Haven't seen this pop up in the US media yet. France is resisting a one-resolution approach from the UN. France resists US pressure (BBC link)
B-Bob, thanks for the article. BTW hope you keep posting in political threads. I know the Rockets board is more relaxing. I try to mix the two, though there seems to be a state of exhaustion there till we see some training camp news or some game action.
France = p*****s They had the biggest army in the world during WW2 and they got completely rolled by the Germans. Humiliating.
Wasn't the French Resistance very noteworthy during WWII? Was it made up of citizens rather than military? LOL... must have been.
Man, you ar way off. Where did you get such an idea? If it was in school, demand a refund. France's peak was WWI when a french General led the Allied forces to victory. At that time, France was considered to be the first military - the best in the world. WWI, however, was devastating. Nearly 1.5 million young French soldiers were killed, along with about 250,000 civillians. All of these young people dying, coupled with very low birth rates, meant that France's population was shrinking. In fact, the population in the 20's was lower than it was in 1914. France was aging. Anyway, from about 1920 to the rise of the Nazi army, Britain was the miltary and political power in Europe. Additionally, the economy was shot. In many ways, it was as bad as Germany. However, Germany's birthrate and population was booming and was way surpassing France's. Then in the 30's there were great labr disputes with widespread strikes that halted a great deal of production, causing even more weakness. It wasn't until about '36-37 that the government started jobs programs and after the '36 elections socialists had gained more power so the armament industry was nationalized - meaning that France could just now start producing odern weaponry such as mass-produced aircraft. Then the militarization of the Rhineland occured and it gave Germany an advantage because they were no longer open to French attack - completely changed all European foreign policy. So Poland gets invaded by Germany and Britain and France take a stance of opposition (but do not bolster the Poles because they think Hitler is not much of a threat). However, when Russia invades Finland to strengthen its defenses, British and French troops go in to support the Finns. Then Germany strikes west with their tank and airplane attack and crush British and French troops - they break through a French line of defense and close off the roads and lines of communication - meaning that French airplanes and antitank guns were prevented from reaching the front and France is on its own at this oint. Italy also declares war on France and aids Germany. So Germany enters Paris in June. PM Reynaud wanted to stay in the war, but French military leaders insisted it was useless because the Germans had reached and basically surrounded France's last organized force - near the Maginot Line. Then, surrender and occupation. Shortly after, began movements such as the Free France movement begun by De Gaulle. The French people and psyche had been crushed and almost the whole country was occupied (only the very south and then North Africa were not controlled by Germany). So, yeah, France had been extremely weak leading up to WWII. They did fight and resist but they were no match for Germany and Italy. They needed the allied troops bolstered by US involvement to free them - and there are still celebrations in various towns on their liberation anniversary. Various people dress up in WWII US military costumes and there are parades where bubble gum is handed out (as the US troops did whe they rolled in). WWII was the end of European domination. It broke up their empires, it reduced their population, it devastated infastructure, caused political instability, and cities such as Paris and Berlin had to be rebuilt. The US, on the other hand, mostly prospered from the war, never experienced political instability, and had no losses on it's own turf. Also when the center of the art world moved from Paris to New York due to artist immigration and US developments.
In addition to what rim said, there was the fact that France was unexpectedy facing the single greatest land army the world had ever seen, whose impact was, at the time, similar to the initial incursions of the Mongols. War in the Western theatre up to that time had been a defensively dominated one for over a hundred years, dating back to just after Napoleon. The fire rate of the newer mechanized and automatic weapons devastated conventional frontal attacks, and had lead to extremely costly advances and extremely effective defenses. We all know about trench warfare, which dated back to the end of the American civil war, and was the product of the firepower mentioned above. With this in mind, the French constructed the Maginot line, which, by the standards of what had passed before it, would have been virtually invulnerable, and sat (jusstifiably, it seemed) comfortable behind their defensive position, assured that, at the very least, any German offensive would take months to have any noticable affect. Two problems...The first being Blitz warfare, an innovation on a scale unheard of since the days of Napoleon, and only possibly equaled in modern times by the carrier becoming the core of a naval group. Based om lightning strikes by bombers and dive bombers in particular, followed by encircling movements by mobile armour moving at previously unheard of speeds, and followed up by the phalanx of infantry against which the wings of tanks would crush the enemy into pockets of submission, and all happening at speeds that the French had nothing with which to compare. Combined with the fact that the Germans basically side stepped the Maginot line by swinging in through the unprotected flank afforded them by the Low Countries, and the French were effectivley destroyed before they even had a chance to assess what was happening...and that was not their fault. Any other nation facing that strategy and implementation would have crumbled just the same, given it's unheard of agility and speed. There were many, many instances when French HQ would receive calls that the Germans had been sighted advancing on their area, and when the French HQ would call back with instructions for a response, the Germans would answer, having already overrun the position in question. Territorial gains which would have previously taken months or years took hours or days. Nothing in France's experience would have prepared them for this. It was not at all the fault of France, and Great Britain, the USA, and virtually any other nation at the time would have been swept aside as easily, had we not had water to protect us. Warfare is stil based on the blitz principle to this day, as Desert Storm attests...
rimbaud, Thanks much for such an excellent post. Some will say you put some spin on it, but if so, I for one don't care. We tend to just think of the Marginot line, and we all hear Jim Rome reading the "we surrender" emails, and suddenly we think we know all about something about which we have zero clue. Thinking France is a "bunch of p*****s" or what-not is like thinking MJ invented dunking. Whoops. The bottom line here, from what I've been reading, is that France is launching a campaign in the UN security council to counter the US/UK hawks. For better or worse, you have to say the US (in its current incarnation) might be overmatched if it comes down to a diplomatic battle with France.
I don't really see how that is possible...but if they think that I put some kind of spin on it then all they have to do is check the historical record. MacBeth, France and Britain bothe erred in the beginning because they underestimated Hitler's blitzkrieg. They thought it would work in Poland, but nowhere that had an army of any decent size. Then, again, they were lulled into false bravado and invested a bit in Finland vs the Russians. Remember, France had avenged the Franco-Prussian loss in WWI so, even though the country was very weak, they still thought they could control the Germans. So that is my caveat - the one thing they could have done would have been not to underestimate Germany. The result probably would have been the same, but it was still a tactical mistake so that they ended up ready to respond only after Germany had basically won.
I understand your point, but don't quite agree. There was nothing in their military experience to prepare them for what was coming...They thought Poland would be lost, but they absolutely thought that the time it would take the Germans to defeat the Poles would easily afford them mobilization and planning time. Their estimations for the duration of the German conquest of Poland ranged from a few months to a year or two, some even supposing that the Poles would be able to bog the Germans down enough to allow the French and British to make Poland the point of decision, although that was doubtfull. The Germans took days, and the French and British never recovered on European soil. To have estimated the Germans properly would have required them supposing the equivalent of us expecting the Soviets to take over North America in hours during the 80's...the time/gain ratio increased that dramatically. And,as you said, they wouldn't have been able to prevent in any case, short of flooding the Low Countries like they did against Louis XIV, and that would only have slowed the Germans a bit. They had given the initiative over to the Germans, I agree, but they did so under the conditions of warfare as they knew it. By staying in the defensive position along the front, and allowing the Germans to destroy themselves under von Schlieffen they had effectively won WW1, and nothing except a very insightfull interpretation of the Condor Brigade's actions in Spain would have told them that anything vastly different was coming their way. If they erred, thet only did so in a way that everyone else would have. It would be akin to saying that the Romans erred by not recognizing that the Huns were coming, and that their tactical mobility would make the military practices that had sustained the Roman army for over 800 years obsolete.
rim...btw...I love this stuff. Any time you want to debate military history, I am so there. I'm not sure of the moral position of loving military history, but mea culpa...
Actually, we do agree. My argument is a "hindsight" argument. If, looking back, they could be accused of anything it would be of underestimating the German invasion of Poland and the effectiveness of Germany's strategy. Of course they could not have known that then and, as I said, France had beaten Germany earlier and Britain was the European (and world) power leading up to the war. Even if France had had some sort of foresight, I think that they only would have delayed the inevitable - they were just too weak and were still trying to find themselves after a very tumultuous 1789-1939 (and then they get more instability after, of course). I just like history in general, particularly ~1760 to 1945 and even more particularly European...so I enjoy it as well. I just couldn't let Nomar's blind comment go untouched.
It is interesting to acknowledge the parameters and particulars of why France got occupied so quickly...The country got rolled, no doubt...I applaud rimbaud and Macbeth for exhibiting pertinent information regarding the question of fault...It is educational, and enlightening to me.... Regardless, "they" can't understand how you live another day being pimped by another country..."they" say if it did happen in the U.S., they would grab their guns and fight to the death rather be an inconsequential subject of another country with said existance commisioned solely towards the other country's wishes, whether it be slave, slave laborer, slave professional, etc, etc..... "They" say they love their country so much and for what it stands for that to die in futile combat will be an honor.... "They" say: "Long live the intellectuals! The intellectuals are dead", or at least one famous-liberal lady did from the 1960's (she won a Nobel peace prize,...can you guess who?) ....So if someone makes a blind comment due to details in particular, realize the heart can often "see" truer regarding a given situation........ How is that?
My problem is... I know you are wrong, but I'm too lazy to do the research to prove you are wrong. Give me a little time. I guess I'll go look for evidence.
I don't dismiss the validity of your argument, and might even understand 'theirs', as long as 'they' aren't the ones saying it's ok to sacrifice our liberties and morals for the sake of preserving our skins, in which case 'their' argument would seem kind of hollow.
Nomar, You are relatively new to the political/foreign affairs threads and you need to realize that there are some heavy hitters in these topic areas. It is too late to do research on the French.........next time know the topic before posting.
ROXRAN, Idon't understand who "they" are. I wasn't really interested in "they" and contemporary politics, either. I just wanted to point out that France was not the biggest military at the time. I rounded it out with the conclusion and immediate aftermath of the war just to round it out - it wasn't any message about the French not wimping out or anything, just a statement of facts...although I greatly look forward to being educated by Nomar since apparently I am lying.
