|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 20, 2009 9:37:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 21, 2009 1:00:10 GMT
Excellent write-up.... The French were still the same way in Vietnam when they were kicked out...most of the troops were mercenaries then also and IIRC was about 80-10 with 10 being actual French. France had forgotten about them and they went home basically the same way that we did in Vietnam....to public ridicule.... The U.S. was not well equipped to fight a war of "attrition"..the British were better off as they had fought in Borneo (and won!!) in a war that most historians forget....showed all the western forces how to conduct a guerilla war...but they did not listen..  Austrialia also fought with the British in Borneo and were good at guerilla warfare, but didn't have that many people in Vietnam. We should have learned...I think we finally have... The French have never changed....probably never will....and as the article said...as to why they hate the British so much....it is also (which he did not mention) that they actually think they should rule the world..?? After all, most still believe in the Merovingian Dynasty (started AD 496) as being true and that the ruling class is decended from the "supposed union" between Mary Magdalene and Jesus... Whatta ya gonna do...?? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 21, 2009 9:25:27 GMT
Not only have you not learned, but the Brits have forgotten, ss. Look at Iraq & Afghanistan - two complete mess ups based on our complete inability to handle guerilla warfare. Both places, we keep treaing as either a conventional war or a police action, when they are neither.
As for the French - they hate the Brits for two reasons: we are traditional enemies and have been for (literally) thousands of years and because we (amongst others) saved them in WW1 and resolved their civil war for them in WW2. We get double resentment for that one, of course - blamed by the losers and resented by the winners.
Then there's the whole cultural thing: France doesn't really want to rule the world, but they firmly believe they are THE superior culture and have THE superior language. Who's conquering the world, culturally? The English language and American culture. They hate us for that, too (And it's the main reason many of them don't like America, I'm sure).
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 21, 2009 11:53:02 GMT
Not only have you not learned, but the Brits have forgotten, ss. Look at Iraq & Afghanistan - two complete mess ups based on our complete inability to handle guerilla warfare. Both places, we keep treaing as either a conventional war or a police action, when they are neither. As for the French - they hate the Brits for two reasons: we are traditional enemies and have been for (literally) thousands of years and because we (amongst others) saved them in WW1 and resolved their civil war for them in WW2. We get double resentment for that one, of course - blamed by the losers and resented by the winners. Then there's the whole cultural thing: France doesn't really want to rule the world, but they firmly believe they are THE superior culture and have THE superior language. Who's conquering the world, culturally? The English language and American culture. They hate us for that, too (And it's the main reason many of them don't like America, I'm sure). LOL, I agree whole-heartedly about the cultural thing. God, the French are SO arrogant (for the most part)... Let's not forget that in WWI they held the front from the Crazed German "2nd Reich" of Kaiser Wilhelm II (who DID want to conquer the WHOLE World), and the Brits were merely saving their own skin... And the Americans jumped in when both sides were exhausted just to try and grab power... In WWII, the French arrogantly assumed a repeat of the first, they weren't expecting to get overrun so quickly... Ah, the 3rd Reich could've won the war, had they not attacked the Russians. Serves Hitler right for being greedy... And once again, the Americans jumped in for their own benefit, they pressured the Japs economically into attacking Pearl Harbor, then spun around and used it as an excuse to get the people all stirred up to fight. And look at America in Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq again... Personally, I think America probably has the worst foreign policy of them all. As Toynbee once said: "The only thing man learns from history is that we NEVER learn from history!" |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 21, 2009 12:59:21 GMT
Actually, Britain could have stayed out of WW1. The Kaiser wanted us either neutral or (Preferably) on his side. Don't forget, he was Queen Victoria's grandson and an Anglophile...
I'd tell you exactly why we joined in, but I'm not sure anyone knows why there was a war at ALL. All that death over one Austrian noble was probably the craziest thing in world history. Considering how many people we lost, though, 'saving our own skins' had nothing to do with it.
To be fair to America, I don't think they jumped into either world war for their own benefit, either. They could have quite happily stayed out and just sold arms to both sides. They gained little overall, compared to how much they lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 21, 2009 16:42:30 GMT
In WWII, the French arrogantly assumed a repeat of the first, they weren't expecting to get overrun so quickly... Really, the Germans were so unfair - there the French were, building at tremendous cost this fortified wall, the Maginot Line, to protect their Eastern border - and then they told everybody and his brother that it is impregnable, impenetrable and boastily showed it off to everybody as state of the art fortress building - and what do these Germans do instead of running dead against it, as they should have? Circumvent it! Let it lay in their backs without worrying. (Now how could they have known that the guns couldn't be turned around?  ) From Wikipedia: The French established the fortification to provide time for their army to mobilize in the event of attack and/or to entice Germany to attack neutral Belgium {Now wasn't that a sweet move towards a friendly neighbour!^^ } to avoid a direct assault on the line. The success of static, defensive combat in World War I was a key influence on French thinking. The fortification system successfully dissuaded a direct attack. However, it was an ineffective strategic gambit, as the Germans did indeed invade Belgium, flanked the Maginot Line, and proceeded relatively unobstructed. {SURPRISE!} It is a myth however that the Maginot line ended at the Belgian border and was easy to circumvent. The fortifications were connected to the Belgian fortification system, of which the strongest point was Fort Eben-Emael. The Germans broke through exactly at this fortified point with a unique assault that incorporated gliders and shaped explosive charges. {Unheard of tactics - really rotten that, not to speak of it loudly and in public before using it!} The surrender of the fort, in less than two days, allowed the invasion of France. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 21, 2009 16:52:05 GMT
That line sadly displays the level of French military thinking at the time: IE non-existent.
WW1 static defensive strategy was an unmitigated disaster, of course. Any general who wasn't totally inept would have recognised that.
It's like invading Afghanistan: only a complete fool would even think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 21, 2009 17:02:06 GMT
It's like invading Afghanistan: only a complete fool would even think about it.Well - a lot did over historic times... Which proves - while fools are not immortal, foolishness is. (Who said that military intelligence is a contradiction in terms?) ;D WW1 static defensive strategy was an unmitigated disaster, of course.That depends on the viewpoint - as long as more people die running stupidly head on against a fortification than defending it... As I said, military (!) intelligence...
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 21, 2009 17:08:14 GMT
Yeah, but when both sides are doing it, it's not really the height of military genius.
As the Germans remembered first in WW2, if you can outmanouvre the enemy, chances are you're going to win. Unless you attack someone with 100 times your resources, of course, but that was more the Japanese... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 21, 2009 18:00:13 GMT
Isn't it ironic then that it was the greatest French general, who won most of his battles by outmaouvring his enemies... ...but then, the saying says "study thy enemy" - hence bad luck for the French. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 21, 2009 18:03:35 GMT
Annd an Englishman who invented tank warfare as perfected by Guderian and which allowed for Blitzkrieg. Naturally, the British establishment wouldn't listen... Britain has had some embarrassingly bad people at the top. sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Aug 22, 2009 3:33:54 GMT
Most of the time.
The best line in the movie Patton is done by Rommel when they defeat the Americans at one point-
"British Commanders and American troops? The worst of both."
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 22, 2009 6:53:15 GMT
Well, as I already said somewhere else, losing helps. When you lose, you reconsider your strategies and tactics, when you (ultimately) win however...  |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 22, 2009 11:02:13 GMT
Terror - something to that... ;D
Glance - yes. Winning leads to complacency far too often.
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 25, 2009 3:55:47 GMT
@ EK: Well, didn't the Kaiser scare Britain off? IIRC, it was Otto Von Bismarck's policy to isolate France, and to do so by staying friendly with their neighbors. Kaiser Wilhelm I listened to Bismarck, and thus The German Empire was a successful, powerful nation. However, Wilhelm II was a lot greedier than his father, and started getting a lot more ambitious. IIRC he ruined Germany's ties with England by attempting to build up his Navy large enough to "surpass the English." Thus the English were alarmed (they could see right through the power-hungry machinations of Wilhelm II), and made an alliance with Russia and France. The war definitely wasn't fought over the death of Archduke Francis Ferdinand (that was just the fuse which lit the bomb), it was the result of nationalism, imperialism, mercantilism, and ultimately, GREED (as it is, and has been, with most of the wars throughout history). Well, with WWI America entered because they wanted to demonstrate/show off their powers to Europe, to say "hey, you guys don't have the monopoly on power!" WWII was because they wanted to completely get out of the depression, and what better way to do that than to prepare for war? Preparing for war boosts industry dramatically (since it gives jobs to a lot of people), not to mention then the head-of-state can get money from the people in the form of war-bonds, war taxes, or whatever he wants to call them! ;D Why did Germany get out of that horrible state they were left in after WWI? That's why, because of Hitler's Re-Arming Germany.
@ Glance: Yeah, I think that was quite the disgrace. In Computer Games where you play as Nazi Germany trying to conquer France (like, Empire Earth), I always made sure to smash through the Maginot line, rather than evade it like they always advise you to. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 25, 2009 9:15:06 GMT
Prior to WW1, Germany (Or more particularly Prussia) was Britain's oldest ally. We had no reason to fear them, Dragon. We weren't happy about the navy thing though, as you noted. As you say, it was our treaties with other nations that brought us into the war. The Kaiser felt safe because he thought we'd never declare war on him. WW2 was a lot more clear cut. The reasons why everyone came in are pretty easy to see. Britain helped establish Belgium as a state in the first place and we guaranteed its sovereignty, so invading Belgium is the same as declaring war on Britain. The US came in because of Pearl Harbour (And Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around. He thought he had to because he misread his treaty of mutual support with Japan). France came in because they got invaded. Same with most of Europe. The British Commonwealth nations came in in support of Britain. All easy to follow  |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 25, 2009 12:41:14 GMT
Well... ...prior to WW I nothing scared off the British! They were by then the 'leading power' for a century, and if at all, they had an eye on the heredetary adversary France and the lost old Colonies (meaning the USA) as well as to an extent on the 'merging power' Japan. In the 'Navy thing' they had nothing to fear, until they themselves built the Dreadnought! That revolutionary design did set back the clocks back to zero for everybody, and that is when the race began. There were attempts to limit the race (to preserve he advance and in view of the cost), but those had only limited success. You're correct in Bismarck's policy, which after the 1870 war was evident from Prussian/German Empire side. Also he made a point of being friendly with Russia, to avoid a two front war! On Wilhelm II however one must understand that he was not heir apparent at first. That was Friedrich III, who reigned only 3 months in 1888 before dying of natural cause. So Wilhelm was a relatively young man, not groomed for emperor, who was slightly handicapped from a horse accident, and who in his lifetime had always seen the Empire as a dominant force on the continent (They did beat Austria and France after all), and which prospered tremendously industrially. The 'problems' he saw was the growing democratic movement, which countered his absolute power (which he didn't have, but thought to be his 'divine right'). And then an old man, who actually governed the Empire (and before Prussia) for a generation and was not prepared to listen respectively change his well established ways for the half-baked ideas of a politically inexperienced young man with obvious ego problems. ...and WW II was declared upon the invasion of Poland, not Belgium! Hitler (re-)build the Armed Forces for 1. because he had and wanted to keep the support of the Reichswehr to stay in power, 2. because the re-revanchism, especially towards France (for the humiliation in the Versailles 'treaty') was popular, 3. to become a significant power again and to have a strong arm to create 'Great-Germany'. Anything after 1938 and the Czeckeslovakian issue to me is a result of delusions of grandeur, pure racism and power clenching. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 25, 2009 14:03:50 GMT
Oops! So it was! Growing forgetful in my old age...
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 26, 2009 4:20:35 GMT
Thanks for clarifying Glance, I have to admit, I've always wondered how Wilhelm II could be such a dummy! Bismarck was totally awesome! I consider him to be one of the greatest Generals/Administrators of all time. Even in his old age, he tried to warn Wilhelm II about the folly of his pursuits, and then what happened? I don't remember, either Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck, or Bismarck retired before he could get dismissed, not sure. I think he got dismissed. Wilhelm II completely tore down all the relations Bismarck had cleverly devised, so it completely upset Bismarck's master plan. The entire network he had created to keep France in check completely backfired into a tangle of relations that made WWI possible, though some speculate that perhaps under Bismarck's policies, France would've re-armed BIG TIME sometime in the early 1900's and tried to fight a war against the rest of Europe, which it probably would've lost. Perhaps that's what Bismarck foresaw (and wanted to happen), and why he was so alarmed when Wilhelm II started ruining everything (because then he probably realized that it'd all backfire into a terrible war). Oh well, whatever the case, Bismarck was extremely clever and a Master Diplomat, and Wilhelm II was a greedy, delusional fool (Hitler was too, only a lot worse, being racist among other things).
@ EK: But don't you think America pressured Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor? I mean, from an economic POV, this seems to be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Aug 26, 2009 4:24:37 GMT
Your assessment of World War II is grosely flawed.
The British went to war in order to preserve the Sovereignty of Poland. The French entered the war for the same reason. After the Annexing of Poland is when Hitler declared war on the low countries, and by then both Britain and France were in the war.
|
|
)
.com
