WWII - an unnecessary waste and the fault of England?

[Empty Hands]

Wartime propaganda is a powerful thing innit?

Indeed. They were overwhelmed and defeated, and surrendered in one war. So have the Germans and many other countries. Meanwhile, no one who has studied the history of the Algerian wars or the reign of Napoleon would claim that the French are strangers to war.

Propaganda indeed.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Wartime propaganda is a powerful thing innit?

But even if that were true (it's not), consider it repayment for saving the Americans when those traitors wanted to separate from the English crown.
without French support, that would have been snuffed out.

I get my information from people who were there. I'm aware of the French Resistance, and their sacrifices, however that was what % of the population? It also doesn't excuse the "Thanks for saving our snail eating asses, now get the F out Yanks" attitude.
Then there are these: 1 2 perhaps not true, but damned funny to me in any event.
The only time I wish to visit France, is when I can visit and photograph the beaches at Normandy, where thousands of brave, gallant and often just scared ******** Americans, Canadians and Brits (and their associated others that history lumps in as Brits so as to not have to deal with trying to name every bloody culture under the UK banner) fell while invading to free France and Europe from the Nazis.

But as I said, I'm well aware of the French Resistance's efforts, of France ending the war with over a million men in uniform (though they only lost 20,000). I'm also aware the last defenders of Berlin against the Russians were French SS.
You want detailed information on French action in WWII?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France_during_World_War_II
It's pretty detailed. A good read.

So, maybe they aren't the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" you hear about.

Still doesn't mean I have to like them.
Or their snails.

At to the American Revolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

Americans, we've been revolting since 1776.

 

[Tez3]

Why? Personal run ins with a couple of French Citizens, and French Canadians whose noses were so far up in the air I could see the inside of their skulls. Arrogance is everywhere, but the French I've dealt with have refined it to an art form. Stories of treatment from US GI's who told the same story of how they were cheered when they pushed the Germans back, they given a 1 finger salute as they left. Too cowardly to fight for their own country, they let us do the hard work for them then showed their ingratitude after. An easy dozen other tales.

and people got on at me for saying the Americans did this or that!

As I said the 'France' is a conglomorate' of different countries. Brittany, Normandy, Corsica, Provence, the Basque Region etc. While Vichy France did colloborate with the Germans, a good many French lost their lives fighting with the Free French and in the Resistance. Many people of the time living in these places didn't speak French but their own languages, or French was their second language. Alsace was a predominately German speaking and thinking place so the 'French' there were never going to go against people they felt were their own, Up to the first World War it had been part of Germany.

While understanding and appreciating what American soldiers did for Franch you have to bear in mind that the typical American soldier of that era was brash, cocky and considerably wealthier than the average European citizen at that time. There is as many stories about American soldiers behaving in the UK in such a way that the local people while bearing in mind why they were here, actually hated them. the issue of black soldiers was one where there was a vast gulf of understanding. When the Americans arrived in the UK, the British had been at war for some time, rationing was strict, bombing raids had battered the cities and the men were away fighting. The Americans were known to try and 'buy' the affections of the women left behind as well as flashing their money around, complaining about the shortages in the UK at the time. Americans have a habit, caused by naivete more than anything else of rubbing people up the wrong way, pride in their own nations and belief that their way of life is just the best is probably not best touted to people of other nations who are equally proud of their countries. The subject of what America did in the war is constantly coming up, as if you have to keep reminding people.How many times on here alone has it been posted whenever something negative is said about America? The French don't keep reminding you of the help they have given you in gaining independance and you didn't complain they surrendered then.


To understand more what life was like during the war for ordinary people (including the French!) I recommend dipping into this site, it's brilliant, there's eyewitness accounts form people who were there at the time, not historians. Many hours reading but fascinating all the same.

http://www.wartimememories.co.uk/map.html



The RAF contained several Free French squadrons, the Free French Navy took part in Operation Neptune on D Day. On the same day the Free French 2nd Armoured Div landed at Utah beach.
In Setp 1944 there were over half a million in the Free French forces rising to nearly one and a half million in the December. In the British SAS there were 900 Frenchmen. France is a large country but with a small population.
There's many misconceptions about the war and not enough knowledge.

 

[dancingalone]

Maybe to Americans this is not as apparent, but currently, Europe is going through an unprecedented period of peace. We've had peace (more or less) for 65 years now. This has never happened before in western Europe. We've had 100 year wars, not 100 years peace.

Um, you'd had that peace precisely because of the 'oblivious' Americans. Without NATO, the Soviet Union would have owned a lot more of Europe than they did during the Cold War.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Question: Why did Great Britain agree to Germany's demands on the Sudetenland and then sign a mutual aid pact with Poland? I sort of understand the concept of 'appeasement' as it is called now, and I'm not going along and saying Chamberlain was all the bad things they call him now; at the time he was hailed by the world as a peace-keeper and he may well have been. But what was the deal with Poland? As the article I linked to points out, it pretty much guaranteed that the UK would end up in warfare against Germany. What was the reason for that very fateful decision?

 

[Tez3]

Um, you'd had that peace precisely because of the 'oblivious' Americans. Without NATO, the Soviet Union would have owned a lot more of Europe than they did during the Cold War.

You see what I mean about someone always has to say that? It's as if you want us to be on our knees saying 'we're not worthy' all the time, it's not going to work that way and the more you go on about it the more it sets people's backs up and we forget that we are actually grateful for American help but not only is it ungracious, it's ignorant to not understand what the countries themselves gave up, went through and suffered in this last war. You should be proud of helping democracy and freedom survive not sound crabby because we aren't thanking you every minute of the day. It was in Americas own interest to help and their reward is to see a free Europe with which to trade and to have allies willing to follow them into Iraq and Afghanistan where our soldiers are dying for your ideals. You treat us as if we aren't equals but colonists of yours.

Funnily enough there's more than America in Nato.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Um, you'd had that peace precisely because of the 'oblivious' Americans. Without NATO, the Soviet Union would have owned a lot more of Europe than they did during the Cold War.

I don't deny the US helped us. I just think that modern day Americans have no clue what it means to live, as a society, in a war torn, occupied nation. The US has the geographical luxury of being able to 'go' to war. War doesn't come to them. There's never been a full scale invasion into the US, with entire villages or cities massacred.

Europe otoh has lived with that reality for centuries or even over a millennium. You'll never hear me say that war is a positive thing or that WWI and II are anything other than global disasters. However, there is one good thing that grew out of it, and that was a stable and peaceful Europe. And this is something that Americans (modern) don't always appreciate.

We sometimes get dumped on for our endless talking and diplomatic efforts, even when there is no apparent gain. But we do this because we know what war means. We've tried the other 'let's go to war' way for over a thousand years. It didn't work and it damn near killed us all.

 

[dancingalone]

I don't deny the US helped us. I just think that modern day Americans have no clue what it means to live, as a society, in a war torn, occupied nation. The US has the geographical luxury of being able to 'go' to war. War doesn't come to them. There's never been a full scale invasion into the US, with entire villages or cities massacred.

Indeed. One of the advantages of being separated from Europe by an ocean.

Europe otoh has lived with that reality for centuries or even over a millennium. You'll never hear me say that war is a positive thing or that WWI and II are anything other than global disasters. However, there is one good thing that grew out of it, and that was a stable and peaceful Europe. And this is something that Americans (modern) don't always appreciate.

I was just pointing out the unprecedented peace you have enjoyed have come from mailed fist provided by American military power. That more than anything else regardless of the worthy efforts of the European peoples to come together as one.

We sometimes get dumped on for our endless talking and diplomatic efforts, even when there is no apparent gain. But we do this because we know what war means. We've tried the other 'let's go to war' way for over a thousand years. It didn't work and it damn near killed us all.

A worthy sentiment, but it also comes from a practical inability to project force into foreign theaters, even within Europe. We saw that in the NATO Balkan intervention. The only countries that could make any significant air operations were the US, UK, and France.

Most of Europe relies on diplomatic and economic negotiations because that's all they have available to them. Whether that is good or not, is another topic for discussion.

 

[Tez3]

I don't deny the US helped us. I just think that modern day Americans have no clue what it means to live, as a society, in a war torn, occupied nation. The US has the geographical luxury of being able to 'go' to war. War doesn't come to them. There's never been a full scale invasion into the US, with entire villages or cities massacred.

Europe otoh has lived with that reality for centuries or even over a millennium. You'll never hear me say that war is a positive thing or that WWI and II are anything other than global disasters. However, there is one good thing that grew out of it, and that was a stable and peaceful Europe. And this is something that Americans (modern) don't always appreciate.

We sometimes get dumped on for our endless talking and diplomatic efforts, even when there is no apparent gain. But we do this because we know what war means. We've tried the other 'let's go to war' way for over a thousand years. It didn't work and it damn near killed us all.

Damn good post!! I've been watching the Tour de France, it's just left Belgium and entered Northern France. the countryside is suberb in both countries, the towns neat and prosperous, decent cars parked everywhere, everything you'd expect of civilised peaceful countries but if you had seen both of these palces during both during the last wars you'd never had believed these were the same places. These places were decimated, left in ruins and they've spent these past years rebuilding their homes, towns and lives. Don't doubt that this hasn't been easy, it's taken a long time, money has always been short but always there is the thankfulness for peace.

 

[dancingalone]

You see what I mean about someone always has to say that? It's as if you want us to be on our knees saying 'we're not worthy' all the time, it's not going to work that way and the more you go on about it the more it sets people's backs up and we forget that we are actually grateful for American help but not only is it ungracious, it's ignorant to not understand what the countries themselves gave up, went through and suffered in this last war. You should be proud of helping democracy and freedom survive not sound crabby because we aren't thanking you every minute of the day. It was in Americas own interest to help and their reward is to see a free Europe with which to trade and to have allies willing to follow them into Iraq and Afghanistan where our soldiers are dying for your ideals. You treat us as if we aren't equals but colonists of yours.

Tez, I certainly don't mean to sound crabby or ungracious. I am merely stating a fact: it is military power that has safeguarded the European peace Bruno mention. It's certainly not because you Euros got together, linked hands, and sang Kumbaya. It's an unpleasant thought, but we Westerners aren't any more peaceful now than we were during the WWII. The Soviets would have invaded and taken everything east of France if it had not been for the existence of NATO.

Funnily enough there's more than America in Nato.

For much of its history, NATO military assets have been 90%+ American. It's not that bad today, but your statement doesn't even begin to tell the true story. I'll repeat my point about the Balkan operations during the 1990s. We saw then how utterly useless militarily most of the NATO signatories were and are.

 

[Tez3]

Tez, I certainly don't mean to sound crabby or ungracious. I am merely stating a fact: it is military power that has safeguarded the European peace Bruno mention. It's certainly not because you Euros got together, linked hands, and sang Kumbaya. It's an unpleasant thought, but we Westerners aren't any more peaceful now than we were during the WWII. The Soviets would have invaded and taken everything east of France if it had not been for the existence of NATO.



For much of its history, NATO military assets have been 90%+ American. It's not that bad today, but your statement doesn't even begin to tell the true story. I'll repeat my point about the Balkan operations during the 1990s. We saw then how utterly useless militarily most of the NATO signatories were and are.

That's your outlook on it, who in your opinion then were those 'underperforming' and you do know that many of the troops acting as peacekeepers there weren't members of NATO at all? Before deployments to Afghan many of our troops were in the Balkans and don't see the operations there as failures at all.

If American troops are in the majority it's because you simply outnumber us vastly. The entire British armed forces number less than 250,000, I imagine you have Brigades with that many. There simply isn't any country with the wealth and population that the States has. Plus after the last war Europe didn't have the wherewithal or manpower to contribute to NATO after all they hadn't made a profit out of the war.

 

[dancingalone]

That's your outlook on it, who in your opinion then were those 'underperforming' and you do know that many of the troops acting as peacekeepers there weren't members of NATO at all? Before deployments to Afghan many of our troops were in the Balkans and don't see the operations there as failures at all.

Not MY opinion. It's one made by numerous books, journals, and articles covering the most recent Balkan wars. In fact, I don't recall reading a single detailed book or article that didn't mention what a mess the overall NATO readiness was for commencing operations and how the US supplied the bulk of the aircraft and pilots for containing the Kosovar Serbs. I think it would be easier to find a source that DIDN'T mention this exact point.

Heck, I know the Sandhurst Academy has a few white papers written about the use of air power during the NATO Balkan conflict. They undoubtedly would showcase how air power is a necessary aspect of containment of hostile forces with minimal manpower deployment.

 

[dancingalone]

If American troops are in the majority it's because you simply outnumber us vastly. The entire British armed forces number less than 250,000, I imagine you have Brigades with that many. There simply isn't any country with the wealth and population that the States has. Plus after the last war Europe didn't have the wherewithal or manpower to contribute to NATO after all they hadn't made a profit out of the war.

It's not just the numbers. The US military forces by and large are better equipped and better trained than most of their NATO counterparts with the few exceptions in certain contingents like the UK.

And it's the Americans that do the heavy lifting with the fighters/bombers. Don't forget logistics either. Things like helicopter transport and supply chain management that inevitably are also supplied by the US.

No insult meant to our friends in Europe. I am merely being factual.

As for the reasons why the US is the mainstay in NATO, you've mentioned how the US is larger and wealthier. True enough. It still does not change the fact that European peace has been purchased by the continual American military presence in Europe, something which is often forgotten as the EU institution has come front and center stage.

 

[Tez3]

It's not just the numbers. The US military forces by and large are better equipped and better trained than most of their NATO counterparts with the few exceptions in certain contingents like the UK.

And it's the Americans that do the heavy lifting with the fighters/bombers. Don't forget logistics either. Things like helicopter transport and supply chain management that inevitably are also supplied by the US.

No insult meant to our friends in Europe. I am merely being factual.

Really? the RAF does the low level bombing, the USAF won't go as low as they will.
Logistics, ah yes the stuff you SELL the rest of us, it's like a walking shop front for the Americans, they put as much there as they can in the hope others will want and buy.
The truth though is that these wars are also America instigated and led, left to ourselves we wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghan but America calls the tune and our leaders follow, scared that America will block trade or threaten us, so we follow on.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bottom line, I'm allowed to not like the French. I don't have to itemize them by section anymore than any European has to be specific and notate which WWII can of beans was shipped over came from NY and which bottle of Coke came from Texas. So thppppt!



As to the rest, lets keep things WWII centered to minimize tangents please. Danke.

 

[dancingalone]

Really? the RAF does the low level bombing, the USAF won't go as low as they will.

Tez, are you really going to make me look up and post the # of missions flown by US pilots vs. British ones? I don't really care to get into an argument about it with you. We both know which count would be higher and it's likely not even close.

Not sure why this has to be a US vs. UK thing for you.

Logistics, ah yes the stuff you SELL the rest of us, it's like a walking shop front for the Americans, they put as much there as they can in the hope others will want and buy.

Nope, that would be stuff the US provided gratis during the recent Balkan conflict. Our Euro friends are welcome by the way.

The truth though is that these wars are also America instigated and led, left to ourselves we wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghan but America calls the tune and our leaders follow, scared that America will block trade or threaten us, so we follow on.

If that's really your world view, you should be very, very upset at your leaders.

 

[Tez3]

Tez, are you really going to make me look up and post the # of missions flown by US pilots vs. British ones? I don't really care to get into an argument about it with you. We both know which count would be higher and it's likely not even close.

Not sure why this has to be a US vs. UK thing for you.


Nope, that would be stuff the US provided gratis during the recent Balkan conflict. Our Euro friends are welcome by the way.



If that's really your world view, you should be very, very upset at your leaders.

One of my students died today in Afghan and yes we are vey very upset with our leaders.

 

[dancingalone]

One of my students died today in Afghan and yes we are vey very upset with our leaders.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[dancingalone]

Question: Why did Great Britain agree to Germany's demands on the Sudetenland and then sign a mutual aid pact with Poland? I sort of understand the concept of 'appeasement' as it is called now, and I'm not going along and saying Chamberlain was all the bad things they call him now; at the time he was hailed by the world as a peace-keeper and he may well have been. But what was the deal with Poland? As the article I linked to points out, it pretty much guaranteed that the UK would end up in warfare against Germany. What was the reason for that very fateful decision?

I think we're missing some of the picture. What about the French, the more immediate neighbor to Germany? From my long ago studies, I seem to remember they had some type of longstanding arrangement with the Poles and Czechs to help contain Germany. The British probably jumped in partly due in turn to their own alliance with the French.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Really? the RAF does the low level bombing, the USAF won't go as low as they will.

There's a funny in there somewhere....

Logistics, ah yes the stuff you SELL the rest of us, it's like a walking shop front for the Americans, they put as much there as they can in the hope others will want and buy.
The truth though is that these wars are also America instigated and led, left to ourselves we wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghan but America calls the tune and our leaders follow, scared that America will block trade or threaten us, so we follow on.

Yes, the US encouraged the French to impose harsh terms on the Germans, encouraged the Germans to put a madman in power at the same time the British Prime Minister was a coward, told the French to build fixed fortifications, and then sat back and made a huge wad of cash while Europe burned.

You can complain about having to pay back a loan, but face the truth, if the US hadn't loaned the UK money and arms, you'd be speaking German right now. About 419 thousand American's died in WW2....only slightly less that the UK's 450k. While others lost more, our own "contribution" on that front was not minor. (link) So, yes you got the **** bombed out of you and we didn't. That's a result of strategic location, not design. If the US had been within range, it would have seen more enemy damage than it did. Contrary to popular belief, the US and Canada -were- attacked directly on several occasions however damage was minimal due to the logistics. Had England fallen, or had Midway or Hawaii been taken, more damaging attacks would most likely have occurred.

Oh, and as to the anti-french thing, it's a good thing that's just me, otherwise you'd find it as a regular staple in English Humor for example.