The FRENCH contribution

[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.

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.

I didn't say the Monroe Doctrine had been repudiated, I was thinking outside of the western hemisphere. The Philippines, fair point, but was that ejusdem generis with the former Spanish possessions in the Caribbean? I realise where the Philippines is but I'm thinking that it may have been part of the push to take over those former Spanish territories.

It's difficult to draw firm lines when history is being discussed isn't it?

Now about Wilson. I stand to be educated. But I wonder if, once the US had entered its first world war as opposed to regional or further than regional adventures that circumstances made Wilson an internationalist? I don't know, I'm asking.

As for US interests - didn't I read somewhere about U-boat threats to US shipping in your country's waters? This is during the WWI period.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Yes, it was in conjunction with France. And yes, I'm pretty sure the declaration of war was due to the German invasion of Poland.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Which is also true, the famous Phoney War. I'm not sure, but that might have been because Britain couldn't actually engage in a war at that time.

 

[del]

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.

Which is also true, the famous Phoney War. I'm not sure, but that might have been because Britain couldn't actually engage in a war at that time.

whether or not Britain could conduct a war at that time is debatable; certainly it's true that they were generally unprepared, but i think the main reason was that chamberlain was still PM and desperately wanted to avoid it, as did a majority of the generation that had lived throught the horrors of ww1.

 

[editec]

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.

Editec had it correct but he apparently didn't make his point very clearly

Britian's responsibility was to go to war if FRANCE was attacked.

Since France did nothing Britian was off the hook.

I believe that Britain, as a signature to the Treaty of Versailles, could have taken it upon themselves to enforce the treaty.

No, I don't think so. The trigger was France, as the DMZ (the Rhineland) was created for the benefit of France's defence.

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.

There you go.

Practicality was an issue, becasue as you corrrectly point out Britian could not have done anything without France since the Rhineland is landlocked.

But do bear in mind that Britian couldn't have done anything anyway since their military was hardly in any shape to invade the mainland.

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.

Yup.

There were many times when, had some nation stood up and done the right thing WWII might have been prevented.

But the real crime and root cause of WWII is what was done to Germany at the treaty of Versailles.

Britian and France and Czechoslokia, and Poland (and some other minor players) all screwed Germany.

American were so disgusted with the piggish nature of what was done by Britian and France to Germany that we did not join the League of nations as a result.

THEY stripped Germany of 80% of its iindustrial capacity.

They burdened Germany inappropriately with debts no nation could have paid, and then THEY allowed Hitler to use the righteous anger of the German people over how badly they were treated, to gain power.

And then, just at the moment when France could have EASILY stopped Hitler's rise in power and influence in Gemany? FRNACE allowed him to remilitarize the Rhineland.

There is no other way to say this except that THEY were too hard on Germany post WWI, and then too easy on Hitler's Germany when they should have come down on it like a ton of bricks in 1936.

Who is to blame?

France and England, mostly.

Not only for WWI, but for WWI, too.

Churchill, more than any single human being, probably was more responsible for world wars I and II than any other single person.

Had Churchill not been in the position he was in during the days leading up to World War I, it very likely wouldnever have happened.

None of Europes four monachs wanted that WWI to happen.

 

[elvis]

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.

Which is also true, the famous Phoney War. I'm not sure, but that might have been because Britain couldn't actually engage in a war at that time.

whether or not Britain could conduct a war at that time is debatable; certainly it's true that they were generally unprepared, but i think the main reason was that chamberlain was still PM and desperately wanted to avoid it, as did a majority of the generation that had lived throught the horrors of ww1.

The french should have entered the rheinland in 1936 when the Germans put their army there. they would have crushed the Germans at that point. Hitler's generals thought entering the rheinland was insane. Hitler fired them for their opinions.

 

[del]

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.

Editec had it correct but he apparently didn't make his point very clearly

Britian's responsibility was to go to war if FRANCE was attacked.

Since France did nothing Britian was off the hook.



No, I don't think so. The trigger was France, as the DMZ (the Rhineland) was created for the benefit of France's defence.

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.

There you go.

Practicality was an issue, becasue as you corrrectly point out Britian could not have done anything without France since the Rhineland is landlocked.

But do bear in mind that Britian couldn't have done anything anyway since their military was hardly in any shape to invade the mainland.

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.

Yup.

There were many times when, had some nation stood up and done the right thing WWII might have been prevented.

But the real crime and root cause of WWII is what was done to Germany at the treaty of Versailles.

Britian and France and Czechoslokia, and Poland (and some other minor players) all screwed Germany.

American were so disgusted with the piggish nature of what was done by Britian and France to Germany that we did not join the League of nations as a result.

THEY stripped Germany of 80% of its iindustrial capacity.

They burdened Germany inappropriately with debts no nation could have paid, and then THEY allowed Hitler to use the righteous anger of the German people over how badly they were treated, to gain power.

And then, just at the moment when France could have EASILY stopped Hitler's rise in power and influence in Gemany? FRNACE allowed him to remilitarize the Rhineland.

There is no other way to say this except that THEY were too hard on Germany post WWI, and then too easy on Hitler's Germany when they should have come down on it like a ton of bricks in 1936.

Who is to blame?

France and England, mostly.

Not only for WWI, but for WWI, too.

Churchill, more than any single human being, probably was more responsible for world wars I and II than any other single person.

Had Churchill not been in the position he was in during the days leading up to World War I, it very likely wouldnever have happened.

None of Europes four monachs wanted that WWI to happen.

what a load of bollocks. please tell me how churchill precipitated ww1? did he negotiate the triple entente? was he on a grassy knoll in sarejevo?

please, enlighten me.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

I don't know you, but based on what you write, you wouldn't know TRUTH if it bit you on the ass and then slapped you in the face. So thanks for sparing us whatever drivel you've spent your life collecting. We're better off for not having had it inflicted on us.

 

[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.

Because they are not as fucking stupid as Bush.

And here comes "Old" playing his one string guitar.

Thanks for your enlightening input.

 

[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.

Editec had it correct but he apparently didn't make his point very clearly

Britian's responsibility was to go to war if FRANCE was attacked.

Since France did nothing Britian was off the hook.



No, I don't think so. The trigger was France, as the DMZ (the Rhineland) was created for the benefit of France's defence.

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.

There you go.

Practicality was an issue, becasue as you corrrectly point out Britian could not have done anything without France since the Rhineland is landlocked.

But do bear in mind that Britian couldn't have done anything anyway since their military was hardly in any shape to invade the mainland.

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.

Yup.

There were many times when, had some nation stood up and done the right thing WWII might have been prevented.

But the real crime and root cause of WWII is what was done to Germany at the treaty of Versailles.

Britian and France and Czechoslokia, and Poland (and some other minor players) all screwed Germany.

American were so disgusted with the piggish nature of what was done by Britian and France to Germany that we did not join the League of nations as a result.

THEY stripped Germany of 80% of its iindustrial capacity.

They burdened Germany inappropriately with debts no nation could have paid, and then THEY allowed Hitler to use the righteous anger of the German people over how badly they were treated, to gain power.

And then, just at the moment when France could have EASILY stopped Hitler's rise in power and influence in Gemany? FRNACE allowed him to remilitarize the Rhineland.

There is no other way to say this except that THEY were too hard on Germany post WWI, and then too easy on Hitler's Germany when they should have come down on it like a ton of bricks in 1936.

Who is to blame?

France and England, mostly.

Not only for WWI, but for WWI, too.

Churchill, more than any single human being, probably was more responsible for world wars I and II than any other single person.

Had Churchill not been in the position he was in during the days leading up to World War I, it very likely wouldnever have happened.

None of Europes four monachs wanted that WWI to happen.

I agree that Britain was not in shape to do much about anything in the pre-WWII era. And some would argue not even in the first two years of the war.

I agree that Germany's harsh treatment sowed the seeds of WWII, that's fairly accepted wisdom at this point I think. As well as the fact that France could have and should have crushed Hitler during his "re-militarization" of the Rhineland. As a side point on that, I just finished re-reading the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and Hitler only sent a battalion into the Rhineland. They had orders to run like hell if there was the least bit of opposition.

What I haven't been able to find is support for you contention concerning Churchill. I'm not a particular Churchill lover, but it does run counter to tradition wisdom and I haven't found anything too interesting about his stint as First Lord of the Admiralty prior to WWI. Since this thread is about France, maybe you can start that as another thread.

 

[tigerbob]

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.

Editec had it correct but he apparently didn't make his point very clearly

Britian's responsibility was to go to war if FRANCE was attacked.

Since France did nothing Britian was off the hook.



No, I don't think so. The trigger was France, as the DMZ (the Rhineland) was created for the benefit of France's defence.



There you go.

Practicality was an issue, becasue as you corrrectly point out Britian could not have done anything without France since the Rhineland is landlocked.

But do bear in mind that Britian couldn't have done anything anyway since their military was hardly in any shape to invade the mainland.

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.

Yup.

There were many times when, had some nation stood up and done the right thing WWII might have been prevented.

But the real crime and root cause of WWII is what was done to Germany at the treaty of Versailles.

Britian and France and Czechoslokia, and Poland (and some other minor players) all screwed Germany.

American were so disgusted with the piggish nature of what was done by Britian and France to Germany that we did not join the League of nations as a result.

THEY stripped Germany of 80% of its iindustrial capacity.

They burdened Germany inappropriately with debts no nation could have paid, and then THEY allowed Hitler to use the righteous anger of the German people over how badly they were treated, to gain power.

And then, just at the moment when France could have EASILY stopped Hitler's rise in power and influence in Gemany? FRNACE allowed him to remilitarize the Rhineland.

There is no other way to say this except that THEY were too hard on Germany post WWI, and then too easy on Hitler's Germany when they should have come down on it like a ton of bricks in 1936.

Who is to blame?

France and England, mostly.

Not only for WWI, but for WWI, too.

Churchill, more than any single human being, probably was more responsible for world wars I and II than any other single person.

Had Churchill not been in the position he was in during the days leading up to World War I, it very likely wouldnever have happened.

None of Europes four monachs wanted that WWI to happen.

what a load of bollocks. please tell me how churchill precipitated ww1? did he negotiate the triple entente? was he on a grassy knoll in sarejevo?

please, enlighten me.

I'm pleased someone else asked this before I did, and will be interested to see the answer.

 

[del]

Editec had it correct but he apparently didn't make his point very clearly

Britian's responsibility was to go to war if FRANCE was attacked.

Since France did nothing Britian was off the hook.



No, I don't think so. The trigger was France, as the DMZ (the Rhineland) was created for the benefit of France's defence.



There you go.

Practicality was an issue, becasue as you corrrectly point out Britian could not have done anything without France since the Rhineland is landlocked.

But do bear in mind that Britian couldn't have done anything anyway since their military was hardly in any shape to invade the mainland.



Yup.

There were many times when, had some nation stood up and done the right thing WWII might have been prevented.

But the real crime and root cause of WWII is what was done to Germany at the treaty of Versailles.

Britian and France and Czechoslokia, and Poland (and some other minor players) all screwed Germany.

American were so disgusted with the piggish nature of what was done by Britian and France to Germany that we did not join the League of nations as a result.

THEY stripped Germany of 80% of its iindustrial capacity.

They burdened Germany inappropriately with debts no nation could have paid, and then THEY allowed Hitler to use the righteous anger of the German people over how badly they were treated, to gain power.

And then, just at the moment when France could have EASILY stopped Hitler's rise in power and influence in Gemany? FRNACE allowed him to remilitarize the Rhineland.

There is no other way to say this except that THEY were too hard on Germany post WWI, and then too easy on Hitler's Germany when they should have come down on it like a ton of bricks in 1936.

Who is to blame?

France and England, mostly.

Not only for WWI, but for WWI, too.

Churchill, more than any single human being, probably was more responsible for world wars I and II than any other single person.

Had Churchill not been in the position he was in during the days leading up to World War I, it very likely wouldnever have happened.

None of Europes four monachs wanted that WWI to happen.

what a load of bollocks. please tell me how churchill precipitated ww1? did he negotiate the triple entente? was he on a grassy knoll in sarejevo?

please, enlighten me.

I'm pleased someone else asked this before I did, and will be interested to see the answer.

i think people mistake his willingness to prosecute a war to the fullest extent possible for being a warmonger. i disagree with that assessment. i recently read carlo d'este's bio of churchill and would recommend it highly. i am, admittedly, an admirer of churchill, but not so much that i can't see his flaws.

sorry, don't mean to get so off topic.

 

[Yukon]

I know of one rather large country that stayed neutral well up until the end of 1941. I wonder why....?

 

[mightypeon]

You know, if there is a war in your neighbourhood, there are 3 possibilities:
1) Support one side
2) Support the other side
3) Stay Neutral.

What you choose depends on what the rulers of that country thing, what their interests are like and what the country is capable of militarily.

Interestingly, Machiavelli is in favor of supporting the weaker side, provided that your own contribution is enough to decide who will win. The weaker side will place a much higher emphasis on your help, and can be controlled more easily after the joint victory. The stronger side however will place less emphasis on your help (and therefor reward you less), but supporting them will still take you out of the "victors crossairs". Staying Neutral is usually the worst choice according to Machiavelli, since it has no immidiate advantadge. Here I think Machiavelli was wrong, since he did not take a situation into account were a war brings destruction to both sides.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know of one rather large country that stayed neutral well up until the end of 1941. I wonder why....?

Because you're not the only idiot in the world, sadly, and we had quite a few around at the time.

 

[tigerbob]

I know of one rather large country that stayed neutral well up until the end of 1941. I wonder why....?

Because you're not the only idiot in the world, sadly, and we had quite a few around at the time.

What she said.

 

[BrianH]

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.

To the first....AGREED

To the 2nd.... AGREED---it's good to see you haven't destroyed all basic history.

To the Rest... More recent history suggests the utter defeat of the French military during WWII...... Let's also keep in mind the France would cease to exist had it not been for American, British, and Canadian troops.

If we're talking about us "owing" the French, I think the debt has been paid in full. I'm sure we lost more Americans on French soil than they lost on American soil. I personally don't have any qualms with the French. But let's also keep in mind that the French do not like us either.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You know, if there is a war in your neighbourhood, there are 3 possibilities:
1) Support one side
2) Support the other side
3) Stay Neutral.

What you choose depends on what the rulers of that country thing, what their interests are like and what the country is capable of militarily.

Interestingly, Machiavelli is in favor of supporting the weaker side, provided that your own contribution is enough to decide who will win. The weaker side will place a much higher emphasis on your help, and can be controlled more easily after the joint victory. The stronger side however will place less emphasis on your help (and therefor reward you less), but supporting them will still take you out of the "victors crossairs". Staying Neutral is usually the worst choice according to Machiavelli, since it has no immidiate advantadge. Here I think Machiavelli was wrong, since he did not take a situation into account were a war brings destruction to both sides.

Interesting thoughts. How do you think those concepts played upon Stalin's mind as he sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement?

All that the summer the French and British were trying to get the Soviet Union to agree to an alliance. The Soviets were required the French to represent exactly how many divisions they were prepared to field upon the announcement of a state of war. The French and British, not trusting the Soviets were reluctant to provide such detail. The Soviets wary of being hung out to dry, eventually rebuffed the allies and signed on with the Germans for the next couple of years.

Please analyze through your Machiavellian lens, if you care to.

 

[BrianH]

I know of one rather large country that stayed neutral well up until the end of 1941. I wonder why....?

Artard....

We stayed combatively neutral. Fact is, we sent arms and munitions, as well as food and aid to the allies...NOT GERMANY. Despite whatever you learned in 8th grade history class, this is not considered neutral.

 

[Yukon]

Brian,

Ho wdo you know I refer to the US ? Guilty concience maybe..........