France is now a strong US Ally?

[Lucius]

Ren

[metadigital]

They're on their third republic.

 

In WW1 the French were almost in open revolt, after some of the more heinously pointless campaigns, like Verdun and the the Somme. There were hundreds of thousands killed in single days of conflict.

 

The Napoleonic wars are regarded as one of the contributing factors to the Great World Wars of the twentieth century.

[Baley]

Fifth Republic

[alanschu]

they didn't face hitler, did they?  they didn't even have to yell "I surrender" when he walked in.  they just handed over the keys to the kingdom.

 

Did they all die during Napoleon's russian campaign?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To be fair to the French in WW2, they were on the receiving end of a completely different doctrine approach to warfare. Yes they were complete goofballs for building the Maginot line, as Germany invaded through Belgium in WW1 as well, but the entire French Army was out manouvered and surprised by the new idea of modern warfare. The French technically had better tanks than the Germans at the time too, but their doctrine was wholly outclassed by the German one, which emphasised armored spearheads with CAS support. The German approach was

 

The French can be criticized for building the gigantic wall of defense that effectively did nothing. But it's hard for the Army to do anything but surrender when they get outflanked and surrounded in the Alsace-Lorraine region because of a fantastic new land doctrine, implemented to a tee by exceptional Generals. Heck, Rommel's 7th Armored Division was advancing so fast that German High Command had a hard time keeping track of it, earning the nickname Ghost Division. Von Kleist split the French Army in two with a spearhead straight through to the English Channel, and Case Red had the German's positioned to completely cut off the French Armies in Alsace-Lorraine. Even if they wanted to fight, there's not much they could as their logistics had been devastated.

 

The Allies hope was for a static front (which the French held and didn't surrender in WW1), but they underestimated the German Armed Forces and suffered a devastating defeat.

 

 

dunno, but they lost, didn't they?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So did Germany, the country that is responsible for all of those French military jokes. Though in Napoleon's case, it was probably more the Russian Winter that beat them, rather than the Russians themselves. The Russian Winter was a huge hit against the German army when fighting the Soviet Union as well.

[Lucius]

The Russians have always had that advantage, they could retreat into their vast lands and burn everything as they went.

[SteveThaiBinh]

As we Brits are able to retreat across the English Channel. That's the only reason we weren't conquered quickly like the French. Nothing to do with greater courage or military strength, I think. From what I've heard, we made exactly the same mistake as the French (and most governments), which is to prepare for the last war instead of the next one. Nothing new or surprising about it.

[Moose]

Still, at least we had the balls to start the war by bombing Germany first.

[Lucius]

I don't care for all the French military bashing myself. Sure I can find the attitude of some french very arrogant, but meh, to make fun of them just because they were outmatched in a war is hardly fair. All Euro nations have seen defeats at some point or another in history... And so has the US by the way. (Vietnam, but I don't find that as anything to make fun of)

[alanschu]

I admit I take the odd pot shot and enjoy a joke towards the French. But I understand that it is a joke.

 

They French got clobbered in WW2 primarily because of two things. There was a change of doctrine, and they put all of their effort into the Maginot line. The Maginot line was their main fault.....as Germany still went through Belgium even in WW1.

 

They were more used to a static front, and were expecting the same. The spearhead tactics of the Germans were unlike anything we had ever seen before, and a result of Germany's recognition that they could not win an attritional war, as demonstrated in WW1.

 

It's also important to recognize that much of World War 1 was fought on French soil. They suffered the largest amount of damage to infrastructure, and suffered almost as many casualties as the Germans did. They paid heavily in their defense of France in WW1...part of the reason why they were much more supportive of something like the Treaty of Versailles.

[Colrom]

I find alot to like about the French, the Poles, the Italians, the Germans, the English and the Russians - independently of whether they were the victors or the defeated at various times in history.

 

It is not unusual for criminal personalities to rationalize murders by claiming that the victims somehow deserved to die because they were unable to stop their demise.

 

This is not so different than the argument - which seems to be popular here and elsewhere - that a nation is undeserving of regard because they were unable to stop their defeat in some signature battle or war.

 

In so far as this viewpoint appears over and over, especially in the context of glorifying German militarism and dismissing French or Italian humanism, it is peculiar that the consistent historical pattern of glorius opening militaristic agression followed, slowly but surely, by ultimate popularist victory, never seems to have the sobering impact in discrediting militarism that it would seem to deserve.

 

The Spanish Revolution is certainly an opposing example, however. A case where militarism was victorius in the long haul - until after Franco's death anyway. Still such examples of militarist victory over extended times - although there are many - don't abound in the conversations we have here. We usually glorify the the Nazis in particular, and anyone else only in so far as they showed their metal in victorious combat against the Nazis.

 

It is also pecular that people who claim to be Christians, or to have Christian values, and who claim that some (for example, Muslims), who are not Christian, are violent by nature, should themselves put such stock in murderous talent when evaluating the worth of people.

 

Edited March 10, 2006 by Colrom

[metadigital]

Fifth Republic

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many thanks. I let my fingers race ahead back to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and the Third Reich's march into Paris in 1940, whilst my head was still answering the first question.

 

[taks]

So did Germany, the country that is responsible for all of those French military jokes.

yeah, but not because of france.

 

Though in Napoleon's case, it was probably more the Russian Winter that beat them, rather than the Russians themselves.  The Russian Winter was a huge hit against the German army when fighting the Soviet Union as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i said that...

 

taks

[taks]

(Vietnam, but I don't find that as anything to make fun of) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the US didn't actually lose a single battle in vietnam. we certainly lost a lot of people. we simply lost the propaganda war back home and had to pull out.

 

that's not to say it was a good idea... just that calling vietnam a "loss" really isn't very accurate.

 

taks

[Nartwak]

That's mettle Colrom, not metal.

[Calax]

the "leftist pinko commies from Hell" burned ronald mcdonald? well there goes my corporate mascot... double filet o fish anyone?

[alanschu]

So did Germany, the country that is responsible for all of those French military jokes.

yeah, but not because of france.

 

I never said that you felt France was the reason why Germany lost. You mentioned that France lost to Russia. So did the German Army, which is the one that defeated France in such a way that results in all of the jokes. I'm not sure what your point would be though. So what if France lost to Russia? They lost to Russia after conquering good chunks of Europe.

 

Though in Napoleon's case, it was probably more the Russian Winter that beat them, rather than the Russians themselves.  The Russian Winter was a huge hit against the German army when fighting the Soviet Union as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i said that...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Note that the post I was replying to was well before you mentioned the Russian Winter.

[Meshugger]

(Vietnam, but I don't find that as anything to make fun of) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the US didn't actually lose a single battle in vietnam. we certainly lost a lot of people. we simply lost the propaganda war back home and had to pull out.

 

that's not to say it was a good idea... just that calling vietnam a "loss" really isn't very accurate.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would say "victory was certainly possible, but the costs in terms of reputation home and abroad, flawed strategy (not inwading north vietnam) and cost of manpower and military equipment for a mere doctrine made it simply not worth it."

[SteveThaiBinh]

the US didn't actually lose a single battle in vietnam.  we certainly lost a lot of people.  we simply lost the propaganda war back home and had to pull out.

 

that's not to say it was a good idea... just that calling vietnam a "loss" really isn't very accurate.

The North Vietnamese beat the US by enduring, while support back in the US for the war withered away. That's still a defeat. Most Vietnamese people I know find it bizarre and ridiculous that some in the US still claim they didn't lose in Viet Nam.

[Lucius]

Well, the US didn't succeed in their objectives and eventually had to pull out due to reasons already listed, no? That's pretty much a 'defeat' in my book.

If, say, Denmark was to try and take back old parts of Sweden that belonged to us, and we couldn't sustain the invasion (for whatever reason) and had to pull out, the mission would be a failure, no?

[Gabrielle]

LOL France.

[Colrom]

In so far as this viewpoint appears over and over, especially in the context of glorifying German militarism and dismissing French or Italian humanism, it is peculiar that the consistent historical pattern of glorius opening militaristic agression followed, slowly but surely, by ultimate popularist victory, never seems to have the sobering impact in discrediting militarism that it would seem to deserve. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I should have said "discrediting the practical utility of militarism" since even successful militarism could be viewed by some Christians as spiritually bancrupt.

 

I find it discouraging that try as I might I fall into the pattern of seeing validation as achievable through successful militarism.

 

I guess we need General Christ to lead us all to eternal glory!

 

Is that Narnia?

[Walsingham]

France did its best to dissuade the US from making its biggest foreign policy mistake since Viet Nam, a mistake that has led to disaster and significant loss of life.  They were better friends to the US than Tony 'Poodle' Blair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I would disagree. But you know that.

 

As for France beinga strong ally, this can only be a product of France's domestic 'problems'. herr economic interests are very much opposed to those of the US as she is currently organised. In particular the areas of defence manufacture, oil exploitation, and agriculture. Therefore she cannot be a proper ally in the long run.

[~Di]

For one thing, I was against the Iraq invasion as well. The war with Iraq was wrong on so many fronts I cannot begin to describe them all; but France's opposition had nothing to do with friendship, and everything to do with trying to maintain its own self-interest, which was a thriving little black market trade with Iraq in violation of UN sanctions.

 

Also, I think when French citizens vandalize and piss on the graves of American soldiers who helped liberate their country in WW2, they can by no stretch of imagination be considered as "friends".

 

I suspect it will take a generation or so before Americans and the French will view each other kindly again.

[Lucius]

The ones who did so hardly represent France in total, do they? No more so than those who tortured (or whatever you might call it) prisoners in Abu Graib represent the entire US military.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Lucius

[~Di]

The ones who did so hardly represent France in total, do they? No more so than those who tortured (or whatever you might call it) prisoners in Abu Graib represent the entire US military.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, and national generalizations are usually inaccurate... that goes for generalizations about Americans AND French! However, the dozen people involved in Abu Ghraib have been or are in the process of being tried for their deeds. There were several attacks on British and American WW2 cemetaries in France, not just one such attack, and to the best of my knowledge no one has been held responsible for them.

 

Be that as it may, there was a great deal of animosity from the average citizen-on-the-street in both America and in France, if the multitude of reports from various media were even partially accurate. From my personal experience, anger and mistrust still exists in the people I personally know here in my country, and it would appear to exist in the few French folks I know online (despite the fact that I personally like these particular individuals, it seems obvious to me that they do not like or trust my country... and I'll confess, I don't much like or trust theirs).

 

As I've said, I suspect the next generation in both countries may look kindly upon each other, but I sincerely doubt this generation on either side of the pond will ever do so.