What if America Acted Like the French??

[Diuretic]

Sort of, to surrender, don't you actually have to have put up a fight in the first place?

If you read the history of WWI you'll see that the French fought bravely against the Germans. They lost many men.

They were disgraced by the Vichy Government in WWII. Many brave French people fought the Vichy admininistration and the German occupiers and were imprisoned and murdered by the Germans.

Fair enough they have a shitty President and a shitty Government now but don't dishonour brave men and women who fought for freedom.

 

[Mr. P]

If you read the history of WWI you'll see that the French fought bravely against the Germans. They lost many men.

They were disgraced by the Vichy Government in WWII. Many brave French people fought the Vichy admininistration and the German occupiers and were imprisoned and murdered by the Germans.

Fair enough they have a shitty President and a shitty Government now but don't dishonour brave men and women who fought for freedom.

True, but the France of today is not the France of yesterday. Socialism does have that effect.

 

[Working Man]

Well, the argument against isolationism is that war with Germany and Japan was inevitable and standing off and doing nothing only allowed them to gain strength.

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?

 

[Diuretic]

True, but the France of today is not the France of yesterday. Socialism does have that effect.

That's true, the France of today is definitely not the France of yesterday. I can remember de Gaulle and his attempts to have France dominate Europe, doomed to failure of course, but de Gaulle's fierce nationalism blinded him to reality. But on the point regarding socialism, the current President and Prime Minister (and government) are centre-right, not socialists. But then the form of government - whatever it is - doesn't take away from the character of its people. I mean look at the USSR under the despot Stalin - brave, tough people who fought the Germans to a standstill at immense cost.

 

[Bonnie]

That's true, the France of today is definitely not the France of yesterday. I can remember de Gaulle and his attempts to have France dominate Europe, doomed to failure of course, but de Gaulle's fierce nationalism blinded him to reality. But on the point regarding socialism, the current President and Prime Minister (and government) are centre-right, not socialists. But then the form of government - whatever it is - doesn't take away from the character of its people. I mean look at the USSR under the despot Stalin - brave, tough people who fought the Germans to a standstill at immense cost.

The current leaders in France have only recently been elected, so it remains to be seen just how seriously they take Iran's threats and how cooperative they are going to be.

Yes the Russians were hearty rugged people with much more character and soul than their leader who was unworthy to lead them. The French people are not showing the rest of the world much these days, maybe they will in the near future?

 

[Annie]

That's true, the France of today is definitely not the France of yesterday. I can remember de Gaulle and his attempts to have France dominate Europe, doomed to failure of course, but de Gaulle's fierce nationalism blinded him to reality. But on the point regarding socialism, the current President and Prime Minister (and government) are centre-right, not socialists. But then the form of government - whatever it is - doesn't take away from the character of its people. I mean look at the USSR under the despot Stalin - brave, tough people who fought the Germans to a standstill at immense cost.

Well we'll see how the French make out with their current problems. Lots of links at site:

http://badhairblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/laffaire-clearstream-10-questions-for_02.html

Tuesday, May 02, 2006
L'affaire Clearstream: 10 questions for de Villepin

Following up on Friday's news of the Clearstream investigation of kickbacks in the sale of warships to Taiwan, money-laundering and high-level corruption:
Last week Le Monde reported a senior secret service agent as saying he had been asked to investigate possible links between Sarkozy and Clearstream at the behest of Villepin, who had been acting on Chirac's orders. Specifically

de Villepin is accused of having asked an intelligence agent in 2004 to secretly investigate M Sarkozy for allegedly receiving kickbacks from a £1.5 billion sale of French frigates to Taiwan in 1991.

The scandal has repercussions outside France, since it involves an Executive Vice President of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), and the control of Europe's defense industry.

M&C News summarizes the story (emphasis mine),

The affair began in the summer of 2004, when French magistrates were sent anonymously a letter and CD purporting to show that a number of senior French politicians and top executives in Airbus and the EADS defense group held secret and illegal accounts with the Luxembourg-based bank Clearstream International.

General Philippe Rondot, legendary head of the DGSE intelligence service (akin to the CIA) and Bousquet de Florian, head of the DST secret service (more like the FBI), began to make inquiries about the list, which was soon found to be a forgery.

President Jacques Chirac initially thought this to be an American plot to destabilize France. But Nicolas Sarkozy, current favorite to be Chirac`s replacement as conservative candidate in next year`s presidential election, suspected that it was a plot to disgrace him since his name was prominent on the list of account holders.

Sarkozy, who has filed a civil lawsuit on the matter, also suspects that his arch political rival, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, was playing a murky role. And Sarkozy demanded in a meeting with Villepin and de Florian that his name be publicly cleared.

But the plot thickened as the intelligence services began to hunt 'le corbeau' (the crow), the shadowy person behind the forged CD. Suspicion fell on Prime Minister de Villepin`s close friend, Jean-Louis Gergorin, a top executive at EASDS, which was undergoing its own power struggle that involved the future of Airbus and the French (and wider European) defense industry. Gergorin stoutly denies being 'le corbeau'.

It goes well beyond a Villepin-Sarkozy feud, though,

Last month, the relentless magistrates searched the files of Defense Minister Michaele Alliot-Marie, after also searching the offices of the DGSE and of General Rondot, and of various Airbus and EADS figures. The magistrates are now reported in the French press to be about to search the offices of the prime minister, who is protesting his innocence of the whole affair and demanding a full inquiry.

But the prime minister, who claimed in a public statement Thursday never to have fingered Sarkozy in the matter, is now accused of being somewhat economical with the truth. The newspaper Le Monde published Friday the contents of a note seized by the magistrates from General Rondot`s office, which said of the General`s meeting with the prime minister: 'Enjeu politique: N. Sarkozy. Fixation sur N. Sarkozy (ref. conflit J. Chirac/N. Sarkozy)'. (Political stakes: N. Sarkozy. Fixation on Sarkozy (reflects the conflict between Chirac and Sarkozy.)

Since other leading politicians, including the former Socialist Finance Minister Dominique Strauss-Khan, are equally infuriated to have found their names on the forged Clearstream list, the whole of France`s political class and its media are currently obsessed with the affair. There is much meat for them to chew over, from the identity of le corbeau to the political implications in this bizarre period of the end of the Chirac regime, and for the effect on European relations of what seems to have been a French plot to dominate the Franco-German EADS group [the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company] and control Europe`s defense industry.

Today's front page of Libération poses 10 questions to the Prime Minister (article in French, my translation):

1. Did Jacques Chirac ask you to start the investigation?
2. Why did you become interested in Clearstream?
3. Did you request that Nicolas Sarkozy be investigated?
4. What did Jean-Louis Gergorin [Executive Vice President of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS)] do during the January 9, 2004 meeting?
5. Do you know where the Clearstream file came from?
6. Why didn't you warn Nicolas Sarkozy that he was under investigation?
7. When were you sure that the file was a forgery?
8. Why didn't you inform the justice authorities?
9. Why did you request on July 2004 that DST reinvestigate?
10. Do you know who is 'le corbeau' (the crow)?

For the time being, de Villepin isn't answering anything and claims he is indignant and shocked at the 'libel campaign' targeting him and said he wanted the truth established, a response worthy of Bill and Hillary.

(American readers should note that the French Prime Minister post is appointed by the President, not elected. As such, he can be fired by the French President.)

Correction: I mistranslated question 9, and missed question 5. My apologies for the errors.

Update: More (in French) at the France2 newscast.

(technorati tags Clearstream, France, Politics, Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin, Nicolas Sarkozy, UMP)

posted by Fausta @ 6:21 AM

 

[Diuretic]

The current leaders in France have only recently been elected, so it remains to be seen just how seriously they take Iran's threats and how cooperative they are going to be.

Good point. But France, like any other country, will look after its own interests. Call me a cynic but I see any alliance as an expression of self-interest, the moment the self-interest is threatened or evaporates, alliances change. My country is a sterling example. Up until WWII we were solidly in the British camp, being back then a very, very small population in a huge continent which we couldn't possibly defend. The British during WWII virtually ignored the threat to us, the US didn't. But the US also needed Australia to be free from Japanese occupation so sent us the necessary forces to defend us. Two important campaigns during WWII saved us. The Kokoda Trail campaign (fought by Australians and mainly reservists at that) in New Guinea and the Battle of the Coral Sea, fought by the US Navy. If they'd been lost then Japan would have had a base in the South Pacific and may have well driven out the Allies from that theatre.

I digress.

France will look after her interests. The rest of us will point and jeer and they will ignore us (as they always do). But that doesn't make them unworthy as a people.

Yes the Russians were hearty rugged people with much more character and soul than their leader who was unworthy to lead them. The French people are not showing the rest of the world much these days, maybe they will in the near future?

The Russians though idolised Stalin. "Za Stalina!" "For Stalin!" was their warcry and damn, it worked.

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.

 

[Gunny]

If you read the history of WWI you'll see that the French fought bravely against the Germans. They lost many men.

They were disgraced by the Vichy Government in WWII. Many brave French people fought the Vichy admininistration and the German occupiers and were imprisoned and murdered by the Germans.

Fair enough they have a shitty President and a shitty Government now but don't dishonour brave men and women who fought for freedom.

Yeah, let's just forget their appeasement process for Hitler PRIOR to any fighting. They didn't do any of that until the SS suddenly appeared on their front lawns.

Your "brave" Frenchmen seem to only react when someone shoots missiles up their butts. Until then, it's "let's play ostrich." Kinda' like every Aussie I've ever run into on message boards.

 

[Diuretic]

Yeah, let's just forget their appeasement process for Hitler PRIOR to any fighting. They didn't do any of that until the SS suddenly appeared on their front lawns.

Your "brave" Frenchmen seem to only react when someone shoots missiles up their butts. Until then, it's "let's play ostrich." Kinda' like every Aussie I've ever run into on message boards.

The appeasment isn't forgotten - it's in the history that the Vichy Government embraced fascism, much to its disgrace.

I wish I could return the insult in nationalistic terms to you Gunny but I've never run into as rude an American as you on any forum so I can't make a smearing comment about Americans. Damnit.

So who are you with - 101st Keyboard Warriors?

 

[Gunny]

The appeasment isn't forgotten - it's in the history that the Vichy Government embraced fascism, much to its disgrace.

I wish I could return the insult in nationalistic terms to you Gunny but I've never run into as rude an American as you on any forum so I can't make a smearing comment about Americans. Damnit.

So who are you with - 101st Keyboard Warriors?

The Vichy gov't did not exist while France sat idly by and let Germany take over most of Europe. The legitimate French gov't and what was left of it's Army and the BEF got run off the continent at Dunkirk.

The Vichy gov't was a post-occupation puppet. They were traitors and collaborators, not appeasers.

If it is your desire to talk trash about my Nation, you will find that I fully live up to your expectations.

 

[Diuretic]

The Vichy gov't did not exist while France sat idly by and let Germany take over most of Europe. The legitimate French gov't and what was left of it's Army and the BEF got run off the continent at Dunkirk.

The Vichy gov't was a post-occupation puppet. They were traitors and collaborators, not appeasers.

If it is your desire to talk trash about my Nation, you will find that I fully live up to your expectations.

Oh. Alright then

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

In all fairness, if America's armies had been on Germany's border instead of the French, we would have been steamrollered just as badly, if not worse.

 

[Annie]

In all fairness, if America's armies had been on Germany's border instead of the French, we would have been steamrollered just as badly, if not worse.

Based on what in the late 1930's?

 

[Gunny]

In all fairness, if America's armies had been on Germany's border instead of the French, we would have been steamrollered just as badly, if not worse.

You can look to how long it took Japan to "steamroll" us in the Pacific for the TRUTH. They had to fight for every inch against outmanned, outgunned, US Marines who delayed them long enough for the US to get in gear.

Running over Frenchmen ain't the same as running over people who don't know how to lose.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

In all fairness, if America's armies had been on Germany's border instead of the French, we would have been steamrollered just as badly, if not worse.

Nope, never would have happened. We would have been smart enough to cover the Belgian border as well. Put Marines on that border and the Blitzkrieg would have been repelled.

 

[HopeandGlory]

Up until WWII we were solidly in the British camp, being back then a very, very small population in a huge continent which we couldn't possibly defend. The British during WWII virtually ignored the threat to us, the US didn't. But the US also needed Australia to be free from Japanese occupation so sent us the necessary forces to defend us. .

Just a little perspective here . . . Britain during the first few years of WWII (1939-42) was under terrific pressure, it's own defences run ragged and thin. It's cities were being bombed every night, in the London blitz of 1940 alone, 43,000 civilians were killed. (This figure does not include the casualties from London and other British towns and cities throughout the rest of the war.)

The RAF was stretched to breaking point fighting arguably, the most important battle of the entire war (without the Battle of Britain, there would have been no launching pad (the UK) for the DDay landings . . .)

The Royal Navy was under continual attack from u-boats and trying to maintain the Atlantic ConVoys which supplied the war effort at home and abroad with vital aid from the US.

The British Army was fighting on several fronts - North Africa, the Far East, as well as Europe itself.

Britain was the last bastion of freedom in the whole of Europe and hanging on by the skin of its teeth and the skill of its pilots.

Churchill was constantly frustrated and hindered by the pomposity and ego-centricity of our so-called ally DeGaulle. The UK was well and truly alone during those dark days. Australia, NZ, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth countries rallied as bravely and loyally as ever.

I suspect it wasn't so much a case of Churchill ignoring any threat to Australia, more a case of being too thinly spread geographically and logistically, and unable to do anything other than try to hold-on against the threat of invasion at home!

 

[Diuretic]

All quite true. I wasn't taking a shot at Britain, far from it. It was a case of being up to one's arse in a swamp. Britain was, as you rightly point out, fighting for her survival.

If Britain had lost then Hitler would have taken Europe (from memory of some reading Hitler's initial motivation was economic) and his Axis ally Japan would have taken Asia and the Pacific. The USSR would have maintained its empire. The US would have reached an accommodation with everyone by demanding adherence to the Monroe Doctrine. Africa would have gone to the Axis powers and the Vichy French.

Again you rightly point out that none of this happened, that Britain stopped the Germans in 1940 and the endured the Blitz (but they had practice, after all the Germans bombed London during WWI and still failed).

But it was in that fight for survival that Britain and I think the rest of the Commonwealth, certainly Australia, realised that the old world order was over, regardless of the result.

Australia - and I think the rest of the world - was lucky in that America was an ally. Australia shifted its focus from Mother Britain to Uncle America, that was my point.

Yes you will find Australians who squawk that Britain abandoned us in our of need but I bet those doing the squawking weren't around then (neither was I but that's neither here nor there). I think it is linked with the continuing grumpiness over Gallipoli (another story for another time).

Anyway you quoted Churchill. I always liked the rest of that speech in Canada in 1941, it showed the old bloke had guts when he said, "Some chicken; some neck".

 

[1549]

Based on what in the late 1930's?

Before the 1940 peace time draft, the United States Army was only 175,000 strong.

1940 was also a crucial year in updating and producing military artillery and technology.

Given that the Germans were at the height of their strenght (and still fighting on just one front) during 1940, I would guess that they would have defeated the U.S.

Though we may have put up a better fight than the French.

It is important to realize that in most areas the Germans had better artillery than the allies. We were able to mass produce smaller faster tanks, but the U.S. military cerca 1940 would not have had as many tanks/planes/troops as the Germans.

It is hard to overcome those deficits in the fields of France.

The units of Marines that fought in the Pacific and the units that participated in D-Day were better equipped and larger than they were in May of 1940 when Germany invaded France.

 

[Annie]

Before the 1940 peace time draft, the United States Army was only 175,000 strong.

1940 was also a crucial year in updating and producing military artillery and technology.

Given that the Germans were at the height of their strenght (and still fighting on just one front) during 1940, I would guess that they would have defeated the U.S.

Though we may have put up a better fight than the French.

It is important to realize that in most areas the Germans had better artillery than the allies. We were able to mass produce smaller faster tanks, but the U.S. military cerca 1940 would not have had as many tanks/planes/troops as the Germans.

It is hard to overcome those deficits in the fields of France.

While you were not whom I was addressing, I will say in response to what you posed that in 1940, US was not at war with Germany. The build up had begun, but the citizens were certainly not onboard. They were still in isolationville, due to the Versailles Treaty.

 

[1549]

While you were not whom I was addressing, I will say in response to what you posed that in 1940, US was not at war with Germany. The build up had begun, but the citizens were certainly not onboard. They were still in isolationville, due to the Versailles Treaty.

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