quote:President Jacques Chirac's warning to the new Europeans of EU and NATO enlargement that they cannot side too much with America and fit his definition of membership in the family of Europe has exposed, with an outburst of pure rage, a profound, long-term contradiction that could tear the EU apart from within.
quote:The violence of the remarks acknowledged openly for the first time one of the basic reasons that Iraq has become such an existential issue for France, and in its manner, Germany. . Confronting the United States, and marking out a line where European-Atlantic coalescence must stop, involves an attempt to re-establish their leadership in a Europe whose institutional future points toward the French and Germans being submerged by a new wave of entrants refusing to define Europe's raison d'�tre in a foreign and security policy automatically opposed to the United States.
Naturally.
quote:With a paucity of finesse that would have rivaled Donald Rumsfeld, Chirac told the new Europeans their positions were "dangerous" and "reckless." Indeed, he said, they "would have done better to shut up" than sign on to letters, one involving eight countries organized by Britain, and the other taking in the Vilnius Group of 10 EU and NATO candidate countries, that supported the position on Iraq of the United States. . And Chirac threatened. He said it would take the vote of only one current EU member in a national referendum to block the entire enlargement process. As for Romania and Bulgaria - perhaps singled out as ingrates because they are grant-supported members of the French-funded organization of nations nurturing the French language - Chirac said, "If they had tried to decrease their chances for getting in Europe, they couldn't have done a better job."
And people are getting on the US's case for supposed threatened economic sanctions. For shame.
quote:Rather than applause, Reuters reported from Brussels, there were "seething" reactions, particularly within the European Parliament, to Chirac's tirade. The intensity of the confrontation and the willingness of the East Europeans to make references to appeasement while continuing to state their affinity for the American position on Iraq, especially after France and Germany had brought Russia along to join their challenge to the United States, has clearly gone beyond what France had calculated.
quote:Commenting on the different attitudes in Europe after the massive anti-war marches over the weekend, she said of Latvia's post-World War II occupation by the Soviet Union, "We certainly have seen the results of appeasement. It's much easier to tolerate a dictator when he's dictating over somebody else's life and not your own."
quote:Another Pole, Radek Sikorski, a political scientist working in Washington, was quoted by Reuters as taking the issues directly to the French and Germans. "France and Germany can no longer control the continent," he said. "America has too many friends in Europe who realize that America and Europe are one civilization."
quote:If it is only venting frustration at the cold prospect of France's diminished influence in Europe, not incompatible with the French president's personality, it is all the same a gesture that has brought Europe's future new pain and dizzying uncertainty.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I wonder what the reaction would be were Puerto Rico to officially sign some antiwar document.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Laughter.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
More like derision.
Bush already owns (HA! HA! HA!) one European lapdog, we don't need another.
"It's much easier to tolerate a dictator when he's dictating over somebody else's life and not your own."
It's easy to knock yourself out when working the moral angle ad nauseam.
"America and Europe are one civilization"
What, the rest of the world isn't part of it? Gee.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Oh, come on, who cares what the frogs say anyway?
They see the EU as existing soley to serve them and specifically to subsidise their crappy farmers. The threat that the Axis may not be able to control the EU any longer is scaring them. rather amusing really.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Cartman: Bush already owns (HA! HA! HA!) one European lapdog, we don't need another.
Apparently, we have a whole LOT of lapdogs, if the actions of the Vilnius 10 and the vast majority of NATO are any indication.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I'll preface this by saying that I heard it on Rush Limbaugh's show.
According to Rush, information will be released that prove the French president had made a deal with Iraq, when he was still mayor of Paris, to sell Iraq weapons grade Plutonium. It sounded like the deal was made with presidential approval.
How about it Firstoftwo, did you hear any of that?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No, haven't heard that anywhere... but it wouldn't surprise me. The French DID build Iraq's original nuclear reactor, after all.
I have heard it suggested that it may come out France, Germany, and Russia are out to prevent a war with Iraq because they have been promised sweet deals by the Saudis, who are scared spitless about having a non-OPEC countries in charge of the 2nd largest oil reserves, thereby damaging their economic stranglehold and reducing the need for the world to play nice with their government while it is coddling Islamic extremists.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Sweet deals? Oil prices have gone in one direction the past year: UP.
If the Saudis are worried about their waning popularity, that only goes to show the double standard WE cultivate to get their oil.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The French DID build Iraq's original nuclear reactor, after all."
Back around the time when Iraq were our buddies. And Israel, whom we still inexplicably support, mounted an unprovoked invasion of Iraq to bomb said reactor.
"Sweet deals? Oil prices have gone in one direction the past year: UP."
And you think that will still be true after the invasion, when the US has unfettered access to all the free oil it can suck out of the Iraqi desert?
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The United States, yes. But unless Bush performs an uncharacteristic act of solidarity and freely shares access to Iraq's reserves, Europe's ever-growing dependance on oil from other OPECs (Saudi Arabia first and foremost), nations which will feel threatened by the presence of a *second* non-Islamic power in their midst, isn't going to change one iota. Ergo: higher prices for the European market.
[ February 21, 2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't think he'll give free access, but I'm sure he'll be willing to sell it for less than the Saudis. He'd probably start drooling if someone mentioned "oil monopoly" around him...
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
He probably starts drooling whenever anyone mentions crackers and cheese in the same sentence.
America in control of Iraq's oil = Violation of economic sovereignty. If you're really serious about liberating Iraq you'd have to back off once Saddam is gone, allow for UN organised elections and ensure that Iraq has their economic, political and other sovereignties intact. Your credibility (which isn't exactly stellar) depends on it.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
"Homer, Italy or France" "I dunno... France" "France it is!" *pushes button* "Noone ever picks Italy".
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: He probably starts drooling whenever anyone mentions crackers and cheese in the same sentence.
And shaking in fear whenever anyone mentions pretzels. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:If you're really serious about liberating Iraq you'd have to back off once Saddam is gone, allow for UN organised elections and ensure that Iraq has their economic, political and other sovereignties intact. Your credibility (which isn't exactly stellar) depends on it.
Nah, I'd rather go with something that actually worked the last time it was done, like occupation and acclimatization, re: PostWWII Japan.
We backed off the LAST time we "achieved the objective" (getting Iraq out of Kuwait) and look what it's gotten us.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Y'know...why must it always be US to blow the shit out of brown people. Can't someone ELSE do it this time? What about the Russians? Or the Aussies? Maybe the Chinese. The British governemnt seems rather eager to wave their pricks around...why don't we just sit down in the easy chair like Grandpa after Thanksgiving dinner, loosen our belts, & say, "That's OK, kids..you go on & play. Pappy's gonna sit this one out."
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Y'know...why must it always be US to blow the shit out of brown people. Can't someone ELSE do it this time?
You mean like the USSR in Afganistan? Or Israel and all its neighbors? Or your "brown people" blowing the shit out of each other, ala Iran/Iraq? Because it's ALL about race, you know...
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Y'know...why must it always be US to blow the shit out of brown people. Can't someone ELSE do it this time? What about the Russians? Or the Aussies? Maybe the Chinese. The British governemnt seems rather eager to wave their pricks around...why don't we just sit down in the easy chair like Grandpa after Thanksgiving dinner, loosen our belts, & say, "That's OK, kids..you go on & play. Pappy's gonna sit this one out."
Cause then the US doesn't get to steal the oil.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grokca:
quote:Y'know...why must it always be US to blow the shit out of brown people. Can't someone ELSE do it this time? What about the Russians? Or the Aussies? Maybe the Chinese. The British governemnt seems rather eager to wave their pricks around...why don't we just sit down in the easy chair like Grandpa after Thanksgiving dinner, loosen our belts, & say, "That's OK, kids..you go on & play. Pappy's gonna sit this one out."
Cause then the US doesn't get to steal the oil.
It'd be easier to invade Mexico.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Or Texas!
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Easier, maybe. But there would be far more international uproar. And afterall, we want to convince all the little people that we are in the right, now don't we.
Posted by Timelord (Member # 717) on :
I think the French should definitely be involved in an invasion of Iraq. They can show the Iraqis how to surrender ...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Jesus that's an old joke.
The french foreign legion makes Cambodia look like Kansas. And FYI, they fought like hell in the war.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Those devilishly clever Brie bombs & crossaissins turned the tide, they did.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
They'd have done better if they'd fought like hell BEFORE the war.
Churchill, c. early 1930's: "HELLO! He's rebuilding his army, navy, air force... he's going to reoccupy the Rhineland next! Are you all asleep down there? Do something before he gets any more powerful! At least prepare!
It was bad judgement, not surrender, which did the French in.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
You would call pacifism and appeasement, which were the two greatest consequences of Europe having been ripped apart by the bloodiest war in human history, bad judgement?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Only when you take reality into account. Pacifism, like communism, only works if it's universal.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hmmm, is that in one of Ghandi's secret manifestos?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: You would call pacifism and appeasement, which were the two greatest consequences of Europe having been ripped apart by the bloodiest war in human history, bad judgement?
Actually the french demands on Germany in the Treaty of Versais is what planted the seed of resent in Germany and let little pricks like hitler to gain power. France's demands for unrealistic war reperations destroyed Germany's econemy and really rubbed their nose in defeat. Many germans were up for WWII just to payback the allies for the treaty. France was hardly pacifist: Their goofy majaneal(sp?) line.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
In any case, Hitler's WWII successes certainly weren't due to the military "unpreparedness" of his enemies. His adversaries had very powerful and well trained land armies, often with superior weapons. His own army was far less motorized than much of the competition, even though he was the one party planning on mobile warfare. The German navy was a joke, due to be elevated to unjokely status in 1944 at the very earliest. And the air force, while sporting mariginally newer hardware than the competition due to only recently lifted limitations, certainly wasn't "superior" to the RAF, either. From the purely logistic-technological escalation viewpoint, Hitler was very much the rabid underdog of the war in 1939-40.
There isn't much more the French or the British *could* have done in order to "prepare", except perhaps perform preemptive strikes. And read more of the books Hitler's generals read and wrote... It was actions and reactions more than preparations that counted in the end.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Maginot".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: "Maginot".
Thanks for the spellcheck. French surnames and their spelling is a war unto itself. It's ironic that Maginot was deciedly against the wall idea and as so vocal in his criticsm that he was put in charge of the project and the name just kinda stuck. Now he's associated with an outdated idea that was easily circumvented. Sucks (historically speaking) to be him.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Maginot Line did exactly what it was designed to do.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Which was force the Germans to make a few miles' detour through a "buffer state."
For great containment.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: And the air force, while sporting mariginally newer hardware than the competition due to only recently lifted limitations, certainly wasn't "superior" to the RAF, either.
Quite right; the main advantage over the RAF was the size of the Luftwaffe. Also German planes tended to carry heavier weapons, at least at the beginning of the war; Spitfire Mk.I/II and Hurricane Mk. II only carried .303 in machine guns. Fw 190 was a damn good plane though.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Which was force the Germans to make a few miles' detour through a 'buffer state.'"
In other words, the concept worked, but the implementation didn't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
To further split hairs , the concept worked (block the Germans from crossing anywhere on the line) and the implementation worked (the Germans were stopped). Unfortunately, they didn't consider the consequences and result (the Germans don't have to go through the line, they didn't, and the French weren't planning on stopping the Germans where they did cross). This all reminds me of a quote that I have no idea where its from, and probably badly paraphrased: "The Maginot line was the perfect weapon for fighting a war. Unfortunately, the war was WW1".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The idea was that the Germans would have to slog through Belgium, giving France and Britain plenty of time to meet them there. Not to mention all the horrors of war being visited on the Belgian countryside instead of the French. Thanks, neighbors! Of course, the Germans moved a bit faster than expected...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
The Germans were also not expected to be capable of getting armour easily through the Ardennes. They did.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Procrastinating turns up the darndest things.
(Conveniently placed in a blockquote so disinterested/busy people can scroll right past it)
quote: The Case for the French by Ted Rall
LOS ANGELES--Who are we to be bashing the French?
The trouble began when President Jacques Chirac openly expressed the private beliefs of virtually every other world leader--that George W. Bush's desire to start an unprovoked war with Iraq (news - web sites) is both crazy and immoral. It has quickly disintegrated into a ferocious display of American nativism that would be hilarious if its gleeful idiocy wasn't so frightening.
"Axis of Weasel," howls the New York Post in reaction to France and Germany's U.N. stance. A North Carolina restaurateur replaces French fries with "freedom fries." In West Palm Beach, a bar owner dumps his stock of French wine in the street, vowing to replace it with vintages from nations that support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. (Well, there's always Bulgaria.) Also in Palm Beach, a county official is working to boycott French businesses from government contracts: "France's attitude toward the United States is deplorable," says commissioner Burt Aaronson. "It's quite possible that if we didn't send our troops there, the French people would all be speaking German."
Allied troops liberated the French in 1944. The least France could do, the French bashers argue, is show a little gratitude. They think that France should stand by--or better yet help out--when U.S. troops go to invade/liberate/whatever other countries. Sovereignty and self-determination are fine as mere words. But it just ain't right for a country we rescued from Nazi occupation to disagree with our policy 50 years later and threaten us with a U.N. veto.
To be sure, France owed America a nice thank-you card for D-Day. But we owe them a more. Without France, the United States wouldn't even exist--it would still be a British colony.
Every American schoolchild learns that a French naval blockade trapped Cornwallis' forces at Yorktown, bringing the American revolution to its victorious conclusion. But fewer people are aware that King Louis XVI spent so much money on arms shipments to American rebels that he bankrupted the royal treasury, plunged his nation into depression and unleashed a political upheaval that ultimately resulted in the end of the monarchy. Franklin Roosevelt wrote some fat checks to save France; Louis gave up his and his wife's heads.
No two countries were closer during the 19th century. Americans named streets after the Marquis de la Fayette, Louis' liaison with the founding fathers. During the Civil War, France bankrolled the Union to neutralize British financing for the Confederacy. How many Americans remember that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from French schoolchildren?
Despite that long friendship, the French--along with Asians and overweight folks--remain one of the few groups Americans still feel free to openly insult. A recent Gallup poll shows that 20 percent fewer Americans view France favorably because of its unwillingness to go along with Bush's war on Iraq. Support for Germany, perpetrators of Nazism and the Holocaust (and which also opposes war), holds steady at 71 percent.
Some of the contempt dates to France's quick defeat in the blitzkrieg of May-June 1940. "Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris?" joked Roy Blunt, a Republican who evidently represents the unfortunate voters of Missouri. "It's not known; it's never been tried."
Perhaps Congressman Blunt should visit the graves of the Frenchmen who lost their lives for their country during World War I (the first two-thirds of which, by the way, the U.S. sat out). One of them, my great-grandfather Jean-Marie Le Corre, died in the muddy trenches of eastern France in 1915. His death plunged his family, never comfortable to begin with, into abject poverty. His name is engraved on a memorial near a small church in Brittany. They say that he was a handsome guy, popular with the ladies and always good for a joke. Because of him and 1.4 million other young men who sacrificed their lives for their country, Paris didn't fall.
France lost a staggering four percent of its population during the Great War. (Imagine a war that killed 11 million Americans today.) Twenty years later, in 1939, the French army still suffered from a massive manpower shortage. Demographics, lousy planning and equipment shortages--the Great Depression had also hit France--cost 100,000 French soldiers their lives during six awful weeks in 1940.
They failed to save Paris, but they died defending it.
The Bush Doctrine advocates invading weak states, imposing "regime change" and building an American empire composed of colonies whose dark-skinned races can be exploited for cheap labor. Napoleon Bonaparte, who terrorized Europe, had similar ideas. He easily outclasses our AWOL-from-the-Texas-Air-National-Guard Resident in the pure bellicosity department, but would we really choose Bonaparte over Chirac?
French-bashing is a nasty symptom of an underlying American predilection for anti-intellectualism: a society whose most popular TV show features smoky chatter between poets and novelists naturally threatens the land of football and Pabst.
The fact is, France is a good friend and ally trying to make us see reason, and it doesn't deserve to be treated this shabbily. The United States, as led by Bush and his goons, is like a belligerent, out-of-control drunk trying to pick a fight and demanding the car keys at the same time. The French want to drive us home before we cause any more trouble, so we lash out at them, calling them rude names and impugning their loyalty. Sure, we'll be ashamed of our behavior in the morning, after the madness wears off. But will we have any friends left?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Maginot line was designed waaay before Airplanes could drop troops behind enemy lines. The line became useless once the paratrooper became a reality. That quote about it being perfect for WWI is dead on: it would've been great back then but WWII was the 20th century's race to kill itself and the French were behind in the practicality department. People tend to forget that the polish army supplied 80,000 troops to bolster France (afer Poland was lost) but nobody expected the Germans to advance through the supposedly "impassable" Arden forest. They were caught with their pants down.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: The Maginot line was designed waaay before Airplanes could drop troops behind enemy lines. The line became useless once the paratrooper became a reality.
Um, paratroopers don't conquer countries. Those planes that aren't shot down (because, you know, they did have those flying gadgets in France, too, and you don't mount an airborne assault without preestablishing air superiority) might be able to get men behind the Line, at which point they'd have been plastered by the several French divisions in position between the Line and Paris. Besides, the Germans didn't overwhelm the Maginot Line from the air anyway, so I fail to see your point.
The French expected an armour attack, and built a defence that everybody expected would have to be destroyed before German tanks could move on Paris. The only "clear" path would have been to go nearly all the way to the Dutch coast and work downwards through the coastal plain in Belgium, entering France near Lille, which would have been slow enough that France could mobilize to meet them. Tanks couldn't get through the Alps in the southeast and the Ardennes in the northwest without weeks of engineering work. Except they could. And so there was a rather loud exclamation of Merde.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally conveniently posted in a blockquote so disinterested/busy people could scroll right past it by The_Tom: To be sure, France owed America a nice thank-you card for D-Day. But we owe them a more. Without France, the United States wouldn't even exist--it would still be a British colony.
Every American schoolchild learns that a French naval blockade trapped Cornwallis' forces at Yorktown, bringing the American revolution to its victorious conclusion. But fewer people are aware that King Louis XVI spent so much money on arms shipments to American rebels that he bankrupted the royal treasury, plunged his nation into depression and unleashed a political upheaval that ultimately resulted in the end of the monarchy. Franklin Roosevelt wrote some fat checks to save France; Louis gave up his and his wife's heads.
No two countries were closer during the 19th century. Americans named streets after the Marquis de la Fayette, Louis' liaison with the founding fathers.
One remembers the cries of "Lafayette, we are here!" by the AEF in WW1. To say nothing of the Lafayette-class of American SSBNs.
For my part, my problem is primarily with Parisians. I can understand being condescending for worthwhile reasons, but hey--I'm TRYING to speak your fucking language, but of COURSE I'm going to mangle it. Don't get pissed off or I'll go Bruce Banner on your beret-wearing cheese-eatin' surrender monkey asses.
Says the man who's descended of the worst of the French lot...the Qu�becois.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:For my part, my problem is primarily with Parisians. I can understand being condescending for worthwhile reasons, but hey--I'm TRYING to speak your fucking language, but of COURSE I'm going to mangle it. Don't get pissed off or I'll go Bruce Banner on your beret-wearing cheese-eatin' surrender monkey asses.
Funny never had this problem in Paris, I was treated fantastically by everyone I met. The only ones I hear complain about Paris are Americans and Quebecois.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote: Despite that long friendship, the French--along with Asians and overweight folks--remain one of the few groups Americans still feel free to openly insult.
What? You people still openly insult Asians? I'll kill you all! The second part is more amusing though, considering that the US has probably the worlds biggest concentration of overweight and obese people, implying that one of the groups Americans like to insult the most is....themselves?
quote: To be sure, France owed America a nice thank-you card for D-Day. But we owe them a more. Without France, the United States wouldn't even exist--it would still be a British colony.
quote: "It's quite possible that if we didn't send our troops there, the French people would all be speaking German."
Together, these quotes are quite interesting. Would America really be an English colony now? Sure the original revolution might have been crushed, but would the English really be able to hold onto the 52 states and 300 million(ish) people that comprises the US till 2003? On a parallel note, sure WW2 in Europe might have taken longer without the US, but with Russia knocking on one side and the Germans stuck at the Channel...would the Germans really have been able to control France for more than 50 years?
This kind of lingering national/historical debt thing doesn't really make much sense after awhile. (although the alternate history stories can be interesting to read)
Grocka/Shik: The French complain about the Quebecois too? Please elaborate! Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, under any circumstances, though we might not be able to predict the exact nature of current conditions without one country helping the other, we can generally assume that the interrim period would have sucked quite mightily.
And we have 52 states, now?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yeah; North and South Iraq are the two new ones.
quote: Every American schoolchild learns that a French naval blockade trapped Cornwallis' forces at Yorktown
If only that idiot Graves had ordered 'General chase' rather than 'Form Line of Battle.'
- more counterfactual for you there .
It was all so much easier when all foreign policy consisted of was go over to the continent every few years to put the frogs down, and colonising assorted places.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:To be sure, France owed America a nice thank-you card for D-Day. But we owe them a more. Without France, the United States wouldn't even exist--it would still be a British colony.
Paid that particular debt in WWI with a larger level of assistance than they gave us. (I don't recall many French ground troops joining in the battle, they stayed in their boats, with few exceptions, like the Marquis de Lafayette - who we named a county in my state for.. where's Eisenhower Province in France?)
Paid AGAIN in WWII, to a much greater extent, as I also don't recall French forces landing on the beaches and fighting to re-take New York when Washington had to abandon it.
Paid AGAIN during the Cold War, with the placing of American troops in harm's way in the most likely Warsaw Pact invasion route, and DESPITE the French pulling out from the military arm of NATO.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Paid that particular debt in WWI with a larger level of assistance than they gave us. (I don't recall many French ground troops joining in the battle, they stayed in their boats, with few exceptions, like the Marquis de Lafayette - who we named a county in my state for.. where's Eisenhower Province in France?)"
"But fewer people are aware that King Louis XVI spent so much money on arms shipments to American rebels that he bankrupted the royal treasury, plunged his nation into depression and unleashed a political upheaval that ultimately resulted in the end of the monarchy. Franklin Roosevelt wrote some fat checks to save France; Louis gave up his and his wife's heads."
"Paid AGAIN during the Cold War, with the placing of American troops in harm's way in the most likely Warsaw Pact invasion route, and DESPITE the French pulling out from the military arm of NATO."
Harm which never came. Also:
"France lost a staggering four percent of its population during the Great War. (Imagine a war that killed 11 million Americans today.) Twenty years later, in 1939, the French army still suffered from a massive manpower shortage. Demographics, lousy planning and equipment shortages--the Great Depression had also hit France--cost 100,000 French soldiers their lives during six awful weeks in 1940."
I'd say the score's been settled.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: "But fewer people are aware that King Louis XVI spent so much money on arms shipments to American rebels that he bankrupted the royal treasury, plunged his nation into depression and unleashed a political upheaval that ultimately resulted in the end of the monarchy. Franklin Roosevelt wrote some fat checks to save France; Louis gave up his and his wife's heads."
Of course, those lavish palaces had nothing to do with it. He supported us out of the goodness of hisThese were the "let them eat cake" people we're talking about here.
quote:Harm which never came. Also:
Irrelevant, and disengenuous to boot. Just because you were never kidnapped and murdered as a child, does not mean your parents didn't protect you. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been the same had the US left Europe to the tender mercies of the Warsaw Pact? If you do, you're beyond any assistance I can give you: seek psychiatric care immediately.
quote:"France lost a staggering four percent of its population during the Great War. (Imagine a war that killed 11 million Americans today.) Twenty years later, in 1939, the French army still suffered from a massive manpower shortage. Demographics, lousy planning and equipment shortages--the Great Depression had also hit France--cost 100,000 French soldiers their lives during six awful weeks in 1940."
I'd say the score's been settled.
Does it not mean anything, because the Germans lost an equal number of men in WWI? France lost 3.5% of their population in WWI, Germany 2.5%. Yet Germany recovered to a much greater extent than France OR England.
And if you want to get technical, Our military casualties in WWII? Nearly double the French. They come out ahead of us in civilian casualties only because the war was fought on their soil and not ours. (Although we still lost roughly 6000 civilians.) And not one Frenchman died protecting or recapturing American soil in any of those wars.
So our debt remains paid... with a considerable amount of interest.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Well, under any circumstances, though we might not be able to predict the exact nature of current conditions without one country helping the other, we can generally assume that the interrim period would have sucked quite mightily.
And we have 52 states, now?
Picky, picky. Typo-monger, although as Wraith pointed out, I might not be wrong for much longer
It might have sucked, it might have not. You're probably right, but we'll never know. In any case, this kind of "my-great-grandfather helped/harmed your great-grandfather, so you should help/sue me today, no matter what your beliefs are now" thinking is rather illogical. I mean, how far back are you going to draw the line? Perhaps your ancient ape-descendent stole a mammoth bone club from mine several hundred-years ago, so you owe me a genuine mammoth bone club today....either that or Snay's jeep, they both work.
Witness 1of2's and Cartmaniac's debate This could go on forever.
"Well the Americans ripped off Napoloean when he sold them all of that land in America, so the Americans owe the French more" "But thats ok, because they ripped of the native Americans, by buying the land with petty beads, so the French really owe the natives." "..who stole it from those Homo Erectus guys" "...who took it from our common ancestor" "Fine. Even accepting that, the French started this whole liberty thing, so you never would have been able to say "give me liberty, or give me death" or any other heroic dashing things" "But we gave you the invention of the airplane!" "We gave you nationalism, you don't even have your own language, stop saying "beef" and other French descended words! Hah!" ...and so on.
Obviously people are going to draw the line wherever they like, probably where they benefit the most, leading to one big mess. We should just forgo the whole thing.
Be aware of what mistakes our ancestors made, learn our lessons from them (i.e. as the Germans did from the Holocaust, and not push it under the rug like the Japanese), but any sort of modern-day retribution is just.....blah.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:And not one Frenchman died protecting or recapturing American soil in any of those wars.
What exactly should they have recaptured for us? Should the Free French forces should have landed troops in the Aleutian Islands?
And I guess the same thing could be said for the British. Only that the front lines were not in New York, rather in europe the front lines were in France and over the skies of southern England. The only fact missing is that plenty of British, French and Poles died ridding ridding the world of fascism. In essence, protecting the United States.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: "But fewer people are aware that King Louis XVI spent so much money on arms shipments to American rebels that he bankrupted the royal treasury, plunged his nation into depression and unleashed a political upheaval that ultimately resulted in the end of the monarchy. Franklin Roosevelt wrote some fat checks to save France; Louis gave up his and his wife's heads."
Of course, those lavish palaces had nothing to do with it. He supported us out of the goodness of hisThese were the "let them eat cake" people we're talking about here.
Well no, he supported the Americans because it would hurt the British. But by the same token, the Americans only really supported Europe after WWII because it would stop the USSR.
But wait you say! This WAS out of the goodness of our hearts, we didn't want Europe to fall under horrible horrible communism. Ah but then we didn't want you guys to be stuck under the Britsh, as shown in "The Patriot" they were so very horrible
This could go on forever, so screw it. I'll stop it.
My damn ape-ancestor happened to own all of the freaking Pangea before the continents split. You can't prove it wrong, so I must be right. You all now owe me huge amounts of cash Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: But wait you say! This WAS out of the goodness of our hearts, we didn't want Europe to fall under horrible horrible communism. Ah but then we didn't want you guys to be stuck under the Britsh, as shown in "The Patriot" they were so very horrible
Ah, yes; the world's most historically accurate movie.
look, let's stop argueing and get back to the fundamental truth; the world would be a lot better if we were in charge
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)