Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto on September 14, 2006, 08:15:39 PM
-
By JOHN LEICESTER and OMAR SINAN, Associated Press Writers
2 hours, 29 minutes ago
PARIS - Al-Qaida has for the first time announced a union with an Algerian insurgent group that has designated France as an enemy, saying they will act together against French and American interests. ADVERTISEMENT
Current and former French officials specializing in terrorism said Thursday that an al-Qaida alliance with the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, known by its French initials GSPC, was cause for concern.
"We take these threats very seriously," Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said, adding in an interview on France-2 television that the threat to France was "high" and "permanent," and that "absolute vigilance" was required.
Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, announced the "blessed union" in a video posted this week on the Internet to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.
France's leader have repeatedly warned that the decision not to join the U.S.-led war in
Iraq would not shield the country from Islamic terrorism. French participation in the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon could give extremists another reason to strike.
The national police had no immediate comment on the announced alliance, but officials have long regarded the GSPC as one of the main terror threats facing France.
French experts agreed, but also noted the group has been severely weakened by internal divisions, security crackdowns and defections in Algeria, a former French territory still working to put down an Islamic insurgency that reached its most murderous heights in the 1990s.
"The GSPC is losing speed and has suffered very significant losses in recent months," said Louis Caprioli, former assistant director of France's DST counterterrorism and counterintelligence agency.
Some GSPC fighters took advantage of a recent Algerian amnesty for Islamic insurgents and others have been killed, said Caprioli, who works for Geos, a risk management firm.
Of the 800 combatants that GSPC was estimated to have had last year, probably no more than 500 remain, and the group has had no operational cells in France since the late 1990s, he said.
But Caprioli and others also said an alliance of GSPC and al-Qaida could increase the terror risk for France — not least because al-Zawahri's designation of the country as a worthy target could inspire extremists to take action.
In his video, Al-Zawahri hailed "the joining up" of the GSPC with al-Qaida as "good news."
"All the praise is due to Allah for the blessed union which we ask Allah to be as a bone in the throats of the Americans and French Crusaders and their allies, and inspire distress, concern and dejection in the hearts of the traitorous, apostate sons of France," he said.
"We ask him (Allah) to guide our brothers in the Salafist Group for Call and Combat to crush the pillars of the Crusader alliance, especially their elderly immoral leader, America."
Although GSPC leaders had previously sworn allegiance to al-Qaida, al-Zawahri's video marked the first al-Qaida recognition of a union between the two, French terror experts said.
"From now on, the links are official, legitimate, and they are taking part in the same combat," said Anne Giudicelli, a former French diplomat specializing in the Middle East who runs the Paris-based consultancy Terrorisc.
Sarkozy said it was "not by chance" that al-Qaida used the emblematic Sept. 11 date to announce the insurgency movement's alliance with al-Qaida.
"But there is nothing new," he added, noting that the GSPC had done the same three years ago.
The GSPC, in its own statement on a Web site used by militants, confirmed the alliance and urged other militant groups to also join al-Qaida.
Giudicelli said the alliance could act as a green light for al-Qaida and GSPC militants to operate together and thus raises the risk for France.
"The Americans have become harder to target domestically, so they are trying to widen the field of action and strike their allies," she said.
___
Omar Sinan is based in Cairo, Egypt. Associated Press writer Verena von Derschau in Paris also contributed to this report.
source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_re_eu/france_al_qaida_video)
This can't be good. Why against France? But then, we arrested 17 here in TO just recently wanting to bomb this city...
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
"The Americans have become harder to target domestically, so they are trying to widen the field of action and strike their allies," she said.
So they hit our Allies, the French?
Did I miss something? :huh
-
Ya can you call them allies? Or acquaintences? Ive lost track.
-
I'm almost afraid to comment on Islam related threads these days, but since self-preservation and common sense aren't my strong suits...
Actually, the GSPC and Al-Qaeda alliance isn't surprising at all given that they both spring from the Muslim Brotherhood and have the same objectives. In fact, in a very real sense Al-Qaeda was the source of the GSPC:
"Fighting Salafism emerged in Europe in the mid-1990s through the armed Algerian groups. The fact that most of these were infiltrated by al-Qa’ida illustrates the gradual convergence between global jihadism and this form of Salafism. The nearest precursor is Algeria’s Armed Islamic Group (GIA), whose European wing—under Khaled Kelkal—carried out several attacks in France in 1995 and 1996. The editor-in-chief of its mouthpiece in Europe, the weekly publication al-Ansar, was Abu Qutada, later to become one of the leading ideologists of fighting Salafism. When the group’s infrastructure came under pressure in France, its cells were divided up among Belgium, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and Spain.
The demise of GIA leader Jamal Zitouni in 1996 caused a split within the group, apparently at the behest of Usama bin Ladin, who was opposed to the campaign of brutal attacks against civilians in Algeria carried out by the GIA under Zitouni. The al-Qa’ida leader gave his support to the creation of the Salafi Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), establishing direct ties with its head Hasan Hattab, who until then was the leader of the GIA network in Europe. In August 1998, Hattab’s followers joined the GSPC, making it not only the main Algerian terrorist group, but also the main group in Europe with al-Qa’ida links, having inherited the GIA networks there."
MIDDLE EAST SALAFISM'S INFLUENCE AND THE RADICALIZATION OF MUSLIM COMMUNITIES IN EUROPE - Juan José Escobar Stemmann, Deputy Head of Mission in the Spanish Embassy in Jordan.
For more on origins, operations, objectives of GSPC see:
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2006/issue3/jv10no3a1.html
and
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2011
-
the next big news flash will be that france has joined alqaida and the algerians against france and the United States. those zany moslems, what will they think of next?
-
When did "the French" become Allied with the US in the "War on Terror"? After the gravytrain of "Oil for Food Kickbacks" ceased?
-
It's nice to see they're getting along.
:huh
-
Has France surrendered yet?
Sorry! No one posted it yet and we can't have a thread about France without saying it.
-
Seagoon is right, the GSPC's forerunner the GIA shares the same roots as Bin Laden's mob although they did previously reject ties with Bin Laden during the '90s to the extent of actually killing Bin Laden's representative when he showed his face in Algeria according to some sources.
That said, I can't see France being very shocked by this supposed development, seeing as they are already in the firing line for being in Afghanistan, and given that they were fighting the GIA twenty years ago back when Reagan and Bush I were still making common cause with Osama and his buddies. They already assist the algerian government in dealing with the islamists and have done for a long time now.
Utter non-story, just Al-Zawahiri looking for publicity.
-
France is our Ally in the war on terror? Who knew........
-
Originally posted by Mightytboy
Has France surrendered yet?
Sorry! No one posted it yet and we can't have a thread about France without saying it.
I imagine they are desperatly looking for someone to surrender to.
-
ALLEZ VOUS FAIRE ENCULER
-
Allow me to translate. It means "Go f*** yourself. In the a***." :D
-
ehehe.....simple and plain :aok
-
Tsss Tsss Straffo, répondre à des ignorants ne changera pas la donne.
There are other ways to fight effectively the terrorists. France prove it before the 11th september 2002 and tried to warn USA of the threat before, and help USA after.
But for some here, all that count is GI Joe. on the field (even the wrong one!).
Others know better.
PS : 1/3 of american citizens don't remember the year of the WTC attack... Wonders wonders.
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
Tsss Tsss Straffo, répondre à des ignorants ne changera pas la donne.
There are other ways to fight effectively the terrorists. France prove it before the 11th september 2002 and tried to warn USA of the threat before, and help USA after.
But for some here, all that count is GI Joe. on the field (even the wrong one!).
Others know better.
PS : 1/3 of american citizens don't remember the year of the WTC attack... Wonders wonders.
What year? 2002 is a wee bit late to do any warning.
-
Well, with the latest happenings as well as the sudden entry of the Pope, things might get a little hot, - also for the French.
11 sep 2001, what a day. I remember exactly what I was doing...
-
Originally posted by straffo
ALLEZ VOUS FAIRE ENCULER
now now, this is very unlike you sir.
:D
-
Isn't this sort of like a white supremicist prison gang joining the KKK against non-white people? Seriously, Al-Qaida is against pretty much anything remotely related to western civilization, and France arguably *defines* western civilization to a great percentage of the world, so... duh of course Al-Qaida is against France.
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
Tsss Tsss Straffo, répondre à des ignorants ne changera pas la donne.
There are other ways to fight effectively the terrorists. France prove it before the 11th september 2002 and tried to warn USA of the threat before, and help USA after.
But for some here, all that count is GI Joe. on the field (even the wrong one!).
Others know better.
PS : 1/3 of american citizens don't remember the year of the WTC attack... Wonders wonders.
Tsss Tsss, Ouaibe...
If France warned the US of the 9/11/2001 attacks sometime in 2002, that would seem just about right...:rolleyes:
"1/3 of american citizens don't remember the year of the WTC attack"...make that 1/3, plus 1 Frenchman. France had better tend her own gardens these days, as radical, murderous extremist Muslims seem to be falling out of the woodwork and into the streets with regularity.
Let's hope France never has to suffer with what happened here....
Angus...I, too, remember what I was doing then. Watching it with my own two eyes...
-
Originally posted by Goomba
Tsss Tsss, Quaibe...
If France warned the US of the 9/11/2001 attacks sometime in 2002, that would seem just about right...:rolleyes:
LOL
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
PS : 1/3 of american citizens don't remember the year of the WTC attack... Wonders wonders.
15% of Americans are under 9 years old. so they were either under 4 years of age, or not born when the WTC happened.
And of those who don't remember the year, how many you think don't remember the event?
I remember the deaths Libya caused to our people, and France refusing our aircraft overflight permission to respond. Our strong response humbled Gaddaffi and brought him into line.
-
If France warned the US of the 9/11/2001 attacks sometime in 2002, that would seem just about right...
Ooops, funny keyboard mistake ;) I shoot my own foot.
And for the record, the DGSE (french CIA) warned the CIA of a soon to be made action on the USA soil.
But you know the story right ?
-
Actually, yes, I do. And France was not the only one...and we were not ignorant of the same rumblings, either.
However, warnings of attack, sedition, spying, etc... has been information shared among allies since the dawn of time.
Historically, it was hard for anyone (France would have been no different) to truly understand the scope of possibility...to even believe that such an extreme thing could be contemplated, let alone accomplished.
It's easy to say the US Govt was lazy, inattentive, whatever...but who truly could have believed such a thing? And how does one effectively respond to warnings of 'something significant' in the 'near future', anyway? It sounds good to say 'you were warned', but these warnings were entirely impractical and nearly impossible to respond to.
Yup, they sucker punched us, and thousands of us died so a pack of butchers and animals scratching sand out of their shorts can chest-thump and tell each other they 'won a victory' over the Great Satan.
Others have made that mistake...
(PS..To be fair, I assumed it was a typo, but don't think I won't defend my country and countrymen just as you would yours.)
-
There is turmoil in France right now over the Al Queida threat, they can't agree on whether to capitulate or collabarate. :rofl
-
Stick to this though, my dear Americans.
France declared war on Germany in WW2. Ok, they got beaten, but at least they had the balls for it.
The US didn't recognize Hitler's threat in the same way as the French and English.
But times change.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Stick to this though, my dear Americans.
France declared war on Germany in WW2. Ok, they got beaten, but at least they had the balls for it.
The US didn't recognize Hitler's threat in the same way as the French and English.
But times change.
More like when appeasment and a blind eye no longer worked they stepped up and got stomped.
-
Yes. They stepped up with the Brits and got stomped while the Brits survived.
The Americans sat by, somewhat understandably because of the losses of WW1, but also because they hadn't quite made up their mind about the whole business.
Which is a little parallel to the French today.
The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history ;)
-
been waiting for ages to use this pic
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tacwraith/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/france.jpg)
-
LOL great pic.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
More like when appeasment and a blind eye no longer worked they stepped up and got stomped.
France still stepped up a three full years before you did.
Anything to do with the huge interests US business had in Nazi germany I wonder?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
France still stepped up a three full years before you did.
Anything to do with the huge interests US business had in Nazi germany I wonder?
LOL, that was one of the dumbest posts this year, and obviously done by somebody with no clue about history.
Why wonder, why dont you bother to research and learn?
-
Momus, a question, and I'm not trying to lead, I'm just trying to pinpoint your mindset here...
Has the US done anything, at all, that's praiseworthy and unedictable in the last century? Anything that at its core, isn't selfish and suspect.
I'm curious, because it seems like your snap response is to find fault in everything associated with this nation, and while there are always others, for whatever given period, that are overtly evil, the US seems to be constantly lurking in the shadows, ready to profit whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. Is this the case? And while we're at it--is this unique among powerful nations throughout history?
Also, if you wouldn't mind, please skip the links. I'd rather hear your thoughts than read somebody else's.
-
He probably was listening to "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair, and now he knows we are all evil.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Has the US done anything, at all, that's praiseworthy and unedictable in the last century? Anything that at its core, isn't selfish and suspect.
Yes certainly.
Also, if you wouldn't mind, Please skip the links.
Please skip the aggrieved patriot routine then maybe.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Yes certainly.
Please skip the aggrieved patriot routine then maybe.
Why are you embarrassed to indicate in your profile where you are from?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Please skip the aggrieved patriot routine then maybe.
WTF are you talking about? Have you seen some of my other posts? Do you see me agreeing with everything this nation does, unequivicolly? I don't. I value it for what it can do for its citizens. I don't value it for everything, blindly and without thought. And I wasn't trying to sound like a wounded flag-waver either, Momus, I've just noticed this pattern in your opinions and I wanted to hear it outright, and yes, without links.
Patriotism, while very honorable on the surface, is, at its foundation, a shortcut to thinking. These are shortcuts I try to avoid. I would suggest you do the same in making conclusions about my intentions.
-
The US didn't recognize Hitler's threat in the same way as the French and English.
The US had no interest in getting involved in another European war. FDR saw the threat, but the American people had no interest in entering the war in Europe. Until the Japanese attacked anyways, even then, if Hitler hadn't declared war first, who knows if we would have fought in Europe?
-
Dago, if you would be so kind as to get into an argument with Momus.. :)
-
Moot, no, thanks, I don't get into fist fights with cripples. Besides, it's more fun lurking and watching Dago getting a good kicking over at AGW where even a great many of the right-wingers see him for the troll he is and where he can't hide behind the mods like he does here.
Neubob, If you'd wanted a straight answer you would have asked a straight question instead of making 75% of your post about what you think my opinion is. If want an opinion on a specific issue then fire away.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Neubob, If you'd wanted a straight answer you would have asked a straight question instead of making 75% of your post about what you think my opinion is. If want an opinion on a specific issue then fire away.
Fair enough... However, at 4 am, I don't think I can generate a specific issue. I'll try again some time later.
Just so you know, the only reason I ask is because I like the way you cosntruct your reasoning. I don't often agree, which is another reason I ask, but anyone who presents thoughts built of sound logic and objective knowledge is worth communicating with.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Stick to this though, my dear Americans.
France declared war on Germany in WW2. Ok, they got beaten, but at least they had the balls for it.
The US didn't recognize Hitler's threat in the same way as the French and English.
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...
Originally posted by Momus
France still stepped up a three full years before you did.
Anything to do with the huge interests US business had in Nazi germany I wonder?
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.
2) 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.
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.
Two members of my family died defending Europe, and France, and the rest of us. In fact, they breathed their last IN FRANCE, and lay there to this day.
How quickly some forget.
-
France is always right there every time they need us.
-
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.
2) 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.
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.
Two members of my family died defending Europe, and France, and the rest of us. In fact, they breathed their last IN FRANCE, and lay there to this day.
How quickly some forget.
Some points of interests:
1. The lend-lease pact to the British passed with very few votes. Roosevelt managed to push it through, but it had great opposition.
2. The activation of the lend-lease included a big pre-payment in gold.
3. Business was open with Germany untill there was war. With the RN at large they just couldn't pick up any goodies.
4. As a bonus to the lend-lease, Britain also had to share technology to the full (which IMHO was a good thing in the long run) as well as give up some base(s) to the U.S.
5. World war II was on for more than two years before the USA had war declared upon them.
6. Little Iceland hasn't got an army. Yet they were involved in heavy shipping to the UK as well as many an adventurer strayed further. Casualties % was higher than for the U.S.
(one of my great uncles was at Iwo, another a fighter ace, the third got his ship torpedoed twice, and a couple were killed by german subs and rest somewhere at the bottom of the sea)
So, no forgetting. Just factum.
-
Originally posted by Goomba
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.
You've a bad memory : Sarre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hehe, my wife is from Saarbrucken.
It was a viking operation, - go abroad and snatch the best lasses from the foreigners :D
(That's what she allows me to think :D)
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-21-afghanistan_x.htm)
(http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/afpji/20060801/060801134122.yxgsz6wc1_les-forces-de-l-otan-en-afghanistanb.jpg)
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Goomba
Two members of my family died defending Europe, and France, and the rest of us. In fact, they breathed their last IN FRANCE, and lay there to this day.
How quickly some forget.
My uncle is buried in Normandy. He died for a cause (freedom) in which my family believes. France is now free to disagree with the U.S. It is the right and responsibility of free peoples to express their thoughts. Agreement with us is not a requirement for membership in the community of free nations. It is interesting to note, however, that much of this discussion should also apply to the free peoples of Iraq and Afganistan-oh, right, they really don't "want" to be free. Neither did the Algerians.
-
Ack-Ack:
"It also helped that quite a few prominent Americans like Charles Lindberg admired and openly praised Hitler.
ack-ack"
Kennedy (dad of JFK) also had the opinion that the Brits were done, and did not save his expressions there AFAIK.
I have a good quote from Lindberg's visit to a RAF station before the war. (He had just been in Germany). I'll post it if you like.