What if America Acted Like the French??

[Annie]

I jumped into this discussion late (and did not read the previous pages, feeling kind of lazy), but I assumed we were debating US military strength in 1940 compared to France's.

Yea, I agree with you that had we been in France's situation we would have built up our military earlier. However if you just matched up US 1940 and Germany 1940, the U.S. would be in trouble.

I wonder though if the U.S. neighbored Germany would we have applied better diplomatic pressure and forced Hitler to comply with Versailles? Thus preventing war and genocide and the whole mess.

I guess we will never know

US strength in 1940 was vastly superior to France's, though neither of them knew that. On the other hand, the US was way behind Germany's, but the capabilites to adapt? Well the result of that was apparent by 1945.

As for your question in what I've bolded above; the problem wasn't the diplomacy, though appeasement was wrong, the problem was the Versailles treaty, though the US never ratified.

 

[1549]

US strength in 1940 was vastly superior to France's, though neither of them knew that. On the other hand, the US was way behind Germany's, but the capabilites to adapt? Well the result of that was apparent by 1945.

As for your question in what I've bolded above; the problem wasn't the diplomacy, though appeasement was wrong, the problem was the Versailles treaty, though the US never ratified.

The US had the capability to build an elite military quickly. While we were ever improving, Germany was bogged down in a 2 front war and Hitler was losing a grip on reality. It was a good combo.

I think you would agree that the Versailles treaty went too far. I have no problem with military restrictions. Prussia was built on military tradition, there was little reason to think Germany would not embrace military might in the future (and of course they did). The U.S. placed military restriction on Japan. It is the financial reparations that were unnecessary and certainly gave Hitler an opportunity to rise.

 

[Annie]

The US had the capability to build an elite military quickly. While we were ever improving, Germany was bogged down in a 2 front war and Hitler was losing a grip on reality. It was a good combo.

I think you would agree that the Versailles treaty went too far. I have no problem with military restrictions. Prussia was built on military tradition, there was little reason to think Germany would not embrace military might in the future (and of course they did). The U.S. placed military restriction on Japan. It is the financial reparations that were unnecessary and certainly gave Hitler an opportunity to rise.

The Versailles Treaty was a loser. It assigned all blame to Germany and Austria, though only Germany was held accountable. It ignored what the 'allies' had done to cause the original domino effect, in reaction. NATIONALISM had made war inevitable, they all had to prove they were the best. The US had the high ground here, staying out of the arguement, but when push came to shove, meaning the Huns were winning and the Kosacks were pulling out, well...

As for reparations regarding Versailles, the US did more than their part...

 

[1549]

The Versailles Treaty was a loser. It assigned all blame to Germany and Austria, though only Germany was held accountable. It ignored what the 'allies' had done to cause the original domino effect, in reaction. NATIONALISM had made war inevitable, they all had to prove they were the best. The US had the high ground here, staying out of the arguement, but when push came to shove, meaning the Huns were winning and the Kosacks were pulling out, well...

My big question with World War I is who decided to fight in trenches. Who was the first to say: "dig in boys, were going to fight in trenches this time". No war before or since relied on anything more than foxholes.

It is like they were stuck between modern conventional war strategies and the battle lines of prior centuries. They still decided to fight in long lines of men and use battle charges, but they decided that they were going to line up in trenches rather than above ground (smart idea, machine gunners would have loved an army lined up on an open field) and not come out until they needed to charge.

It amazes me that the tunnel system was connected from western france all the way central Germany. Really it was a strange war. But it did produce the best war book I have ever red: All Quiet on the Western Front

 

[Annie]

My big question with World War I is who decided to fight in trenches. Who was the first to say: "dig in boys, were going to fight in trenches this time". No war before or since relied on anything more than foxholes.

It is like they were stuck between modern conventional war strategies and the battle lines of prior centuries. They still decided to fight in long lines of men and use battle charges, but they decided that they were going to line up in trenches rather than above ground (smart idea, machine gunners would have loved an army lined up on an open field) and not come out until they needed to charge.

It amazes me that the tunnel system was connected from western france all the way central Germany. Really it was a strange war. But it did produce the best war book I have ever red: All Quiet on the Western Front

Twas the last war, the US Civil War. It was where they were, but had their backsides pulled out before the effects were really felt. Thus the saying, "The generals are always fighting the last war."

 

[1549]

Twas the last war, the US Civil War. It was where they were, but had their backsides pulled out before the effects were really felt. Thus the saying, "The generals are always fighting the last war."

Interesting, I have heard the saying before and now I know its origin. Thank you.

 

[HopeandGlory]

The Versailles Treaty was a loser. It assigned all blame to Germany and Austria, though only Germany was held accountable. It ignored what the 'allies' had done to cause the original domino effect, in reaction. NATIONALISM had made war inevitable, they all had to prove they were the best. The US had the high ground here, staying out of the arguement, but when push came to shove, meaning the Huns were winning and the Kosacks were pulling out, well...

...

Nationalism certainly made the war inevitable, but I don't know if anyone can really claim the moral high ground as a result of their actions before/during/after WWI.

Definitely not Germany or the Central Powers (Austro-Hungarian Empire.) It was their great fear of Russia which could arguably be said to precipitate hostilities. After the assassination in Sarajevo, the AHE had a so-called legitimate reason to take action against Serbia which was of course, allied to Russia.

At the time, Britain, France and Russia were allies in the Triple Entente. Britain was the least committed of these 3 parties, having more interest in mantaining and building her own Empire abroad.

The German Chief of Staff devised plans for a war on two fronts (France and Russia) as early as 1905. A quick, initial strike to knock out the French and then a massive concentration of force against the Russians in the East.

Germany declared war on Russia on 1st Aug 1914 and on France 2 days later. It also demanded free passage of its troops and war machine through Belgium to get to France on the same day (3rd August.)

Belgium refused and was invaded on 4th August. This brought Great Britain in to the war. Britain had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality on the signing of a previous treaty. The German invasion of the Low Countries was the fatal nail in the coffin. Britain went ot war because of 'a scrap of paper!'

Edward Grey's famous 'lamps out . . .' comment was made just at this time.

 

[Annie]

Nationalism certainly made the war inevitable, but I don't know if anyone can really claim the moral high ground as a result of their actions before/during/after WWI.

Definitely not Germany or the Central Powers (Austro-Hungarian Empire.) It was their great fear of Russia which could arguably be said to precipitate hostilities. After the assassination in Sarajevo, the AHE had a so-called legitimate reason to take action against Serbia which was of course, allied to Russia.

At the time, Britain, France and Russia were allies in the Triple Entente. Britain was the least committed of these 3 parties, having more interest in mantaining and building her own Empire abroad.

The German Chief of Staff devised plans for a war on two fronts (France and Russia) as early as 1905. A quick, initial strike to knock out the French and then a massive concentration of force against the Russians in the East.

Germany declared war on Russia on 1st Aug 1914 and on France 2 days later. It also demanded free passage of its troops and war machine through Belgium to get to France on the same day (3rd August.)

Belgium refused and was invaded on 4th August. This brought Great Britain in to the war. Britain had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality on the signing of a previous treaty. The German invasion of the Low Countries was the fatal nail in the coffin. Britain went ot war because of 'a scrap of paper!'

Edward Grey's famous 'lamps out . . .' comment was made just at this time.

Who praytell was claiming high ground? Certainly not the survivors. The whole mess ended with the creation of a treaty that ensured another war and an international organization that would cause the inevitability to become manifest.

The 'Great War' could certainly be considered a cause, and has been, as the catalyst for the current failure of Europe to avoid suicidal moves.

 

[Gunny]

My big question with World War I is who decided to fight in trenches. Who was the first to say: "dig in boys, were going to fight in trenches this time". No war before or since relied on anything more than foxholes.

It is like they were stuck between modern conventional war strategies and the battle lines of prior centuries. They still decided to fight in long lines of men and use battle charges, but they decided that they were going to line up in trenches rather than above ground (smart idea, machine gunners would have loved an army lined up on an open field) and not come out until they needed to charge.

It amazes me that the tunnel system was connected from western france all the way central Germany. Really it was a strange war. But it did produce the best war book I have ever red: All Quiet on the Western Front

Trench warfare was the eventual outcome modernized weaponry rendering Napoleonic tactics obsolete. It's fine and dandy to stand and blast away at 100 yards with a musket, but add the rifled musket to the fray, and you have people standing on line at a hundred yards with weapons accurate up to 300 yards. Most early Civil War battles were absolute slaughters. Add machineguns to the fray by the time WWI rolls around, and the frontal assault is nothing more than a suicide charge.

The tank was the result of trench warfare -- it was not originally designed as a weapon; rather, a means to carry troops from one line to the other under protection.

Kathianne is correct in that Grant chose to use the means at his disposal to win the US Civil War. He most certainly wasn't winning on the open battlefield, but he had the manpower and resources to lay seige to Richmond; which, Lee was bound to defend. The final battle of the US Civil war differed little from the way WWI was fought. Two armies staring across No Man's land at one another and killing anything that dared stick its head up.

 

[HopeandGlory]

I think the trench warfare question is also partially answered by the geography of the region. North-eastern France and Flanders are notoriously flat. Even before the devastation of the war, there was very little natural cover for a large armoured assault.

The fields of the Somme and the area around Ypres in particular bring this home. One of the most poignant and moving things I've ever done was to visit the battlefields and cemetaries of WWI. To actually hear them play the Last Post beneath the Menin Gate in Ypres is such a sobering and sad experience.

Everywhere you go there are memorials and monuments, and cemetaries large and small.

 

[HopeandGlory]

Who praytell was claiming high ground? Certainly not the survivors. The whole mess ended with the creation of a treaty that ensured another war and an international organization that would cause the inevitability to become manifest.

The 'Great War' could certainly be considered a cause, and has been, as the catalyst for the current failure of Europe to avoid suicidal moves.

I agree with you regarding Versailles. It was a recipe for resentment and even more disaster. It doesn't totally explain the circumstances which gave rise to the Third Reich - I think the roots of the Nazi phenomenon go back beyond WWI - but it certainly made it easier for Hitler and Rohm to gain the mass support of a hungry and feeling hard-done-by populus.

 

[Gunny]

I agree with you regarding Versailles. It was a recipe for resentment and even more disaster. It doesn't totally explain the circumstances which gave rise to the Third Reich - I think the roots of the Nazi phenomenon go back beyond WWI - but it certainly made it easier for Hitler and Rohm to gain the mass support of a hungry and feeling hard-done-by populus.

Resentment over Versailles, world-wide depression, world-wide anti-semitism, the inherent German arrogance, and a charismatic leader promising a way out and return to glory were ALL factors in the rise of Hitler.

 

[Avatar4321]

The US government is still too slow to respond to REALITY..


This country only knows bigger is better... Bigger tits is better. Bigger SUVs are better... Bigger Profits are better.. So, we have bigger problems..

For example. The countries that may, or maynot support terrorism are receiving billions of dollars from the US cause we like to drive so much and need their oil. OUr choice to send them so much $$$.

We like to buy cheap shoes and bicycles.. THe money is blowing into China faster than they can spend it on weapons to be used to kill those who won't let Taiwan be taken back. Fill in the blank when you feel you know what country I am referring to. Who's fault is it?? Somebody forcing the US to buy so much cheap shit from China??

those other loose cannons in Pakistan and India,, whose fault is it that so many of their youth are taking over the engineering jobs, and the medical doctor slots??? Somebody holding back our GRINGO kids from studying and becoming competitive again?

Wait... are you saying bigger tits arent better? Atleast some of the time?:

 

[Avatar4321]

As for the French people these days - they need to dump Chirac and de Villepin and Sarkozy and find a competent government once more. I understand there's a woman in Poitiers who is shaping up as a potential presidential candidate. If she wins there will be attacks of apoplexy breaking out all over the forum, she's a socialist.

I don't disagree that they need to dump those leaders, but I think the French problem runs deeper than their leadership. Their leaders were actually going to do a good thing about a month ago and pass directives that would allow employers the power to fire employees who didnt do their jobs. Just that one law would have probably helped the French economy significantly. but the French people rioted and refused to let the leaders allow employers actually make rational decisions. Its nearly impossible to fire an employee in France. Which of course means Employers dont hire people if they can avoid it.

If this was the only aspect of french society that was messed up, it might not be that bad. but the French have serious problems and I am not sure there is a Frenchman with the power to lead them out of these problems.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't disagree that they need to dump those leaders, but I think the French problem runs deeper than their leadership. Their leaders were actually going to do a good thing about a month ago and pass directives that would allow employers the power to fire employees who didnt do their jobs. Just that one law would have probably helped the French economy significantly. but the French people rioted and refused to let the leaders allow employers actually make rational decisions. Its nearly impossible to fire an employee in France. Which of course means Employers dont hire people if they can avoid it.

If this was the only aspect of french society that was messed up, it might not be that bad. but the French have serious problems and I am not sure there is a Frenchman with the power to lead them out of these problems.

Maybe johnny Depp will save em!!! :duh3:

 

[Diuretic]

I don't disagree that they need to dump those leaders, but I think the French problem runs deeper than their leadership. Their leaders were actually going to do a good thing about a month ago and pass directives that would allow employers the power to fire employees who didnt do their jobs. Just that one law would have probably helped the French economy significantly. but the French people rioted and refused to let the leaders allow employers actually make rational decisions. Its nearly impossible to fire an employee in France. Which of course means Employers dont hire people if they can avoid it.

If this was the only aspect of french society that was messed up, it might not be that bad. but the French have serious problems and I am not sure there is a Frenchman with the power to lead them out of these problems.

I think you've touched on an important point. I've only been to France a couple of times and then only for brief visits and just as the usual rubbernecking tourist without a clue about how the country really operates but I do try to keep up with discussions. The one thing they need to do is - and I think you've hit on it - is modernise. I don't mean they have to lay down, think of France and get globalised, but they need to get up to speed. Yes, as much as it goes against my grain they do need to modernise their labour laws. Perhaps this one was too much too soon. They know they need to modernise their agricultural production methods. Little farms are cute but they are inefficient. No, I'm not suggesting a Soviet-style collective nor BigFarm Inc., I'm suggesting that they might learn from efficient North American and Australian farmers (although to be fair the US, Canada and Australia are countries that allow for large scale farming enterprises while France may not). Anyway I'm getting into detail about things I have little knowledge of. Suffice to say that all in all there's a need for the French nation to say adieu to some of the traditions they may hold dear but which are holding them back.

 

[HopeandGlory]

Suffice to say that all in all there's a need for the French nation to say adieu to some of the traditions they may hold dear but which are holding them back.

And herein lies a lot of the problem. The French are fiercely proud of their own language and traditions - nothing particularly wrong with that - but to a xenophobic, almost racist extent. Anything not-French is seen as undesirable and a means of undermining them. A way of eroding their culture - not perhaps enriching it, which is a healthy way of looking at our inevitably, ever-shrinking world.

They'll fight most things English or American simply on principle rather than logic. One could say in an almost petty way!

Paris is an undeniably beautiful city - but once people (concierge's, waiters, shopkeepers, taxi-drivers etc.) hear you speaking English, they become incredibly rude and disdainful towards you. Paradoxically, it's even worse if you actually try speaking a bit of French to them. You get deliberately poor service, once they stop ignoring you, and I suspect, substandard treatment and goods, especially food.

It's sort of become a point of national pride for them to immediately resist and deny there might be anything good which isn't actually of French origin. Unless it's Greman of course. . . . .

 

[Gunny]

And herein lies a lot of the problem. The French are fiercely proud of their own language and traditions - nothing particularly wrong with that - but to a xenophobic, almost racist extent. Anything not-French is seen as undesirable and a means of undermining them. A way of eroding their culture - not perhaps enriching it, which is a healthy way of looking at our inevitably, ever-shrinking world.

They'll fight most things English or American simply on principle rather than logic. One could say in an almost petty way!

Paris is an undeniably beautiful city - but once people (concierge's, waiters, shopkeepers, taxi-drivers etc.) hear you speaking English, they become incredibly rude and disdainful towards you. Paradoxically, it's even worse if you actually try speaking a bit of French to them. You get deliberately poor service, once they stop ignoring you, and I suspect, substandard treatment and goods, especially food.

It's sort of become a point of national pride for them to immediately resist and deny there might be anything good which isn't actually of French origin. Unless it's Greman of course. . . . .

What exactly do they have to be so "fiercely proud" of? Being losers that continually have to be bailed in their wars?

 

[HopeandGlory]

What exactly do they have to be so "fiercely proud" of? Being losers that continually have to be bailed in their wars?

<G> - Well, they would tell you they have beautiful cities, and some of them are. The wine, some of the cheeses ( although not a patch on British cheeses, IMHO) I think their food is over-rated.

Literature - Voltaire, Moliere, Balzac, Dumas . . .

Art - lots of good french art - depends what you like.

Damn - you're making me sound like an advocate for the French! :happy2:

As for the military history - they haven't much to be proud of since Verdun.

As an Englishwoman - I'm very on your side here!

Remember Agincourt is what I say!

 

[Said1]

<G> - Well, they would tell you they have beautiful cities, and some of them are. The wine, some of the cheeses ( although not a patch on British cheeses, IMHO) I think their food is over-rated.

Literature - Voltaire, Moliere, Balzac, Dumas . . .

Art - lots of good french art - depends what you like.

Damn - you're making me sound like an advocate for the French! :happy2:

As for the military history - they haven't much to be proud of since Verdun.

As an Englishwoman - I'm very on your side here!

Remember Agincourt is what I say!

Ha! I'm telling.

I do agree with your points about the arts though.