USA-France Love-Hate Relationship

Off Topic
62

There are facts, and then there are stories. Flashman seems to like reading history books too.

Several of my history books say Yorktown would never have been taken by the colonies had the french not blocked the british supply routes.

A very real reason we restored France in WWII, was because they were our allies, and we wanted Indochina in the hands of our allies. This went along with our open door policy in that area.

Also, Wilson claimed that we would remain neutral in the first world war, that it was possible for a country to be “too proud to fight”. America was making a lot of money in WWI (and II) shipping supplies to germany’s enemies. Germany stated they would sink any ships doing so, and after several merchant ships, and lastly the british merchant ship Lusitania, Wilson stated at that time that he must stand by the right of Americans to travel on merchant ships in the war zone. Wilson was forced to “find legal reasons for policies that were based not upon law, but upon the balance of power and economic necessities.” It was unrealistic to expect that the Germans should treat the U.S. as neutral in the war, when the US had been shipping great amounts of war materials to Germany’s enemies. I can go further on this if you like, but in short, America was troubled at this time with socialism and unions and everything else, and the leaders of our country at the time believed that the prosperity of our country depended much on foreign markets. U.S. interest in WWI was our own economy, and that’s about it.

As for involvement with WWII, it was when Japan threatened potential U.S. markets by it’s attempted take over of china, but especially as it moved towards the tin, rubber, and oil of SE asia, that the US put a total embargo on scrap iron, and later on oil also. Japan attacked, claiming these embargos were a “clear and potent threat to Japan’s very existence.” Records show that a white house meeting two weeks before pearl harbor anticipated a war, and planned on how to justify it.

Zinn, Howard A People's History of the United States. Harper Collins: New York 1999

Butow, Robert Japan's Decision To Surrender. Stanford: Stanford University Press 1954

Kolko, Gabriel. The Politics Of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943-45. Random House: New York 1968

63

[quote]Damici wrote:
Debatably, but probably so. As I said in an earlier post, staying out of the war would not have been without its consequences.

The point, going back to the intended subject of this whole thread, was that when a nation expends hundreds of thousands of its men’s and boys’ lives on your land, thereby freeing your country (and giving it BACK to you, not annexing it for our own purposes or anything), you do not shit on them a few years later by saying, like a blatanly jealous, petulent child, that that savior of yours needs to be “counterbalanced” in the world. I would never say that my best friend needs to be “counterbalanced,” or needs to have an opposing force in order to neutralize his abilities. What a shitty, back-stabbing attitude.

[/quote]

Times change, generations change, loyalties change- that’s how history marches unpredictably- and not in ‘just a few years’. Look at the relationship between Japan and the U.S today compared to 1942. The weirdest thing I read about is that there are Hitler loving nazi youths in Moscow!

I don’t think France in its too proud history has never been a nation that felt like it owed ANY other nation a favour. I don’t believe the French ever fully acknowledged how the U.S came to their rescue moreso after the war in their dire situation regarding food supplies - which is revealing in the issue of their fallible pride perhaps. If this is the case the persecution complex / and reaction by Americans may be what irks Frenchies about Yanks.

The other side of the coin may be reflected in how quite a number of Iraq war supporters in the U.S shamefully scolded the few small nations that had joined the tiny coalition with the U.S, when they announced they were pulling out at various times later.

64

[quote]Harry Flashman wrote:
The U.S. helped a little in WWI,they did not hand France back to the French,what utter shit.This is incredibly disrespectful to the nearly 1.5 million French who died in that war(btw when did the first world war start?If you answered 1917 then sign yourself up for the above arrogance.[/quote]

That’s ignorant! The Americans happened to step in the war at a critical moment. The Russians with their revolution woes abandoned the East Front. The result was a flood of German divisions available for a new decisive push on the West Front. The timely arrival of fresh American forces [including the African -American Harlem Hellfighters] bolstered the Allied line significantly enough to blunt German offensives and add impetus to the upcoming Allied advances.

Stalin was begging for a Western Front. Being an expert you know about the U.S lend lease program with the Soviets in supplying vast amounts of U.S armour and weapons. The Allied convoys making such supply treks faced horrific ordeals. The U.S role was very big. So you can look at things the other way-how far would Stalin have gotten without U.S assistance. The German defences always clobbered the suicidal Russian offensives which succeeded only by sheer weight of numbers and casualty ratios versus Germans of 7:1.

False; several engagements prove otherwise particularly when Germans launched superior counter-attacks versus British, Americans, Canadians, Polish units during Normandy,Operation Market Garden, Hurtgen Forest, Bulge, Rhine Operations. Furthermore German troop quality after 43 dwindled dramatically and often the most Elite units were on the East Front. German superiority was better in tactical leadership and tanks.
But that’s no guarantee. In 5 hours American, British, Canadian and French forces busted through Rommel’s Atlantic Wall at Normandy.

That’s envy - not contempt. And not in the Front-line. Definately on leave and in rest areas. Montgomery and Patton had contempt.

[quote]Lastly,there was a guy who said that America had the better innovation in WWII,which is yet again bollocks.The Germans were by far and away the greatest innovators,missile technology,jet aircraft,nerve gases,military tactics etc,etc,etc…
Do you think that either America or The USSR would have had a Space program were it not for the Germans?[/quote]

In the end not innovative enough to win the war. Allies always one-upped the Germans. If Hitler still kept going into Aug.45 maybe he’d have been nuked. Anything’s possible - Churchill had to be talked out of responding to V2 bombings with poison gas attacks - no, not ridiculous, he’s been quoted as not minding the use of gas weapons in combat. The Brits used them on civilians in Irag decades earlier.

Make that a chip-butty.

65

Push,

Don’t think I have a liking for Uncle Joe Stalin,he was without doubt history’s biggest mass murderer,killing more Russians than Adolf did.

And yes,I have talked to plenty of British Squaddies,R.A.F.,S.A.S.,Paras and Marines and without an except the response was’pampered and spineless,great kit no grit’.The acronym SPAMs comes to mind(spastic plastic American motherfuckers).I tell a lie,there was one positive comment from a Light Infantry Officer who said that the U.S. Marines were the most aggressive he had seen,a good thing for a soldier I reckon,but that’s one positive out of hundreds of negatives.

66

[quote]Harry Flashman wrote:
…

The U.S. was 95% of the story in beating the Japanese in WWII,if not more.The USSR was 60-70% of the beating of Germany however,if anybody bled for the French it was Ivan and not anybody who had ever eaten ‘Mom’s apple pie’.Ask any serious historian who isn’t attached to some right wing American thinktank and the above will undoubtedly be your answer.Don’t get me completely wrong here,The U.S. played a big role,but the role of the Russians was played down over the whole cold war period because they were the enemy and it’s still not been rectified.The greatest and most devastating war in the history of humanity was the Russo-German war of 1941-45.What happened on the western front was important and vital,but it didn’t stop the French from speaking German,it stopped them speaking Russian(and maybe the British as well)!
[/quote]

I understand you point. Far too many Russians died in the war due to poor leadership and the fact that Stalin had no respect for their lives.

However the Russians did not liberate and die in France. France is fortunate it was the Americans, Brits and Canadians that did.

The Americans were certainly the best equipped, best fed army in the world.

I have read a few statistical analysis that showed they inflicted more casualties and took fewer per capita than any other army in western europe. The analysis also took into account the number of days engaged in combat.

The Germans were magnificient soldiers for the most part but they did not have the resources of the Americans.

As to the engagement when the numbers were even, you have to remember that the Germans fought a defensive battle from prepared positions. Given the technology of the age the defender should always win that battle.

The Brits were and still are certainly tough SOB’s.

They had to make up a lack of numbers and material with superior training and conditioning. The Brits had to fight more of a thinking mans war too.
This is evident in their D-Day preparation and use of specialized equipment compared to the Americans relying on firepower.

The Americans learned some lessons from the Brits and added them to their overwhelming arsenal.

If the French were as tough and noble as the Brits we would be living in a better world.

67

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

If the French were as tough and noble as the Brits we would be living in a better world.[/quote]

Don’t get carried away with past British foreign policies being noble and flawless equated to a better world. Sure the benefits were huge through British interaction with many areas/societies . They were smart at bending the masses in ‘colonies’ to adapt for their Imperial goals. However, it’s not difficult at all to find many moments in their Imperialist history where they were far from noble. Fact in points; look at places where Revolutions/uprisings/rebellions/forcible mass exiles/massacres/concentration camps [Boer War] occured under British occupation-administration… USA,India,Middle East, Ireland, Scotland ,North / South Africa,China,Canada…

68

[quote]Harry Flashman wrote:
Push,

Don’t think I have a liking for Uncle Joe Stalin,he was without doubt history’s biggest mass murderer,killing more Russians than Adolf did.

[/quote]

A close second was Mao Tse Tung [38 million]. Interesting while the Chinese Government and nationalists rant at Japan for their atrocities they [obviously] make little of the huge genocide created by this individual.

I’ll admit contempt for the American was obvious on those occasions while in England they flaunted their enviable excess of G.I benefits.“overpaid,oversexed.over here!” was the expression. Most contempt was when American soldiers attempted to bring over the Jim Crow attitude against Afro-American G - in England and France.Is which on some occasions British pub owners posted signs not admitting racist G.is! In fact afro-american G.Is were not regarded with contempt by French and British civilians and even in the military these nation’s units had intermingled blacks in their ranks in contrast to American segregated units [and blood banks!]. You can even find photos of 761st black tank battalion members getting along happily with the German citizens in territory they occupied at the end of the war.

69

[quote]Vegilles wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

If the French were as tough and noble as the Brits we would be living in a better world.

Don’t get carried away with past British foreign policies being noble and flawless equated to a better world. Sure the benefits were huge through British interaction with many areas/societies . They were smart at bending the masses in ‘colonies’ to adapt for their Imperial goals. However, it’s not difficult at all to find many moments in their Imperialist history where they were far from noble. Fact in points; look at places where Revolutions/uprisings/rebellions/forcible mass exiles/massacres/concentration camps [Boer War] occured under British occupation-administration… USA,India,Middle East, Ireland, Scotland ,North / South Africa,China,Canada…

[/quote]

Brits aren’t flawless but I guarantee if thay had been running the show in Indochina rather than the French, the Vietnam situation would have turned out better.

I’ll take the Brits over the French any day.

70

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Vegilles wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

If the French were as tough and noble as the Brits we would be living in a better world.

Don’t get carried away with past British foreign policies being noble and flawless equated to a better world. Sure the benefits were huge through British interaction with many areas/societies . They were smart at bending the masses in ‘colonies’ to adapt for their Imperial goals. However, it’s not difficult at all to find many moments in their Imperialist history where they were far from noble. Fact in points; look at places where Revolutions/uprisings/rebellions/forcible mass exiles/massacres/concentration camps [Boer War] occured under British occupation-administration… USA,India,Middle East, Ireland, Scotland ,North / South Africa,China,Canada…

Brits aren’t flawless but I guarantee if thay had been running the show in Indochina rather than the French, the Vietnam situation would have turned out better.

I’ll take the Brits over the French any day.[/quote]

Like I mentioned previously in this thread the boisterous French pride thing gets absurd. No doubt this was the cause for their ‘keystone colonial cop’ idiocy running/ruining Indo-China and North Africa in 1950s/60s. Brits tended to have a skill at not getting embroiled in a stupid policy -for too long anyways.

71

And if it weren’t for the France, there would have been no Viet Nam.

One more reason to dislike the Frenchies.

72

I do like French-Canadian women.

73

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I do like French-Canadian women.

[/quote]

That goes without saying. Let’s try and stay focused, here.

74

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I do like French-Canadian women.

That goes without saying. Let’s try and stay focused, here. [/quote]

Too late.

75

[quote]Harry Flashman wrote:
Push,

Don’t think I have a liking for Uncle Joe Stalin, he was without doubt history’s biggest mass murderer, killing more Russians than Adolf did.

And yes,I have talked to plenty of British Squaddies, R.A.F., S.A.S., Paras and Marines and without an except the response was’pampered and spineless, great kit no grit’. The acronym SPAMs comes to mind(spastic plastic American motherfuckers). I tell a lie, there was one positive comment from a Light Infantry Officer who said that the U.S. Marines were the most aggressive he had seen, a good thing for a soldier I reckon, but that’s one positive out of hundreds of negatives.
[/quote]

Interesting comments? Did you serve in the British military?

Most soldiers feel they are the best at what they do. They tease each other endlessly.

I’ve trained with the Germans and fought with the Brits. The Germans armored forces are superior to the British in tactics, equipment and leadership. British armor did not fight well in an integrated, dynamic battlefield, at least they didn’t 14 yrs. ago. Never fought with the Royal Marines. I doubt they are superior to ours. The Brits are good. I’d rate them second or third. Tied with the Israelis overall. As an ally they are steadfast. That’s important.

The modern battlefield is integrated and the forces are combined. The US does this far better then anyone. The US fights with leading edge tactics, leadership and equipment, all integrated. The asymetic battleplan exploits the weakness of your enemy with overwhelming force. Nobody can stand up to that in the present day. Nearly all strategists understand that and the US is the only nation that can pull it off.

Soldiers talking shit is a given but don’t bet your paycheck on what they have to say. I don’t know any commander of a foriegn army that would want to take on a US Armored Division assault and think he was facing “inferior” soldiers.

76

Isnt this supposed to be about links between the U.S.A and france. Not about who has the better army, because it is obviously Britain. A country thats not relevant, when you look at this threads title.

Only jokin…

77

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I was referring to the facists.

I am not familiar with the CNL. I need to do some reading on that subject. Thanks for the heads up.

My wifes biological grandfather was killed fighting the Nazis in Italy.[/quote]

I don’t know how much about CNL you can find… however here some info.

when US army comes in Italy, Italy was divided in 2 part. the northern still under the nazi army (republica di sal?) see the great works of our patriots organized in the CNL (i dont know how translate… it may be something like groups for nation freedom…)

they fight againist the nazy and works aside the alley (the alley provided funds and logistic help, CNL was in great part formed initially by undtrained citizens)

a lot of italian fought and died to free our nation.

we owe to US and the other alley for the help. but our blood free our nation.

78

al bundy hated the french…i hate the french

79

This is my first post in…forever,but since I read about it it’s been on my mind.

During WWII 5 out of 6 Germans were killed by the Russians so I reckon that sort of kicks the shit out of the idea that the U.S won the war or really had that much to do with liberating Europe,it was the Commie soldier who sacrificed himself on the battlefield.

Also someone mentioned much earlier in this thread about the British beating Argentina in the Falklands(some arrogant Englishman making a cock of himself no doubt…) and some Yank said ‘Are you kidding me?Argentina?’ or something like that.

Question-Who has The U.S. beaten since WWII who has been as well equiped, trained and motivated as the Argentines were? Grenada? Panama? I’m prepared to be wrong here if someone can make a good case but I don’t reckon I am.AND… in the case that I am right ,not a very good record is it for the world’s most powerful military ever.

On a side note here Chomsky explains it well,the other side only gets attacked if they have no chance in hell,not even if they have a decent chance of inflicting reasonable casualties,American public opinion won’t take it.Just look at Iraq,3000 dead and 70% want the troops to come home with the job not even close to half finished.

80

[quote]Harry Flashman wrote:
This is my first post in…forever,but since I read about it it’s been on my mind.

During WWII 5 out of 6 Germans were killed by the Russians so I reckon that sort of kicks the shit out of the idea that the U.S won the war or really had that much to do with liberating Europe,it was the Commie soldier who sacrificed himself on the battlefield.
[/quote]

So out of the approx 5,500,000 German Military Deaths, 4,583,333-1/3 were inflicted buy the Russian and only 916,666-2/3 were inflicted by the US, Britain, French underground, Alied Italians Et all??

I think your math is off.

La’
Redsol1