The FRENCH contribution

[Yukon]

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.

 

[Luissa]

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.

and from the research I have done due to another thread, some of them were my ancestors!

 

[Yukon]

Luissa,

You should be proud my son.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Has anyone ever denied that the French were helpful two hundred-plus years ago, or in any way indicated that they needed a Canadian drooler to explain US history to them? No. I believe the reason that we all sneer at the French in general and their military in particular is that one has to go back over two hundred years in history to find a time when they were worth the powder to blow them up with.

On the other hand, I'm happy to know that your Remedial History class has gotten all the way up to the 18th century. Perhaps one day you'll join us here in the 21st.

 

[elvis]

the tide of the revolutionary war had turned BEFORE the French blocked chesapeake bay.

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[elvis]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

It's an interesting point. We carry on as if countries were "good" or "bad" all the time. Truth is they're not. Take Britain. We look on it now as the mother of democracies. Pshaw I say! Britain was, at times, a brutal, imperialist power. The same goes for just about any technologically advanced western nation. Even Australia, a small to middling regional power, has a history of neo-colonialism in its region as well as the very familiar history of European occupation. Truth is any country can act like a thorough bastard at any or several times in its history.

 

[mightypeon]

Ehhm, what about WW1? And its not as if the french rolled over and died in their later colonial wars either.
As a German, I can totally ensure you that WW2 was one of the very very few times the Armies of France got crushed. And mind you, they werent the only ones.

For the record, I kinda doubt the US Army of 1939 would have fared much better against the Wehrmacht if 2 small neutral countries would have been all that seperated them from Germany.


Tactical innovation shaping history were something that happened several times, from the first Tribes discovering that bashing people heads is easier with metal clubs.
To when the Greeks got the idea of Phalanxes, it certainly meant a lot of pain for the Persians, and that was not because the Greek were 300-esque Superhumans. Their Phalanxes didnt do them much good when the Roman Legion, with their concept of verstatile, well supported troops payed them a visit. Btw. these Roman legions struggled a lot of Assymetric warfare by the Germanians and to an extent the Parthians.
A bit later, the Mongols got the glorious ideas to fire bows while riding Horses in an organized fashion, and promptly conquered a territory bigger that the Soviet Union. On Horseback.
While Spains military wasnt that special, it was certainly enough to play hardball a bunch of American tribes not used to Ironmaking.
On the aspect of Ironmaking, Great Britain got the funny idea that standartizing cannons is awesome, given them a 50 years in naval warfare which made Brittania rule the waves until the second world war.

That a certain German general got the totally rational idea that tanks work better if used in masse and supported by Dive Bombers was simply another case of one tribe of stone age men discovering metal clubs and beating the shit out of the tribe that didnt have them yet. The only difference is that more people died and it was a fair bit more recent.

Something like this happened to a lot of nations in history, and it will continue to happen.
Although I really doubt that a nation can be defeated by people diving planes into buildings.

 

[mightypeon]

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.

No offense, but France was not defeated in WW1.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Being a bit self-indulgent here but I don't hold that point of view. I think I'm consistent in stating that it made no sense at all for the US to join either version 1 or version 2 of WW until the interests of the US were threatened. Any country should completely disavow sentimentality as a guide for its foreign policy and no country should feel defensive about it.

France is probably not in Iraq because being in Iraq doesn't serve its national interests.

France is, however, in Afghanistan, no doubt due to its national interests being served by joining the struggle there.

 

[elvis]

Ehhm, what about WW1? And its not as if the french rolled over and died in their later colonial wars either.
As a German, I can totally ensure you that WW2 was one of the very very few times the Armies of France got crushed. And mind you, they werent the only ones.

For the record, I kinda doubt the US Army of 1939 would have fared much better against the Wehrmacht if 2 small neutral countries would have been all that seperated them from Germany.


Tactical innovation shaping history were something that happened several times, from the first Tribes discovering that bashing people heads is easier with metal clubs.
To when the Greeks got the idea of Phalanxes, it certainly meant a lot of pain for the Persians, and that was not because the Greek were 300-esque Superhumans. Their Phalanxes didnt do them much good when the Roman Legion, with their concept of verstatile, well supported troops payed them a visit. Btw. these Roman legions struggled a lot of Assymetric warfare by the Germanians and to an extent the Parthians.
A bit later, the Mongols got the glorious ideas to fire bows while riding Horses in an organized fashion, and promptly conquered a territory bigger that the Soviet Union. On Horseback.
While Spains military wasnt that special, it was certainly enough to play hardball a bunch of American tribes not used to Ironmaking.
On the aspect of Ironmaking, Great Britain got the funny idea that standartizing cannons is awesome, given them a 50 years in naval warfare which made Brittania rule the waves until the second world war.

That a certain German general got the totally rational idea that tanks work better if used in masse and supported by Dive Bombers was simply another case of one tribe of stone age men discovering metal clubs and beating the shit out of the tribe that didnt have them yet. The only difference is that more people died and it was a fair bit more recent.

Something like this happened to a lot of nations in history, and it will continue to happen.
Although I really doubt that a nation can be defeated by people diving planes into buildings.

The French were not the only army to get crushed IN FRANCE. I believe the Brits retreated across the English Channel, and by some miracle, Hitler didn't slaughter them before they retreated.

 

[elvis]

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.

Being a bit self-indulgent here but I don't hold that point of view. I think I'm consistent in stating that it made no sense at all for the US to join either version 1 or version 2 of WW until the interests of the US were threatened. Any country should completely disavow sentimentality as a guide for its foreign policy and no country should feel defensive about it.

France is probably not in Iraq because being in Iraq doesn't serve its national interests.

France is, however, in Afghanistan, no doubt due to its national interests being served by joining the struggle there.

I think we agree. I don't think Europe was the US's business until Hitler MADE it our business.

 

[mightypeon]

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.

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.

 

[Diuretic]

The French were not the only army to get crushed IN FRANCE. I believe the Brits retreated across the English Channel, and by some miracle, Hitler didn't slaughter them before they retreated.

The BEF - Dunkirk - the armada of little boats and all that. The poor old BEF got well and truly thrashed by the far superior Wehrmacht.

 

[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.

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.

i think we agree also. I just get tired of people criticizing us for not invading Europe earlier.

 

[Diuretic]

i think we agree also. I just get tired of people criticizing us for not invading Europe earlier.

Just tell them they don't know what they're talking about and they can piss off.

 

[tigerbob]

Ehhm, what about WW1? And its not as if the french rolled over and died in their later colonial wars either.
As a German, I can totally ensure you that WW2 was one of the very very few times the Armies of France got crushed. And mind you, they werent the only ones.

For the record, I kinda doubt the US Army of 1939 would have fared much better against the Wehrmacht if 2 small neutral countries would have been all that seperated them from Germany.


Tactical innovation shaping history were something that happened several times, from the first Tribes discovering that bashing people heads is easier with metal clubs.
To when the Greeks got the idea of Phalanxes, it certainly meant a lot of pain for the Persians, and that was not because the Greek were 300-esque Superhumans. Their Phalanxes didnt do them much good when the Roman Legion, with their concept of verstatile, well supported troops payed them a visit. Btw. these Roman legions struggled a lot of Assymetric warfare by the Germanians and to an extent the Parthians.
A bit later, the Mongols got the glorious ideas to fire bows while riding Horses in an organized fashion, and promptly conquered a territory bigger that the Soviet Union. On Horseback.
While Spains military wasnt that special, it was certainly enough to play hardball a bunch of American tribes not used to Ironmaking.
On the aspect of Ironmaking, Great Britain got the funny idea that standartizing cannons is awesome, given them a 50 years in naval warfare which made Brittania rule the waves until the second world war.

That a certain German general got the totally rational idea that tanks work better if used in masse and supported by Dive Bombers was simply another case of one tribe of stone age men discovering metal clubs and beating the shit out of the tribe that didnt have them yet. The only difference is that more people died and it was a fair bit more recent.

Something like this happened to a lot of nations in history, and it will continue to happen.
Although I really doubt that a nation can be defeated by people diving planes into buildings.

The French were not the only army to get crushed IN FRANCE. I believe the Brits retreated across the English Channel, and by some miracle, Hitler didn't slaughter them before they retreated.

Quite correct.

 

[tigerbob]

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.

i think we agree also. I just get tired of people criticizing us for not invading Europe earlier.

Before the US entered the war, it was of vital importance in keeping Britain supplied. Without the help of the USA, Britain would have likely starved long before Dec '41.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

Being a bit self-indulgent here but I don't hold that point of view. I think I'm consistent in stating that it made no sense at all for the US to join either version 1 or version 2 of WW until the interests of the US were threatened. Any country should completely disavow sentimentality as a guide for its foreign policy and no country should feel defensive about it.

France is probably not in Iraq because being in Iraq doesn't serve its national interests.

France is, however, in Afghanistan, no doubt due to its national interests being served by joining the struggle there.

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.