would have. Fin.

Let us all be in agreement that France fights when things are good and when things look a little rough they throw the towel in!

I just want to clarify that there's not as much disagreement between myself and some of the recent posters as may have been perceived. If I don't respond to points it's not so much because I'm backing down as because I agree with them.

I know, of course, that German armour was waiting close by on D-day, and think I made reference to it with the whole it's time to wake Hitler thing (as he had the authority to move them). And the idea that this seems too obvious to bother bringing-up.

Pearl Harbour... yeah, something of a failure in that the carriers were coincidentally not in port that day. Fancy that. But I don't agree that it was totally unexpected. You can't push an overtly expansionist empire that has never declared war before making its first attack, and cut-off its oil supply -which every idiot knows means that it has to roll over and submit or lash out in a fast and serious way to win outright- without expecting it to, well, to lash out in a fast and serious way in a bid to win outright.

What's this thread about? Oh, France... yeah... the French fought about as well as anyone else would have. Fin.

Meep, sorry. Was refering to the guy who brought up all the points I was responding to, you just typed faster than me :(

And yes, I agree. France fought as well as anyone else would in their situation. End of Story.

The poles were outnumbered 3 to 1 (this isn't even including the huge numbers thrown at eastern Poland by the soviet union). As opposed to 114 french divisions against 142 German.

Poland held out for five weeks. France (with british assistance) lasted 12 days.
Not true france and Britian outnumbered the germans, its a common error because no one can believe that a smaller army could be the one of the largest powers in europe so easilly.
Source "Battle of France"Ballintine Books I'll look the numbers up later.

Let us all be in agreement that France fights when things are good and when things look a little rough they throw the towel in!

One third the army, destroyed.

All allies except England, fallen.

England withdrawing its troops from your country, hell, off the continent.

German troops marching ever onward through your homeland.

...yeah. Thats just a LITTLE bit rough. *sarcasm*

Did you seriously thought France could resist Germany? no country in Europe could there was no victory, except perhaps the british with their special agents and superb air strategy, and the russians who turned out to be a really powerful foe, but eventhough France had a respected army they were no match to the Wehrmacht, i mean look at the technology Germany used at that specific time.

The only remarkable thing i could say about frenchies is their resistance nothing more.
the technology? in 1940 German tanks were light armored and had machine guns Pz IIs and some PZ III.
French Had the S-35, Charb1s ect.
British had Matildas
hell the onlyway the germans could stop matildas was that the matildas were overrunning German positions, and a flak commander ordered the 88s to fire straight into the enemy tanks. and it worked.

D-Day... lol... oi, what did the Allied encouter? 200,000 Germans and a few tanks... And they still nearly got their ass kicked, thanks to a really bad prepared landing operation. Look what the Russians faced at Kursk alone... some 800,000 Germans and some 3,000 tanks, and that was just Kursk, one large battle on the eastern front. If the Germans would have diverted units from there against the Allies in France, good night Allied forces.

And people always forget that D-Day opened up the 3rd front, not the 2nd, people always seem to forget Italy and the fact that the Allied used Sicily and the rest as airbases for raids as well.

Also, prior to WW2... everyone kissed Hitler's ass. Daladier wasn't really strong against him, and Chamberlain had his fair share in appeasing the little corporal... Or the Americans, who also merely watched and twiddled their thumbs (until they were caught with their pants down). Good thing Churchill was elected and went "Oh no you little bitch, you won't take another country"

And well... the Philipines were never US soil, darn colonists. There was a pro-US puppet government, similar to what was on Cuba before Castro kicked them in the balls. And Pearl, well, they caught you with the pants down and kicked you in the ass.

And face it... without French help there wouldn't even be a USA. Washington's inability to fight the war against the English led right to that. If the French wouldn't have come for help... and your forgetting that at Kursk the russians were prepard for the attack, never underestimate how much a differnce a prepard defensive position can make, and not to mention the Soviets out number the Germans a helluva a lot more, and theyw ere on the offensive.
Modern tactics-in an assualt havea 3-1 advantage.
Operation Citidel was a disaster waiting to happen. Guderian was disgusted with what hitler made them do.

Meep, sorry. Was refering to the guy who brought up all the points I was responding to, you just typed faster than me :(

And yes, I agree. France fought as well as anyone else would in their situation. End of Story.

Heh, don't mind me, I'm just getting drunker and rambling on faster and trying to address more points than my intoxicated brain can actually process :)

Ahem [steps out for now]

I don't think anyone says that the French were cowards in WW2, they were just bested by the Germans in a short period of time. To those who disagree, I pose to you the issue of the French Resistance.

you guys want a real resistance? France's was pitiful compared to Yugoslovias. Hell everywhere else's was. They farking liberated themselves

, but a Panzer II was no match for a Somua S-35, nor a stolen Czech tank for a Char B1bis.

Yeah far too many people see the newsreel footage and just assume that the "the mighty panzers" were superior to all they faced. To be fair though the Panzer 38(t) was a solid little tank and was probably well ahead of its time.

I mean D-Day wasn't that important, the german troops that were in France on that time were only stupid kids that had never tasted combat

12th SS Panzer Division 'HitlerJugend'. Please do a little research before you post generalizations such as this.



For all the logistical, morale, communication, and leadership issues the French army faced in May 1940, they put up a reasonable fight. Anyone doubting the ability of the individual French soldier just needs to look at the Free French units in Italy or the various Waffen SS units that Frenchmen served in. I'm actually quite dissapointed that no one has brought them up yet, their fighting for the "wrong" side made no difference to their quality.

Ah, operation anvil. One of the silliest diversions of millitary manpower in history.

the Allies needed Marseilles (one of the largest ports in Europe), and it did get the 7th US and 1st French Armies into the fight. Argueably they would have been just as useful wrapping things up quickly in Italy, but then, getting through the Alpine Passes into Germany or Austria wasn't going to happen in 1944, no matter how bad things got in Italy for the Germans. Going into Yugoslavia would not have been better and certainly not easier either.

It also made use of Allied naval superiority and hastened the German collapse in August 1944 in France.

So not really a silly diversion at all in my view.

....Anyone doubting the ability of the individual French soldier just needs to look at the Free French units in Italy or the various Waffen SS units that Frenchmen served in. I'm actually quite dissapointed that no one has brought them up yet, their fighting for the "wrong" side made no difference to their quality.

Didn't know about them, but I should have guessed.

although some of the worst divisions in the Wehrmacht fought in Normandy so did some of the best. Among the best were the 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 12th SS panzer divisions, 5 Parachute divisions, the Panzer Lehr, plus the 2nd Panzer division. They Germans also had the advantage of fighting in the hedgerow country, considered by most military historians to have been literally ideal for the German defense, and one of the best natural fortresses in the history of warfare.

The Allies and Germans fought toe to toe for nearly 8 weeks, and when it was over, nearly half a million Germans were casualties, and nearly 40 divisions had been destroyed, shattered or badly mauled. Only about 100,000 Germans escaped from the battle and only some planning errors and the sheer length of the supply line prevented an immediate Allied advance through the Seigfried Line and into Germany itself. It was as big and bloody a battle for the Germans as Kursk was, involved nearly as much German armor and was as big a disaster in the end. D-Day was just the critical first day of one of the most decisive battles in military history.

on Pearl Harbor.... actually it could have been a hell of a lot worse. The carrier Enterprise was a mere four hours south of the base when it was attacked, and only a lucky break in the weather that delayed fueling on Saturday prevented it and its escorts from being in the harbor Sunday morning. The Japanese could also have hit the fuel tanks and sunk the Nevada in the channel, rendering the base useless and trapping the ships in the fleet that were undamaged or lightly damaged.

However

The British suffered a worse disaster less than 3 days later, when they lost the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, and with those two ships gone, lost their only chance to save Malaya through sea power. The American ships lost at Pearl Harbor were easily replaced, and most (except for the Arizona and Oklahoma) returned to the war within a year or less (three battleships took two years, but they returned as well). The British were not able to recover from their loss, and couldn't even think of moving to take back Malaysia until 1946 (and the war was over by then).

Poor US luck, administrative muddles and excellent Japanese tactics and planning made the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor possible, and excellent Japanese tactics, skill and torpedoes made their victory against the British battleships possible.

the Allies needed Marseilles (one of the largest ports in Europe), and it did get the 7th US and 1st French Armies into the fight. Argueably they would have been just as useful wrapping things up quickly in Italy, but then, getting through the Alpine Passes into Germany or Austria wasn't going to happen in 1944, no matter how bad things got in Italy for the Germans. Going into Yugoslavia would not have been better and certainly not easier either.

It also made use of Allied naval superiority and hastened the German collapse in August 1944 in France.

So not really a silly diversion at all in my view.

I demure. Italy was a bogged down mess and britain was running short of men. But I don't really want to argue about it right now.

While I think the Poles were more valiant(they fought to the death against two million-man armies, knowing that they were doomed but willing to die for the republic), the French(especially those at the Maginot Line) were also brave. They didn't know they were fighting for a lost cause for a while, and even when they did they fought bravely. In fact, the Germans had to take the center of France before it could attack the Maginot line, which held out for a while.

While I think the Poles were more valiant(they fought to the death against two million-man armies, knowing that they were doomed but willing to die for the republic), the French(especially those at the Maginot Line) were also brave. They didn't know they were fighting for a lost cause for a while, and even when they did they fought bravely. In fact, the Germans had to take the center of France before it could attack the Maginot line, which held out for a while.

Alas, the guns of the Line were fixed in concrete, facing Germany...

I'll refer to the amusing words of a former professor of mine, Dr. William F. "Jack" Atwater, decorated Special Forces veteran, Curator of the US Army Ordnance Museum; a fat, silly, Foghorn Leghorn resembling man, who frequently appears on the History Channel:

Question: Why do the French line both sides of the road with trees?
Answer: So the Germans can march in shade.

Hehehehe...

Being that about every single person on here so far has said that every single country involved fought either with extreme expertise and courage, or extreme cowardice, luck, or stupidity, largely based on a tedious and uninformed Eurocentric or whatrever have you perspective, I say that things are relative. Every single country made horrible mistakes, such is the nature of war. Soldiers in every army, even on the Eastern Front, were routed at times, such is the nature of war. Certainly no countries and their armed forces made such drastic mistakes as France and Italy (if Italy even deserves mention after Somalia :P), but look at Kasserine Pass, Market Garden, and so on...Russia made mind-boggling mistakes regarding analysis of Germanic buildup along the Polish border, though this was largely attributable to Stalin (whose mistakes were actually far more egregious than Hitler's). German strategy in Russia seemed to change on a daily basis. The close air support capability of the Luftwaffe which is characterized by the Ju-87 was great, but the fact that Germany did not even bother to build a heavy bomber or long-range escort cost him (the Fatherland) dearly in the Battle of Britain. Even from France, the Me-109 Gustaf's (or was it Franz at the time?) range was crap. H.P. Wilmott describes Germany's greatest failing as the unwillingness to take greater industrial and military advantage from conquered territories due to the obviously great racial condescension (look at the Ukrainian dissidents, for chrissake). Germany declaring on the US and getting screwed by Japan not declaring on Russia was stupid, never expect honor among thieves; Japan attacking America and expecting quick capitulation itself was beyond stupid, as many Japanese commanders themselves realized....obviously, you can go on forever.

Hitler's "allowal" of Dunkirk in favor of a Luftwaffe-glorifying bombing raid is largely overplayed and fictitious. His meddling and bumbling is also played up, especially on the Eastern Front, by Generals who largely sought to avoid blame post-war, though when he did intercede, largely in reshaping strategy and firing Generals, it was often for the worse. OKH had a much larger role than generally portrayed, however, and the Stavka got smart as hell as things went on, if a bit careless with human resources. The myth of German superiority should be long dead after witnessing up to 8-1 superiority in axes of advance among virtually equal manpower numbers during the Bagration and ensuing offensives. The Germans fought battles damn well, but they fought wars as a whole for crap. Tactics, yeah, strategy vs. competent opponents, hell no. Bit off a bit too much lebensraum as history had it.

Anyway, back to the French. I've heard references to the fact that France's armed forces, including armor especially, outnumbered her German counterpart in 39-40, and that this should be held as a credit to France. I view it the exact opposite way; the fact that Poland held out as long as she did with a horse drawn army (though even the Western armies continued to rely a surprising amount on horse throughout much of the war, a largely unknown fact) while France was crushed in a relatively similar time frame, with more time to prepare, with limitation on German options of advance, with help, is a testament against France, not for it. Even taking into consideration the vast mistakes made by command, there really is little excuse. The High Command of any country's armed forces are a reflection of that country, there is no separation of "well our leaders messed up, it's not our fault." There just wasn't that "defend my homeland to the death" mentality. I hear the "the effort was lost, there's no sense dying for a lost cause" line a lot, but did you hear that from the 82nd in Bastogne, the Russians in Tula during Operation Teifun, Army Group Vistula? Vichy France and Petain are one of the greatest disgraces I've ever witnessed in history. General Patton said of the Maginot Line, "fixed defenses are a testament to the stupidity of man." That being said, the Allies were well aware of Manstein's rehash of the Von Schlieffen plan, but overcommitted and allowed penetration between their forces and the Maginot. What they did not foresee was the pincer coming from the East of the Maginot line, which is what really drove the nail in the coffin. The Wehrmacht actually doubled back and beat down the Maginot from behind, as the gun turrets did not have 360 degree rotation...In light of World War I and France's proud history as THE dominant land army in Europe for a very long time, largely due to cavalry (excusing much of the Hundred Years' War, English longbowmen are the shit :P), one can not simply portray France historically as beret-wearing, sausage smoking, condescending, pretentious douchebags, but one could theorize that World War I took something out of France that did not and has not returned....balls. Many individual soldiers fought with nearly as much balls as those of any country, but wars in the modern age are about conflict of societies, of entire countries, and as a whole, beyond simple battlefield leadership, France gave, say, 40% of the effort she could have, or less. No one can blame her for not wanting war, and proficiency at warmaking should not be considered a country's finest suit; I am making no moral judgments about France or her fine history, my only point is that she simply fought along the lines of Italy in terms of intelligence and courage in one particular war.


As for the mysteriously related references to the Revolutionary War, no statements should be made about the inevitability of American failure without French assistance. Ticonderoga did not happen because of the French, Trenton did not happen because of the French, Saratoga did not happen because of the French....their help is appreciated, but it was solely for selfish reasons, as opposed to World War II, and the terms of manpower and resources allocated for each is incomparable. Beyond that, America was not even a country, with nothing but a sad militia as the conflict began, and we do not even know we would have necessarily lost, as opposed to France, which had time to plan for the conflict, had numbers, had fixed fortifications, was a fully industrialized country with long experience in war, and DEFINITELY lost, so the comparison is ridiculous.

There is no doubt the large majority of the European theatre was won and lost on the Eastern Front, but to trivialize Torch and Overlord as insignificant is an asinine statement. Lying dead on Omaha might change the writer's outlook. To describe the most ambitious and massive amphibious assault in the world's history as poorly planned is just plain wrong. Criticize the post-landing policies, but the landing itself went damn well, outside the glider aspect. I think if Hitler and Jodl were alive today, they'd still be insisting Normandy was a diversion for Patton at the Pas de Calais :P.

Too easily is lend-lease forgotten. Suffice it to say that Russian logistical capability would have been beyond sad without the insane number of trucks and transit parts provided by the US, and the effect this would have had in transferring troops from Siberia and, later, those keeping an eye on Manchuria/Manchutikou, among other things, would have prolonged if not reversed the Eastern Front an inestimable amount.

Whoo boy, time for a smoke. By the way, whoever was talking about the superiority of French tanks, look up the Konigstiger and Jagdtiger. Them's some badass talks. My favorites, along with the Firefly. My hatred of the Sherman knows no bounds, total opposite of our "quality over quantity" policy since :P. Don't anybody bother picking apart little errors I'm sure I made, I talk out of my ass, just wanted to toss my two cents :P.

*snip an excellent post*


First INTELLIGENT person I've seen with contradictory statements backed up by hard looking information.

The thing to remeber is, there is the perception of the French as cowards. This is what we're saying isn't true.

And no colonial uprising ever succeeded without outside help. The US might have pulled it off... but at the end of the war, nearly all the major cities in the North were occupied, and the British didn't do much in the South because they wanted to make the Revolution seem like a Northern Rebellion rather than an entire Atlantic Seaboard Colonial Rebellion.

Whoo boy, time for a smoke. By the way, whoever was talking about the superiority of French tanks, look up the Konigstiger and Jagdtiger. Them's some badass talks. My favorites, along with the Firefly. My hatred of the Sherman knows no bounds, total opposite of our "quality over quantity" policy since :P. Don't anybody bother picking apart little errors I'm sure I made, I talk out of my ass, just wanted to toss my two cents :P.

I'm fairly sure the Koenigstiger didn't actually exist until way after the surrender of France. Yes, late-war German armour was excellent, but early on in the war, they were largely using innovative designs that hadn't been fully field-tested yet.

We can all agree that everyone was stupid.

9. Actually, in terms of objectives, Pearl Harbor failed. The goal was to neutralize the US Pacific Fleet. The US Pacific Fleet was not neutralized, ergo, it was a failure. In both short term and long term effects. Yes, they caught us with our pants down, but then again we were not expecting an attack. Hell, the US and Japan concluded sales of scrap metals just a couple days before Pearl.

Hello they were in china, vietnam, indonesia and pretty much expanding their territory. they had taken the philllipines which you maintain was american soil. did you not think hawaii would be next? as for a failure only four aircraft carriers survived.

Hello they were in china, vietnam, indonesia and pretty much expanding their territory. they had taken the philllipines which you maintain was american soil. did you not think hawaii would be next? as for a failure only four aircraft carriers survived.

Expecting a war is one thing.

Expecting an attack is another. Pearl Harbor was - is, I think - one of the strongest naval bases the US Fleet has in the Pacific. It'd take either a fool, madman, or a genius to think about attacking Pearl as an opening move.

Everyone thought that when it came, the Phillipenes would be the first hit. Not Pearl.

Oh, and by the by, the Japanese invaded the Phillipenes AFTER they hit Pearl.

I'm fairly sure the Koenigstiger didn't actually exist until way after the surrender of France. Yes, late-war German armour was excellent, but early on in the war, they were largely using innovative designs that hadn't been fully field-tested yet.

Yeah, but the Mark VIII (which I believe they did have at the time) was pretty nice, quick tank there. The British Achilles was nice too, forgot to mention it. Non-armor related, the .88 gun was definitely the shit, I think everyone who faced the Germans feared that weapon most out of their entire arsennel. The Stg 44 was pretty cool as an infantry weapon, too. The P-38 is my personal favorite of any weapon/vehicle of the war....ahh, shades of free Air Warrior on Aol...how I miss my bomber wing...

I mean D-Day wasn't that important, the german troops that were in France on that time were only stupid kids that had never tasted combat, and look a handfull of germans kicked the shit out of the americans and english, but yeah Britain fought well, they made some impressive battles, I don't remember the name but there was this one on a bridge on D-Day that was a good battle, americans where being killed like cattle, russians fought like devils, my father was holding off russians on that time and he told that russians were devils.

US had the advantage of being in another continent, that gave them huge advantage, french resistance used well-made guerilla operations.

I highly doubt there is much truth in what you say. I'm sure the Desert Fox wasn't going to rely on fresh recruits to hold the line. He was the best German general by far. He wasn't that stupid.

American leadership knew Pearl harbor was going to be attacked, was allowed as an excuse to enter, without alienating the public that was against foreign entanglements

About Pearl, it wasn't just one of the stronger bases of American naval power in the Pacific, it was THE base. Touting it as a success, however, is just wrong. At the time, the virtual destruction or decommission of Battleship Row probably seemed pretty impressive, especially when considered with all the aircraft destroyed, but it was ultimately a failure. No aircraft carriers, which as it turned out made battleships obsolete weeks into the war, were damaged because they were out on maneuvers (FDR conspiracy theories anyone?), so that "only 4 survived" comment is off base. What the Japanese really should have done is come back and hit the administrative buildings, that would have actually forced us to relocate Pacific Command to California, which would have obvious repercussions. Call me a scapegoatter, but rather than catching "us" as in the entire USN/armed forces/intelligence community in a surprise, you can really attribute it to the CincPac at the time, Adm. Kimmel. Mysteriously misinterpreting the "Tora! Tora! Tora!" intercept was a major SNAFU though, I'll give you that. Sure, the Japanese had a decent little aquatic blitzkrieg of their own against the lightly defended positions of Sumatra, Singapore, Guam, Wake Island, Pearl, the Phillippines, and so forth, but we turned the tide ridiculously early at Midway and beat ass mercilessly from there on. I think Halsey was a fine commander, but his actions at Leyte Gulf sort of cast a shadow on him for me. William Leahy,Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and Ray Spruance are often unheard of, and the first three were certainly father removed from the combat, but rightfully deserve equal or greater credit. MacArthur....well, what can you say? :P On another topic, it's a real shame Hap Arnold has gone down as a relatively obscure figure too in the West, damned important and competent man there. Then again, the average person my age nowadays has never heard of Eisenhower and thinks World War II took place "....in like, the 80's, or something?" anyway, so I guess it's a moot point.

American leadership knew Pearl harbor was going to be attacked, was allowed as an excuse to enter, without alienating the public that was against foreign entanglements

That's one of many theories up there with 'We got the bomb from Atlantis and Martians' and 'The Moon Race is a Farce'.

The only way to predict Pearl Harbor would be by guessing, or if you had a history book.

*snipage*
Midway was a good dose of luck. Nimitz knew the attack was coming, but to all he had to toss against the Imperial Navy's fleet was USS Enterprise, USS Hornet, and USS Yorktown and their very small escorts.
Quite honestly the battle might have gone the other way, and nearly did (a good portion of the first wave was shot down) before the dive bombers from Enterprise found the carriers in the middle of refuling and rearming, meaning nice explosive things all over the deck.

And I disgree with your take on the Revolution, those victories were due to the French, French gold, French weapons, and French supplies. And we were just as selfish in chasing Germany from France as they were in helping us.

The French fought bravely..the free french that is..many forget that there was a difference between the vissi(spelling?) and the free french...The free french of course Withdrew to Britain and later take part in D-Day Normandy.
The free french even had a minor scuffle with there own country men at one point dure in the war..classing there surrendered bretheren as "cowards to france"

And then there is the interesting matter still of Mers-el-Kebir.
Maybe a surprise to some of you...
http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/FrenchFleetatMers-el-Kebi.html

this may have already been mentioned, i don't know, i didn't read the whole thing, but i just thought i should put this out there.



dien bien phu.


if you don't know what that means, google that shit.

edit: i had no idea of the level of french-bashing goin on here. i suppose this little addition was unneccesary. ah well. the french general named the seven hills of this fort after his mistresses. gotta love it.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery, observing the collapse of the French army from the air, wrote that it is simply the fate of the first wave to die, and France was that sacrifice.

That's basically how I see it. Every country bordering Germany was doomed. The UK would have lasted about as long, had it also shared a border. The US, had it switched places with Russia and been viewed as racially inferior, would probably have also lost millions of people.

The French defeat itself...they were losing men at a rate of two regiments a day for six weeks, knowing from the beginning that the fight was hopeless. I would not describe that as cowardice. It is not the fault of the men that the country was unprepared for war. And who is to say it should have been? Every country in Europe being prepared for war against the others was what led to WW1.

One third the army, destroyed.

All allies except England, fallen.

England withdrawing its troops from your country, hell, off the continent.

German troops marching ever onward through your homeland.

...yeah. Thats just a LITTLE bit rough. *sarcasm*

Just one little thing which I need to mention, not just to you but to most of the thread - Great Britain fought the war, not just England. That means England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of whom provided man power. I am Unionist and I find it annoying when people seem to think that the British Isles consists purely of England.

-snip-
Fair enough, hehe. You know what we mean, right?
And did Northern Ireland fight? Against whom? I remember that time during WW1.. ;)

The poles were outnumbered 3 to 1 (this isn't even including the huge numbers thrown at eastern Poland by the soviet union). As opposed to 114 french divisions against 142 German.

Poland held out for five weeks. France (with british assistance) lasted 12 days.

Poland was also far less technologically prepared than France.

The French generals were fools. Their civilian government that both funded the idiocy of the Maginot Line and wanted to sue for peace was incompetent. And the majority of their soldiers wanted to run away as soon as rumors spread that the Germans had broken through.

Point of fact, it's not that they didn't want their city destroyed - they just figured that it would be better to live under a German boot than to die fighting for their dignity.

-snip-
Now that's exactly the kind of thinking I thought I might just help get rid of with this thread.
Now please, read the entire thing, then make a clear case for why a French soldiers is a coward, while an American soldier is a hero.

*snip* OW! :eek:
So the quarter million war dead were a historical inconvenience. :rolleyes:

Now that's exactly the kind of thinking I thought I might just help get rid of with this thread.
Now please, read the entire thing, then make a clear case for why a French soldiers is a coward, while an American soldier is a hero.

The mere fact that you mentioned that the moment the French Army "thought" that the Germans had broken through, most of them ran.

Just buying a lot of fancy equipment, and building a Maginot line, and having the most advanced tank and the most advanced aircraft of 1940 didn't seem to make the French into real soldiers.

They had no real interest in defending their country.

Point of fact - there was NO French Resistance until the British SOE organized, trained, and equipped one.

They had ample precedent.

Unlike the other Allied forces in WW I, the French Army, after Verdun, almost as a whole refused to fight.

French Military History in a Nutshell

Gallic Wars: Lost.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "This rule too offensive to mention."

Italian Wars: Lost.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution: Tied.

The Dutch War: Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie.

War of the Spanish Succession: Lost.

American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost.

WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States.

WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain.

War in Indochina: Lost.

Algerian Rebellion: Lost.

French Military History in a Nutshell

Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War: Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.

War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
Trolling? Disappointed. :(

French Military History in a Nutshell
I charge you with plagerism on this one.

Not to mention that one of these days when I have nothing better to do, I'll write up a nice millitary history of America, we don't come out smelling so good either.

I charge you with plagerism on this one.

Not to mention that one of these days when I have nothing better to do, I'll write up a nice millitary history of America, we don't come out smelling so good either.

Yes, that history lesson has been all over the Internet by now, but it's still true.

You can go back and check your history books for that - but I can already tell you it's true.

Trolling? Disappointed. :(

Not meant as trolling. This gem is all over the Internet.

As far as the win/loss thing goes, it's all true.

Yes, that history lesson has been all over the Internet by now, but it's still true.

You can go back and check your history books for that - but I can already tell you it's true.
True, yes, but missing a GREAT many things, and of course the smart assed comments. So, to pull an Obi-wan, it's only true from a certian point of view.

Not meant as trolling. This gem is all over the Internet.

As far as the win/loss thing goes, it's all true.
I don't care, the rules on trolling are the same whether the words are your own, or copy and pasted, and you have just been reported. :)

I don't care, the rules on trolling are the same whether the words are your own, or copy and pasted, and you have just been reported. :)

Thank you.

It's funnier when you go 'I'm feeling lucky' with 'french military victories' on Google.

I just did a search, and it's been posted on this forum before, with no apparent ill effects.

I just did a search, and it's been posted on this forum before, with no apparent ill effects.
Just because an offence went undetected once, does not mean it's legal. ;)

Just because an offence went undetected once, does not mean it's legal. ;)

15 times

I mean D-Day wasn't that important,

Now this is utter BS! D-Day was perhaps the most important invasion of the war. If Operation Overlord failed, Germany probably would've fallen to the USSR alone then we would be in a world of hurt. D-Day was very important.

US had the advantage of being in another continent, that gave them huge advantage, french resistance used well-made guerilla operations.

And being on another continent was also our biggist DISadvantage too.

Anyway, as to the World War Two thing, I reckon it's just that lions led by donkeys thing, except French donkeys were dumber than most.

15 times
That's your defence, is it?

Look, you copy and pasted a racist troll, and now you're justifying it. Replace the French bloodline with Jewish bloodline, and see it that would be considered acceptable, even if it went ignored in the past.

There, I edited it.

Now this is utter BS! D-Day was perhaps the most important invasion of the war. If Operation Overlord failed, Germany probably would've fallen to the USSR alone then we would be in a world of hurt. D-Day was very important.
At least you concede that Europe would have fallen to the USSR. Most people on these forums seem to think that without D-Day, Germany would have conquered the USSR.

At least you concede that Europe would have fallen to the USSR. Most people on these forums seem to think that without D-Day, Germany would have conquered the USSR.

By the time D-Day occurred, Germany was already losing badly to the USSR. That much is obvious.

However, if one asserts that the French Resistance helped with the success of D-Day, it is a historical fact that no French Resistance would have existed without it being set up by the British Special Operations Executive.

At the time of the American Revolution, nearly every major city in New England was occupied by English troops. Its amazing that we even won that war.


It was actally the british strategy of capture major cities that was a major factor in them losing the revolution. Its up there with ther generals never pursuring the destruction of Rebel Field Armies.

Captured cities mean nothing when 95% of your population lives in the countryside, Philly was the largest city in all the colonies next only to a couple cities in Britian itself with 30,000 people, Boston had 12000.

Thank god for the assistance the French rendered to the Americans against their common enemy: the British.

Thank god for the assistance the French rendered to the Americans against their common enemy: the British.


This was in world war two was it?

At least you concede that Europe would have fallen to the USSR. Most people on these forums seem to think that without D-Day, Germany would have conquered the USSR.

Only a fool would believe that. World War II happens to be on of my bailwicks of study. Though I will admit that I'm more a Pacific Theater than European Theater but I do know that the Germans were getting tossed out of Russia and then Ukrain and then Poland.

It really doesn't take a genius to figure out that the USSR would've won the European War on their own. Thank God they didn't because then the Cold War would've been different.

That is why D-Day is actually important. If it failed, the consequences of such failure would be to much to calculate.

This was in world war two was it?
Heh, the thread is swerving towards the Cold War and (I stand corrected) xenophobia, so why not bring the War of Independence and 1812 into it?

Heh, the thread is swerving towards the Cold War and (I stand corrected) xenophobia, so why not bring the War of Independence and 1812 into it?


....were digging that back up to?....better go get my red coat from the wardrobe

Thank god for the assistance the French rendered to the Americans against their common enemy: the British.

And that really didn't come till AFTER the Battle of Saratoga that convinced the French to get involved against the British. If they truly wanted to help us, they should've came in earlier. If they came in earlier, I don't think the Revolutionary War would've lasted the 8 years that it did.

Heh, the thread is swerving towards the Cold War and (I stand corrected) xenophobia, so why not bring the War of Independence and 1812 into it?

Well... This thread is about France :D

And that really didn't come till AFTER the Battle of Saratoga that convinced the French to get involved against the British. If they truly wanted to help us, they should've came in earlier. If they came in earlier, I don't think the Revolutionary War would've lasted the 8 years that it did.


Does that go for all war?...if the U.S really wanted to help the allies they would have come in sooner?

Well... This thread is about France :D
Winning battles in the past is one thing. An inability to continue the trend of winning into the future is another.

Just from a social perspective, certain European nations seem to have become exhausted with the idea of war before others - the French were effectively exhausted after WW I. At this point in time, serving as a soldier is nowhere near as popular in Europe as it is in the US (and I believe that to some extent, the US is becoming exhausted).

If you have an affluent (by comparison to the Third World) lifestyle, why would you want to go to a Third World country and fight. Or turn your own nation into rubble?

Pacifism is far more popular in Europe.

Given the nature of modern technological combat, I would expect France to fall even faster than it did in WW II if subjected to a truly modern attack. The government would surrender in an attempt to prevent the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructure.

Does that go for all war?...if the U.S really wanted to help the allies they would have come in sooner?
Indeed, likewise with Italy's assistance to Germany in WW2. Nothing new about allies being caught unprepared.

Right around this past Memorial Day, I caught part of a History Channel show on the nazis in France.
Unfortunately, I wasnt able to see the whole thing, but one part of it showed that the nazis had a great deal of France's landmarks and buildings wired with high explosives. There was the intent to destroy the city. For some reason, they didnt, or werent able to. It wasnt like they were setting a trap specifically to spring on Allied forces when they arrived, but more a spiteful action to specifically destroy French creations-building, monuments and I guess whatever the germans hadnt already stolen.
I dont even know the title of the show, just wish I could catch the whole thing.

And that really didn't come till AFTER the Battle of Saratoga that convinced the French to get involved against the British. If they truly wanted to help us, they should've came in earlier. If they came in earlier, I don't think the Revolutionary War would've lasted the 8 years that it did.
With troops no, but money and supplies that the King of France, ah, "encouraged" his nobles to give, on their own recorse of course, the Crown of France having nothing to do with it, nope.

That kept us fighting or else we would have fallen apart before hand (This isn't to belittle Washington's and the Continental Army's fight and bravery, but those supplies helped more than people give them credit for).

*heh* Think of it as a lend lease program for the 1700's until France decided to be nice and help out.

Of course I'm sure America would NEVER just sit and wait while countries fall and liberty is driven from the land and only send supplies over but would leap at the chance to help liberate... oh wait... sorry.

Does that go for all war?...if the U.S really wanted to help the allies they would have come in sooner?

Yes, it goes for all wars. IIRC, Roosevelt couldn't convince Congress to do much more than the Lend-Lease. While he may have wanted to go in earlier, we didn't have the political will to bring our own armed forces up to speed and commit them to Europe early in WW II.

Does that go for all war?...if the U.S really wanted to help the allies they would have come in sooner?

I suggest you really look at the History of World War II! We were helping our allies by supplying them with materials and money. This was, of course, the only help we could give since the people didn't want to get involved in another European War.

However, FDR managed to get Lend lease through. So yes, we were helping the British in World War II before the US ever got involved militarily and even that can be considered Suspect.

Yes, it goes for all wars. IIRC, Roosevelt couldn't convince Congress to do much more than the Lend-Lease. While he may have wanted to go in earlier, we didn't have the political will to bring our own armed forces up to speed and commit them to Europe early in WW II.


Well at least your graciouse offerings of equipment was enough to give us time and prepare for your late entry...then invade france and on to berlin

I suggest you really look at the History of World War II! We were helping our allies by supplying them with materials and money. This was, of course, the only help we could give since the people didn't want to get involved in another European War.

However, FDR managed to get Lend lease through. So yes, we were helping the British in World War II before the US ever got involved militarily and even that can be considered Suspect.


Yes i Am fully aware of the supplys you offered us..i just think that it was bad taste to join in late...again

Pacifism is far more popular in Europe.

Given the nature of modern technological combat, I would expect France to fall even faster than it did in WW II if subjected to a truly modern attack. The government would surrender in an attempt to prevent the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructure.

Given 2 World Wars fought on its soil... yeah, pacifism has a tendancy to dominate now! :D

France attacked by whom exactly? Would have to be a distant power (Democratic Peace Theory and all)

Given the nature of modern technological combat, I would expect France to fall even faster than it did in WW II if subjected to a truly modern attack. The government would surrender in an attempt to prevent the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructure.

I knew it. Someone call in the modern Artillery. Time to conquer France :D

Given 2 World Wars fought on its soil... yeah, pacifism has a tendancy to dominate now! :D

France attacked by whom exactly? Would have to be a distant power (Democratic Peace Theory and all)

It's not just WW I and II. You can go all the way back to the Thirty Years War to see where the exhaustion starts to set in with certain nations.

Yes i Am fully aware of the supplys you offered us..i just think that it was bad taste to join in late...again
*heh* Americans are ALWAYS late. I only know a handful who bother to show up on time to ANYTHING!

Don't take it personally, it's just an American thing (and I am one).

Winning battles in the past is one thing. An inability to continue the trend of winning into the future is another.
Pacifism is far more popular in Europe.
Given the nature of modern technological combat, I would expect France to fall even faster than it did in WW II if subjected to a truly modern attack. The government would surrender in an attempt to prevent the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructure.


Unfortunately, I think this is true in many modern countries. I know people here in the US think they are suffering if the power goes off and they have no air conditioning and cant take a shower. If some utilities were knocked out, a great many people would already be defeated simply because they were uncomfortable. Too many people are totally reliant on all the modern comforts-imagine the riots at Walgreens when Prozac & Oxycoton prescriptions couldnt be filled? When Starbucks couldnt brew the morning half decafe latte with skim & soy and cinnamon?
I see wusses all around that would fold and sob without the things-many needless,really- they've come to depend on.

People need to be prepared. We arent all guaranteed safe sitting here. People need to have some basic preparedness and some common sense. And be ready to act if they need to.

*heh* Americans are ALWAYS late. I only know a handful who bother to show up on time to ANYTHING!

Don't take it personally, it's just an American thing (and I am one).


...well as long as its tradition i have no quarel with it

At this point in time, serving as a soldier is nowhere near as popular in Europe as it is in the US (and I believe that to some extent, the US is becoming exhausted).
It hasn't been popular to be a soldier in the US for most of our history. The fact that it is now worries me.

*heh* Americans are ALWAYS late. I only know a handful who bother to show up on time to ANYTHING!

Don't take it personally, it's just an American thing (and I am one).

I'm American and I'm never late. I'm always early. Early sometimes means better opporotunity and less nasty surprises. Being early greatly reduces nasty surprises. And whatever you're early for, you wind up looking smarter and more relaxed. You get the "lay of the land". It goes hand in hand with the saying "Never let them see you sweat".

:mp5: :mp5: I think the French do not have to defend the relative greatness of their military. :sniper: :sniper: After all No country can exceed in every area. Look at their other great contributions to the development of life on this great planet. Who could live without french fries, french toast, or croisants. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It hasn't been popular to be a soldier in the US for most of our history. The fact that it is now worries me.

I suppose the issue of the 'draft' is an example of its upopularity.

I'm American and I'm never late. I'm always early. Early sometimes means better opporotunity and less nasty surprises. Being early greatly reduces nasty surprises. And whatever you're early for, you wind up looking smarter and more relaxed. You get the "lay of the land". It goes hand in hand with the saying "Never let them see you sweat".
I'm always 10 to 15 minutes early as well, so there are some who show up. But you must admit, that in waiting for a group, most of said group shows up 5 to 10 minutes AFTER the stated time.

I suppose the issue of the 'draft' is an example of its upopularity.
Part of it, but look at the begining of the US, the founding fathers were very opposed to the notion of a standing army. While the 2nd Admendment was meant to protect the right of the people to arm themselves against the goverment, the wording of that admendment lends credidence to their idea that there was to be no standing Army and that the people would train in a milita and come together as the US army in times of need.

Didn't work that way, but that was the idea.

It hasn't been popular to be a soldier in the US for most of our history. The fact that it is now worries me.


Its popular amongst all those I know that are or have been soldiers. I know many.
Whats not popular ? The honor and respect shown by their family and friends? Holding their positions open at their jobs when they are deployed?
Suspending collection efforts on unpaid accts when they are on active duty?
Flags flying at their homes? Proud photos of them in uniform in their homes? Photos of them in uniform in newspaper wedding, engagement announcements? Crows at home-comings?
Memorials and services in home towns with huge show of support when they are killed?

Maybe it isnt popular in this little biased mircocosm-but there are many in here that cant stand themselves and seem to have no faith in anything.

Maybe the actions they are ordered into arent "popular", but being a soldier still carries the honor respect and gratitude from the large majority of us. Maybe not in some people's eyes because its easier for them that way-they need to open their eyes.

Well at least your graciouse offerings of equipment was enough to give us time and prepare for your late entry...then invade france and on to berlin

Damn Eisenhower for letting Berlin fall to the Russkis.

Damn Eisenhower for letting Berlin fall to the Russkis.

*shrugs* america had second pickings..dont complain

Its popular amongst all those I know that are or have been soldiers. I know many.
*sighs* It is popular now, it was NOT popular through most of US history. Please re-read my post.

Yes i Am fully aware of the supplys you offered us..i just think that it was bad taste to join in late...again

However, we didn't join late. We were doing our best to help the Allies defeat Germany before we got involved militarily.

Anway, if Europe was more lenient at the Treaty of Versaille (Sp?), World War II could've been avoided. If Europe had more balls, they would've taken on Germany LONG BEFORE they could take on the world and nearly conquer it. Europe didn't do this. So in reality, it was Europe's fault that World War II happen.

Its popular amongst all those I know that are or have been soldiers. I know many.
Whats not popular ?
Well obviously its going to be popular amongst the military, otherwise they wouldn't have joined now would they!

I dunno, dying for a lie would be pretty unpopular in my opinion.

However, we didn't join late. We were doing our best to help the Allies defeat Germany before we got involved militarily.

Anway, if Europe was more lenient at the Treaty of Versaille (Sp?), World War II could've been avoided. If Europe had more balls, they would've taken on Germany LONG BEFORE they could take on the world and nearly conquer it. Europe didn't do this. So in reality, it was Europe's fault that World War II happen.


...all of europe?...what of just the individual countries?...what did say...switzerland do?....anyway considering it was in effect a EUROPEAN WAR i think that yes...it would have been a european countr which started it...thanks for stating the bloody obviouse....

Damn Eisenhower for letting Berlin fall to the Russkis.
Do not damn your war commander - the Russians paid for Berlin with a great shedding of our and German blood. The Germans weere not going to surrender their last stronghold without a fight, we saved a lot of American and British lives by sacrificing ours.

My granfather died at the Seelow Heights.

*shrugs* america had second pickings..dont complain

Don't give me that E Blackadder. General Patton gained more ground in less time than any other military unit. If the Western Powers wanted Berlin, they could've taken it.

Don't give me that E Blackadder. General Patton gained more ground in less time than any other military unit. If the Western Powers wanted Berlin, they could've taken it.

..then why didnt you?

So in reality, it was Europe's fault that World War II happen.
Just as an ammused nit-pick, Japan was in China and fighting long before Europe went up in flames you know.

And it didn't really become WWII till America got invloved when Japan attacked the US.

I'm always 10 to 15 minutes early as well, so there are some who show up. But you must admit, that in waiting for a group, most of said group shows up 5 to 10 minutes AFTER the stated time.


I see people walk in to church and the movies, kids soccer games or karate lessons- 10 minutes after everything has started. Then they walk around all flustered-get in the way and distract everyone else who felt that showing up was important enough to not be late.
In some cases, people who are late should be shut out.
If they are deprived a bit, maybe they would learn to prepare next time.

Thats not likely, I guess, These days, they would probably sue.

Do not damn your war commander

I can sure blame him for Berlin falling to the Commis

- the Russians paid for Berlin with a great shedding of our and German blood.

And the Germans were surrendering to the allies on the Western Front.

The Germans weere not going to surrender their last stronghold without a fight, we saved a lot of American and British lives by sacrificing ours.

Actually, I think the Germans would've surrendered to the US and British Forces. They were beaten and they knew it. The Germans were also surrendering to us on the Western Front because they knew they'll get better treatment. They didn't like the Russians so they fought gallently against them.

My granfather died at the Seelow Heights.

My Condolenses

..then why didnt you?

Because Eisenhower cut the fuel to Patton's Army and due to politics (as usual) gave Berlin to the USSR. That had to be the dumbest mistake we made.

My Great Uncle Was in the a cavalry regiment (Tanks of course in ww2) e died in the east somewhare i beleive...jap sub got his troop ship

Because Eisenhower cut the fuel to Patton's Army and due to politics (as usual) gave Berlin to the USSR. That had to be the dumbest mistake we made.


oh ok

Just as an ammused nit-pick, Japan was in China and fighting long before Europe went up in flames you know.

Thank you mr. Obvious! LOL. I know this NERVUN. However, if the victors of WWI had the balls to stop Hitler's Germany when he was violating a treaty, then we probably could've avoided the horrors we saw.

And it didn't really become WWII till America got invloved when Japan attacked the US.

I agree with you.

Thank you mr. Obvious! LOL. I know this NERVUN. However, if the victors of WWI had the balls to stop Hitler's Germany when he was violating a treaty, then we probably could've avoided the horrors we saw.
.
didnt america also win the 1st world war?

My Great Uncle Was in the a cavalry regiment (Tanks of course in ww2) e died in the east somewhare i beleive...jap sub got his troop ship

My Condolenses to you too.

My Condolenses to you too.


um..thankue...i never knew him....of course i wish i had...i have a very good piucture of him with his horse (who would have stayed in britain..only poles used horses in the second world war i think....)

Did anyone see the History Channel last night? They had the story of Wake Island at the start of WWII.

Thank you mr. Obvious! LOL. I know this NERVUN. However, if the victors of WWI had the balls to stop Hitler's Germany when he was violating a treaty, then we probably could've avoided the horrors we saw.
:p Oh I know, that's why I was ammused given your posting in another WWII thread that the Pacific war gets the short end of the stick, even in history books. :D

Hmm... should have used more smiles to show that my tounge was firmly within my cheek with that post. ;)

Corneliu...my ise and powerfull tutor...i am thinking of making a new thread on either the military or WW2 if i do i hope you can post in it...thats if i do it

didnt america also win the 1st world war?

We tipped the scales so we were partly responsible for the defeat of Germany but the US was never part of any alliance.

didnt america also win the 1st world war?

While America was part of the war, their contribution to WWI was no where near that of WWII. Europe and Canada I believe took the biggest hits of that war. In fact, France was a huge reason it was won. You wouldn't know it though the way people talk about France, but it is true.

*sighs* It is popular now, it was NOT popular through most of US history. Please re-read my post.

The popularity does not decline in a straight line. There are peaks and valleys on the way down.

Europe, I believe, is near the end of that decline. Soldiers and wars are noticeably unpopular there.

Outside of major urban centers, soldiering as a career is still fairly popular. Only the Army has missed its recruiting goals (unlike the Marines, who meet or exceed them). And re-enlistment rates are at an all time high.

That doesn't mean it will stay that way. Affluence, and repeated experience with war tends to make it unpopular over time.

But, as a rule, it's far more popular in America than it is in Europe. Europeans have hundreds of years of warfare on their own soil to make them plenty tired of it.

:p Oh I know, that's why I was ammused given your posting in another WWII thread that the Pacific war gets the short end of the stick, even in history books. :D

Hmm... should have used more smiles to show that my tounge was firmly within my cheek with that post. ;)

LOL!! your right that it gets shoved to the back. I don't know why since that was primarily a US only fight. Help from the Aussies and New Zealand and the philipinos not withstanding. It pisses me off to know end. No wonder, I seem to win most Pacific theater Debates in class. :D

While America was part of the war, their contribution to WWI was no where near that of WWII. Europe and Canada I believe took the biggest hits of that war. In fact, France was a huge reason it was won. You wouldn't know it though the way people talk about France, but it is true.


ok thankue... :D ...

Corneliu...my ise and powerfull tutor...i am thinking of making a new thread on either the military or WW2 if i do i hope you can post in it...thats if i do it

Well...

if it deals with the American Military and I have some knowledge on the topic, I will :)

But, as a rule, it's far more popular in America than it is in Europe. Europeans have hundreds of years of warfare on their own soil to make them plenty tired of it.

Tahts odd...in my school a military career is a very popular prospect to most of the students

Well...

if it deals with the American Military and I have some knowledge on the topic, I will :)


ah thankue...i think its going to be on the eastern theatre (the pacific and Burma)

Tahts odd...in my school a military career is a very popular prospect to most of the students

While it's probably more a more popular career in the UK, it's not more popular in Germany or France. And the idea of going to war (in Germany or France) is unpopular in the extreme. Nice perhaps to play at being soldier, but going somewhere....

That's why the French have the Foreign Legion. No Frenchman cares if some non-French soldiers get skinned alive.

ah thankue...i think its going to be on the eastern theatre (the pacific and Burma)

Burma I don't know much about. The pacific on the otherhand....

Pearl
Coral Sea
Midway
Tarawa
Gaudalcanal
Wake
Guam
Siapan
Philippines
Iwo Jima
Okinawa
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Firebombings
Tokyo Bay!

:D:D:D:D:D

everything checked i have a little knowledge on

Pearl check
Coral Sea
Midway check
Tarawa check
Gaudalcanal check
Wake
Guam
Siapan
Philippines check
Iwo Jima
Okinawa
Hiroshima check
Nagasaki check
Firebombings
Tokyo Bay! check

ok thread's up

The popularity does not decline in a straight line. There are peaks and valleys on the way down.
Oi! I am stating that it is more popular NOW than it was in just about any other period in our history (WWII is the only time where it was more popular, but that could be due to the near universal draft at the time).

It has gone up and down, but for MOST US HISTORY it has not been so.

And the Marines have missed theirs and look likely to be on track for missing their year target.

Oi! I am stating that it is more popular NOW than it was in just about any other period in our history (WWII is the only time where it was more popular, but that could be due to the near universal draft at the time).

Actually, if you look at all the wars the US fought in, Popularity for the military shoots up during war time and decreases during peace time. Vietnam seems to be the only case that this isn't so.

Actually, if you look at all the wars the US fought in, Popularity for the military shoots up during war time and decreases during peace time. Vietnam seems to be the only case that this isn't so.
To a certian extent, yup. Vietnam isn't the only case though, during the Civil War, folks were not happy with the Union Army at times.

But again, I'm looking at the very Roman idea of citizen soliders who fight for the day then go back to their farms when the war is done.

But in any case, I was more attempting to answer WL and state that I know the military is popular now.

LOL!! your right that it gets shoved to the back. I don't know why since that was primarily a US only fight. Help from the Aussies and New Zealand and the philipinos not withstanding. It pisses me off to know end. No wonder, I seem to win most Pacific theater Debates in class. :D

Excuse me, I think that you will find that the Indian (and Imperial) army made the single largest conventional military contribution to the war against Japan, followed by the Chineese and then the Americans. The American Fleet and two nukes did speed things up, and save millions of American, Japaneese and Indian lives. People forget that the French Armies fought two simultanious wars, against the Nazis and a cuttroat low level civil war between Free French, Communists and the Vicy. De Gualle was right to kick out the Americans, and I only wish the British had too.

My little country has the doubious title of contributing the greatest percentage of its male population to the war efforts in both great wars, and sustaning the greatest proportional casualties even though it was never allowed to fight as a composite army, but our WW1 and WW2 history is politically unaceptable to the current regeme.

Excuse me, I think that you will find that the Indian (and Imperial) amry made the single largest conventional military contribution to the war against Japan, followed by the Chineese and then the Americans.

Excuse me but that would be the Burma/India/China Theater of War and not the Pacific Theater of war. Yes, they are two distinct different theaters. If I was talking about the Asian Theater itself (including the two aformentioned theaters) then I would've mentioned them. Since I wasn't talking about the overal Asian theater nor the BIC theater, my point holds.

The American Fleet and two nukes did speed things up, and save millions of American, Japaneese and Indian lives.

Now your the one that is forgetting about the Chinese. The bombs saved millions of Chinese lives too.

People forget that the French Armies fought two simultanious wars, against the Nazis and a cuttroat low level civil war between Free French, Communists and the Vicy.

I haven't forgotten this little bit of history.

De Gualle was right to kick out the Americans, and I only wish the British had too.

How so?

My little country has the doubious title of contributing the greatest percentage of its male population to the war efforts in both great wars, and sustaning the greatest proportional casualties even though it was never allowed to fight as a composite army, but our WW1 and WW2 history is politically unaceptable to the current regeme.

Dispite the fact that you lost a whole generation in WWI and was on the verge of a stalemate (Probably should've happened but that is MHO) when America came in and you were subsequently defeated in WWII. Rule of thumb. If your in a war, make sure you win because Losing is not an option. Just ask France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Spain, etc.

I can sure blame him for Berlin falling to the Commis

...
You'd better blame the Yalta Conference, because...



Because Eisenhower cut the fuel to Patton's Army and due to politics (as usual) gave Berlin to the USSR. That had to be the dumbest mistake we made.
Exactly. If the United States had taken Berlin in 1945, America still would have turned a part of the city and all its outskirts over to the USSR - it was included in the Soviet zone of occupation at Yalta. Americans handed Leipzig and Erfurt to us, IIRC.




My Condolenses
Thank you.

And it didn't really become WWII till America got invloved when Japan attacked the US.
Excuse me? Care to explain that one?

WW2 was a World War well before the US got attacked.

While the strategic discussion of whether it would have been fucking nicer to have taken Berlin than the Russions is an interesting exercise, don't make it sound like it was not done without good fucking reason either.


The US total WWII casualties in all theaters? (http://www.abmc.gov/abmc45.htm) a bit over 400,000

The total casualties Russia sustained in the Battle of Berlin? : About 300,000.



How would America have felt at the time adding 70% to their total war dead to take one more city? Or even doing it on the cheap and losing only another 100,000?


Eisenhower knew full well that Berlin would be a bloodbath, and that Russia was willing to do it. And there are hunderds of thousands of American families who didn't get a telegram because of his decision. Looking at it from a geopolitical standpoint, it may have been the wrong decision. Looking at it from the human standpoint, did America lose the lives of over 100,000 men to subsequent battles that can be directly attributed to who held Berlin? Nope. And Russia GAVE half of Berlin over to the West anyway despite having spilled so much of their blood there.


Frankly, letting the Russians take the losses was a smart thing in my opinion.

While the strategic discussion of whether it would have been fucking nicer to have taken Berlin than the Russions is an interesting exercise, don't make it sound like it was not done without good fucking reason either.


The US total WWII casualties in all theaters? (http://www.abmc.gov/abmc45.htm) a bit over 400,000

The total casualties Russia sustained in the Battle of Berlin? : About 300,000.



How would America have felt at the time adding 70% to their total war dead to take one more city? Or even doing it on the cheap and losing only another 100,000?

That is assuming that the Germans fight to the last man as they nearly did against the USSR. They were surrendering along the western front because they knew that we would be treating them better. Germans were giving cover fire so others could fall back to the American and British lines. I can only assume that if the American and Brits pressed home their attack and took Berlin, the casualties would be lower than you might think.

Eisenhower knew full well that Berlin would be a bloodbath, and that Russia was willing to do it.

No. Yalta gave the USSR Berlin because of the German atrocities committed against the Russian People. That was why Berlin was given to the Russians and not because it was going to be a blood bath.

And there are hunderds of thousands of American families who didn't get a telegram because of his decision. Looking at it from a geopolitical standpoint, it may have been the wrong decision.

And hundreds of thousands wouldn't have if we have taken Berlin. It all goes back to who do you want to surrender too! They didn't want to surrender to the USSR and that is why they fought the USSR tooth and nail. They also fought America and Brits tooth and nail too but they also knew that we treated them far better (and in accordance with Geneva Conventions) than the Russians (who didn't follow it).

Looking at it from the human standpoint, did America lose the lives of over 100,000 men to subsequent battles that can be directly attributed to who held Berlin? Nope. And Russia GAVE half of Berlin over to the West anyway despite having spilled so much of their blood there.

That being decided at the Yalta Conference. It was already decided to divide Germany AND Berlin there.

Frankly, letting the Russians take the losses was a smart thing in my opinion.

It wasn't in my view because I firmly believe that we could've taken Berlin with less losses of life due to the fact that the Germans knew they were beaten and that we would treat them better than the USSR. Why do you think the Germans surrendered to the US and Britain first?

Yes, many Germans chose to surrender to the US/UK rather than to the Russians. However over 300,000 Germans DID elect to fight and die for their country rather than surrender to either. Had the US/UK got to the city first, those 300,00 still would have fought and died only with our forces dying alongside them rather than the Russians.


Like I said, we might have done it cheaper than the Russians, but it still would have been an ugly battle with many losses had we tackled it ourselves.

And your notion that there was only one reason that Berlin was ceded to Russia is rather oversimplistic. The reason given in public is not always the real reason (as may people here keep telling me when it comes to Iraq).

honestly.. i didnt read the whole essay you wrote on france.. but from the title itself i must disagree.. im sure im repeating many others...

No offense meant to any french... but france has one of the worst military histories in the world. The Age of Napolean was the best and the only good military times in France. Other than that, France has been a failure. Props to france for helping the American colonies during hte revolutionary war, but other than that they are seriously white flag waving schoolgirls. They were constantly fighting england for about 200 years to no avail. They managed to get some African colonies for a little bit (thanks to imperialism) ... they failed miserably against the communist uprising in Vietnam ("when they going got tough, the french got going") ... so America went in .. (however with not so much of a better turnout). France has a terrible military (excluding napolean- who screwed up like hitler and attacked russia in the winter) history and theres no "ifs ands or buts" about it.

Oh and btw... i believe france was one of the nations who thought "ohh hitler wont take any land...o wait there he goes taking some more.. well its ok as long as he stays away from us... oh no, now hes coming" >my nice monologue< france may have won a few battles, but they had no chance against the nazis as a whole. ..enter united states.

honestly.. i didnt read the whole essay you wrote on france.. but from the title itself i must disagree.. im sure im repeating many others...

No offense meant to any french... but france has one of the worst military histories in the world. The Age of Napolean was the best and the only good military times in France. Other than that, France has been a failure. Props to france for helping the American colonies during hte revolutionary war, but other than that they are seriously white flag waving schoolgirls. They were constantly fighting england for about 200 years to no avail. They managed to get some African colonies for a little bit (thanks to imperialism) ... they failed miserably against the communist uprising in Vietnam ("when they going got tough, the french got going") ... so America went in .. (however with not so much of a better turnout). France has a terrible military (excluding napolean- who screwed up like hitler and attacked russia in the winter) history and theres no "ifs ands or buts" about it.

Oh and btw... i believe france was one of the nations who thought "ohh hitler wont take any land...o wait there he goes taking some more.. well its ok as long as he stays away from us... oh no, now hes coming" >my nice monologue< france may have won a few battles, but they had no chance against the nazis as a whole. ..enter united states.

The Hundred Years' War... Fighting off the Moors near Spain...

Oh and btw... i believe france was one of the nations who thought "ohh hitler wont take any land...o wait there he goes taking some more.. well its ok as long as he stays away from us... oh no, now hes coming" >my nice monologue< france may have won a few battles, but they had no chance against the nazis as a whole. ..enter united states.
Nice bit of revisionist history there, my friend.

Are you telling me that France fell just prior to Pearl Harbour?

Nice bit of revisionist history there, my friend.

Are you telling me that France fell just prior to Pearl Harbour?


i guess this is souly my opinion.. but i think france was never strong enough to "fall"... usually you have to be at a high point, and to my knowledge France was just about to be overrun by Nazi Germany, and the only real threat to Hitler, in Europe, at the time was England.

Hm! So far as I know, the reason that the Maginot Line didn't extend along the Belgian border was political and moral. How could France -during peacetime- build a defensive wall against one of its allies? You have to realise that WWII wasn't always happening... there was peace before. Walling out the Belgians, treating them like enemies, and leaving them to the slaughter was unthinkable. The Belgians themselves had forts and other static defences and their own defence plans established, and the French just had to trust that these would be sufficient in the short term (the story of German captures of Belgian forts is surely as interesting as the French collapse, no?).

More than that, the French people just didn't want a war after what they'd suffered in the Great War. It is a bit dodgey to question them without having gone through what they did. That doesn't mean their decisions were sensible, but does put apathy and unreadiness into some context.

Oh, and if the USA were connected by land to Europe, it would have fallen -mile for mile or man for man- faster than France did, I'd put money on that.

Considering the gutted nature of the U.S. Military at the time (1939), small budgets, and ruined morale (pre Pearl Harbour), if they'd depended on their military for domestic defense in your land-bridge scenario, you're right.

As the Japanese Admiral noted, though-the Germans would have faced a "Rifle behind every blade of grass". French civilians were more disarmed than British Civilians at the time-while Yanks were (in general) armed-to-the-teeth.

The French resistance began their activities with a single pistol and six rounds of ammunition in the entire city of paris.

Think about that.

In the 1930's, on the other hand, Gunsmithing was a relatively popular hobby nationwide in the U.S., Hunting was common, and it was only a year earlier that the purchase and sale of machineguns was first regulated (NFA, 1938).
There were a comparative LOT of Americans that had guns, and had knowledge of their use.

There was also space to trade land for time while they organized-something France, like all non-russia European countries, did not.

I'm not saying it's not possible you would be right-I'm saying it's not likely. The great plains might have been clear-running, but like the Urals, the rockies aren't easy to traverse with mechanized units, and they're highly defensible. The Interstate Highways and good roads in the interior states didn't really start showing up until postwar, and based on the thousands of civilian-owned firearms added to the kitty for emergency shipment to Britain for homeguard use, had those guns and their ammo stayed here in your scenario, the germans would have been facing significantly more aggressive resistance than they did once the Resistance in France got moving.

Yes, many Germans chose to surrender to the US/UK rather than to the Russians. However over 300,000 Germans DID elect to fight and die for their country rather than surrender to either. Had the US/UK got to the city first, those 300,00 still would have fought and died only with our forces dying alongside them rather than the Russians.

I actually doubt that the number was going to be that high. The Germans would be more willing to the US/UK forces if we attacked the city. I don't think we would've gotten Hitler, but the casualties would've been lower if the US/UK forces took the city.

Like I said, we might have done it cheaper than the Russians, but it still would have been an ugly battle with many losses had we tackled it ourselves.

An ugly battle most assuredly. War is ugly period so it was already ugly. As for losses, yes we would've had losses but not nearly so much as the USSR had.

And your notion that there was only one reason that Berlin was ceded to Russia is rather oversimplistic. The reason given in public is not always the real reason (as may people here keep telling me when it comes to Iraq).

Well... if you look at it, it is pretty accurate. Look at the autrocities done in the USSR by the Germans. It was more gruesom than what they did in France. The only thing worse than what they did in the USSR was the holocaust.

Well, the French did give us a lot of cool philosophical, artistic, etc. stuff (socialism, existentialism, surrealism, et al.)

Americans still love masturbating to the myth of the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys.

-snip-

The battle for Berlin was bloody indeed. At least according to the stories of my (now dead) grand pa. He was in it from more or less day 1.

The battle for Berlin was bloody indeed. At least according to the stories of my (now dead) grand pa. He was in it from more or less day 1.

I know how bloody it was. I've studied the Battle of Berlin. I know the fighting went house to house and street to street. The USSR and Nazi Germany hated eachother and therefore, the Germans dug in. Not to mention it bought time to evacuate as many civilians as possible to the west to keep them from falling under the Soviet yoke.

Nice bit of revisionist history there, my friend.

Are you telling me that France fell just prior to Pearl Harbour?
Is it revised, or simply inaccurate, EC?
From the POV of someone younger, 1940 and 1941 don't seem that far apart. Eighteen months is a very short time, though it be an age when combat is afoot.

According to Wehrmacht reports (captured and declassified by the Allies), some French units fought like tigers, while others surrendered in droves-it's an inconsistency thing that happens whenever a nation is outright overrun as France was.
There were two stand-out features about the French performance in 1940. One, was that they not only had better tanks than the Wehrmacht-of-the-time, but, they also had more of them. the French general Staff is to blame here-they assigned their armour quite poorly and paid no attention to how the war in spain was fought (spain being next-door, you'd think they'd at least pay attention...)
The other point-failure, is that France's government-of-the-time had been remarkably bad about dealing with her own economic troubles. Germany had been prospering for a couple years at this point, and a lot of what became the Vichy government wanted similar changes. This impinges heavily on the will of commanders to fight a good campaign.
The biggest failure point, though, was ignoring history.
Germany didn't cut through the low countries once before, but several times before. WWI really started at Ypres(1914), with a squad/platoon level skirmish. That's the point where battle was joined in the west then, and the French blandly ignored this previous lesson, relying on an incomplete shield of frontier fortifications that no general in his right mind would frontally assault-not even a "Fortress fighter" would.

Generals being appointed by government, this ignorance is inexcuseable, an excrable oversight given Europe's history prior to 1936.

Like the U.S., Britain spent the interwar years gutting their land forces. The bulk of the British Army was still in their colonial territories, thousands of miles away. The inability to muster and concentrate forces can be understood by the fact that Britain had to garrison and police half the damn planet. Massive reductions in British presence in India would have resulted in severe difficulties for the Empire, same with the African holdings, Burma, and the British-controlled middle-eastern areas. It's a failure common to directly-held empires throughout history-the longer your supply line, the easier it is to cut, and the longer it takes to move men from one portion to another, the less effective they will be when responding to a crisis close-to-home.
Effective resources are finite in nature, and Britains empire was far-flung and required extensive administrative, protective, and enforcement forces that could not be moved faster than a ship could steam.

It's also interesting to note that French in Africa fought against the Axis under DeGaulle, but French Indochinese governors collaborated with the Japanese from day one to the end of the war.
Hence, U.S. support of Ho Chi Minh in the War years, and why Truman shouldn't have committed assets to helping France keep those territories afterward. WE (the U.S. and Britain) made the Vietminh into an effective fighting force.

So there was a definite "Split": some French fought Valiantly on the side of the Allies. French-composed volunteer SS units fought valiantly against the Soviets during the same time period their countrymen were fighting their new friends.
French forces fought alongside British troops in Africa, while french forces (Vichy) were fighting alongside Japanese forces against British, American, and Australian forces in Indochina.

Americans still love masturbating to the myth of the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys.

How nice. You know, it would be nice if they French could actually back up their B.S. instead of relying on their allies (multiple) to save their asses when their mouth gets them into a situation their fists aren't ready to handle.

Algeria
Vietnam
Cote' D' Ivoire
Haiti.
WWI
WWII
Suez Crisis.
Mexico (maximilian's empire)

France is the only Western Nation of a first-world status to be beaten (that's outright defeated and driven out) by non-turkic Muslim irregulars since the Crusades.
They're the only nation in the west that surrendered, rather than seeing artillery shells trash some monuments.
they're the only "Allied" nation to fight on both sides simultaneously (different theatres, but still...).

Is it revised, or simply inaccurate, EC?
From the POV of someone younger, 1940 and 1941 don't seem that far apart. Eighteen months is a very short time, though it be an age when combat is afoot.

-snipped the historic explanation for brevity-

I'm saying that 18 months between two event in a war that lasted 5 times that is skipping over a large bit of the history. The guy made it sond like France fell, then the US jumped right in with nothing happening between the two events.

Call me annoyed, but I disdain the tendency of some people that seem to think that the US singlehandedly won the war. And that guy certainly posted like such an event occured. I'm not saying the US didn't help, I'm saying that this was a WORLD war. Many countries fought and to gloss over their participation is an injustice that I despise.

Other than that, carry on...

Americans still love masturbating to the myth of the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys.


I must say-you've made your point-well thought out and concise.

Were those Nazis marching 'neath the Arc d Triumph ?

We dont love that they've been bent over and violated. We arent looking for them to kiss our ass.

And we arent looking to hear the ignorant opinions of those who hate themselves. Those little bitter yappers are damn irritating.

Damn Eisenhower for letting Berlin fall to the Russkis.

it worked out all right in the end though

France was still recovering from WWI in 1938-1940. Their agriculture had suffered a lot from combats, and food production hadn't finished recovering (if you take a look at land use statistics, you notice a sharp decline by the end of WWI and a very very slow recovery then).

Their demographics were looking very bad, too. France had lost around 1.4 million young men in WWI, or in relative terms, 11% of its population (!). More than 90% of human losses in WW1 were young men (16 to 30). So these "would-be fathers" never had children. It takes a 2-3 generations for a society to recover from such losses. In the meantime, France's society had a high % of old people and single moms raising kids. Not a very powerful work force; in fact, the French gross product nose-dived after 1918.

Thus, there were not enough young men to work in the fields, not enough men to rebuild everything to pre-WWI levels, and not enough young men to nurture the economy. Economically, France could not keep up with Germany and England (and even Italy).

Put that way, it's quite obvious that France could simply not AFFORD another war in 1939... for military, social and economic reasons. That's why they tried so hard to avoid it: their country had been weakened by WWI, and they were simply not ready. If they had been evil enough, they could have bought time the way Stalin did (... and hold Hitler at bay, long enough to build tanks like crazy), but they didn't. You don't make deals with the devil unless you're a devil too.



Now about the Maginot Line.

France had land defenses all along Germany and parts of its northern borders. The only area that wasn't defended was the Ardennes forest, because everybody thought it would be impossible to cross it with tanks and transports. Of course, nobody outside Germandy had a precise idea about the capabilities of German Panzer tanks and all-terrain transports in the 1930's.

Don't forget that military harware evolved really fast between 1918 and 1940. Just look at the Italian's investments in their air force. In 1936, Mussolini had the greatest air force in the World (and it had cost him a maximum!). By 1939, his planes were totally obsolete and laughing stock.

Here is the logic behind the Maginot Line.

1) The Line would hinder any German attack for so long that the bulk of the large French army would be fully mobilised to counter the attack. (NOTE: The French army was not fast enough to mobilize against a German blitzkrieg.)

2) The troops stationed in the Line would also be used to fight against the invading Germans should they get through any one part of the Line and attack them from the rear. (NOTE: The German didn't actually bother attacking the Line. They just surrounded it from a distance, and waited.)

3) All the fighting would take place near to the French/German border so that there would be minimal damage to property. (NOTE: This view would have been valid in 1914-1918, because war at this time didn't rely as much on fast transports and air attacks. But in 1940, it was outdated.)

4) The Ardennes in the north would act as a natural continuation of the man-made Line as it was considered impenetrable, so the Line need not go all the way to the Channel. (NOTE: The Ardennes would have been impossible to cross using any pre-1940 transport or tank.)

it worked out all right in the end though

How so?

I know how bloody it was. I've studied the Battle of Berlin. I know the fighting went house to house and street to street. The USSR and Nazi Germany hated eachother and therefore, the Germans dug in. Not to mention it bought time to evacuate as many civilians as possible to the west to keep them from falling under the Soviet yoke.

Let me just mention that he was not russian nor a big fan of the ComIntern in general. He was merely a Yugoslav (croatian but he was orthodox and considered himself to be serbian) who had fought for the cetniks (serb royalists). A long series of events led up to him being "captured" by the Red Army. I won't go into detail.

Let me just mention that he was not russian nor a big fan of the ComIntern in general. He was merely a Yugoslav (croatian but he was orthodox and considered himself to be serbian) who had fought for the cetniks (serb royalists). A long series of events led up to him being "captured" by the Red Army. I won't go into detail.

*is now 100% confused*

We dont love that they've been bent over and violated. We arent looking for them to kiss our ass.

Yet when France didn't go along with the Iraq invasion, it was Helloo Freedom Fries, Freedom Toast and Wine Down the Toilet.

And we arent looking to hear the ignorant opinions of those who hate themselves. Those little bitter yappers are damn irritating.

Any less bitter than the comments of everyone who keep insisting the French are irrelevant in world history?

*is now 100% confused*

I was talking about my grandpa. :p

Bah, anyways, I'm just typing rubbish right now... *yawns* Forget I said anything. ;)

I was talking about my grandpa. :p

I gotcha now :D

Bah, anyways, I'm just typing rubbish right now... *yawns* Forget I said anything. ;)

lol. :D

Yet when France didn't go along with the Iraq invasion, it was Helloo Freedom Fries, Freedom Toast and Wine Down the Toilet.

Don't support 1441 if your not going to support the 2nd resolution. Secretary of State Powell. What happens? France and Russia supported 1441, goes back on their word. :rolleyes:

Any less bitter than the comments of everyone who keep insisting the French are irrelevant in world history?

Name a war the French won.

:rolleyes: Don't support 1441 if your not going to support the 2nd resolution. Secretary of State Powell. What happens? France and Russia supported 1441, goes back on their word. :rolleyes:

Ahem... 1441 was an authorization for the use of force if Saddam indeed had viable WMDs and delivery systems and he didn't come clean with them. Needless to say, Bush did his Slim Pickens impression riding the bombs into Iraq before the inspectors could get their job done. Like a good little Bushevik you assume the authorization for the threat of force is the authorization for the use of it without meeting the conditions set forth.

Name a war the French won.

Sooo... Napoleon just pretended to lead France to a near-complete conquest of Europe then? And before you get into the silly semantics game of "Napoleon was Corsican, not French" which I know you'll try to come up with as an excuse, Napoleon conquered the world with a French army, in the name of France. Not Corsica.

:rolleyes:

Ahem... 1441 was an authorization for the use of force if Saddam indeed had viable WMDs and delivery systems and he didn't come clean with them.

hmm no. Not quite accurate. It was passed because Saddam was in violation of 16 other resolutions and was told to comply with 1441. They didn't comply with 1441 and thus we went with the 2nd resolution that France and Russia threatened Veto on.

Needless to say, Bush did his Slim Pickens impression riding the bombs into Iraq before the inspectors could get their job done.

Then I guess the fact that he never fully disclosed his programs to the UN doesn't constitute a violation of the UN Resolutions. I guess him stalling inspectors so that he could move things without their knowledge doesnt constitute a violation of UN Resolutions.

Like a good little Bushevik

Like a good little pinko-commie you believe everything you hear from the media.

you assume the authorization for the threat of force is the authorization for the use of it without meeting the conditions set forth.

He violated Resolutions. That's good enough in my book.

Sooo... Napoleon just pretended to lead France to a near-complete conquest of Europe then?

Napoleon was Corsican, he wasn't French.

know[/B] you'll try to come up with as an excuse, Napoleon conquered the world with a French army, in the name of France. Not Corsica.

And then was driven back to France by the Russian Army. Now name a war that the French won.

The Hundred Years War.

The English pretty much rode through a disorganized, disunited, and mostly lacking any central focus of leadership France.

Once France got its act together, the English were pretty much thrown off the continent.

Hmm.

Thirty Years War.

France meddled with the HRE Civil War, paid Sweden to kick ass (Which it proceeded to do until Gustav got himself killed leading a charge), and then entered in war herself for the goal of weakening her enemies.

The result: The Hapsburgs weakened, they never had the ability to recapture the Netherlands, and several years after the end of the 30 Years War, the Sun King took power in France.

Then, there's Napolean. Don't need to go into that one.

Oh, and one more thing -

Up until the commanding general got hisself killed, the French were winning the war in Vietnam.

..And then was driven back to France by the Russian Army. Now name a war that the French won.

Actually, when the Grande Armee fought the Russian, they won. What killed the Grande Armee was Nappy's underestimation of Russian hero General Winter. Something that two other leaders in history also forgot.

Actually, when the Grande Armee fought the Russian, they won. What killed the Grande Armee was Nappy's underestimation of Russian hero General Winter. Something that two other leaders in history also forgot.

Hitler being one of them and no, the Russian Army actually defeated the French Army with the help of the dreaded Russian Winter.

hmm no. Not quite accurate. It was passed because Saddam was in violation of 16 other resolutions and was told to comply with 1441. They didn't comply with 1441 and thus we went with the 2nd resolution that France and Russia threatened Veto on.

Actually you're both wrong on a couple of things.. 1441 authorized nothing. The last clause in 1441 is "We remain seized of the matter" which means until they met again to discuss 1441 nothing was authorized. Second, Saddam DID comply with 1441. It wasn't his fault Bush chose not to believe him, turned out he was telling the truth. Bah, I hate it when people make up shit that isn't true. You're really bad at doing that Corneliu. I wish you'd stop!

Second, Saddam DID comply with 1441.

Care to show me what he complied with? He didn't comply with 1441 and everyone knows he didn't comply with 1441.

It wasn't his fault Bush chose not to believe him, turned out he was telling the truth. Bah, I hate it when people make up shit that isn't true. You're really bad at doing that Corneliu. I wish you'd stop!

Hussein thought he had anthrax! We didn't have an account on where they were at. Oops, violation of UN resolutions. How many violations does that make now? And since he should've complied, he never detailed what happened to it. That's a violation of 1441. OOPS! I guess he didn't follow it afterall :rolleyes:

hmm no. Not quite accurate. It was passed because Saddam was in violation of 16 other resolutions and was told to comply with 1441. They didn't comply with 1441 and thus we went with the 2nd resolution that France and Russia threatened Veto on.

And if Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait in the first place, he would have had his ass covered like every other pet dictator America had.

Then I guess the fact that he never fully disclosed his programs to the UN doesn't constitute a violation of the UN Resolutions. I guess him stalling inspectors so that he could move things without their knowledge doesnt constitute a violation of UN Resolutions.

If America doesn't give the UN any credit, why should Iraq? But then again speculation on what may have been has been rendered moot by Bush's gung ho invasion.

Like a good little pinko-commie you believe everything you hear from the media.

Even if the media is Fox News? :rolleyes:

He violated Resolutions. That's good enough in my book.

Again, when you hold the UN in contempt, why do you care if a Resolution is violated?

Napoleon was Corsican, he wasn't French.

I saw this coming from a mile but you used that excuse anyways. :rolleyes:

And then was driven back to France by the Russian Army. Now name a war that the French won.

Ohhhh... I didn't know the French were the only ones to make the mistake of invading Russia just as winter is about to start... oooohh... and keep in mind that like any major world power then, France had to be ganged up on for the other side to stand a chance.

And since you're obcessed with convincing yourself that France is a nation of pathetic losers from Day One, here's a question for you.

Name a war that America won. ALONE. ON ITS OWN.

The Civil War doesn't count.

And since you're obcessed with convincing yourself that France is a nation of pathetic losers from Day One, here's a question for you.

Name a war that America won. ALONE. ON ITS OWN.

The Civil War doesn't count.

Okay, thats a little bit unfair :(

Mainly because the US would have won Desert Storm and Desert Storm 2 on its own.

...aside from that I can't think of a single one.

Oh, and if 'EVERYBODY knows Saddam violated resolutions', I must be nobody, then.

Care to show me what he complied with? He didn't comply with 1441 and everyone knows he didn't comply with 1441.

The only thing Saddam was guilty of in 1441 was bad book keeping! End of story!

And if Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait in the first place, he would have had his ass covered like every other pet dictator America had.

If he hadn't had invaded Kuwait, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. This mess is entirely of Saddam's own making. He brought this on himself. No one did it for him.

If America doesn't give the UN any credit, why should Iraq? But then again speculation on what may have been has been rendered moot by Bush's gung ho invasion.

Which is proper and necessary IMHO. Its about time that we ended his reign of terror.

Even if the media is Fox News? :rolleyes:

I question them too.

Again, when you hold the UN in contempt, why do you care if a Resolution is violated?

Because I believe in the ideals of the UN. People have been violating there resolutions going all the way back to 1948. What happened in 1948? Anyone care to guess?

I saw this coming from a mile but you used that excuse anyways. :rolleyes:

Accurate though.

Ohhhh... I didn't know the French were the only ones to make the mistake of invading Russia just as winter is about to start... oooohh... and keep in mind that like any major world power then, France had to be ganged up on for the other side to stand a chance.

France still lost. No matter how you try to spin it, they lost.

And since you're obcessed with convincing yourself that France is a nation of pathetic losers from Day One, here's a question for you.

This should be good.

Name a war that America won. ALONE. ON ITS OWN.

The Civil War doesn't count.

Mexican War. Grenada. Panama. Haiti. Do you want me to go on? 1812 was a stalemate. Spanish American War too was won by the US alone.

The only thing Saddam was guilty of in 1441 was bad book keeping! End of story!

Maybe bad bookkeeping but since he didn't account for everything, its a violation of 1441.

Why do people insist on using the word blitzkrieg rather than just calling it, ahem idunno...lightning warfare for example? Do you know how stupid that sounds to a German?

Oh, and how did the Poles do any better?

the poles went on horseback (real cavalry) to fight German tanks... the Poles at least can make the excuse that they were at a serious technological disadvantage against the Germans.

Can the French make the same excuse for their ass-kicking and subsequent surrender? If it was mostly due to ineffective/moronic commanders, that would leave the door open to say that the french were brave. But then... it means that they were stupid, at least in executive positions.

Alas, the guns of the Line were fixed in concrete, facing Germany...
As youd hope they would be being attacked from the rear is so gay.
Plus Heaven forbide the Germans had breached the line from the front and turned them.

What do Americans call French Toast?

Up until the commanding general got hisself killed, the French were winning the war in Vietnam.

Bernard Fall (a French Journalist) and his book "A Street Without Joy" (which is considered the classic book on the French Indochina War) would completely and totally disagree with your assessment of French success in the French Indochina War.

The French did manage to win the 137 year 100 years War (which is the record for longest war by the way). In spite of losing battle after battle. However it could be argued that they won only because Henry V died too early and the regents in charge of his son Henry VI were idiots. Mostly they won because the outnumbered the English about 3 to 1 and the technology of war changed (useful cannon).

Some historians feel the French (well, actually the Franks, but they became the French) saved Europe from the Moslems at Tours .... I would use that example of French military prowess first.

Napoleon won several of the Napoleonic Wars... but lost the last two because he simply didn't seem to know when to stop.

A coalition of powers (that frequently changed) fought the 30 Years War, and France assisted in the reduction of Hapsburg power. Actually nobody really won that one, although the Germans definitely lost it (as far as deaths and damage goes).

Charles Martel-Father of Charlmagne
Dont forget Poiters.

Protestants won the 30 years war.
Maybe Holland/Netherlands/Dutch people.
Spain lost out
German states lost out

Correct me if im wrong which im sure you would.
France was Catholic as was Hapsburgs/Habsburgs but thouht it more prudent to fight them because if they didnt their rule would be supreme?

Bernard Fall (a French Journalist) and his book "A Street Without Joy" (which is considered the classic book on the French Indochina War) would completely and totally disagree with your assessment of French success in the French Indochina War.

The French did manage to win the 137 year 100 years War (which is the record for longest war by the way). In spite of losing battle after battle. However it could be argued that they won only because Henry V died too early and the regents in charge of his son Henry VI were idiots. Mostly they won because the outnumbered the English about 3 to 1 and the technology of war changed (useful cannon).

Some historians feel the French (well, actually the Franks, but they became the French) saved Europe from the Moslems at Tours .... I would use that example of French military prowess first.

Napoleon won several of the Napoleonic Wars... but lost the last two because he simply didn't seem to know when to stop.

A coalition of powers (that frequently changed) fought the 30 Years War, and France assisted in the reduction of Hapsburg power. Actually nobody really won that one, although the Germans definitely lost it (as far as deaths and damage goes).

Woah...

I thought you had, like, fallen off a cliff or sometin, New Shiron.

Anyhoo...

If you listed every country that saved(well, not "saved" but protected) Europe from the Muslims you'd have...erm...I think somewhere around 3(Poland and the Franks for sure, but I'm not sure if the Spanish count).

Charles Martel-Father of Charlmagne
Dont forget Poiters.

Protestants won the 30 years war.
Maybe Holland/Netherlands/Dutch people.
Spain lost out
German states lost out

Correct me if im wrong which im sure you would.
France was Catholic as was Hapsburgs/Habsburgs but thouht it more prudent to fight them because if they didnt their rule would be supreme?

yes, both France and the Hapsburgs were Catholic. France and others were worried that since the Hapsburgs ruled both Spain and the Holy Roman Empire (in the form of Charles V) that the real danger existed that they would dominate Europe. So France gave money to Sweden to fight the Hapsburgs, and also fought them directly. In Germany mostly (which was really, really hard on the Germans)

yes, I would say the Dutch won, as they finally got their legal independence from Spain at the end of the war.

Woah...

I thought you had, like, fallen off a cliff or sometin, New Shiron.

Anyhoo...

If you listed every country that saved(well, not "saved" but protected) Europe from the Muslims you'd have...erm...I think somewhere around 3(Poland and the Franks for sure, but I'm not sure if the Spanish count).

good point.... technically the Austrians and Poles saved Europe at the seige of Vienna, and later on the Spanish, Venetians, and various others including the Austrians saved Europe again at the Battle of Lepanto.... although even if the Turks won, its arguable that they would have really been able to stay long if they got Western Europe.

good point.... technically the Austrians and Poles saved Europe at the seige of Vienna, and later on the Spanish, Venetians, and various others including the Austrians saved Europe again at the Battle of Lepanto.... although even if the Turks won, its arguable that they would have really been able to stay long if they got Western Europe.

Well, it was mostly the Poles at Vienna...[/prideofpolishheritage]

Anyhoo, I agree the Turks prolly wouldn't have maintained a firm control over Europe. However, even the fact that the Turks would March into Rome, Paris, Berlin would change history forever.

If he hadn't had invaded Kuwait, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. This mess is entirely of Saddam's own making. He brought this on himself. No one did it for him.
I will give you two words:

APRIL GLASPIE (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html)

Well, it was mostly the Poles at Vienna...[/prideofpolishheritage]

Anyhoo, I agree the Turks prolly wouldn't have maintained a firm control over Europe. However, even the fact that the Turks would March into Rome, Paris, Berlin would change history forever.
Oh, I know a bunch of people in my family who would go on the barricades for that one.
Apparently I had a great-great-great uncle or something who battled the Turks in Vienna.
Von Melzer or something like that. Maybe he's on the internet...he was some sort of bigwig apparently. That side of my family later owned a chocolate factory in today's Czech Republic. The Russians took it though...no cheap ass chocolate for me :(

I will give you two words:

APRIL GLASPIE (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html)

true, the US State Department failed to clearly warn Saddam that invading his neighbors wasn't allowed. However, reasonable people felt that since he damn near lost the war with Iran after invading them, and that Iraq was in the UN, which in the charter clearly states that wars are only allowed in self defense that he wasn't considering such a move, or was merely bluffing.

The Iraqi-Kuwaiti dispute was over money, and oil rights in the Neutral Zone, and that was the matter that the Ambassador was addressing. That the US has no opinion on the financial dispute.

Amazing how important context is when quoting something isn't it?

true, the US State Department failed to clearly warn Saddam that invading his neighbors wasn't allowed. However, reasonable people felt that since he damn near lost the war with Iran after invading them, and that Iraq was in the UN, which in the charter clearly states that wars are only allowed in self defense that he wasn't considering such a move, or was merely bluffing.

The Iraqi-Kuwaiti dispute was over money, and oil rights in the Neutral Zone, and that was the matter that the Ambassador was addressing. That the US has no opinion on the financial dispute.

Amazing how important context is when quoting something isn't it?
Yes the "context" is very important, especiallt when considering the final portion of the Glaspie transcript:

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)

You will notice that Saddam would have no concerns regarding the UN Charter, because "the Iraqis have always viewed (Kuwait) as an historic part of their country".

I clearly remember that argument from when the Gulf War started that Kuwait was considered as the "19th Province" of Iraq.

And so began the Gulf War

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!

the Shatt al Arab is actually the border between Iran and Iraq, and is not located in Kuwait. The only part of that waterway is a couple of islands located relatively nearby that belongs to Kuwait. The Journalists questions aren't very impressive when you look at that geographic fact.

The Journalists didn't actually ask questions after she stated she didn't believe the Iraqis would invade. They simply made accusations that are flat wrong (as in massively in error) that the Ambassador either didn't hear or chose not to dignify with an answer or response.

As far as Kuwait being historically part of Iraq. At no point historically has that ever been true. It was either wilderness inhabited by nomads and fishing villages not really ruled by anyone (except tributary status) or its own sultanate going back to the collapse of the Parthian Empire after the successful Roman invasion of the region under Trajan in the 100s AD.

on a more on topic side note, the French did fight and operate very well during the First Gulf War.

the Shatt al Arab is actually the border between Iran and Iraq, and is not located in Kuwait. The only part of that waterway is a couple of islands located relatively nearby that belongs to Kuwait. The Journalists questions aren't very impressive when you look at that geographic fact.
The questions were impressive. The quote was that:

"Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal"

FOR:

"the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be."

Fairly straightforward?

The Journalists didn't actually ask questions after she stated she didn't believe the Iraqis would invade. They simply made accusations that are flat wrong (as in massively in error) that the Ambassador either didn't hear or chose not to dignify with an answer or response.
How are the accusations "massively in error"? Please explain.

These are serious questions. To NOT reply, implies that the accusation is indeed correct. BTW, she did admit that there was a mistake on thinking on her part.

As far as Kuwait being historically part of Iraq. At no point historically has that ever been true. It was either wilderness inhabited by nomads and fishing villages not really ruled by anyone (except tributary status) or its own sultanate going back to the collapse of the Parthian Empire after the successful Roman invasion of the region under Trajan in the 100s AD.
According to these maps (http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/maps/default.htm), you would be wrong.

Saddam Hussein & the invasion of Kuwait (http://arabic-media.com/saddam.htm)

Iraq responded to the sanctions by annexing Kuwait as the 19th Province of Iraq on August 8, and appointing Lt. Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid, one of Saddam's closest advisers, as governor of occupied Kuwait, prompting the exiled Sabah family to call for a stronger international response.

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War)

Prior to World War I, under the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, Kuwait was considered to be an autonomous caza within Ottoman Iraq. Following the war, Kuwait fell under British rule and later became an independent emirate. However, Iraqi officials did not accept the legitimacy of Kuwaiti independence or the authority of the Kuwaiti Emir. Iraq never acknowledged Kuwait's right to be an independent nation and in the 1960s, the United Kingdom deployed troops to Kuwait to deter an Iraqi annexation.

Of course, it is all a matter of conjecture as to who is right and who is wrong?

Ay any rate, I think the US screwed Iraq by supplying arms to the Iranians and by giving Saddam an "unintentional?: green light to invade Kuwait. The rest is history.

How that allows for making up these stories about French surrender, especially by Americans, is beyond me.

Especially by Americans?

I can assure you that it isn't just America.

Fuck the French cunts.

First of all, it's not "English" it's British, Scotland and Wales both played parts in WWII, not just England. The fact that while British and even more so Soviet cities were pounded into the ground, historic momuments destroyed, thousands dead; and Paris remained untouched - is what peeves especially British and Russians off the most. Look at Leningrad, and London, and then Paris, and then tell me the French fought valiantly. Then you look at those cities and countries, and you say the Americans won the war. THIS is what annoys every British person that has any grasp of Military History.

Oh, and so much for stories of surrender; The French surrendered Paris because "We didn't want our beautiful city being destroyed"

Napoleon was Corsican, he wasn't French.

Actually he technically was French as France invaded just prior to his birth (in fact if I remember rightly his mother went into labour just as she was fleeing the incoming French troops). Thus he was French. He went to mainland France to go to school and the army he led was French. He regarded himself as French and disliked greatly any accusations that he was Coriscan.

It is interesting to compare Wellington with Napoleon in that regard - both came from colonies of the powers they were to serve and both completely rejected their home colonies. Wellington once said after being called Irish: "Just because you are born in a stable does not mean you are a horse".

To be fair, France did win most of the wars surrounding Europe throughout 1793 to 1810. However the Spanish campaign by the British and the Russian campaign led to their destructiom.

Let us all be in agreement that France fights when things are good and when things look a little rough they throw the towel in!Lets us all be in the agreement that France can be taken over by the USboyscouts... also don't forget "cheese eating surrender monkeys"...

some posts here...are killing my kiddie fantasies about the French being push-overs...

The questions were impressive. The quote was that:

"Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal"

FOR:

"the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be."

Fairly straightforward?


How are the accusations "massively in error"? Please explain.

These are serious questions. To NOT reply, implies that the accusation is indeed correct. BTW, she did admit that there was a mistake on thinking on her part.


According to these maps (http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/maps/default.htm), you would be wrong.

Saddam Hussein & the invasion of Kuwait (http://arabic-media.com/saddam.htm)

Iraq responded to the sanctions by annexing Kuwait as the 19th Province of Iraq on August 8, and appointing Lt. Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid, one of Saddam's closest advisers, as governor of occupied Kuwait, prompting the exiled Sabah family to call for a stronger international response.

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War)

Prior to World War I, under the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, Kuwait was considered to be an autonomous caza within Ottoman Iraq. Following the war, Kuwait fell under British rule and later became an independent emirate. However, Iraqi officials did not accept the legitimacy of Kuwaiti independence or the authority of the Kuwaiti Emir. Iraq never acknowledged Kuwait's right to be an independent nation and in the 1960s, the United Kingdom deployed troops to Kuwait to deter an Iraqi annexation.

Of course, it is all a matter of conjecture as to who is right and who is wrong?

Ay any rate, I think the US screwed Iraq by supplying arms to the Iranians and by giving Saddam an "unintentional?: green light to invade Kuwait. The rest is history.


*sigh*

Canuck, how the hell did you turn a France thread into an Iraq thread?

*sigh*

Canuck, how the hell did you turn a France thread into an Iraq thread?

To be fair, the French did fight in the 1st Gulf War.

However, this is about France and the French don't care who the screw over just as long as they get what they want.

Their military wouldn't be able to withstand a full direct assault by Britain, the US, Russia or China for that matter. They are perhaps, the weakest member in NATO save perhaps Canada.

French army does what Spanish 120000 strong army failed to do for 3 years: it utterly annihilates the reef rebels(armed with 135 cannons, 240 machine-guns, and more than 40,000 rifles) in a battle: 5-8-1925, French Commander marshal Lyautey

There's your French victory under a French commander.

They did fight vallantly in WWII, everyone did, that still doesn't change the fact they surrendered and sued for peace.

So was Poland's, so was England's, so was Luxemburg, Belgium, and the third Low Country I can't remeber offhand.
The Netherlands!


Their military wouldn't be able to withstand a full direct assault by Britain, the US, Russia or China for that matter. They are perhaps, the weakest member in NATO save perhaps Canada.
Really? Weaker then the Benelux (seperate or combined), Spain, Poland... :rolleyes:

In fact, with USA easy on top, they are one of the strongest, together with the UK and Germany.


And since the Germans were going so fast (I think they took less than a week to bust Belgium/Holland) it was impossible to make any real defenses on the Belgian border.
Holland less then a week, Belgium more then a week. ;)