*warning* I feel myself coming close to flaming. If I do so, it's accidental.
Please just hit me a few times with a baseball bat to get my attention so I
can decently apologise if I do.
> Of course we know how long the defense of
Actually, the whole year.
The collapse came in May 1940. Not 1939. At a time when the US was squeezing
out the last drops of foreign currency France possessed to sell her such
outstanding war machines as the Cutiss Hawk and Brewster Buffalo (and at an
ENORMOUS markup.)
French resistance stiffened markedly after the initial breakthrough.
Basically,
the ill-lead dross bugged out, just like the US Army did in Korea when
they
faced some well-equipped opposition with better doctrine for the
conditions. The typical conscript poilu in 1940 was almost as stoned out of
his gourd on cheap plonk as the standard conscript grunt was with cheap dope
in Vietnam in
1970. The regulars were a different matter - some (like many US regulars
in
Vietnam) were hopelessly lead, but all were a lot more switched-on. And
given a little time to adapt to modern warfare, got rather good at it. Like
many US regulars did in Vietnam.
Just ask any of the poor devils who fought against the Vichy French in Syria
or North Africa. The one outfit that had an easy time of it was a unit of the
(Free French) Foreign Legion, who marched into an attack against some (Vichy
French) Foreign Legion with weapons at port arms and band playing, offering no
resistance to defensive fire. A gutsy move.
Have a read of: Horne, Alistair. To Lose a Battle. France, 1940. NY: Penquin,
1979
I won't go into WW1 at the moment.
But I will say that had I been French ( shudder!) I'd be very very
pissed-off
at the lack of justice in some of the criticisms. Especially from people who
had such inglorious debacles as the Fall of Singapore, the great skedaddle at
Kasserine, etc in their countries' military history.
OK, normal services will now be resumed.
> --- Alan E Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
> >Of course we know how long the defense of
Most people are counting only from the beginning of the German offensive.
> The collapse came in May 1940. Not 1939. At a time
Oh, darn. God forbid us neutrals should be neutral. Kind of stretching a point
to criticize the US for it's arms sales policy when one takes into account the
French's policy on arms sales since WWII. It seems to be cash and carry, even
if you're a maddog lunatic dictator, a flamingly obvious communist, own
nuclear weapons pointed at France's major ally, or otherwise are well off the
deep end.
At any rate, the French were also acting fairly stupidly, exporting antitank
weapons and other heavy weapons that could have been used to arm the
formations of expatriate Poles that were sitting idle with no heavy weapons.
> French resistance stiffened markedly after the
Not noticably. I mean, they didn't actually beat the Germans at any point.
After the French lost their country and most of their empire to
collaborationist cowards (not actually Germans, just their toadies), they
continued to pretend they were a great power and a major ally, not
just a handful of beggars. Egotism is grating--but
it's even more grating coming from a houseguest that got evicted from his
former apartment and has a choice between sleeping on the streets or living in
your spare bedroom.
As one of Churchill's advisor's once put it, "The problem with Charles de
Gaulle is that he thinks he's Joan of Arc."
Churchill's response was "No, the problem is that my bishops won't let me burn
him."
> But I will say that had I been French ( shudder! )
Uh, every country has had military failures in their history.
The rest of us feel superior to the French because we manage NOT to get our
home countries overrun 2.5 times in 70 years. Besides which, while we have
Vietnam, the French have Algeria and Indochina the first time
around, and a hell of a lot of other cock-ups. In
fact, one is hardpressed to think of a sucessful French military operation
since Napoleon Bonaparte dropped dead with the exception of the task force
that covered the Coalition's left flank during Desert Storm. Fortunately,
there were no Iraqis out there, because I doubt the USAF could tell the
difference between French armored cars driven by Frenchmen and French armored
cars driven by Iraqis.
They are also pretty damn egotistical and have some serious failures in their
military and civil culture which causes them to be percieved poorly. For
instance, my old Squad Leader in German had run the US
SFOR Mine Action Center as an E-6 Staff Sergeant. A
French captain rolls in and asks to speak to the OIC. He replies he's in
charge. The French guy laughs in his face and insists on speaking to a
"responsible officer." Ask SSG Easter why he detests French officers and
there's a real reason.
Hello,
Thank you Alan. Why is it that the normally sensible people on this list are
so easily drawn in by John's incessant, bigoted trolls.
Times change. Nations that were once mighty are no longer. It is easy to say
that they are plagued by military incompetence, or are culturally incapable of
fielding an effective military. That is a hollow and incredibly weak argument.
About the only culture that I have found that is fundamentally flawed in the
military sense
can be found here: http://www.haightashbury.org/
I would comment on John A.'s drivel if I thought that he was capable of
looking past the wall of bigoted ignorance that he has erected.
The one time that I tried to discuss a point with him off-list he
ignored my off-list email and chose to attack me in public.
I guess the irony was that I had started to write a message commending the
list, and John in particular, for a month of reasoned, on topic discussion.
Evidently that was several minutes premature.
> But I will say that had I been French ( shudder! ) I'd be very very
> At 6:16 PM -0700 5/28/02, Tony Christney wrote:
I dunno. John makes some really good points. Militarily the french don't have
anything to really brag about. We're not talking about racism here. We're
talking about military doctrine and ability (or lach there of) to defend one's
country from the same agressor over a period of several decades.
> Times change. Nations that were once mighty are no longer. It is
*shrug* I thought we were talking about the nation that bombed a civilian
protest group's ship, killed a man and defended themselves. Then they're
complaining when one of their ships gets dented prior to a big race. Remember,
these are the guys that withdrew from NATO and pushed us out, as I hear it,
the move of the HQ was so bitter, we bulldozed the golf course that was on the
post.
> I guess the irony was that I had started to write a message
It's a side topic. On this list, there are lots of side topics and
digressions. It happens given the broad depth of the game's concept and scope.
John A's not the only one calling the Frogs Frogs. But, hey, I play the NAC
and the Frogs are Frogs. Its part of the culture. Would you prefer we be more
PC and talk about Lutheran Bachlor Farmers?
> On Tue, 28 May 2002, John Atkinson wrote:
> Uh, every country has had military failures in their
Hmmm... Funny how the loudest comments seem to come from those countries who
happen to be on an island of their own or a continent of their
own(*).
But of course that's hardly militarily significant.
Cheers,
> --- Tony Christney <tchristney@telus.net> wrote:
> Why ... the normally sensible people ...
-------
Johns hard nosed opinions tend to create controversy and comment, that
frequently lead to interesting counter comments or agreement by many.
> Times change. Nations that were once mighty are no
-------
Actually, I cannot think of any 'people' who have created an 'empire' and lost
it, that have been able to reach 'empire' status again.
> I would comment on John A.... if I thought
on 02.5.29 2:28 PM, John Leary at john_t_leary@yahoo.com scribbleth:
> Actually, I cannot think of any 'people' who have
Carthage? They didn't do too well the second time they tried, tho...
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 10:28 28/05/02 -0700, John Leary wrote:
Going by John's behaviour
1) Is a very small group. 2) Getting larger. 3) Very larger. 4) Really large
group, of the scale in fact.
By the way John L. being a soldier does not excuse John A. from making a
ass of himself:)
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
I can't speak for most of these, but I think you could make a very good case
for China NOT fulfilling the conditions. From the Western point of view, they
were all Chinese and spoke Chinese, but basically the nation was destroyed and
a new nation emerged in the same place, a large number of times. Often with a
different cultural heritage (which, admittedly, tended to shift into the
"average" Chinese cultural mix over the years).
on 02.5.29 2:55 PM, K.H.Ranitzsch at KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
scribbleth:
> Actually, I cannot think of any 'people' who have
> John A. shows the world through the eyes of the
That is by necessity a military outlook. Although John can be some what
extreme with it at times but not in this instance I think. This may be a
misunderstanding of an Army Guy's typical jocular sense of humor. When you
have to be mentally prepared to fight and possibly bleed, PC is not a top
priority. I have also found that when you set out to be pissed off it will
generally happen no matter what the context.
> Actually, I cannot think of any 'people' who have
I think some of China's history can be used for that one...
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> > >Of course we know how long the defense of
OK, 3 months, all there was.
> Kind of stretching a point to criticize the US for
Nope. Both are indefensible. two wrongs and all that.
> > French resistance stiffened markedly after the
But they gave em a bloody nose or 5. Have a look at the German losses after
the great Debacle of May. The Frogs at Dunkirk and elsewhere did about as well
as the BEF.
Not that that was exactly wonderful. Just far better than it had been a month
earlier. About as well as many
US units did in the early stages of the Bulge - many ran
away, but many fought on even though isolated and low on supplies. Alas in
1940 there was no George S Patton with a damn great big 3rd army to come to
the rescue.
> After the French lost their country and most of their
Concur absolutely. Though some of the collaborateurs weren't so much cowards
as evil bastards, as bad or worse than the worst of the Nazis.
> Egotism is grating--but
Nice analogy. Well put.
> As one of Churchill's advisor's once put it, "The
The one I heard was "The heaviest cross I have to bear... is the Cross of
Lorraine."
> The rest of us feel superior to the French because we
Occupational hazard of living next door to Germany. Just ask the Poles.
> fact, one is hardpressed to think of a sucessful
Suez. You know, the operation where the US stabbed the UK and France in the
back? Still, it gave the USA's Oil cartel a big boost, it wasn't done out of
spite, just business reasons.
And at this point in time, it's worthwhile recalling all those brave Americans
who died at Omaha, Utah, and (closer to home for me) Coral Sea. We have to
keep remembering them to get a sense of perspective when the US starts
subsidising outrageously rich farmers yet again, thereby copying the French EU
agricultural policy at its worst, and damaging the economies of stalwart
allies like Australia.
But we *do* remember the Yanks who died for us at Coral Sea, and somehow we
can't be as outraged as we should be. Which leads to the same thing happening
repeatedly. Sugar. Steel. Wheat. Bummer.
> Fortunately, there were no Iraqis out there,
Hell, they can't tell the difference between French armoured cars driven by
Iraqis and UK AFVs driven by Englishmen. Or Canadians and Afghans.
*ZING!* (sound of a cheap shot)
> They are also pretty damn egotistical and have some
Yup.
> For
> At 05:20 29/05/02 -0700, John wrote:
As startling as it may seem various military institutions around the world do
continue training in order to maintain standards. For instance during
the Vietnam War the 1 Australian Task Force required everyone to undergo a
training program after returning from a operation before going out on another
operation and this did not include any training that individual units set up.
As with anything, the skills required for soldiering must be maintained
[practice, practice, practice..... and more practice! :) ].
Cheers
On Wed, 29 May 2002 20:07:18 +1000 "Alan and Carmel Brain" <snip>
> I won't be offended. Aussies of neccessity have hides like the
While I wait for the people come fix the hole in my basement wall, I need all
the laughter Ican get. LOL!
Gracias,
On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:32:34 -0500 Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net>
writes:
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 17:30:40 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
Sure it was, the Northern North Americans began to see they were a real
country and not just an extension of the Crown! <grin> And we Middle Northern
Americans have benefited ever since.
Gracias,
On Thu, 30 May 2002 11:07:48 EDT, Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> Sure it was, the Northern North Americans began to see they were a real
*L* Sorry, that really came about during the Upper Canada and Lower Canada
Rebellions, not the War of 1812. *L*
There you go again with that reality stuff. Image is everything! <grin> So so
we say at the agency!
On Thu, 30 May 2002 10:25:14 -0500 Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net>
writes:
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 11:07:48 EDT, Glenn M Wilson