Al-Qaida joins Algerians against France

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Goomba
France didn't 'step up'.  It was invaded...and crushed.  I don't recall that France responded in any proactive way to stop Hitler, prior to the Wermacht rolling over the border.

They put themselves in the firing line by declaring war on September 3rd 1939 after diplomacy had failed. Why didn't the US do then same? Why didn't the US add its weight to the diplomatic efforts prior to that date?

Everybody had huge business interests in Germany, which were still in place as Fascism rather quickly took control of German politics.  Then as today, Germany was a major economic player in Europe, and around the world.  Trying to make some implication of financial self-interst is just cheap, as well as inaccurate.

Right, such an implication makes about as much sense as claiming that French objections to the US invasion of Iraq were based on a desire to protect oil for food revenues, but I don't see you refuting those ridiculous suggestions.

I'll reiterate the thinking of the time, to try and expand your horizons; Why should the US get involved in another European War?

Because a Nazi-dominated Europe would have been hugely contrary to US strategic interests. Do you think you could have defeated Japan if the Nazi's had secured land and sea communications to the Indian ocean and kept Japan supplied with swedish iron ore, romanian and caspian sea oil and potentially even manpower?

How quickly some forget.

Indeed.

Post-Dunkirk, Over 50 French ships and crews continued to fight with the Royal Navy.
The French Central African Colonies re-joined the allies in 1940, as did the French Pacific colonies.
The 1st Free French Brigade played a notable role against the Afrika Corps at the Battle of Bir Hakeim.
The French 19th Corps fought alongside US and British Commonwealth troops in the Tunisian campaign.
French troops played a vital role securing the middle-east in Syria and Lebanon.
French air units fought on the african and eastern fronts.
100,000 French Troops fought for the allies in the Italian campaign.
By the end of 1944 the Free French had over a million men in the european theatre.

You appear to have forgotten this French contribution by labelling them as "crushed" in summer 1940.

[Goomba]

Angus...

I know Iceland participated, and sacrificed, just like almost everybody in the Free World.  I was trying to make a point about glass houses, or some-such.  And my respects to your family and the sacrifice they made.  I've no doubt they were brave men, all.  It'd be nice if some others could remember to do the same for mine.

I restate that, yes,  there was a great deal of socio-political resistance in the US at the time, and I know several keys acts barely made it through congress.  Again...Isolationism and no visible reason to enter another European war.  Hindsight only works AFTER the fact.  Hitler was NOT the recognized monster we know today...just a failed paper-hanger who won a freak vote in a defeated nation.  Ahmedinejad, anyone?  Anybody really hear of that guy until he 'won' an 'election'?

Payment for equipment?  Yup...stuff aint free, and this country was still flat-footed from the Great Depression.  I have no problem with this.

Technology-sharing.  So what?  You even acknowledge it was a good thing.  Both sides shared.

Not trying to make any personal attack, Angus...However trendy it may be right now, I get tired of the America bashing at every turn.  To try and make out that the US committment and enormous sacrifice and contribution to successfully defending the free world in WW2 is not only ludicrous, it's patently insulting.

[Goomba]

Originally posted by straffo
You've a bad memory : Sarre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

You are correct.  I was unfamiliar with the Sarre operation.  Let me excerpt some quotes from your reference link;

****************************

The French attack on Saarland was a French sortie into the Saarland in the early stages of World War II....However, the assault was stopped and the French forces withdrew.

A French offensive in the Rhine river valley area (Saar Offensive) started on September 7, four days after France declared war on Germany. Then, the Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, and the French soldiers [/i] enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage [/i] in their border with Germany. [/i] However, the French did not take any action that was able to assist the Poles. [/i]

However, the half-hearted offensive was halted after France seized the Warndt Forest, three square miles of heavily-mined German territory.

The attack did not result in even one German soldier from Poland returning to the west.

All the necessary forces were mobilised in the first week of September. On September 12, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately. By then the French divisions have advanced approximately eight kilometres into Germany on a 24 kilometres long strip of the frontier in the Saarland area. Maurice Gamelin ordered his troops to stop not closer than 1 kilometre from the German positions along the Siegfried Line. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed marshal Edward Rydz-Œmig³y that half of his divisions are in contact with the enemy, and that French advances have forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The following day the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland General Louis Faury informed the Polish chief of staff, general Wac³aw Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to September 20. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line.

The Phony war started.

******************************************

I can't help but think that this was not the best way to make your point, considering the facts noted above.

[Angus]

Hehe, my wife is from Saarbrucken.
It was a viking operation, - go abroad and snatch the best lasses from the foreigners
(That's what she allows me to think )

Anyway, point remains that the US failed to recognize the potential danger of Hitler, just like France has lagged a bit in the "harmony" in the fight against terrorism.
And yet...
They did stop some action in Paris a couple of years ago. Out of memory, so I do not remember the year, but I belive arrests of terrorists before the act were made. So, France was being targeted back then.

[Goomba]

Momus,

Of course France tried to fight for herself, with whatever was left after the defeat and surrender of French forces, the Occupation, sympathizers and the Vichy (sp?) Government.  Without doubt, many brave and capable French soldiers gave their all for their country.

However you, sir, seem to think that there can be no failure on the part of the French, and that all things American are to be spat upon.

Your comments and reactions are deliberately insulting, and then you get pompous and self-righteous.  In fact, if someone then responds with..."you're right, America stinks, we should be ashamed of ourselves',... you STILL keep it up.

To your questions:

1)  Why should we have?  In 1939, this was still a European war, in a long bloody line of similar ones for hundreds of years, and Hitler was a nobody making a big noise.  Why not more participation in diplomacy?  I'll remind you that the US was NOT a superpower in 1938-39.  We were, in fact, still reeling from the Great Depression, and were viewed around the world as a second-rate country anyway.  American then and now are NOT the same thing.

2)  We're not discussing 'oil for food' revenues.  Try to stay on track.

3)  Hindsight, again.  There was no reason to believe Nazi Germany would ever be able to dominate Europe.  Hitler was building a war machine in secret, and using every subterfuge, misdirection and lie at his disposal to cover his real intentions.  Looks very different reading it from a textbook than living it through.  This country was flat broke, hurting from WW1, and no immediate threat was evident.  We also has our own political landscape to consider.  Very, very easy to sit in your armchair and pronounce the flawless thinking that comes when everything's already over and done with.

Lastly, I refer to my opening statement.  Yes, elements of the French forces and people continued to fight back throughout the war.  No question about it.  However, I feel confident in using the word 'crushed' to accurately describe what initially happened when the French military and the Wermacht met on the field of battle.

Far more intelligent, erudite and experienced historians have used the word frequently in the past, so I'll simply claim precedent.  I'm probably not out on a limb here.

[Goomba]

Angus,

Perhaps you would agree that;

A)  Everybody failed to recognize the threat Hitler really posed.  Appeasement was rife in all the 'diplomacy'.  The closer the Nazis were to moving into your back yard, the more seriously they were taken.  No one took them seriously enough until they moved on Poland, and by then it was on.  Germany represented no immediate threat to the US, and there was a great deal of 'wait and see' as a result of the last war, and the horrible economics of the day.  As the fullness of the Nazi threat became clearer, that attitude changed and I defy anyone to question the scope and magnitude of the US committment to success in both the Europe AND Pacific wars.

B)  In 1938, the United States was a bit player on the world stage with a weak, poorly-equipped and trained military, flat broke and little respected.

MY point to your point is...So what?  Who would've listened anyway?  What would we have done, when our troops were training with wooden guns and our air forces were flying the Peashooter?  The first years of American involvement in WW2 were brutal on the men in the field until research, design and industrial output could catch up to needs.l

For the umpteenth time...hindsight is not a basis for criticism.


NOW...as for that viking operation to go steal they other guy's best girls....let's start planning  

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Goomba
However you, sir, seem to think that there can be no failure on the part of the French, and that all things American are to be spat upon.

Your comments and reactions are deliberately insulting, and then you get pompous and self-righteous.  In fact, if someone then responds with..."you're right, America stinks, we should be ashamed of ourselves',... you STILL keep it up.

If you get personally insulted by political debate then you need to grow a thicker skin, stay off the internet or failing that take a nice walk on the beach. That said, nice ad-hominem/straw man of your own there.

1)  Why should we have?  In 1939, this was still a European war, in a long bloody line of similar ones for hundreds of years, and Hitler was a nobody making a big noise.  Why not more participation in diplomacy?  I'll remind you that the US was NOT a superpower in 1938-39.  We were, in fact, still reeling from the Great Depression, and were viewed around the world as a second-rate country anyway.  American then and now are NOT the same thing.

The war in 1939 was a continuation of the previous 1914-1918 war in which the US was a member of the victorious side and one of the supposed guarantors of the subsequent peace. That alone should make a case for at least a diplomatic role, if not a military one.

As for the US's superpower status, America largely had naval parity with Britain ever since the 1920's and was still the world's premier industrial power notwithstanding the effects of the great depression, which also had an impact on the european powers as well. I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that the US was somehow a second rate country in the 1930's. The US owned massive swathes of german industry; a fact that could have translated to diplomatic influence with the right political will.

Hindsight, again.  There was no reason to believe Nazi Germany would ever be able to dominate Europe.  Hitler was building a war machine in secret, and using every subterfuge, misdirection and lie at his disposal to cover his real intentions.  Looks very different reading it from a textbook than living it through.  This country was flat broke, hurting from WW1, and no immediate threat was evident.  We also has our own political landscape to consider.  Very, very easy to sit in your armchair and pronounce the flawless thinking that comes when everything's already over and done with.

Your entire argument could equally apply to the european side. All the criticisms made of France and Britain from that era are made with the benefit of hindsite as well, so why are you so happy to give yourself a pass that you'd deny to anyone else?

Lastly, I refer to my opening statement.  Yes, elements of the French forces and people continued to fight back throughout the war.  No question about it.  However, I feel confident in using the word 'crushed' to accurately describe what initially happened when the French military and the Wermacht met on the field of battle.

They still recognized the threat and reacted to it before the US did, then fought on where they could for another few years which was the original point I made. Not a particularly contentious fact by itself, unless one is apt to minimise the French role while pumping up one's own...

[Squire]

I will start by saying I think these 20/20 hindsight nationalistic bashings about WW2 serve nothing to further an understanding on the subject.

That being said,

Some fair points on all sides, I will agree that The US was not in any military alliance with either France or Britain in 1939, and were under no obligation to enter the war with Germany. I will also point out that the USA did sell military items to both France and Britain, and did not sell any arms to Germany.

France did what it thought best for its people, hardly a surprise. As for the defeat in 1940, I will say that France had the misfortune of being next to Germany, the same fate shared by Poland. Neither Britain, the USA, or Canada, for that matter, could have withstood a Blitzkrieg. We forget the ocean barrier that France did not have the luxury of having. I think we tend to be a bit too smug about 1940, sitting as we were with a lot of ocean between us and Germany.

Of course the French did fight bravely, if poorly led by its nations high command, even after the fall, and continued on in the Free French forces.

WW2 is too romanticized, imho, and too many of the posts I see further that aim.

"For the umpteenth time...hindsight is not a basis for criticism." Agree, and I like that sentiment.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Goomba
I can't help but think that this was not the best way to make your point, considering the facts noted above.

So a fact is not a fact ?

Your sentence was quite simple
Your sentence was quite wrong


Why do you digress ?

[Angus]

Errr.Goomba:
"A) Everybody failed to recognize the threat Hitler really posed. Appeasement was rife in all the 'diplomacy'. The closer the Nazis were to moving into your back yard, the more seriously they were taken. No one took them seriously enough until they moved on Poland, and by then it was on. Germany represented no immediate threat to the US, and there was a great deal of 'wait and see' as a result of the last war, and the horrible economics of the day. As the fullness of the Nazi threat became clearer, that attitude changed and I defy anyone to question the scope and magnitude of the US committment to success in both the Europe AND Pacific wars."

There was concern about Hitler stepping up to the start of WW2.
Churchill was one of those.
Poland was the red line, and those who were serious were Britain and France.
Wait and see was the word for the US, and there were strong voices in Germany's favour abroad that time.
The only step the US took after the lend-lease was taking over Iceland, - so they extended their perimeter. The first proper contact between Germany and the US occured in the N-Atlantic where a US destroyer was torpedoed. That was 1941, but before Pearl Harbour.
As to manifest how lulling the US were, they were totally unprepared for the naval warfare so at the entry, - into 1942, the German subs had a party while sinking US ships.
That is close to 3 years from Britain and France recognizing Hitler as a threat.

Then here:
"B) In 1938, the United States was a bit player on the world stage with a weak, poorly-equipped and trained military, flat broke and little respected."

Yet, playing boss on the Japs and by no means bankrupt compared to the French and British. After all, as well, the US is a much bigger nation than the other put together. FYI, Britain was about bankrupt and running on food rationing before the fulfillment of the lend-lease.

As for the Scope of commitment - well, when the US gets rolling it's unstoppable
That meant in the positive way. When the US gets serious it's serious. But it took them one heck of a time to figure it's enemies at the time.
Give France it's chance, - if France gets really serious dealing with Muslim extremists, it's one heck of an ally.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Squire
I will also point out that the USA did sell military items to both France and Britain, and did not sell any arms to Germany.

This is not strictly true. US corporations such as General Motors, Ford, General Electric, Standard Oil and Dupont Chemicals played a significant role in re-equipping the German military during the 1930s.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
When did "the French" become Allied with the US in the "War on Terror"?   After the gravytrain of "Oil for Food Kickbacks" ceased?

Since they've had soldiers in Afghanistan.

3 French soldiers killed by car bomb





ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Goomba
Not quite, I'm afraid.  Hitler's threat was certainly recognized, more so as it grew.  However, America was fervently isolationist after what happened in the last European war we got involved in, and the horrific suffering it brought.  Where was Iceland again?  Come on,  Angus...not precisely a fair statement, really...

 

1)  France didn't 'step up'.  It was invaded...and crushed.  I don't recall that France responded in any proactive way to stop Hitler, prior to the Wermacht rolling over the border.

It declared along with England after Nazi Germany invaded Poland.  During the period of the "Phony War" it did enaged in offensive operations against Nazi Germany, though most of these were small cross border air raids but France at one point did send troops across the border.  France's fall had nothing to do with those that fought in her army but rather inept planning and organization by both the French and BEF commands.  

3)  I'll reiterate the thinking of the time, to try and expand your horizons;  Why should the US get involved in another European War?  The globalized economy of today was not the same back then, more than enough blood had been spilled the last time Europe had gone up in flames (which had only been 20 years prior), and no one in the US saw much need to get involved in another conflagration.  It's not like Europe hadn't been at war, one way ot another, for hundreds of years already.[/b]

It also helped that quite a few prominent Americans like Charles Lindberg admired and openly praised Hitler.  

ack-ack

[Excel1]

A) Everybody failed to recognize the threat Hitler really posed. Appeasement was rife in all the 'diplomacy'. The closer the Nazis were to moving into your back yard, the more seriously they were taken. No one took them seriously enough until they moved on Poland, and by then it was on.

That's a sweeping generalization.

New Zealand vigorously opposed the policy of appeasement in Europe and the Far East during the 1930s. We suffered the highest military casualty rate per capita of any country involved in WW1, so there was a strong desire to avoid a second conflict.  Our close relationship with Britain ensured that if war broke out again NZ would stand with Britain even though Chamberlain had made it clear in 1938 we were under no obligation to do so. As far as diplomacy goes, NZs position was that the league of nations should do its job and enforce military and economic penalties on the trouble makers i.e. Germany and Japan to bring them to heel.



But in hindsight we know the lon was as dysfunctional and toothless as its bastard offspring the un is today..check Iran for the latest example.

[Goomba]

Originally posted by Squire
I will start by saying I think these 20/20 hindsight nationalistic bashings about WW2 serve nothing to further an understanding on the subject.

 

Truest thing posted yet.  My own fault for letting myself get drawn in.

The fact is, none of us...none...comes from a country with clean hands and flawless righteousness in our cause.  We can sling mud and opinion all we like...doesn't matter.  None of us were there.

All...I'm done with this one.