French D-Day losses

[scubamike]

Just finished watching the BBC D-Day documentary.
Damn, but the French got hammered.
On D-Day there were approx. 12,000 Allied casualties, 7,000 Axis casualties and 20,000 French casualties (mostly due to Allied bombing).

Poor bastards. And then there were the thousands of French prisoners executed by the Nazis as they retreated.
By the end of the war France had lost almost half a million civilians and more military than USA and Canada combined...

Poland though really got screwed with around 6 million civilans killed and China lost around 10,000,000 civilians to the Japanese.

 

[Annie]

THAT is what happens when a country is not willing to defend itself. IF ONLY the French had stood up to the Germans from the beginning. Then again, they were unable.

 

[insein]

More proof that appeasement doesn't work.

 

[Avatar4321]

but it also explains why they are so quick to appease. They are scared of it happening again/

 

[scubamike]

Originally posted by Kathianne
THAT is what happens when a country is not willing to defend itself. IF ONLY the French had stood up to the Germans from the beginning. Then again, they were unable.

So if the French didn't stand up to the Germans how did they loose more soldiers than the US? France's military (and indeed the militaries of basically all of Europe) could not compete with the might of the Germans.
It would be like the USA invading Canada....

And having suffered so badly in the war (also from internal division on supporting or opposing the Nazis) one can see why they don't want any war, anywhere.

America never suffered Blitzkrieg attacks....

 

[insein]

Originally posted by scubamike
So if the French didn't stand up to the Germans how did they loose more soldiers than the US? France's military (and indeed the militaries of basically all of Europe) could not compete with the might of the Germans.
It would be like the USA invading Canada....

And having suffered so badly in the war (also from internal division on supporting or opposing the Nazis) one can see why they don't want any war, anywhere.

America never suffered Blitzkrieg attacks....

So why even have a military?

Instead of having their soldiers at least try to defend the civilian population, they laid down their arms, gave Germany the country with little resistance and allowed their civilians to be killed. Thats the one job of a military. To protect the population from harm. They failed miserably. At least if they fought and died, they could have saved face and possibly saved a few thousand of their civilians.

 

[Annie]

France lost so many because the war was fought there, not here, thus our low civilian loses. Good for US! No apology there.

If France had kept their troops at the levels they told the 'world' they had, they should have been able to stop Germany. Problem is they lied.

Chamberlain was like Carter, he really, really, really didn't want war. Thought appeasement was the way to go. He got the London bombing for his efforts.

We are currently doing what France should have done in 1938-1939. There will be no thanks, lots of criticism, but fewer dead. Not politically the way to go perhaps, but if explained the people do get it.

 

[etoile]

Another nation with heavy casualties: the Soviet Union. Almost all the Russian soldiers sent into battle (on horseback) in 1939 against the Nazis never returned, due to Germany's superior technology and because Stalin had executed all his military commanders for fear of rivalry. USSR won the war with Germany, but lost 20 million people, whereas Germany lost 10 million.
Russia's technique was complete ruthlessness to its own people. There was no talk of saving your own life. Behind every unit there were people to shoot you if you turned back. That's how many RUssian heroes were generated- they ran and cast themselves at a lone shooter, thus getting killed but affording his comerades a safe advance. So, not only France suffered by its own folly.
Also, France was one of the quickest nations to aid Hitler in his "final solution of the Jewish question." While they executed Jews in Poland, Ukraine, and everywhere else they conquered (remember, they reached Moscow, where- like Napoleon before them- they were deterred by the inhuman winter), the Soviet government never handed Jews over to the Nazis (they had their own methods of dealing with the Jews). Other nations, such as tiny Denmark which was taken without a fight, were much more resilient. In fact, Denmark smuggled out most of the 7,500 jews living there at the time across the border to Sweden. But in France, well, let's say there was no such smuggling.
About France's defense, most of the battles I recall studying about in WW II did not involve French troops, merely french land.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by etoile

About France's defense, most of the battles I recall studying about in WW II did not involve French troops, merely french land.

That statement says alot about France's defense or lack there of.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by scubamike
So if the French didn't stand up to the Germans how did they loose more soldiers than the US?

France's military (and indeed the militaries of basically all of Europe) could not compete with the might of the Germans.

They had to do more that stand up they had to fight back.

Of course they could, they choose not to. France believed that the Maginot Line would protect them. So they put their resources into that rather then build up their military.

 

[MrMarbles]

The issue of France's losses in WW2 is a complicated one. First of all, Germany's army was not as superior as people believe. In fact France had, what is considered the most sophisticated tank of the time. It wasn't weapons, but tactics, far superior tactics. As for apeasment, France and Britain had just suffered through the worst war the world had ever seen only twenty yaers early. The people of those countries did not want war, at almost any cost. Those countries being democractic, ment theaders had to follow the will of the people. True Germany had also suffered the WW1, but this had created perfect conditions for a strong (and evil) dictatorship to take over. To say the French were weak, or British negligent is wrong. If you were in the their place, i'm sure the result would have been quite similar. Remeber, hind-sight is twenty-twenty.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
The issue of France's losses in WW2 is a complicated one. First of all, Germany's army was not as superior as people believe. In fact France had, what is considered the most sophisticated tank of the time. It wasn't weapons, but tactics, far superior tactics. As for apeasment, France and Britain had just suffered through the worst war the world had ever seen only twenty yaers early. The people of those countries did not want war, at almost any cost. Those countries being democractic, ment theaders had to follow the will of the people. True Germany had also suffered the WW1, but this had created perfect conditions for a strong (and evil) dictatorship to take over. To say the French were weak, or British negligent is wrong. If you were in the their place, i'm sure the result would have been quite similar. Remeber, hind-sight is twenty-twenty.

Actually the US wasn't in a much better place than either Britain or France. FDR would have become even more involved in the European phase, IF he could have gotten the support of the people, truth was, the Americans too were disillusioned after Versailles, perhaps even moreso the the Europeans.

The US, unlike France, was upfront about not spending on the military post WWI. They really hoped for 'war never again.' It would take Pearl Harbor to get them involved, with American lives. FDR was right, the US should have built up, certainly by 1937, but they took it very slow. Truly all the people were willing to do was to become the supplier of arms, not the recipient.

That was the problem with France. They maintained that the Maginot Line would hold, that it was sufficiently defended and that they had an army ready to defend France, though they wanted peace. Even when confronted with what Hitler was doing, no bluff there, they did not bring up their military or let their chief ally, Britain, know their real lack of strength. THAT was only one of the problems with the League, no verification of facts.

I do think that Americans and the Brits learned lessons from the 30's that are now becoming clear. The French and many others, Canada included have not. We are meeting the enemy, on their ground, keeping them away from here whenever possible. I think most of us recognize it will not be 1000% effective, but better than the non-response of the past.

The French lost so many because they could not defend themselves, because they would not be honest with their own people or the world about where they were militarily. The fight was there and to liberate meant they were where the bombs were going to fall first.

 

[5stringJeff]

One of France's biggest screwups of all times was the Maginot Line, which was basically a wall on the French-German border that was there to repel a German invasion. The Germans skipped that by going through Belgium - exactly what they had tried in WWI. The French are really guilty of only planning for one type of war. Of course, there was not much resistance in the face of the third German invasion in 70 years.

 

[MrMarbles]

Actually the US wasn't in a much better place than either Britain or France. FDR would have become even more involved in the European phase, IF he could have gotten the support of the people, truth was, the Americans too were disillusioned after Versailles, perhaps even moreso the the Europeans.


The US was in a bad place, depression and all, but it failed in comparison the France. During WW1 German occupied France was basically uprooted on taken back to Germany, what was left would be destroyed. North western France was also it's industrial heartland, something not easily replaced.

And to say Canada has failed to learn from her mistakes, by not entering the current war is also wrong. We have stood beside America on the war on terroe, but we cannot justify the invasion of Iraq. There is no real evidence to link Osama bin-Laden to Hussein, in fact Al-Queda has fought against the former dictator. There was no real evidence of WMD's.

Canada is a peace loving nation. One that looks to solve it's problems through other meanes then war. How could we support something that the United Nations can't even gicve it's seal of approval on.

 

[MrMarbles]

Sorry, I get to rambaling off topic, back to France!

 

[insein]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
[The US was in a bad place, depression and all, but it failed in comparison the France. During WW1 German occupied France was basically uprooted on taken back to Germany, what was left would be destroyed. North western France was also it's industrial heartland, something not easily replaced.

And to say Canada has failed to learn from her mistakes, by not entering the current war is also wrong. We have stood beside America on the war on terroe, but we cannot justify the invasion of Iraq. There is no real evidence to link Osama bin-Laden to Hussein, in fact Al-Queda has fought against the former dictator. There was no real evidence of WMD's.

Canada is a peace loving nation. One that looks to solve it's problems through other meanes then war. How could we support something that the United Nations can't even gicve it's seal of approval on.

Have some evidence on me.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...17/141224.shtml
WMD's in Syria. Terrorist Plot to kill 80,000 foiled.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
Debka announces before the war began that weapons were being shipped to Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
Al Queda training camps in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,779359,00.html
Liberal Newspaper concurs.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast.../jordan.terror/
Terrorists from Syria received training in IRaq.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml
And some new information that has just recently come to light that shows a DIRECT LINK with Saddam and Al Queda on 9/11.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
Reiterated in the Wall Street Journal.

Plus are you really putting your faith into the UN at this point?

 

[Annie]

by MrMarples

And to say Canada has failed to learn from her mistakes, by not entering the current war is also wrong. We have stood beside America on the war on terroe, but we cannot justify the invasion of Iraq.

Some of us think Canada is going the tiger route, hoping to be the last eaten:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100755,00.html

 

[etoile]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Actually the US wasn't in a much better place than either Britain or France. FDR would have become even more involved in the European phase, IF he could have gotten the support of the people, truth was, the Americans too were disillusioned after Versailles, perhaps even moreso the the Europeans.


The US was in a bad place, depression and all, but it failed in comparison the France. During WW1 German occupied France was basically uprooted on taken back to Germany, what was left would be destroyed. North western France was also it's industrial heartland, something not easily replaced.

And to say Canada has failed to learn from her mistakes, by not entering the current war is also wrong. We have stood beside America on the war on terroe, but we cannot justify the invasion of Iraq. There is no real evidence to link Osama bin-Laden to Hussein, in fact Al-Queda has fought against the former dictator. There was no real evidence of WMD's.

Canada is a peace loving nation. One that looks to solve it's problems through other meanes then war. How could we support something that the United Nations can't even gicve it's seal of approval on.

I admire your partriotism. However, Canada did not "stand by" the US. Canada never demonstrated any involvement or willingness to help; and there may be things you don't know about, concerning links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
As for how justifiable the Iraq war is, it's too late to speculte on that; the deed is done, and it's not as bad as the media would have you believe. Though most reports on Iraq are associated with terror, kidnapping, execution, and skirmishes between Americans and locals, the situation in Iraq is pretty much like that in Afghanistan, except that less time has passed. Schools, hospitals, and other facilities are being rebuilt, Iraqi press is established, etc.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by etoile
I admire your partriotism. However, Canada did not "stand by" the US. Canada never demonstrated any involvement or willingness to help; and there may be things you don't know about, concerning links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
As for how justifiable the Iraq war is, it's too late to speculte on that; the deed is done, and it's not as bad as the media would have you believe. Though most reports on Iraq are associated with terror, kidnapping, execution, and skirmishes between Americans and locals, the situation in Iraq is pretty much like that in Afghanistan, except that less time has passed. Schools, hospitals, and other facilities are being rebuilt, Iraqi press is established, etc.

Well all due respect. that balogna. We were there for you on September 11th, we housed your stranded travellers. We beefed up our security to ensure US borders were safer within North America. We joined you in Afghanistan and are still there because we saw the clear and present danger. We Canadians were aghast are the acts of terrorism against your country. What more do we have to do to be a valued ally and instead of having "never demonstrated any involvement or willingness to help".

Let it be clear. Canada will stand as a friend by the USA as we have done for over a century, however we will not be coerced into something of which still begs a burden of truth. We are an independent nation and your ally, but we are not a dominion and we will fight a war we do not feel is justified.

 

[insein]

I see mr. Marbles is known as the "Oh shit! evidence!" Troll.

Whenever this species of troll is confronted with solid evidence refuting an assinine statement it has made, they spontaneously blurt out "Oh shit" while sitting alone in their cave. They then proceed to go on to other threads acting as if the one where they have been refuted never existed.

A common troll species seen on the internet. Only dwarfed in comparison to the "I'm Right no Matter what, Asshole!" Troll.