The FRENCH contribution

[Tech_Esq]

Perhaps you could explain how making comments about the French military NOW has anything to do with the French military 200+ years ago when it was a world power?

Yes, France aided the colonies in the American Revolution. On the other hand, the US has liberated France from German occupation TWICE within the last 100 years, and got stuck trying to clean up the mess France made out of French Indochina.

You tried to twist this US defeat in Vietnam into something, but the fact is only one foreign military has ever had its ass kicked on the battlefield by what was to become the army of North Vietnam -- you guessed it -- France at Dien Bin Phu.

I love it when people say the US was late in aiding France during World War II. They say we should have fought with Britain and France when they declared war on the Nazis because Britain and France were our allies. I would like to ask them why France is not helping is in Iraq now , if a country is supposed to risk the lives of its own to help its allies.

Firstly, The US never declared war on Iraq.
Secondly, NATO is a defensive organisation (and France statues regarding it was a bit unique anyway), in Iraq the USA clearly attacked (name me a single attack form Iraq on American soil if you think otherwise), so NATO obligations would not have mattered.
In Afghanistan, Nato has decided that the USA has been attacked by the Taliban, and French soldiers are fighting and dieing amongside American ones in Afghanistan.

Nations enter wars if it suits their or their leaders interests.
The reason that Germany did not enter (They said NO before the US even asked) had a lot to do with its chancellor wanting to be reelected. If you are running for chancellorship (powerwise, German chancellor equals the position of the American president, the German president is more of a figurehead) than beeing "Morally for peace" while also "Standing up against the USA/Bush" means you need to be involved in a child porn scandal to actually loose the election.
Concerning France, well I figure the Frenchies didnt get a high enough offer (in terms of influence, future contracts etc.) from the US administration.

From a purely Machiavellian point of view, going into Irak would have been, for a medium European nation like Germany or France, smarter than going into Afghanistan. Afghanistan has no valuable assests (unless you are a Heroin Junky), it does serve as a decent base in the area, but neither France nor Germany have geostrategic interestest in the area (both would leave the "encircle Russia" stuff to someone else, neither gains from pissing of the bear either).
Irak however is a) fragile b) got a lot of oil and c) got a highly educated population, in theory, its one of the better places to conquer.

Concerning WW2 and the "late" US intervention
Apart from that, the US and France were not officially allied before WW2.
The US had no diplomatic or moral obiligation to intervene. In 1939, it still seemed like "another" European war, while there were some KZs, there werent Gas Chambers yet.


Secondly, the US army of 1939 would not have been much of a help against the Wehrmacht, the US did not have much of an army in 1939 anyway. I cannot access wether an Operation Overlord would have suceeded earlier(1943), propably yes since German forces were focused on the Easter Front anyway. In 1942 it would not have worked most definitly, that was a time were Germany was considering an Invasion of Great britain.

Concerning your point that the "US never declared war on Iraq." I am not sure it is possible to forth-rightly declare war on another country today in the US. We did not "declare war" in the Persian Gulf War. Nor did we have formal declarations in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think with the complex set of international entanglements we find ourselves neck deep in, we are stuck with the Congressional votes on giving the authority to make "war" or "use such power as may be needed" to the President.

That said, make no mistake, Congress knew what it was voting for. They knew they were authorizing the US to make war on those countries. The debate on the subject was clear and to the point. Those votes were, in each case, to authorize the US to use military force to achieve its objectives.

"Name you a single attack..." From a strictly legal point of view, the cease fire between Iraq and the US and its allies (Gulf War) mandated a "no fly zone" and further that coalition planes would be allowed to patrol the no fly zone to ensure compliance. Armed engagement of coalition forces enforcing the tenets of the "cease fire" in place between the coalition causes a reinstatement of hostilities between the belligerents. Thus, based on repeated violations of the cease fire agreement by Iraq, a state of active hostilities should have been the result without recourse to any further diplomatic efforts. Despite this fact, continued diplomatic engagement did occur eventual resulting in renewed hostilities.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[editec]

I concur, Tech.

We should have stayed out of WWI entirely.

As to WWII?

Had the France's MAASSIVE army reacted (as was their right under the treaty of Versailles) when Hitler marched his troops onto the DMZ, WWII would likely NOT have happened.

And since French troops did not move into the DMZ, the Brits were under no obligation to do anything, either.

But the leadership after WWI was do demoralized (except for the Germans who were simply pissed and rightly so) that they essantially allowed Hitler to gain power one bit of Europe at a time.

There are times to react to bullism, and times not to react to it.

Sadly, France missed the chance it had to prevent WWII.



OTOH, had the Brits and FRANCE not acted like the piggish colonial powers they were, post WWI, hitler would never have gained power, either.

 

[Diuretic]

And how were the US's interests at risk in WW I? The sinking of Lusitania was an excuse not an interest clearly burdened. Yes, unrestricted submarine warfare, burdened and interested that the US had in unrestricted shipping in international waters, but so much so that it would involve itself in a World War? Especially immediately following Wilson's successful campaign based on keeping the US out of war? Nonsense. Wilson was an internationalist and saw this as a great opportunity.

It would seem that the interests of the US were indeed under threat, hence the entry into WWI. Whether or not Wilson was an "interrnationalist" or not is opinion, the facts of the matter are that the US entered WWI after a period of a policy of non-intervention.

 

[Diuretic]

I was under the impression Britain declared war on Germany after the German invasion of Poland.

 

[tigerbob]

I was under the impression Britain declared war on Germany after the German invasion of Poland.

Me too. Funny thing, history, isn't it?

 

[Diuretic]

I was under the impression Britain declared war on Germany after the German invasion of Poland.

Me too. Funny thing, history, isn't it?

I think it's a question of sorting out "facts" from "opinions" Bob. I must admit though, I'm always prepared to revise my schoolboy view of history in favour of a more nuanced view, but some facts just can't be revised.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And how were the US's interests at risk in WW I? The sinking of Lusitania was an excuse not an interest clearly burdened. Yes, unrestricted submarine warfare, burdened and interested that the US had in unrestricted shipping in international waters, but so much so that it would involve itself in a World War? Especially immediately following Wilson's successful campaign based on keeping the US out of war? Nonsense. Wilson was an internationalist and saw this as a great opportunity.

It would seem that the interests of the US were indeed under threat, hence the entry into WWI. Whether or not Wilson was an "interrnationalist" or not is opinion, the facts of the matter are that the US entered WWI after a period of a policy of non-intervention.

That's conclusory. How were the interests "under threat?" Was Germany going to get a rail gun so big it could hit the US?

I don't know how Wilson being an internationalist is "opinion." I would view it more as commonly accepted understanding. Wilson is generally given status as the father of American Internationalism.

Period of a policy of non-interventionism? This must mean that after colonialist adventures in the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico, the US didn't "intervene" internationally anywhere? Wow! Really? Roosevelt winning the 1905 Nobel prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese war. Consolidation of our colonial empire doesn't count now? What was Doug MacArthur's father Arthur doing down in the Philippines all those years of non-interventionism? I think internationalism followed from colonialism. Carried by the Great White Fleet.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I was under the impression Britain declared war on Germany after the German invasion of Poland.

I can only assume that this is in relation to EDITEC's post above. I think in the part where he is talking about Britain's responsibility or lack there of it is association with the remilitarization of the Rheinland in 1936. I'm not sure he has that correct. I believe that Britain, as a signature to the Treaty of Versailles, could have taken it upon themselves to enforce the treaty. However, as a practical matter, having no direct access to Germany, they would have had to do it in coordination with either France, Belgium or the Netherlands. So, maybe it was shorthand for that practicality.

And a slight correction, Britain and France declared war on Germany in concert after the invasion of Poland. Saying it any other way belies the level of concerted action both countries were working under in this effort.

 

[elvis]

I was under the impression Britain declared war on Germany after the German invasion of Poland.

Britain and France declared war on Germany in September, 1939, after they invaded Poland, that is true. but they did not actually engage in war for another six months or so.

 

[Yukon]

I wont even attempt to eductae any of you with respect to the history of WWII. You wont belive the truth about WWII any more than you accept the truth about the loss in Vietnam.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, I am quite far on the left (in the American spectrum that is), but there are a number of people posting here who have a fair bit more understanding of history than you do.

The truth about WW2? How are YOU going to know that. Unless you are some kind of Necromancer you propably cant know it, since the truth is the first thing that DIES in every single conflict.

 

[Yukon]

America would not exist if it weren't for the French who helped you defaet Great Britain.

 

[elvis]

America would not exist if it weren't for the French who helped you defaet Great Britain.

how, then, do you explain the fact that the tide had already turned in favor of the colonies before the French blocked Chesapeake Bay?

 

[Yukon]

Elvis,

Hisrorical fact is indeed historical fact. Your pathetic attempt at spinning history is typical of your kind.

 

[elvis]

Elvis,

Hisrorical fact is indeed historical fact. Your pathetic attempt at spinning history is typical of your kind.

Ah so I should just take your word for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

America would not exist if it weren't for the French who helped you defaet Great Britain.

It's really pathetic when the big thing you have to be proud of happened over two centuries ago. Talk about resting on your laurels.

 

[Old Rocks]

Many people make negative comments about the French from a Military standpoint. I think its time to set the reord straight. The USA probably would not have existed if it were not for the help of the French military during the War of Independence.

From the perspective of the American Revolution the high point of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette. Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British positions. After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements, Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender his army. On October 19, 1781, the British forces marched out between the silent ranks of the Americans and French, arrayed in parallel lines a mile long, and cast down their arms.

The French Contribution to the American War of Independence

So the next time you feel compelled to mock France please remember that your country exists today because Frenchmen fought and died for you several hundred years ago.

Perhaps you could explain how making comments about the French military NOW has anything to do with the French military 200+ years ago when it was a world power?

Yes, France aided the colonies in the American Revolution. On the other hand, the US has liberated France from German occupation TWICE within the last 100 years, and got stuck trying to clean up the mess France made out of French Indochina.

You tried to twist this US defeat in Vietnam into something, but the fact is only one foreign military has ever had its ass kicked on the battlefield by what was to become the army of North Vietnam -- you guessed it -- France at Dien Bin Phu.

I love it when people say the US was late in aiding France during World War II. They say we should have fought with Britain and France when they declared war on the Nazis because Britain and France were our allies. I would like to ask them why France is not helping is in Iraq now , if a country is supposed to risk the lives of its own to help its allies.

Because they are not as fucking stupid as Bush.

 

[Old Rocks]

Elvis,

Hisrorical fact is indeed historical fact. Your pathetic attempt at spinning history is typical of your kind.

Ah so I should just take your word for it.

No, you should take the word of historians;

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1987384

 

[manu1959]

America would not exist if it weren't for the French who helped you defaet Great Britain.

and the french were saved twice from speaking german......in fact i am not sure the french have won a war without the americans on their side.....

 

[elvis]

Perhaps you could explain how making comments about the French military NOW has anything to do with the French military 200+ years ago when it was a world power?

Yes, France aided the colonies in the American Revolution. On the other hand, the US has liberated France from German occupation TWICE within the last 100 years, and got stuck trying to clean up the mess France made out of French Indochina.

You tried to twist this US defeat in Vietnam into something, but the fact is only one foreign military has ever had its ass kicked on the battlefield by what was to become the army of North Vietnam -- you guessed it -- France at Dien Bin Phu.

I love it when people say the US was late in aiding France during World War II. They say we should have fought with Britain and France when they declared war on the Nazis because Britain and France were our allies. I would like to ask them why France is not helping is in Iraq now , if a country is supposed to risk the lives of its own to help its allies.

Because they are not as fucking stupid as Bush.

but nearly half the democrats were, including most of the people currently on Obama's staff, or are you too fucking partisan to figure that out?