Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the French? (2 Viewers)

[kogu]

Rob,
I find it quite often lately in various threads that you do a post and then delete it immediately, but with a comment. Like the one here:

This message has been deleted by Rob.
Reason
People seem determined to insult the RAF

If you post, leave it open to be discussed about or don't post.
If you delete a post and add your initial idea as a reason, then you might as well leave the original as it was.

Konrad

 

[Mitch]

I don't think anyone is saying the channel was not an aid to slowing the german advance but, what came next was the resolve and fighting spirit of the RAF and the Royal Navy and merchant navy in the channel to stand up against the germans which, no european army had been able to do even the ''great'' french army that everyone put their hopes in. I think building up the french army due to its size was a mistake a mentality of big is better prevailed amongst european allies and, it just was not up to the fight when it came to it and was very very poor. Maybe, thats why they get so much stick as top to bottom it was basically pants. Not a historical term but, from everything I have read and accounts from all sides pretty accurate.

What is probably true is that in the occasions where the british fought the germans in France etc they stopped them and caused great problems. now, as I mentioned Arras had we used airpower its arguable the disaray in the german divisions at that time we could have pushed back the advance so, to say that had we been adjoined to europe with no water we would have lost is speculation which, can be taken as a slight against our troops and, one can easily speculate that the fighting spirit we showed was sufficient to stop them. thats all the ''what if'' arguments that are interesting in their own right.

What is clear is that britain as a nation (I use Rob's word here cause its better) mullered the germans in the BOB and, after that it gave us time to rebuild however, where we differ from other countries was the fact that we did not decide to sit back and see what would happen next we attacked with everything we had. That ended WWII long before the two greatest superpowers entered the war. No defiance from us and Hitler could have crossed the channel in a dinghy.
Mitch

I agree.

If Rob or anybody else thinks that because I suggested the English channel stopped the German advance it somehow diminished the valor and sacrifice made by the RAF then they're simply wrong.

But, Rob do you seriously believe that the English channel played no part in halting the advance, giving vital breathing space and preventing the airfields in Britain from being over run so that the RAF could perform as they did? If a ground war was being waged in Britain at the same time it would have been a different ball game altogether. The thing that stopped the continuing advance up until that point was the channel, not the RAF nor the British army. It was a large body of water.

But obviously something that we're going to have to agree to disagree on.

 

[Rob]

I don't think anyone is saying the channel was not an aid to slowing the german advance but, what came next was the resolve and fighting spirit of the RAF and the Royal Navy and merchant navy in the channel to stand up against the germans which, no european army had been able to do even the ''great'' french army that everyone put their hopes in. I think building up the french army due to its size was a mistake a mentality of big is better prevailed amongst european allies and, it just was not up to the fight when it came to it and was very very poor. Maybe, thats why they get so much stick as top to bottom it was basically pants. Not a historical term but, from everything I have read and accounts from all sides pretty accurate.

What is probably true is that in the occasions where the british fought the germans in France etc they stopped them and caused great problems. now, as I mentioned Arras had we used airpower its arguable the disaray in the german divisions at that time we could have pushed back the advance so, to say that had we been adjoined to europe with no water we would have lost is speculation which, can be taken as a slight against our troops and, one can easily speculate that the fighting spirit we showed was sufficient to stop them. thats all the ''what if'' arguments that are interesting in their own right.

What is clear is that britain as a nation (I use Rob's word here cause its better) mullered the germans in the BOB and, after that it gave us time to rebuild however, where we differ from other countries was the fact that we did not decide to sit back and see what would happen next we attacked with everything we had. That ended WWII long before the two greatest superpowers entered the war. No defiance from us and Hitler could have crossed the channel in a dinghy.
Mitch

Well said Mitch. Even when we couldn't engage our troops in large actions we were Bombing from the Air and Carrying out Commando raids to disrupt, destroy and tie down much needed German troops.

I do think the mentality of the people of France and Britain was different, maybe the French were indeed War weary as has been said, but this country was just not ready to give in. For me it has always been summed up by the following statement from a Spitfire pilot in a docu about the threatened invasion, he said ;

' Who did these Germans think they were, coming over here here in their bloody little aircraft with the bloody black crosses on them, they were on our patch now and we were'nt having it'! . I suggest its that aggressive and defiant spirit that won the Battle of Britain.

Rob

 

[VIRIATO]

I think that the main causes for the initial French defeat at the hands of the Germans during WWII had to do with a lack of strong leadership not just during the war but during all the years between WWI and WWII and of course with the fact that the French army (as others) was prepared to fight a WWI style war and they faced something new, the Blitzkrieg, against which no Maginot line could be efficient. This and not any lack of individual or collective fighting spirit or ability from the French made them initially lose, the odds were too much.
If you go a little forward, I believe you'll have to respect the courageous work of the French resistance under extremely difficult circunstances during occupation, which alas saved the life of many a British or American airman... No lack of fighting spirit or fighting abilities there...

Signed,
Jean Moulin, er....Paulo

 

[lancer]

Hi Mitch. I've a question about your post #122. In the next to last sentence, you state, "That ended WWII long before the two greatest superpowers entered the war.". Now , this sentence was in the context of GB's gallant defiance of Germany, standing on her own. I would like to know how to interprut this because it sounds to me that you are claiming that WW2 was a won deal simply because of the defense GB put up, halting German intentions to invade GB. Do you really believe that GB had the war won at that point? If I am misinterpruting the sentence, I'm sorry. If I am not, then it is an astonishing statement. I understand the justifiable pride in GB's accomplishments in halting Germany but GB certainly did not win the war in 1940. Halting Germany was certainly the first, and probably most important turning point, but it didn't guarentee final victory. -- Al

 

[jules118]

Rob, Mitch... Ok guys, despite the counterstrike at Arras failing to stop the advance and success of the Germans on mainland Europe up until that point in time, the channel played no part in saving Britain. If there had been no channel the Brits would have simply defeated the Germans on the ground and in the air before they got close enough to roll up the airfields from which the RAF could operate from. Sure, why not... everything indicates that this is exactly what was happening up until that point in time, the channel doesn't even come into the equation

 

[Rob]

Rob, Mitch... Ok guys, despite the counterstrike at Arras failing to stop the advance and success of the Germans on mainland Europe up until that point in time, the channel played no part in saving Britain. If there had been no channel the Brits would have simply defeated the Germans on the ground and in the air before they got close enough to roll up the airfields from which the RAF could operate from. Sure, why not... everything indicates that this is exactly what was happening up until that point in time, the channel doesn't even come into the equation

Spot on Jules!:wink2:^&grin. Oh and England have never lost the Ashes!!:wink2:^&grin

Seriously, I love these debates, its good to disagree sometimes as it stretches the mind, well thats what I tell the missus:wink2:

Cheers Jules

Rob

 

[binder001]

Back to the "Yanks versus the French". Not many people appreciate what a major influence the French Army was to the US Army over several centuries. Over the life of our republic the French have influenced uniforms, tactics and strategic thought. That's why it was such a huge shock to thew US Army that France was defeated so rapidly by the Germans in 1940. I think the snide comments about French martial abilities stem from several sources. First, although the French proved very able fighters for the Allies in WW2 their political leadership was a thorn in the side of the British and Americans. Second, when the war was over, France was insistent upon regaining control of their former colonial territories. In one corner of southeast Asia they screwed the pooch very badly and that led to a number of years of combat in Viet Nam, where the French seemed etermined that since they couldn't win, neither should we. Lastly, the DeGaulle era politics of France and NATO probably put the cap on things. So it wasn't really about 1940, but about different national aims and priorities after 1940 that caused the lack of respect. The history of the 3rd Republic is usually only taught with "the Germans showed up and the French surrendered". That doesn't improve the level of respect.

 

[theBaron]

I'll have to disagree with the statement just made by Rutledge: "If we have to choose, Id say knowing our own US history is number one priority."

The sign of a well rounded individual is knowing about many things and not just those about your own country. Perhaps my perspective is a little different than most as I was raised overseas and exposed to many and different things while I was growing up. Of course, to each his own, but I feel otherwise. In fact, that may be part of my trouble because I'm always looking for new and different things to read, which sometimes means that I could be reading about four or different topics at once.

Brad, I agree that a well-rounded individual is to be acquainted with many subjects, and in history, to be familiar with many periods. However, I think we can make a strong case that citizens should learn their own country's history, to know their own place in the world and its history, and that that instruction should start early. And I think a strong case can be made that the average government school today fails to achieve that goal. I don't think US history is taught to elementary and high school students in the same way and with the same emphases as it was when I was in school (I graduated from high school in 1982, for reference).

Prost!
Brad

 

[lancer]

Back to the "Yanks versus the French". Not many people appreciate what a major influence the French Army was to the US Army over several centuries. Over the life of our republic the French have influenced uniforms, tactics and strategic thought. That's why it was such a huge shock to thew US Army that France was defeated so rapidly by the Germans in 1940. I think the snide comments about French martial abilities stem from several sources. First, although the French proved very able fighters for the Allies in WW2 their political leadership was a thorn in the side of the British and Americans. Second, when the war was over, France was insistent upon regaining control of their former colonial territories. In one corner of southeast Asia they screwed the pooch very badly and that led to a number of years of combat in Viet Nam, where the French seemed etermined that since they couldn't win, neither should we. Lastly, the DeGaulle era politics of France and NATO probably put the cap on things. So it wasn't really about 1940, but about different national aims and priorities after 1940 that caused the lack of respect. The history of the 3rd Republic is usually only taught with "the Germans showed up and the French surrendered". That doesn't improve the level of respect.

Good points, Gary. WW2 and events since haven't reflected well on French military abilities and this along with the politics are what have put the French in such a bad light as far as Americans are concerned. Almost tailor made for the old saw, "With friends like this, who needs enemies?". Leadership is everything. No army can overcome flawed leadership and policy. -- Al

 

[Scott]

It may be that in US public schools, the ideal is to turn out citizens and workers first. In my kids recent experiences the schools do offer more to those motivated to learn more. (I'm guessing that European and Australian grade and high schools do as well)

Maybe because I was more interested in history in grade school and high school, I noticed that lack of depth of the subjects. I tried to take as much history in college as I could especially European and South American history.

I used to be frustrated that the military campaigns weren't covered in depth so I took the ROTC's Military history courses.

 

[Mitch]

Al...

I think that our defeat of the german Luftwaffe and, the inability of germans to invade britain and totally rule the european continent is massively important in the way that WWII panned out.

With the British still in the war however inconsequential this was seen as we as a nation did not sit back we took the war to the german people and bombed the cities and factories among other attacks. The Royal Navy effectively made the battle of the atlantic a u-boat war and ensured large surface raiders like the bismark were where they should belong (at the bottom of the sea) and the succeses of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were short lived and, the Tirpitz was a gun platform which never fired.

I mentioned a serious thorn in Hitlers side and, thats what we were, his inability to conquer the Brits was systematic in his plans to invade russia and created the two front war that was so draining on the german war machine. Could we have won alone with say just lend lease aid from the US?? probably not but, the germans would not have been able to defeat us as we grew stronger as they failed when, arguably, we were at our weakest.

We discuss many what if's defeat of the british at that time brings in a lot of them would the US actually have fought the germans and italians had we not been still active in the war?? Even with the resources the US has could they have, even willingly, fought two wars so far apart and given each the support required?? where would, (had these previous questions been answered yes) the second front have been?? France unlikely. Africa?? more than likely but, amphib landings were inantile and, unlikely to have succeded.

So, my point was, obviously, britain did not win the war single handed (don't think I have ever said that) nor, as you mistakenly beleived was I infering it was over done and dusted due to these acts, but, until the US entered properly in terms of troops etc on the ground and, east the huge russian armies and resources we, alone, took the fight to them and did well enough to ensure the writing was on the wall blurred, it may have been but, on the wall it was. A hard slog lay ahead because the german army etc were superb opponents but, and its noted by established and respected historians from many countries that the brits ensured the victory was sooner rather than much later by these early actions.
Mitch

Hi Mitch. I've a question about your post #122. In the next to last sentence, you state, "That ended WWII long before the two greatest superpowers entered the war.". Now , this sentence was in the context of GB's gallant defiance of Germany, standing on her own. I would like to know how to interprut this because it sounds to me that you are claiming that WW2 was a won deal simply because of the defense GB put up, halting German intentions to invade GB. Do you really believe that GB had the war won at that point? If I am misinterpruting the sentence, I'm sorry. If I am not, then it is an astonishing statement. I understand the justifiable pride in GB's accomplishments in halting Germany but GB certainly did not win the war in 1940. Halting Germany was certainly the first, and probably most important turning point, but it didn't guarentee final victory. -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

Al...

I think that our defeat of the german Luftwaffe and, the inability of germans to invade britain and totally rule the european continent is massively important in the way that WWII panned out.

With the British still in the war however inconsequential this was seen as we as a nation did not sit back we took the war to the german people and bombed the cities and factories among other attacks. The Royal Navy effectively made the battle of the atlantic a u-boat war and ensured large surface raiders like the bismark were where they should belong (at the bottom of the sea) and the succeses of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were short lived and, the Tirpitz was a gun platform which never fired.

I mentioned a serious thorn in Hitlers side and, thats what we were, his inability to conquer the Brits was systematic in his plans to invade russia and created the two front war that was so draining on the german war machine. Could we have won alone with say just lend lease aid from the US?? probably not but, the germans would not have been able to defeat us as we grew stronger as they failed when, arguably, we were at our weakest.

We discuss many what if's defeat of the british at that time brings in a lot of them would the US actually have fought the germans and italians had we not been still active in the war?? Even with the resources the US has could they have, even willingly, fought two wars so far apart and given each the support required?? where would, (had these previous questions been answered yes) the second front have been?? France unlikely. Africa?? more than likely but, amphib landings were inantile and, unlikely to have succeded.

So, my point was, obviously, britain did not win the war single handed (don't think I have ever said that) nor, as you mistakenly beleived was I infering it was over done and dusted due to these acts, but, until the US entered properly in terms of troops etc on the ground and, east the huge russian armies and resources we, alone, took the fight to them and did well enough to ensure the writing was on the wall blurred, it may have been but, on the wall it was. A hard slog lay ahead because the german army etc were superb opponents but, and its noted by established and respected historians from many countries that the brits ensured the victory was sooner rather than much later by these early actions.
Mitch

Mitch,

There is no way the United States could have effectively fought a war in Europe without Great Britain winning the Battle of Britain and staying in the war. The British Isles were an unsinkable aircraft carrier from which the Allies could bomb Germany and which also permitted the Allied forces a safe staging ground to invade the mainland and strike at the heart of Italy and Germany. It would have been impossible for the United States to launch an invasion directly across the Atlantic and attack the Germans. I have the greatest respect for all of the Allied forces who together overcame the Third Reich, but a special respect for the people of England who survived the blitz.

And this statement is in no way meant as a knock against our French Allies, who also fought hard against the Nazis. As I said in my earlier post on this thread, in my opinion the knock on the French arose from their ineffective leadership, not from any deficiency in the individual French Soldier's courage.

 

[lancer]

Thanks for the clarification, Mitch. I had a feeling I just wasn't getting the feel of what you were saying. No argument from me about the importance of GB's part in victory. I just have a different view of events as they unfolded. It is my belief that Germany lost WW2 because of two events. First was Hitler's decision (all but inevitable, except for timing) to invade Russia. The second was Hitler's idiotic declaration of war against the US. Without these 2 events, Hitler rules the European continent and there would have been very little anyone could have done about it. Hitler's declaration against the US made it politically feasible for Roosevelt to adapt a ETO first strategy that would have been impossible otherwise because there would have been just one theater of war for the US. Roosevelt would have had to lead the nation against the Japanese, probably meaning GB would have lost most aid and any other help from the US. How could it have been otherwise? The invasion of Russia was an equally bad blunder. It was a gamble, especially with GB unbeaten, that Hitler took when he didn't need to. As I stated somewhere earlier in this thread, most of Germany's resources, from June 1941, were tied up against the Russians. Without the Russian front to eat up those resources, the European continent stays under German occupation. As good as GB and the US were, I don't believe they could have taken the continent back against the entire combined forces of Germany. Once Germany had defeated France and GB stood alone, the participation of the US and Russia were neccesary for final victory. None of the Allies were going to win against Hitler on their own. It was a brilliant, combined effort. GB handed Germany her first strategic set back, forcing Hitler to look East and that is an essential turning point but it took all 3 Allies to take victory. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

Thanks thats been mine and Rob's point from the start. The french sadly and historically have had image problems now some of that is self made from poor commanders to mutiny and drunkeness in large scale and, as I said due to the belief that the french army was something great when it was not. Thing is, this has basis in truth and, again, sadly, has remained with the military and france's standing with many recent decisions and actions or inactions in the last decades.

Now, I don't pick on the easy targets but, its hard to say it is either unwarranted or unjust when most of the issues which are ridiculed, rightly or wrongly, are internally not externally created.
Mitch

Mitch,

There is no way the United States could have effectively fought a war in Europe without Great Britain winning the Battle of Britain and staying in the war. The British Isles were an unsinkable aircraft carrier from which the Allies could bomb Germany and which also permitted the Allied forces a safe staging ground to invade the mainland and strike at the heart of Italy and Germany. It would have been impossible for the United States to launch an invasion directly across the Atlantic and attack the Germans. I have the greatest respect for all of the Allied forces who together overcame the Third Reich, but a special respect for the people of England who survived the blitz.

And this statement is in no way meant as a knock against our French Allies, who also fought hard against the Nazis. As I said in my earlier post on this thread, in my opinion the knock on the French arose from their ineffective leadership, not from any deficiency in the individual French Soldier's courage.

 

[Rutledge]

Mitch,

There is no way the United States could have effectively fought a war in Europe without Great Britain winning the Battle of Britain and staying in the war. The British Isles were an unsinkable aircraft carrier from which the Allies could bomb Germany and which also permitted the Allied forces a safe staging ground to invade the mainland and strike at the heart of Italy and Germany. It would have been impossible for the United States to launch an invasion directly across the Atlantic and attack the Germans.

Good thing no one told this to the Marine Corps! Somehow they drove the Japanese back to their island fortress without a Britain from which to launch their assaults. Island hopping through the Atlantic...?

 

[Mitch]

Al...

No problem. I looked back and it could easily have been seen as that. I just never underplay the role we had in the worst 6 years of conflict the world has yet seen but, am grateful for every contribution to the outcome.

As much of the discussion has been what if and you have raised the two points I also find the most salient to Hitlers eventual down fall. I think that apart from a paper agreement the japo/german agreement was a farce which, helped neither and, had the Japs just allowed the thought of attack a possibility against the east of russia by them, the many divisions of mongolian and siberian troops would not have been available against the german onslaught to Moscow. It is arguable the germans would have finally taken the capital. Linked to this, and a point you made, I could not see any reason why Hitler would have declared war on the US as it was still not a forgone conclusion anything would change in terms of lend lease support had he not as, the US was very occupied with the massive undertaking it had to reign in the japs.

I wonder what the outcome would have been had Germany declared war on japan for the PH aggression how could a country lend lease or indeed fight against a country who made such a declaration of support???

History is written but, just some slight variation in an idea or a decision could have made it all different
Mitch

Thanks for the clarification, Mitch. I had a feeling I just wasn't getting the feel of what you were saying. No argument from me about the importance of GB's part in victory. I just have a different view of events as they unfolded. It is my belief that Germany lost WW2 because of two events. First was Hitler's decision (all but inevitable, except for timing) to invade Russia. The second was Hitler's idiotic declaration of war against the US. Without these 2 events, Hitler rules the European continent and there would have been very little anyone could have done about it. Hitler's declaration against the US made it politically feasible for Roosevelt to adapt a ETO first strategy that would have been impossible otherwise because there would have been just one theater of war for the US. Roosevelt would have had to lead the nation against the Japanese, probably meaning GB would have lost most aid and any other help from the US. How could it have been otherwise? The invasion of Russia was an equally bad blunder. It was a gamble, especially with GB unbeaten, that Hitler took when he didn't need to. As I stated somewhere earlier in this thread, most of Germany's resources, from June 1941, were tied up against the Russians. Without the Russian front to eat up those resources, the European continent stays under German occupation. As good as GB and the US were, I don't believe they could have taken the continent back against the entire combined forces of Germany. Once Germany had defeated France and GB stood alone, the participation of the US and Russia were neccesary for final victory. None of the Allies were going to win against Hitler on their own. It was a brilliant, combined effort. GB handed Germany her first strategic set back, forcing Hitler to look East and that is an essential turning point but it took all 3 Allies to take victory. -- Al

 

[lancer]

Good thing no one told this to the Marine Corps! Somehow they drove the Japanese back to their island fortress without a Britain from which to launch their assaults. Island hopping through the Atlantic...?

You kind of answer your own question. The strategy of island hopping allowed the piece meal destruction of the Japanese island outposts while allowing the US to move closer and closer to Japan, using the newly captured bases to support the assaults against the next island. I don't see how any invasion force launched across the Atlantic would have had a chance of landing in Europe and succeed. GB as a base for building up the invasion force and GB as a base from which to launch the invasion from near the continent and GB as a giant airfield for the vitally important air forces is just an irreplacable must. No GB, no invasion, as I see it. -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

Good thing no one told this to the Marine Corps! Somehow they drove the Japanese back to their island fortress without a Britain from which to launch their assaults. Island hopping through the Atlantic...?

The Marine Corps, Navy and Army indeed gained dozens of little unsinkable aircraft carriers through their Island hopping campaign. When you think about the Islands that were invaded instead of bypassed, they were to gain airfields to permit our forces to close on the Japanese mainland: Henderson Field and its Cactus Airforce, the Islands attacked in the Marianas, Iwo Jima, right up to Okinowa. The necessity of holding the airfield at Midway from Japanese conquest is another example.

There would have been no such islands to "hop" from in the Atlantic, except maybe the Canary Islands, which are a heck of a lot further from Normandy then the British Isles.

And remember, landing a numerically superior force to wipe out an isolated garrison on a small island is a very different proposition from landing on the mainland of a continent and facing (for the first time in combat - there would have been no Operation Torch, Operation Husky or Operation Baytown) the experienced Nazi Forces.

And also, even with the Island Hopping, we never had to actually invade the Japanese mainland. The proposition was so daunting, that the military ordered half a million body bags. I have no doubt at that point in the war we would have succeeeded, but how many of us on this forum would never have been born because our fathers would have lost there lives in that invasion? I don't even want to even contemplate the losses of American, British and Australian/New Zealand lives if we had to do it. I am just thankful that Truman had the guts to do what was necessary to same half a million Allied and probably 3-5 million Japanese lives.

 

[lancer]

Al...

No problem. I looked back and it could easily have been seen as that. I just never underplay the role we had in the worst 6 years of conflict the world has yet seen but, am grateful for every contribution to the outcome.

As much of the discussion has been what if and you have raised the two points I also find the most salient to Hitlers eventual down fall. I think that apart from a paper agreement the japo/german agreement was a farce which, helped neither and, had the Japs just allowed the thought of attack a possibility against the east of russia by them, the many divisions of mongolian and siberian troops would not have been available against the german onslaught to Moscow. It is arguable the germans would have finally taken the capital. Linked to this, and a point you made, I could not see any reason why Hitler would have declared war on the US as it was still not a forgone conclusion anything would change in terms of lend lease support had he not as, the US was very occupied with the massive undertaking it had to reign in the japs.

I wonder what the outcome would have been had Germany declared war on japan for the PH aggression how could a country lend lease or indeed fight against a country who made such a declaration of support???

History is written but, just some slight variation in an idea or a decision could have made it all different
Mitch

Some good points and always interesting. I do not think Russia was terribly worried/bothered by what the Japanese may have done, at least not compared to the threat presented by the German Army. Prior to WW2, the Japanese had tried their hand at the Russians at Nomonhon and had their heads handed to them, against the same Russian Army the Germans and Finns had such initial success against. The Japanese wanted nothing to do with the Russians after Nomonhon, nor could they afford the distraction with their overcommitment in the Pacific and China. It was as you said, the Siberian troops pulled from the Japanese front that saved the Russians around Moscow, which was a good gamble, as the Japanese couldn't have done much anyway. I don't think a Japanese attack against Russia in the east would have distracted Stalin's attention from Germany too much.-- Al