RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,169689,00.html

Well, to be sarcastic...I guess the French lost all their youngest, strongest, smartest and bravest in WWI. Out of the gene pool forever! Humanity's loss!

The reason that France could stand to lose 1.4 mil men in WW1, and still maintain public confidence in the government is that France was attacked on her home soil. Her resolve in perserving her very existance was at stake. I'm sure any populace would condone those losses if that were the case. France was blindsided by the German Army. And fighting for their survival.
It's not the same asking if we here in America could withstand losing all those men. And maintain our government. Being geographically isolated like we are. America will never know that kind of warfare. As we could easily see any army of note coming at us here.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Subwarrior79,

Perhaps not, but at the beginning of WWII the whole of the west coast of the United States was expecting an invasion, and if it had not been for some lucky moves and just the right set of circumstances at the battle of Midway, we would have been. And what about if we were faced with a Nuclear exchange? Those would be LOW numbers, and an invasion of our soil in the worst way possible.

Then there was the Civil War, and we DID lose that many men in battles, as related to their percentage of our population at that time.

The question is really why so many people wish to dismiss the French as weak and stupid, especially as warriors, which is not the case ... and never was. They now look a lot smarter than WE do with regards to IRAQ.

quote:

In the AEF's appallingly bad staff work lies the origin of another outdated habit of the U.S. military, the fixation of its schools on developing staff officers rather than commanders. The astounding degree to which the early 21st century U.S. armed forces still revolve around World War I is evident to historians but apparently invisible to American soldiers and Marines.

The notion of the "cheese eating surrender monkey" and other abuse (recall the uniquely infantile "freedom fries") imposed on the French prior to the invasion of Iraq was largely due to the supporters of a failed administration, a failed foreign policy, a failure of a military policy and common sense, and a set of assumptions going into the invasion that were not only mind-bogglingly ignorant then, but remain so today. Contrary to thier "who-da thunk it" attitude afterwards, the neo-con bunch were warned repeatedly about post-invasion problems.

Most people have since figured out that going into Iraq was a tragic mistake (especially after knowing the lousy information this administration was using as the basis).

I saw the president on the tube during his trip to Europe answering a question about the invasion of Iraq, yet still insisting that it was the "right thing to do". That answer explains the lousy grades he got in college and why every business he ran failed.

But our own military treated the post-invasion phase (with a few notable exceptions such as David Patreaus) as a military campaign instead of a counter-insurgency and political problem. Clearly, this tragic error did not help the situation and severly compromised our problems - despite the fact that these same lessons had been learned several times in our own history (especially notable in the Phillipeans and Viet Nam).

That, gross incompetence on the part of the CPA, the mismanagment of the war by Rumsfeld and the neo-con short-bus crowd, and the problem of not having enough boots on the ground (many commanders asked for more troops when the president was repeatedly saying to the American people that if the commanders on the ground ask for them, he'll send them - but the requests were consistently refused) contributed to gross endangerment of our servicemen and women in Iraq.

Maybe this time the lesson will stick (but I'm not holding my breath).

quote:

Originally posted by Subwarrior79:
The reason that France could stand to lose 1.4 mil men in WW1, and still maintain public confidence in the government is that France was attacked on her home soil. Her resolve in perserving her very existance was at stake. I'm sure any populace would condone those losses if that were the case. France was blindsided by the German Army. And fighting for their survival.
It's not the same asking if we here in America could withstand losing all those men. And maintain our government. Being geographically isolated like we are. America will never know that kind of warfare. As we could easily see any army of note coming at us here.

Actually we suffered a HIGHER rate of casualties in the Civil War. Or if not higher, certainly comparable. Population of 24 million in the North, and half a million dead? Close enough.

Dave

In British military history, we learn that the British soldiers wore red coats to hide the blood stains of wounds to fool the enemy; That is why all French officers wear brown trousers to this day....

quote:

Originally posted by Weatherguesser:
Perhaps not, but at the beginning of WWII the whole of the west coast of the United States was expecting an invasion, and if it had not been for some lucky moves and just the right set of circumstances at the battle of Midway, we would have been. And what about if we were faced with a Nuclear exchange? Those would be LOW numbers, and an invasion of our soil in the worst way possible.

Then there was the Civil War, and we DID lose that many men in battles, as related to their percentage of our population at that time.

The question is really why so many people wish to dismiss the French as weak and stupid, especially as warriors, which is not the case ... and never was. They now look a lot smarter than WE do with regards to IRAQ.

The French are no longer in Iraq or Afghanistan. The two Zodiacs of French you saw waving the French Flag (which they have surrendered so many times,) while entering a safe harbor left about two months ago. That is after their long hitch of a month. The only military force that France has is the FFL. There army is conscripts for a two year tour. They are the poor and uneducated. The only way to avoid service is to work for a French Company which has offices outside of France. This is for the educated, connected, and well to do.

I lived there for a few years working for a French Pharmaceutical Company. Trust me; I am well aware of the French mindset.

Oh, by the way, did you know that while sanctions from the UN, which France agreed to enforce against Iraq, were a joke to the French. We found Roland surface to air missiles that were been sold to Iraq up to a week before OIF. Yeah, I love the French.

I never said they were or weren't in either place.

I never trust anyone who says "Trust Me".

I do know that Arms Sales take place daily, and our OWN weapons systems have been sold to the enemies of the U.S. too, so to put the sale of any weapons systems on the French Government without knowing the facts behind those sales, is absurd.

But you go right ahead and paint them all as the friends of our enemies, if that is what turns your crank.

While many of us (rightfully so) talk about bailing the French out during WWII, lets not forget the immense importance that they had in our Revolutionary War.

The French Navy instilled a major defeat on the British Royal Navy at the Battle of the Chesapeake. As a result, General Cornwallis couldn’t resupply at Yorktown. Furthermore, it allowed Washington’s army to be resupplied with little interference. Not to mention French troops themselves fought in the siege of Yorktown.

There is a strong argument that the French assisted us mainly to weaken their British arch-rivals as opposed to altruistic reasons. Regardless of their motives, they did assist us in a time of great need and when they themselves were in financial dire straits. Could we have gained independence without their help? Without a doubt, but who knows how long that would have taken.

1) Without the French, there is no USA. Ask Ben Franklin.
2) How much "stomach" did the U.S. have for war from 1864 to 1884?
3) Contrary to some people's belief systems, the French are people too.
4) Believing you are better than someone else means you overlook lessons you could learn from that "someone else." Consider what this Administration "overlooked" with regards to intelligence sources? questions raised? doubts expressed?
5) A fool is a fool regardless of race, creed, color, gender, or nation of origin. In the "New American Century" version of "The Emporer's New Clothes" it's not just the emporer parading around "butt-nekid."

quote:

Could we have gained independence without their help? Without a doubt, but who knows how long that would have taken.

From David McCoulough's excellent book (and subsequent HOB miniseries) about John Adams(who was also in France with Franklin during the war), we would NOT have gained independence had the French not come to our aid when they did. The nation's future hung in the balance - until they did show up.

They also helped us with HUGE Loans during the Civil War, and with the tens of thousands of resistance fighters of WWII. In fact, we may never have landed at Normandy nor earlier in the North African landings(albeit grudgingly in that particular case)... without their aid. The Nazis could very well have thrown us back into the Ocean without the incredible lengths the French underground (men and women AND children) went to (especially in lives lost) to get us that intelligence before Overlord was launched.

We would do well to strengthen our ties to both France and Great Britain, starting now. They are brothers in arms, many times over again.

I live fewer than five miles from the site of the naval Battle of the Chesapeake in which the French defeated the British fleet, denied the English use of the bay to supply and support Cornwallis, and set Washington up for the victory at Yorktown.

I visit the statue of Comte de Grasse on Fort Story once or twice a year.