Sarkozy fan club

[Meshugger]

I forget where I read this. I think it was in Kissingers book Diplomacy. French antagonisim of the US actually began in the height of the Cold War before and leading up to the Berlin Air lift. The French were taking a more concillitory tone with the Soviets. They argued more for accomedation rather than confrontation. But the rest of NATO decided to side with the US and take a more confrontational track with the Soviets. It seems the county that suffered greatest in WW2 did not learn the lessons of it.

 

Yeah, as Walsingham said. During the late 40's and 50's the communists had significant political power in France, combine that with the french mentality of protesting, these were dangerous times indeed. The reigning political parties had to abide their claims several times to keep the calm. Some historians claimed that a communist takeover was avoided when the social-democrats refused to forge their party under the communists wing, and thus splitted the far left. The hippies of the 60's and 70's were a of a different breed.

[taks]

Well, some of them. The picture above says it all about what were on the parisians minds that day. Truly heartbreaking.

certainly once they were occupied they realized the error in their ways... mostly the issues between "us and them" stem from political leaders and their decisions during WW2, but france is a democratic nation so some heat on the people is deserved because, well, the people were the ones that elected them.

 

"cheese eatin surrender monkeys" is a quote by groundskeeper willie on the simpsons, i believe well before the 2nd iraq conflict started up. it is actually a reference to WW2, btw, and their lack of any attempt to keep germany out.

 

taks

[alanschu]

and their lack of any attempt to keep germany out.

 

I don't know if that's the fairest thing to say.

[taks]

militarily, of course.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

In 1939 the French based all of their defenses on static fortifications. In other words they were preparing to fight WW1 over again. They were not prepared for the mobility of the German blitzkrieg. A fortification is useless if you can get around it, and the Germans did that by attacking through The Netherlands and Belgium something the French did not consider. Where they did give battle they were hopelessly outclassed. It was not fair to say they did not fight hard to repel the invasion, they were simply overwhelmed.

 

However, when the armistice was signed in June 1940 over 70% of the French armed forces were still intact and for the most part they meekly obeyed the order to cease fire. And of course there is the despicable Vichy faction who surrendered without firing a shot. And worse they began to actively aid the Germans.

 

I can not imagine a US military that is 70% intact to stop fighting an invader simply because Washington DC fell and a President was forced to capitulate. It would never happen. American history has many examples of our tenacity in war. At the Alamo they fought to the last man rather than surrender. At Wake Island every single able defender died fighting off the Japanese despite numerous calls to surrender. When the Corregidor fell and Wainwright ordered all US forces in the P.I. to surrender most went into the hills to fight as guerrillas. During the revolution the Continental Navy fought the Battle of Valcour Island literally to the last ship to prevent or delay a British landing in North Carolina that may have won the war for Britain. The 101st Airborne was totally surrounded at Bastogne and outnumbered 10 to 1 by the Germans. When asked to surrender and save his men Gen McAuliffe answered "Nuts". They fought for two days and held the Germans out until Pattons 3rd Army broke the siege. There are many many more examples. Heck was the war of 1812 over when the British captured Washington DC? No!

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that it is not fair to say the French did not fight back, but it is fair to say they gave up pretty easily once the capital fell. That is a big reason why so many speak of the French with disdain. But that is not deserved either. Most of the French today never surrendered to anyone.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Walsingham]

It is trendy(and being a man of fashion I have done the same) to blame the Maginot line. But in my opinion the failure of teh French was attributable to two things:

 

1) The indifferent attitude of the French soldiery to fighting. They simply didn't see the point of personally exerting themselves. A sort of "Let Pierre do it" mentality.

2) The French high command were utterly outdated and pure peacetime soldiers, built on good manners and verbal enthusiasm. They had neither the mind nor the commmunications to deal with blitzkrieg.

 

Had but one of these problems existed in company with a strength in the other area they would not have failed so badly. Our own forces were saved by pure bloody mindedness. But the French did not enjoy that luxury.

 

In saying this I do not think I am being unfair. We British were identical in the Far East, particularly in Singapore.

 

More importantly I think the Frenchwere guilty of little more than a civilised sensitivity. Would most of our countries do much better in the face of aggression today?

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

But it's cool to hate the US! Why doesn't Sarkozy want to be cool?

Edited November 9, 2007 by WILL THE ALMIGHTY

[Kaftan Barlast]

It is trendy(and being a man of fashion I have done the same) to blame the Maginot line. But in my opinion the failure of teh French was attributable to two things:

 

1) The indifferent attitude of the French soldiery to fighting. They simply didn't see the point of personally exerting themselves. A sort of "Let Pierre do it" mentality.

2) The French high command were utterly outdated and pure peacetime soldiers, built on good manners and verbal enthusiasm. They had neither the mind nor the commmunications to deal with blitzkrieg.

 

Had but one of these problems existed in company with a strength in the other area they would not have failed so badly. Our own forces were saved by pure bloody mindedness. But the French did not enjoy that luxury.

 

In saying this I do not think I am being unfair. We British were identical in the Far East, particularly in Singapore.

 

More importantly I think the Frenchwere guilty of little more than a civilised sensitivity. Would most of our countries do much better in the face of aggression today?

 

 

Ay. I dont think any nation could have stood against a Blitzkrieg assault at that time, and its not fair to say the French were "surrender monkeys". The Allies got a slight taste of that during the Ardennes offensive, and that didnt go too well.

[Walsingham]

It is trendy(and being a man of fashion I have done the same) to blame the Maginot line. But in my opinion the failure of teh French was attributable to two things:

 

1) The indifferent attitude of the French soldiery to fighting. They simply didn't see the point of personally exerting themselves. A sort of "Let Pierre do it" mentality.

2) The French high command were utterly outdated and pure peacetime soldiers, built on good manners and verbal enthusiasm. They had neither the mind nor the commmunications to deal with blitzkrieg.

 

Had but one of these problems existed in company with a strength in the other area they would not have failed so badly. Our own forces were saved by pure bloody mindedness. But the French did not enjoy that luxury.

 

In saying this I do not think I am being unfair. We British were identical in the Far East, particularly in Singapore.

 

More importantly I think the Frenchwere guilty of little more than a civilised sensitivity. Would most of our countries do much better in the face of aggression today?

 

 

Ay. I dont think any nation could have stood against a Blitzkrieg assault at that time, and its not fair to say the French were "surrender monkeys". The Allies got a slight taste of that during the Ardennes offensive, and that didnt go too well.

 

 

Let's not go nuts, mate. What was needed was

1. A quality at lower levels which would ensure an aggressive independent action without orders. Something which is hardly impossible.

2. Plenty of robust and testing command exercises, particularly involving communications. Which was hardly unknown at the time. The Germans were doing them in the twenties.

[alanschu]

militarily, of course.

 

taks

 

 

I still don't think it's a fair statement. The german doctrine just overwhelmed the French. The French weren't exactly well prepared or smart with how to fight back.

 

 

You can look back and judge the armed forces (as per Guard Dog's post) for capitulating so easily, but I don't think it's fair to say they didn't attempt to keep Germany out.

[Walsingham]

militarily, of course.

 

taks

 

 

I still don't think it's a fair statement. The german doctrine just overwhelmed the French. The French weren't exactly well prepared or smart with how to fight back.

 

 

You can look back and judge the armed forces (as per Guard Dog's post) for capitulating so easily, but I don't think it's fair to say they didn't attempt to keep Germany out.

 

That's fair. When they went into bat they were going to lose, and the cabbage eaters were going to win. But that makes it MORE reprehensible, not less, IMO.