# The British are selfish for leaving the French at Dunkirk



## syscom3 (Aug 5, 2006)

On another website, a reader posted the following. Can any of you Brits confirm it? Supposedly it was on Aug 2 or Aug 3.

If it is true, this French officer needs to be b***chslapped.

"Earlier this evening on UKTV History appeared the acclaimed TV series Century of Warfare narrated by Lawrence Oliver. The episode concentrated on the evacuations at Dunkirk in 1940.

All was going well until during an interview retired French officer Phillipe l'Laire accused the British of being SELFISH BACKSTABBERS for evacuating Dunkirk and leaving the French to their fate at the hand of the Nazis."


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 5, 2006)

Is this old guy serious? The largest army in Europe (aside from Russia) folds faster than a house of cards, and he blames the British for pulling out their expeditionary force before they're annihilated? He's gotta be joking...right?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2006)

Hes French what do you expect. He is just an arrogant *******!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2006)

I'd like to ask him what he was doing between Sept. 1, 1939 and June 14, 1940?!?!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 5, 2006)

not only that but the British evacuated thousands of french, at one point evacuating them with the British on a 1 for 1 basis........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 5, 2006)

Excellent point.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 5, 2006)

Yep, the French had no real right to be taken off the beaches and yet they still were. In the end the British troops were more valuable than the French troops (who had shown their worth in the Battle for France - although some of the Free French division did alright after D-day) in the defense of the UK...


----------



## HealzDevo (Aug 6, 2006)

Ultimately though, I think part of the reason for the Fall of France and its Defeat was that it contributed so many resources to the Magniot Line that would otherwise have been able to be used to fight Germany on its own terms. The French were caught off-guard when the Germans swung through Poland, Belgium and the Lower Countries as they were expecting Germany to invade on the German/French border. Thus it was this crucial lack that the French seemed to be preparing for WW1 and the wrong sort of adversary. If it had been Stalin and the Russians, the Magniot Line may have been effective and caused ultra-heavy casualities, but as it is the German Commanders looked at their map and saw a way to avoid that massive defensive line. I think the British may have played a big part in creating the situation of the Phoney War where Germany and Hitler were still deciding what they wanted to do and how to accomplish it. It could be that the British presence played a part in delaying the total collapse of France quicker, also there was the fact that Vichy France signed a treaty with Germany very quickly. I think there was already some negotiation going on behind the scenes already and it was only a matter of time before something became of it. One of the biggest things that changed after the Fall of France and Dunkirk, in the Eastern Desert was the issue of Mobility. There we start to see the taking of the fight to the enemy through the _LRDG_ or _L_ong _R_ange _D_esert _G_roup which acted as a form of hit and run sabotuers of the Allies, striking at key targets and pinning down some German forces and providing information on others. I think the Fall of France proved to the British High Command why the old tactics would not work. Also the Commandos in Europe and the American versions were a reaction to this new type of warfare as I see it. I also thought that the Fall of France demonstrated once and for all to the British High Command that they must support their infantry, tanks and trucks from the air, or see them knocked out. At the very least in the Desert we at least see the beginnings of Close Air Support for tanks and troops. Therefore Dunkirk was the medicine that the Allied planners needed to take to see that the old WW1 style of battle would not work. The Soviets though were using adapted WW1 style battle tactics by throwing masses of infantry and tanks against the Germans in a fairly unequal fight and winning, but for the Allies I think this plan would have led to a situation where Germany would win the whole of Europe and be able to keep it as a WW1 Commander would have flung his troops against the Atlantic Wall. Therefore, Dunkirk it was also necessary for the British to salvage what they could so they could use that to regenerate what was left of their shattered army.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2006)

The French also called the British cowards at Dunkirk. The French only embarked the British ships because they thought the Royal Navy would drop them further down the coast to continue the fight. That's what they claim anyway. 

The BEF consisted of 350,000 people from all service arms, against a might a 3.3 million Wehrmacht soldiers. Britain was a supporting arm, and that was always the case. Shame on the French for trying to lean on the weakest arm, when they were the body and strongest section of defence. 

Let's not forget too, that the people holding the defensive perimeter around Dunkirk were not French or Belgian, but the 26th Coldstream Guards. These men fought to the last moment when the boats began to depart. 

The RAF also lost half it's bomber strength, and many fighters defending France. Heavy losses were again encountered over the Dunkirk evacuation which, as lanc stated, took off one French/Belgian for every British Tommy taken home.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> On another website, a reader posted the following. Can any of you Brits confirm it? Supposedly it was on Aug 2 or Aug 3.
> 
> If it is true, this French officer needs to be b***chslapped.
> 
> ...



"Cranky old man" syndrome. Add a dash of alzheimers to it and you get some old bozo spouting off about just about anything that comes to mind. 

Probably yelling at the kids on the lawn too.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 6, 2006)

To a point perhaps, but it's more likely deep rooted hatred for the British, and he's probably always felt that way.

Not quite the same thing, but there are Canadian Army veterans of the Dieppe raid of '42 who blame the entire fiasco on the Navy. That's garbage of course. The raid was doomed from the start. It was poorly planned, hastily put together, and had no real chance of success. 

My point is there are survivors who to this day hold on to their own twisted versions of history. Be they French, Canadian, British, American, German, Russian, or what have you.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2006)

It wasn't just the feeling of that one person though, it's a belief amongst many French people. They feel betrayed by Great Britain for leaving them to defend their own nation.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 6, 2006)

Well, sometimes feelings do become a part of the national psyche. It happens here in Canada all the time, usually directed at the US. Someone called it "group think". It becomes part of the culture, as wrong as it is.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2006)

If I remember correctly there's an interview in the World at War series of some ex-French officers calling the British cowards. An unbias opinion - obviously. 

I like your signature, Wayne, no idea why though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 6, 2006)

Thanks.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 6, 2006)

How long did it take Britain to replenish the weapons lost at Dunkirk?

I think plenty of Rifles, MG's and mortars could have been replaced within a couple of months.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2006)

Rifles were not a problem, as a lot of soldiers brought their rifles home with them. The light arms were replaced with ease, leaving them behind was not a problem at all. The armour and motor transport were harder to replace, but the hardest things to replace were the destroyers and planes lost protecting the evacuation. 

However, within months Great Britain and her Empire were pouring tanks, planes and guns off the production lines. Enough to conduct effective war in North Africa and feel safe in our home island.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2006)

What I'm wondering about is the replenishment between Dunkirk and late Aug 1940, when an expected German invasion COULD have occured.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2006)

The French were still using tactics for 1914. It is ultimatly there own fault they were defeated by Germany.

Period!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2006)

I don't know how production was, but aircraft production was churning out up to 1,000 planes a week at it's peak.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 7, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The French were still using tactics for 1914. It is ultimatly there own fault they were defeated by Germany.
> 
> Period!



They were also short on will. And wars are, in the end, about the will to fight. France's will was seriously lacking in the 36-40. If they'd had the will, they would've gone to war over the Sudentenland or attacked Western Germany while the Polish Campaign kept the Wermacht busy. They did not. True, they had plenty of problems with their methodology (inferior doctrine), tactics and communications system. All of which would've been difficult to overcome. But building the Maginoit line put them in a mentally defensive point of view. The Germans were coming, the French were ready, but not willing and probably not able.


----------



## Chief (Aug 7, 2006)

Good Lord. Who does this guy think he is, or rather Who do the French think they are. What major war have they ever won. Albeit, they were a major part in the victor of the great war, but I'm sorry they are not in any possion what so ever to go spotting off about past military news. They've never won a war(World War 1 excluding) 
Like I said before the French are in no position to yell at ANY military. As far as I see it. What is the French military. The only think they have that anybodies heard of Worldly is their being a Nuclear Power. All the French do anymore is COMPLAIN LIKE LITTLE *****es. Here's a hint,"before spouting off about the past hows about actually helping out in a modern world crisis militarily speaking. Vetoing Everyone for Everything. Does not represent power it represents an *** that needs a boot to be inserted!


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 7, 2006)

The French ruled most of Europe in the times of Napolean, only being defeated by the Russian winter and the British and Prussians at Waterloo in 1815...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2006)

Napoleon was defeated by Britain in 1805 too. But sent him to exhile instead of hanging him, which allowed him to raise another army which led to Waterloo.


----------



## Chief (Aug 7, 2006)

all right, point taken. My point is that they're in no position now to be complaing about anything. Yes, in the past they used to be an immensely strong nation, but like I said thoughs days are all but gone. They are aiding in today's war on terror. But we had to literally drag to the frontlines. Let alone to stop complaining. That's basically their biggest military strategy. annoying everyone to the point where everyone forgets about the main topic and focus on coddling France. They talk big now how about they actually practice what they preach.


----------



## Hop (Aug 7, 2006)

> What I'm wondering about is the replenishment between Dunkirk and late Aug 1940, when an expected German invasion COULD have occured.



British War Production by Michael Postan gives some details:

Tank production - June 115, July 129, August 126

25 lb guns - June 42, July 60, Aug 72

3.7 in AA guns - June 136, July 183, Aug 136

Other artillery - June 303, July 357, Aug 297

Rifles .303 - June 7837, July 8722, Aug 8919

Wheeled vehicles army - July 9624, Aug 8779


----------



## timshatz (Aug 7, 2006)

Hop said:


> British War Production by Michael Postan gives some details:
> 
> Tank production - June 115, July 129, August 126
> 
> ...



Is there any way to find out what they may've gotten from the US at this time? I know a fair amount of WW1 equipment that was lying around (Destroyers for example and the M1917 Rifle) were sent over. But I believe this was all before Lend Lease.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2006)

Just conjecture on my part, but it looks like the Brits could have reconsituted their forces from Dunkirk as light infantry within a couple of months.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2006)

With effective artillery support. The beaches would have been covered, even if German troops did get ashore.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 8, 2006)

Probably yelling at the kids on the lawn too.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 16, 2006)

timshatz said:


> Is there any way to find out what they may've gotten from the US at this time? I know a fair amount of WW1 equipment that was lying around (Destroyers for example and the M1917 Rifle) were sent over. But I believe this was all before Lend Lease.


Supplied from the USA during the BOB.

- 785,000 .30 cal. Lee-Enfield rifles,
- 130 million rounds .30 ammo.
- 6 million rounds .30 cal. machine gun ammo.
- 900 75mm field guns
- 1,075,000 75mm shells
- 308 3" Stokes mortars
- 97,680 Stokes mortar shells
- 87,000 machine guns (various types)
- 25,000 BAR's
- 21,000 revolvers
- 1,000,000 revolver cartridges


British ships began loading the estimated 70,000 tons of equipment on June 11th, the first of 6 ships to leave, SS Eastern Prince arrived in the UK on the 23rd with 48 75mm field pieces, 12,000 rifles, 15,279 machine guns and over 37 million rounds of .30 ammo. A dozen ships would sail before the end of June , 15 more before the last week of July; Nearly all arrived before the BOB got underway in earnest.
The US had estimated cost at some $300 million, but with depreciation Britain was charged less than $38 million (Note - Canada also sent 70,000 of its WW1 stores of Ross rifles to the UK ASAP, and purchased 80,000 .30 cal. US Enfield rifles for $1.8 million to make up the loss

Note, The .30 lee enfields were only issued to Home Guard units.


Hope this is of help


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 16, 2006)

Thanks for the info Redcoat.

Looks like even if the Germans did figure out a way to invade England, it was sure going to be a bloody affair for them.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 17, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Supplied from the USA during the BOB.
> 
> - 785,000 .30 cal. Lee-Enfield rifles,
> - 130 million rounds .30 ammo.
> ...



Great info Redcoat. Just what I was looking for and more. Excellent.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 17, 2006)

Redcoat's post shows the British had a lot more firepower than generally understood by most with regards to the ability to fight a land war. They had the guns and a decent load of ammunition (not great but 1,000 rpg of 75MM artillery ammo is a good amount). It is commonly thought that the Brits were short to the point of non-existant when it came to artillery. This proves that while not exactly overstocked, that had a decent supply. 

Questions of the condition of the guns, ammo and other equipment (most of them were probably WW1 vintage) when they actually came out of the box. Old equipment can be brutal to work with. The point that the rifles were sent to the Home Guard may be suggestive of this point. Or, it could be that the Army wanted to simplify it's logistics and all HG got .30 and all regular formations go .303. The numbers do not tell the story but they do say the Brits had more weapons than is commonly thought. 

Coming back to the point about the crosschannel invasion. I agree with Syscom that this was going to be bloody for the Germans. But the real question was could the Germans keep themselves supplied effectively enough for offensive operations and, if that failed, enough to defend what they did capture in the initial invasion. The supply problems the Germans would've faced probably would've been insurmountable. Their Navy was not particularly large, their Air Force probably would've been fighting far from their bases (some 109 and 110 units would've been in England, how many is unknown) and the Channel in Winter is brutal. Everything England had would've been focused on that stretch of water, the ports on both sides of it and the German Invasion area. While the Germans have to move supplies across the Channel, the British are fighting in the middle of theirs. Makes life simpler from a logistical standpoint. 

Considering how much trouble the Luftwaffe had supply the 6th Army in Stalingrad 2 years later, I can not believe the odds were seriously in the Wermacht's favor. Too many "if's" and not many good answers.

One last open question, does anyone know what the weather was like in the Channel from 10/40 to 3/41? Actual reports, things of that nature?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 17, 2006)

We discussed in another thread whether the Germans could have invaded England, and the evidence suggests a resounding "NO".

But, if per chance they did manage to put some troops on the beaches, it looks like the Brits could have bottled them up and worn them down from attrition.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 17, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> We discussed in another thread whether the Germans could have invaded England, and the evidence suggests a resounding "NO".
> QUOTE]
> 
> I don't know if that would've carried much weight with Hitler. The guy was unpredictable at best. Common sense would've told him not to declare war on the US December of 1941 ("Don't you have enought problems Adolph?"), but that didn't account for much. Not a case of would he do it but COULD he do it. And the way he gambled and shot from the hip, he could've done it.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 17, 2006)

timshatz said:


> I don't know if that would've carried much weight with Hitler. The guy was unpredictable at best. Common sense would've told him not to declare war on the US December of 1941 ("Don't you have enought problems Adolph?"), but that didn't account for much. Not a case of would he do it but COULD he do it. And the way he gambled and shot from the hip, he could've done it.



What Hitler wanted and what the German army could have actually done was two totally different things.

As that thread pointed out, the Germans had little if any amphib capability, were going to land at defended beaches and were probably were going to be attacked by British land forces immediatly. Couple in the logistical margins for resupply and reinforcements, and all the signs were there for it to be a fiasco for them.

The single biggest issue I have with a scenario of a German invasion of the British isles, is the resupply. The German navy didnt have the types of ships to deliver the goods onto unimproved beaches. The assumption of the Germans taking sea ports that hadnt been demolished is an assumption of best case planning, which usually means your plan is going to fail.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 17, 2006)

timshatz said:


> One last open question, does anyone know what the weather was like in the Channel from 10/40 to 3/41? Actual reports, things of that nature?


If the Germans wanted to invade it would have to be before the end of September, after that, the weather conditions around the Channel are normally unsuitable for attempting a large scale landing. ( and both the British and Germans were aware of this fact)


----------



## Twitch (Aug 20, 2006)

The error of all the "coulda/woulda/shoulda" is that Germany could have done just about anything Hitler set his mind to. If in 1933 his primary desire after taking power was to subjugate GB by invasion he would have done it. Talk of no amphibious capability or anything else the Germans didn't have is pointless since the theme of the thread is now "coulda." And it is silly to imagine German engineers NOT being able to design and produce specific vehicles or equipment if the word had been given years before the BoB.

As it was is one thing and what it coulda been is quite another8)


----------



## plan_D (Aug 20, 2006)

Are you implying that Germany could have created a navy larger than the Royal Navy, while creating the Luftwaffe and Heeres that it did AND an invasion fleet that was at least half the size of the Allied invasion fleet in 1944 ... in six years? This is while building up the infrastructure in Germany. 

I don't think so. Germany achieved a lot but forging a navy and supply fleet larger than the combined industries of U.S, Great Britain and it's Commonwealth without the slave labour of Axis Europe is quite unbelievable.


----------



## pgm1962a (Aug 22, 2006)

There was never any serious threat of an amphibious invasion. The capabilities of the Kriegsmarine for that were woefull (even the army &the Lufftwafe balked at the idea). No such invasion could even be considered unless the RAF was knocked out the Royal Navy kept from the invasion beachead (an imposibility). The German Navy had no hope of ever defeating the Royal Navy in a shootout. It was also not possible to build up its fleet quickly. The German Navy believed that by 1946 they would have had several more BISMARK class Battleships and several aircraft carriers.


----------



## Glider (Aug 22, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Well, sometimes feelings do become a part of the national psyche. It happens here in Canada all the time, usually directed at the US. Someone called it "group think". It becomes part of the culture, as wrong as it is.



A couple of years ago we were on Holiday in Newfoundland. At the eastern point there are some Gun emplacements built in 1941 and equiped with American Guns. 
There were a bunch of Canadians looking at this gun with some Americans and they were moaning that the British had deserted the Canadians in 1941 leaving the Americans to supply the Guns for the emplacement. Complaining that the British wouldn't let them have any modern weapons keeping them all to themselves and thanking the Americans for their generosity. 

I couldn't take any more of this and 
1) asked them how far were the germans from the Canadian coastline as the French coast is about 25 mile from my house - silence 
2) Asked them how the Germans were supposed to invade Canada in 1941 - silence
3) Finally I pointed out that the Guns in the emplacement was a dissapearing gun dating from around 1880 and might, just might, get two shots off before it was destroyed being totally open to the sky - more silence
4) I asked if 1880 was modern what would their definition of old be - more silence. This was a cheap shot I know but I couldn't resist it.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 22, 2006)

Glider, well done!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 23, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Glider, well done!


Indeed. I have to agree I'm afraid, well done. That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. You'll find that kind of attitude regarding various topics almost anywhere you go in this world though, not just parts of eastern Canada, and the people can be every bit as thick. I've had experiences of my own from time to time.

Those Newfs didn't even seem to know their own history in the least. One thing you should have asked them was "When did Newfoundland actually become a part of Canada?". More blank stares I suppose.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2006)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 23, 2006)

Assuming they weren't actually from another part of Canada, like say Nova Scotia.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 24, 2006)

but whats the deal with adding Labradour onto the province of Newfoundland for? its on the mailand we should have 11 provinces


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 26, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> but whats the deal with adding Labradour onto the province of Newfoundland for? its on the mailand we should have 11 provinces


Not enough people. Labrador lacks the population to warrant provincial status. If anything, it would be a fourth territory. As it was, the whole thing was part of the deal for Newfoundland joining Confederation.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 28, 2006)

Never been there, is it whats the weather like


----------



## Meteor (Oct 6, 2006)

Chief said:


> They are aiding in today's war on terror. But we had to literally drag to the frontlines. Let alone to stop complaining. That's basically their biggest military strategy. annoying everyone to the point where everyone forgets about the main topic and focus on coddling France.
> * They talk big now how about they actually practice what they preach.*



And here is me thinking that the French military have been quite martial down the years. A small blip in ww2 and they seemed to be damned for all eternity. If germany had a border with the US in ww2 I will warrant that the US performance against them wouldnt have been much diffrent from the French or Brits. Thats slightly off topic I know. However the French have been fighting terrorists fromN Africa to the Far East since ww2, quite a bit longer than some other nations.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2006)

Actually the French have not been fighting terrorism in N. Africa. If you look at what they were fighting and who they were fighting, it was people fighting to regain there independence from France. That is a lot different than terrorism. In the Far East they were fighting the Vietmanese among others (yes the French were in Vietnam before the US was). That was gorilla fighting for there country against the French, not terrorism)

Besides today France is one of the biggest importers behind Russia of weapons to the countries that support terrorism.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 6, 2006)

I live in France, have done for far too many years, and I think I know a bit or two about them. I agree with most of what has been said above, but there is one more thing you need to know about - the French national character.

On a personal level, imagine you accidentally bump into someone's foot with your trolley in the supermarket. Being a well-brought up Brit, Aussie, Yank, etc, you apologize, expecting them to shrug it off, and say no more; instead, the French person begins to have a verbal go at you, as if you had done it deliberately.

Second scenario. You drive normally through a green light, and are rammed by a French driver, who is probably drunk to boot. He starts shouting and waving his arms, not always politely, and tries to blame you.

Your French colleague fails to attain his objective at work. Instead of, "OK, I'll give it another crack", you get a list of (usually feeble) reasons and things beyond-his-control to try and shove the blame onto other people.

See where this leads? Exactly. They are a nation of whingers who would blame anything on anybody, regardless of the rights and wrongs, just as long as they don't have to admit they fluffed it. Of course, some individuals are nice, straight types, but on the whole, forget it. And as for admitting that they simply folded owing to poor training and worse leadership, both military and political, drop that!

Incidentally, just to give some authority to the above, I'm also involved in developing the Combat Flight Simulator 3 Battle Of France add-on - which started simply from wargaming the French Campaign, and coming to the conclusion that with more aggressive leadership and more effective soldiering, the combined forces could have given the Germans a really nasty ride - even if we have never actually had the Allies win.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2006)

I agree with you on the French. I have been to France many many times. I was just in Paris about 6 weeks ago.

I love the French countryside and I love Paris but I find for the most part the French people are very rude. Atleast the ones that I run into.

It could because they dont like the Germans or the Americans and I am German/American so they doubly hate me.


----------



## Chief (Oct 6, 2006)

Thanks Adler. Meteor, I'm not saying anything about the soldiers. Or why they fight. Although sometime their reasons can be Iffy if you catch my meaning. However, Recently their commander/government don't want to fight, unless somebody Invaded.

Their soldiers are fine and they now have one of the most state of the Art tank on the planet. However, their military i believe is run by a, but of Gaytard that would rather fight with what looks good on paper. They are a force to be reckoned with, but a military is useless if it's not used properly. Look at WW1. They ruled in aircraft production developing hundreds even thousands more planes than any other country in the war. Infact when America joined the war they had nothing as far as aircraft and was forced to use French aircraft such as the Neuport 28 and the Spad XIII. Which were excellent aircraft.

However, now they got cocky and paid the price as history has proven. Yes Napoleon was a great General and Empire. However, even then they did win battles, but in the process they ultimate lost their wars do to Mal-nourishment/hunger, Russian winter, and the death tole they received from their battle. The main reason America won the Revolutionary War. They won with Guerrilla fighting which is what devastated the European powers at the time. They were trained for a European marching line battle which it in of itself means the loss of many a good men.

WW2 also proved a thorn in the side as they started the Maginot line, but they never finished it. Not sure about their reasons I believe because they didn't want to provoke Switzerland or Italy but not sure about that. Tactically a Great idea. However they didn't finish it. Which is what allowed Hitler to invade and ultimately ended with the Occupation of France.

I'm not talking down France about their Military strategies. In fact, they're geniuses when it comes strategy. The problem is they are bad when it come to following through with their strategy and being able to adapt when their strategy fails.

This is why I don't like the French militarily. They could easily become a major Superpower if they would just learn how to use their military and when to use them. That's what I'm saying.


----------



## Meteor (Oct 6, 2006)

Very well put, however, the same can be said of the UK. I both admire and loathe the French. I admire them for actually standing up for their culture and their interests and not being swayed by other powers. And I loathe them for their inward looking selfishness and having lived there for a while agree with NDICKI.

However, the terrorist statements above are subjective. Just as the US thinks they are fighting terrorists today, the French thought they were then. A wee bit of subjectivity is needed here. No doubt in todays speak the VC were terrorists too, but they see themselves as freedom fighters, just as the Algerians in the 60's saw themselves.

What is terrorism afterall? If this was 200 years ago the modern day prosepective on the US revolution could be seen as an Insurgency like Iraq.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2006)

_"WW2 also proved a thorn in the side as they started the Maginot line, but they never finished it. Not sure about their reasons I believe because they didn't want to provoke Switzerland or Italy but not sure about that. Tactically a Great idea. However they didn't finish it. Which is what allowed Hitler to invade and ultimately ended with the Occupation of France."_

No it wasn't a great idea. It was a crap idea and was a crap defence line.


----------



## Chief (Oct 7, 2006)

I thought the Germans took the idea and used it on french coastline as a defensive against a sea invasion. It fell, but at a heavy price. Plus the Germans went around it attacked it on all sides. However, if it had been completed, I think it would of held it's on against the german invasion. Although, I get the fealing you're talking about why not just bomb it. Which in that case your correct. Still it would of been tough to crack.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2006)

No it wouldn't. The Maginot Line was not shell or bomb proof. Lacked depth and had many blind-sides. The Germans didn't use a single tank while attacking the Maginot Line. And for the tactically good idea part!? Napoleon stated "The loser stays in his forts." Defence is best mobile, even the German definsive "lines" were mobile.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2006)

Chief the Maginot Line was a complete waste of time and was completey outdated in its tactical idea. It was designed with the idea of fighting a WW1 type war like the trench war of WW1. It was useless against a mobile force like the Germans had as pD said.

The Germans simply went around it with there main thrust though the lowlands of Belgium and Netherlands.


----------



## Chief (Oct 7, 2006)

True it was outdated being design for a Second WW1 and the fact that it wasn't completed didn't help much. Not to mention they didn't have a single AA gun system at all. However, if they based the line as so, cannon, AA Gun, cannon, AA gun. It probably would've held out at least a little bit longer.

Also, did the french have close air support over the Maginot line?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2006)

No Chief it would not have lasted any bit longer at all. The German main attack did not attack the Maginot Line directly, therefore your cannon and AA system would have still had no use. They went around the Maginot Line. 

The whole concept of it in a mobile warfare type setting, is useless.

If you sit in one spot you are going.

Notice how Saddam put his tanks in little dugouts and they were not supposed to move and just fire at the advancing US tanks. 
Guess what that did not work either, they all got destroyed either from the air or run over by allied tanks.

Same concept.


----------



## Chief (Oct 7, 2006)

Yeah, I never thought of it like that. Once the war started the whole point is to push forward and gain ground. I just failed to grasp the consept.

I'm assuming when you say going around you mean by sea landing, Cause I said if they finished it, meaning extending it from Sea to Sea, but regardless your right. As a defensive possition is one thing, but after the allies had gained the initiative it you wouldn't be able to move it, so than it would just prove to be just a waste of resources.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2006)

It was never meant to go from Sea to Sea. They were only going to build it from the Belgium border to the Swiss border to begin with.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2006)

Even if they had gone from Sea to Sea the Germans still would have gone right through it.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2006)

_"True it was outdated being design for a Second WW1 and the fact that it wasn't completed didn't help much. Not to mention they didn't have a single AA gun system at all. However, if they based the line as so, cannon, AA Gun, cannon, AA gun. It probably would've held out at least a little bit longer."_

What made the Maginot Line ineffective was the idea of using it as a pivot in the defence of France. The line itself could have been made very effective, whether it was finished or not. 

France had anti-aircraft artillery all through the Maginot Line, and all through France. Your extremely simple idea of "cannon, AA gun, cannon, AA gun," actually makes no sense and is certainly no way of improving the Maginot Line. 

_"Also, did the french have close air support over the Maginot line?"_

The Armeé de l'Air covered the Maginot Line, yes. The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority over the sector's of assault though, which allowed the Ju 87 and other bombers to destroy the sectors. Intense anti-aircraft cannot be everywhere, and on a static line this flaw is trebled. 

_"Yeah, I never thought of it like that. Once the war started the whole point is to push forward and gain ground. I just failed to grasp the consept."_

Forget trying to grasp that concept, Chief. The idea of war is not to gain ground, that's Great War thinking that costs a lot of lives. The idea of war is to destroy the opposing army, you always aim to destroy the opposing army. You fight over land, not for it. 

_"I'm assuming when you say going around you mean by sea landing, Cause I said if they finished it, meaning extending it from Sea to Sea, but regardless your right."_

The original design went from sea to sea, with the sector facing Italy called the *Alpine Line*. However, the alliance signed with Belgium in 1920 stopped the building of the line to the English Channel. It wasn't until 1936 when Belgium declared neutrality that the French had to rush the build to the Channel. But it would never have gone through the Ardennes forest. 

_"As a defensive possition is one thing, but after the allies had gained the initiative it you wouldn't be able to move it, so than it would just prove to be just a waste of resources."_ 

Having a defensive position is a good idea, it's a holding point behind the advance. You don't need to move them, just build another one. Not all would be as expensive as the Maginot Line. 

The Maginot Line was grand and expensive but was not effective. As I stated before only infantry attacked the line. There were so many blindsides to the fortifications the German infantry could move in and amongst them to destroy the fortifications with little worry of injury. The line also lacked depth, there was a strong frontline and a few really weak rear lines. Once the Germans had broken through one line, they'd broken through the whole defence.


----------



## HealzDevo (Oct 8, 2006)

I wonder how Napolean would have defended France at the beginning of WW2. I am talking about a Napolean at the height of his thinking powers. I don't think he would have been too focused on building expensive fortifications. I think he would have focused more on using the money that went into the Magniot Line more efficiently on troops and equipment as well as a border-guard watch on Germany. I don't think France would have been overrun quite so fast with a height of thinking Napoean at the helm. Belgium fought a running battle with the Germans and held out for a while against German Forces.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 8, 2006)

No they didn't. Belgium relied on forts around Liegé.


----------



## HealzDevo (Oct 30, 2006)

What do you think? Would the money that was in the Maginot Line have been better spent on training troops, and building up tanks and aircraft with rough airfields that could have been used to attack the Germans? Would this have delayed Hitler's attack on France at all?


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

The French are the French and always have been. Looking back over 100 yrs of European history and regarding the French. We as allies England her Commonwealth our essteemed US allies during 2 World Wars the only conclusion i can come up with. is that as Allies go we should have let the Germans have the bloody whole country called France. One wonders why we kept going to the aid of France knowing full well they would turn and shite upon us her former allies from a great height. Alder to you and your people take France please we don't want it any more.

Further from what i have read. That the French are making overtures for the removal of all Allied Servicemens Bodies and remains to be removed from the old World War One cemetries. The French are claiming they don't want this RUBBISH litering their soil any more. This includes British Canadians Americans Australians New Zealanders and other Sericemen from other Commonwealth Countries that fought and died in France during 1914 to 1918. Fortunately enough that is not that all the French people claiming to have the mortal remains of Foriegners removed from France as people in the Albert region of France to this day still pay homage to the sacrifices of Allied troops that died in the Albert region. Particularly around Mienn Gate and Road and local villages. From what i understand from chatters i speak to in yahoo similar sediments about removal of Allied Servicemen killed during World War 2 in the defense and recapture of France from the Germans is similar to what the French are claiming about World War One cemetries. Isn't it great to know who your friends are


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2006)

Healzdevo, the French would have been wise to invest in training and education of their forces. Theorists should have been let loose in the armoured warfare sector and the technology surrounding armoured warfare and intergrated arms should have had all the money in France's possession pumped into it. 

The French should have replicated the German approach...only if the French had done it, the French would have been further on because Britain and France were the WORLD LEADERS in armoured warfare until 1934.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2006)

> What do you think? Would the money that was in the Maginot Line have been better spent on training troops, and building up tanks and aircraft with rough airfields that could have been used to attack the Germans? Would this have delayed Hitler's attack on France at all?



I think the French were psychologically defeated even before the war began. WW1 took a horrendous toll on the national psyche.......

Even though the French army had some officers who knew what they were doing, sadly enough, the general's were for the most part, stuck in WW1 thinking.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2006)

I agree with syscom on that. The whole Maginot concept came out of there WW1 tactical ideas.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 30, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> Further from what i have read. That the French are making overtures for the removal of all Allied Servicemens Bodies and remains to be removed from the old World War One cemetries. The French are claiming they don't want this RUBBISH litering their soil any more. This includes British Canadians Americans Australians New Zealanders and other Sericemen from other Commonwealth Countries that fought and died in France during 1914 to 1918.


This statement has no basis in fact.

Its a *lie*

You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating such nonsense


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2006)

I dont think thats true.

In 1998, France awarded their Legion of Merit to all surviving veterans of the war. I wouldnt see why they would have changed their minds this soon.

But............ in a few decades, with enough muslims in "Frogistan" then they might do something like that.


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

redcoat said:


> This statement has no basis in fact.
> 
> Its a *lie*
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating such nonsense



I am not the one recommending the removal of Allied servicemen from graves in France and its no lie. If you believe its a lie then i suggest you go and research yourself what has been going on


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think thats true.
> 
> In 1998, France awarded their Legion of Merit to all surviving veterans of the war. I wouldnt see why they would have changed their minds this soon.
> 
> But............ in a few decades, with enough muslims in "Frogistan" then they might do something like that.



That is correct at least 4 surviving Australians from WW1 were honoured in such a way sys


----------



## redcoat (Oct 30, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> I am not the one recommending the removal of Allied servicemen from graves in France and its no lie. If you believe its a lie then i suggest you go and research yourself what has been going on


No, You give us your source.
You made the accusation, now back it up.


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

BBC war graves commission vandals war graves> Commonwealth and British war graves Vandalized in 2003 I suggest you you do your own research. At no time did i say it was the French Govt who has been doing this but parts of the French Population who feel this way. There is a growing apathy in France with certain people due to war in Iraq about the grave sites in France


BBC NEWS | UK | British war graves vandalised that is the news link story i came across on the BBC


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

and try this one as well that links to the vandalization of war graves in France

OUTRAGE OVER GRAVES THREAT

if you go and have a look you will see some very interesting comments about an airport that was to be built and the removal of 61 allied servicemen killed in action in France and about the Australian Govt and the reaction of the relatives of those soldiers killed in action. keep looking at different areas and including the BBC account and you will see the motive behind the vandalism and what words were spread on the grave sites by these french mongrels who discrated the memorials


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

redcoat said:


> This statement has no basis in fact.
> 
> Its a *lie*
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating such nonsense



And before you accuse another forum writer of lying again I suggest you quote word for word not sections of what is written to make yourself look good. In other words the whole post not sections you find objectionable. Its obvious to me you didn't read all the post and picked out bits and pieces. now i have backed up my claim to suit myself. Its up to you now to do your own research before calling any one a liar. And I have nothing to be ashamed of


----------



## redcoat (Oct 30, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> And before you accuse another forum writer of lying again I suggest you quote word for word not sections of what is written to make yourself look good.


I quoted a full paragraph not a few words.
let's see what you wrote
*That the French are making overtures for the removal of all Allied Servicemens Bodies and remains to be removed from the old World War One cemetries. The French are claiming they don't want this RUBBISH litering their soil any more. This includes British Canadians Americans Australians New Zealanders and other Sericemen from other Commonwealth Countries that fought and died in France during 1914 to 1918.*
In your defence you find an article from 3 years back on the desecration of a number of graves by a few mindless thugs, and the fact that due to the building of an airport a few wars graves may have to be moved.
Considering that the French government publicly apologised for the desecration of these graves, and that they also stated that any movement of the war graves due to the development of the airport would be done with due respect and honour, what on earth gives you cause to say that *the French * wanted to remove * all * Allied war graves from 
France, and that in the words you wrote *don't want this RUBBISH litering their soil any more"*




> . now i have backed up my claim to suit myself.


You've backed up only one thing, your original statement was untrue 



> Its up to you now to do your own research before calling any one a liar. And I have nothing to be ashamed of


I don't need to research anything.
You have proven my case for me


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

redcoat said:


> I quoted a full paragraph not a few words.
> let's see what you wrote
> *That the French are making overtures for the removal of all Allied Servicemens Bodies and remains to be removed from the old World War One cemetries. The French are claiming they don't want this RUBBISH litering their soil any more. This includes British Canadians Americans Australians New Zealanders and other Sericemen from other Commonwealth Countries that fought and died in France during 1914 to 1918.*
> In your defence you find an article from 3 years back on the desecration of a number of graves by a few mindless thugs, and the fact that due to the building of an airport a few wars graves may have to be moved.
> ...



you need another injection take this one as a link with photos

http://members.cox.net/needysnook/france/ mindless thugs yes an airport to be built over a war graves with official approval at first until protests received think again redcoat. Take a good look at the words transcribed on the photo its at a war graves site under the direction of the Commonwealth War graves Comission. Just because you don't read the news in Stockport USA doesn't mean we don't in other countries now get with it. Also in your own country redcoat is is true or not that protestors have been showing up at the funerals of servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. you wanted proof i gave it to you not my fault you can't agree with the proof i gave you. my sources stand now yours. BY the way the BBC news is world recognized as a factual news source


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

In Flanders Fields ~ 2003 try that link


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

Now the entire link goes onto say about anti US and anti UK sediment in France. link accordingly is 3 yrs old however it speaks for itself. Now you prove otherwise and i will give you the link again. In Flanders Fields ~ 2003 it appears photos speak louder then words i suggest you look at that photo then read the whole link then come back and tell me what it means. i challenge you to try and explain it


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

and might i remind you it wasn't your country's mens grave that were destroyed but mine and British and Canadian graves that were descrated


----------



## redcoat (Oct 30, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> you need another injection take this one as a link with photos
> 
> http://members.cox.net/needysnook/france/ mindless thugs yes an airport to be built over a war graves with official approval at first until protests received think again redcoat. Take a good look at the words transcribed on the photo its at a war graves site under the direction of the Commonwealth War graves Comission. Just because you don't read the news in Stockport USA doesn't mean we don't in other countries now get with it. Also in your own country redcoat is is true or not that protestors have been showing up at the funerals of servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. you wanted proof i gave it to you not my fault you can't agree with the proof i gave you. my sources stand now yours. BY the way the BBC news is world recognized as a factual news source



I'm British, not American.

I'm sorry, but the fact is, just because a few mindless thugs wrote graffiti over some war graves, you cannot accuse a whole nation of the same feelings.


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

i don't give a toss if you are irish or swalhili yet you have showed nothing to back up your own claims that i am lying yet i have placed several links to back up my claims. where are yours redcoat. where are your counter arguements redcoat. you asked for links you got them. now yours redcoat prove to me i am lying, and at no time did i accuse all frenchmen of doing that you preceived that i did. if you misread of misquoted me the fault lays with yourself not with me


----------



## mkloby (Oct 30, 2006)

Everyone loves to pounce on us stupid americans. The protesters that have made news showing up at servicemember funerals are a group of crazed religious nuts that make comments that the US military condones homosexuality and that God is killing the troops and such nonsense. Maybe there are other instances - but that is the biggest protest group one making the news.


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 31, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Everyone loves to pounce on us stupid americans. The protesters that have made news showing up at servicemember funerals are a group of crazed religious nuts that make comments that the US military condones homosexuality and that God is killing the troops and such nonsense. Maybe there are other instances - but that is the biggest protest group one making the news.



mkloby> I didn't mention the US at all and her military. And Americans are not stupid. And yes i heard about those protesters doing that at funerals. I was appalled when friends of mine in the US told me about it. What can I say but this. Into the loving arms of the Lord God these men and women find final peace and rest and comfort for the families who have lost loved ones. Amen


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 31, 2006)

Considering that the French government publicly apologised for the desecration of these graves, and that they also stated that any movement of the war graves due to the development of the airport would be done with due respect and honour, what on earth gives you cause to say that *the French * wanted to remove * all * Allied war graves from 
France, and that in the words you wrote *don't want this RUBBISH litering their soil any more"*



You've backed up only one thing, your original statement was untrue 


I don't need to research anything.
You have proven my case for me[/QUOTE]

Fact is i proved my case. The matter being under protests from NOT ONLY ENGLAND AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND AND CANADA. Building a bloody airport over War Graves is not done. I dread how you propose that the French would handle such shipments of those interned by Frenchmen only interested in earning their daily Francs for the day in shipping Allied War Dead to a new site. Its plainly not something that the bodies can be thrown into a back of a lorry and transported some distance away to make room for some bloody airport. One wonders how you would react if it was your own relatives being treated in such a shabby way. From the official protests i have read and the protests of relatives its unthinkable to believe that the French Government would even consider violating War Graves to build an airport. 3000 signitures of relatives and family of the 63 Australian Graves to be effected were sent to the French Ambassador here in Australia. The Ambassadore rejected those signitures. In saying that what does that suggest to you. It suggests to me my misguided friend, That the French do not bloody care. The only reason their Government cancelled plans to remove War Graves because of international concern directed at the French Government. If no one had objected what would have been the fate of those War Graves? Answer they would have been destroyed at worst and desecrated all the same. If the French Government had the slightest concern over War Graves the airport project would have been scrubbed right from word go as soon as it became apparent that War Graves would be effected. It didn't so hence my statement stands


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> Fact is i proved my case.


Not even close.
There are 574.046 marked Commonwealth war graves in France. The French are only talking about moving 64 of them. 



> . Building a bloody airport over War Graves is not done


You really need to get out more.
In my home town of Stockport about 20 years back they moved a graveyard that was in the way of a new motorway, including a couple of WW1 war graves


----------



## ndicki (Oct 31, 2006)

Can't stand most Frogs. I'm surrounded by them.  

Anybody got a university professorship in English Civ going for someone who has no intention of actually doing anything?


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 31, 2006)

Were the Brits selfish for going to France in the first place to help the French too?

This is screwy logic...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Oct 31, 2006)

The French officer needs to reliase that the English army was pale in numbers to the french army, so why is he getting PO'd


----------



## mkloby (Oct 31, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> Just because you don't read the news in Stockport USA doesn't mean we don't in other countries now get with it. Also in your own country redcoat is is true or not that protestors have been showing up at the funerals of servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan.



I was referring to this comment - back when redcoat was an American.


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 1, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Not even close.
> There are 574.046 marked Commonwealth war graves in France. The French are only talking about moving 64 of them.
> 
> 
> ...



Considering that not just 64 Australian Soldiers remains were to be removed it was 14,000 grave sites of British Soldiers to be removed and the French Govt had not informed any other Government including British Australian New Zealand or Canadain about the removal of so many remains of Deceased World War One Soldiers. This is far more than a few Graves moved in Stockport UK. And in the removal of such graves redcoat all these graves would have to be catalogued all Brass burial plates and stone work would have to be removed and replaced precisely as when they were removed All relatives of those inturned in the cemetry would have to be notified. None of which the French Govt would have done if they were not found out in the first place and exposed for what they are. As a matter of fact the airport boundary was to be bordered by a mass grave site of French and German War dead but this was to be untouched. Strange how at the time the French Govt was in a verbal slanging match with other Goevernments at the time over Iraq. 2 of those countries being England and Australia. Its not me who needs to get out more its yourself who needs to get his own head out of his own nether regions and realise that France isn't your buddy buddy when it comes to politics in the EU countries. As a matter of interest redcoat the Turkish Govt informed the Governments of Australia and New Zealand when a new road development was to occur in the Gallipoli region of Turkey. Turkey went to get lengths to accomodate with the Australian and New Zealand govts to ensure that the least possible disturbances of Grave Sites would occur. If France had done something similar my ignorant friend there would not have been such an uproar as there was. but France did not.; It appears to me you are in this site for enjoyment of the site. I am too but it also appears to me that the remains and Grave Sites of Soldiers Airmen and Sailors you hold in low essteem and thats a pity because you seem not to care about your own nations sacrifice as long as you keep the French happy


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 1, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I was referring to this comment - back when redcoat was an American.



I appologise for that


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 1, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Can't stand most Frogs. I'm surrounded by them.
> 
> Anybody got a university professorship in English Civ going for someone who has no intention of actually doing anything?



Nor can I and have a long memory when the French Govt decided to explode and test atomic weapons in the Pacific Region some years ago despite all protests from Pacific Island Nations including Australia and New Zealand and when French secret service agents were sent to sink in Auchland Harbour New Zealand the peace vessel for Green Peace Rainbow Warrior. And 2 innocent men of Rainbow Warrior were murdered by these French Secret Service Agents in the explosion on the Rainbow Warrior. On return after these secret service agents from prisons in New Zealand the French Govt awarded to these scum medals for bravery. How absolutely charming of France to do that. Attack a peace vessel in a nuetral harbour and kill innocent people just to test atomic weapons in the Pacific. So its not the British who are selfish but its sheer French arrogance since Dunkirk and up to the present date as far as I am concerned, and still I have shown to redcoat this and still he thinks France is his friend


----------



## redcoat (Nov 1, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> And in the removal of such graves redcoat all these graves would have to be catalogued all Brass burial plates and stone work would have to be removed and replaced precisely as when they were removed All relatives of those inturned in the cemetry would have to be notified. None of which the French Govt would have done if they were not found out in the first place and exposed for what they are.


You really do hate the French don't you  
Prey tell how you know what the French would have done, or not done. Do you have a crystal ball by any chance


----------



## ndicki (Nov 1, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> Nor can I and have a long memory when the French Govt decided to explode and test atomic weapons in the Pacific Region some years ago despite all protests from Pacific Island Nations including Australia and New Zealand and when French secret service agents were sent to sink in Auchland Harbour New Zealand the peace vessel for Green Peace Rainbow Warrior. And 2 innocent men of Rainbow Warrior were murdered by these French Secret Service Agents in the explosion on the Rainbow Warrior. On return after these secret service agents from prisons in New Zealand the French Govt awarded to these scum medals for bravery. How absolutely charming of France to do that. Attack a peace vessel in a nuetral harbour and kill innocent people just to test atomic weapons in the Pacific. So its not the British who are selfish but its sheer French arrogance since Dunkirk and up to the present date as far as I am concerned, and still I have shown to redcoat this and still he thinks France is his friend



They showed a TV film of that episode the other night - I was torn between smashing the TV, and being violently sick. The "Turenges" were of course portrayed as gallant French Officers doing their duty, etc.

At a time when we are all supposed to be getting tough on state-sponsored terrorism, it's a pity no-one is pointing at the French, because they bloody well should be. The day Anglo-Americano-Aussie-Polish-Long-List Of Friends forces want to invade this dump, give me a ring first. I'll see what I can do to help! (PS And then the Aussies could continue to use the name Champagne! Good on yer!)

And 10/10 to the Kiwis, who LET THE BASTARDS GO instead of keeping them in jug for the rest of their naturals. Clever, lads, whatever gutless threats the Frogs may have made. Or whatever lies they may have told you.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2006)

redcoat said:


> You really do hate the French don't you
> Prey tell how you know what the French would have done, or not done. Do you have a crystal ball by any chance


Well based on their actions, especially during WW2, their renouned arrogance, I'd rely on them as much a a screen door on a submarine...


----------



## ndicki (Nov 2, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well based on their actions, especially during WW2, their renouned arrogance, I'd rely on them as much a a screen door on a submarine...



I second that, and I live there, so I think I can have a valid opinion. Just when you think it's going to work, they let you down. As people and as a nation.


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 2, 2006)

redcoat said:


> You really do hate the French don't you
> Prey tell how you know what the French would have done, or not done. Do you have a crystal ball by any chance



I don't hate any one but i do despise hypocracy. i despise a Nation that claims to be an ally then when there is money to be made turns around and sinks their so called allies. Another example being during the Falklands War where France sent technicians to Argentina to help that nation with its missle guidance and arming systems when Argentina was having problems with unexploded ordinance. British Sailors Marines and Soldiers paid with their lives over that. And France was suppose to be an ally in NATO treaty accords with England. But when France could see there was money to be made they sent their technicians over to help Argentina. To me that money is blood money. Because British servicemen paid the price in their own blood for France to sit smugly and say oh look we made a few dollars or francs out of that deal. Yeah some ally France is. So next time you say to me about not getting out much, I suggest to you go over to France next week go to those Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites on the 11th November at 11 am and when the Military Band bugler begins playing the Last Post and you stand their looking at some ones grave say at Albert or at Amiens. Say for example some British Tommy who joined one of the mates battlions killed on French soil for the liberty of France during WW1. Remember what that man died for and why. And why some of his other mates not far away who were also killed the French wanted to dig up their graves to build a bloody airport over their final resting place and not tell any one what they were doing. Hope you can stand listening to the Last Post and Reville after that. Because if i had your attitude it doesn't bloody matter any more then i would be ashamed of myself. but seeing i don't have an attitude similar to yours i despise a country that does more double dealing and betraying its allies when the price is right or when it suits them to do so or wants to dig up the bodies of men who died for that country's liberty and build a bloody airport over the memory of fallen soldiers. As a matter of fact since 1973 I have been getting about visiting cemetries for the Fallen Australian soldiers in such places as Thailand Malaysia Singapore Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. as well as Australia. And took active part up until 1994 prior to when my own father passed away ANZAC Day parades as I marched in my father's place as due to ill health he couldn't. In 2015 on the 25th April of that year i plan to be at the dawn service at Gallipoli in Turkey for the ceremony on that morning to treasure the memory of an other relative of mine who was killed in action in the Gallipoli campaign. Because i know i will be able to go there as i know the Turks who show honour and respect to their former foes will not dig up my relatives body to put a bloody airport over his final resting place. I also plan to go to France and Belgium to see the War Memorials to ANZAC in those countries hopefuly by that time they may be there unless the French have torn them down to build shopping malls over them or airports runways. Maybe you should go and listen to the Last Post and realize what sacrifice those men of England and the Commonwealth paid for France. Hope you can listen to it and after all that sitll think the French are honourable. You yourself need to get out more


----------



## redcoat (Nov 2, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> I don't hate any one but i do despise hypocracy. i despise a Nation that claims to be an ally then when there is money to be made turns around and sinks their so called allies.


The best modern example of this is Suez in 1956


> Another example being during the Falklands War where France sent technicians to Argentina to help that nation with its missle guidance and arming systems when Argentina was having problems with unexploded ordinance. British Sailors Marines and Soldiers paid with their lives over that. And France was suppose to be an ally in NATO treaty accords with England.
> But when France could see there was money to be made they sent their technicians over to help Argentina. To me that money is blood money.


Sorry but thats not true again.
France recalled the technicians as soon as the Argentines invaded the Falklands, they also backed Britains plea for sanctions against Argentina in the EEC and supported Britains efforts in the UN.

The French were quicker to back Britain than the US was.

The French are not my most favourite people by any means, but I cannot stand by while someone insults them with base lies


----------



## ndicki (Nov 2, 2006)

Arrant boll*cks! France theoretically recalled the technicians - in reality, they did not leave until they had finished installing the weapons systems into the Etendards.

They also sold Exocets to Libya - who sold them on to Argentina, with France's full knowledge.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2006)

Here ya go....

French involvement

French president FranÃ§ois Mitterrand gave full support to the UK in the Falklands war. As a large part of Argentina's military equipment was French-made, French support was crucial. France provided aircraft, identical to the ones it supplied to Argentina, for British pilots to train against. France provided intelligence to help sabotage the Exocet missiles it had sold to Argentina. In her memoirs, *Margaret Thatcher says of Mitterrand that "I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support...throughout the Falklands Crisis". Sir John Nott, who was Secretary of State for Defence during the conflict later acknowledged: "In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies".*

As France had recently sold Super Etendard aircraft and Exocet missiles to the Argentine Navy, when war broke out there was still a French team in Argentina helping to fit out the Exocets and aircraft for Argentine use. Argentina claims that the team left for France soon after the April 2 invasion, but according to Dr. James S. Corum the French team apparently continued to assist the Argentines throughout the war, in spite of the NATO embargo and official French government policy. 

In 2005, a book written by President Mitterrand's psychoanalyst, Ali Magoudi, gave a different account of French co-operation, quoting him as saying: "I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman! With her four nuclear submarines in the South Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind."

It is not clear how the Argentines were able to launch all of their available missiles.

Falklands War at AllExperts


----------



## ndicki (Nov 2, 2006)

Even the ruddy French admit Mitterrand was a slippery, Macchiavellian liar.


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 3, 2006)

Seemingly redcoat you are on your own about the French. As other forum writers have their own view upon the French and their conspiracy of lies and BS that the French are so well at doing. Letting down allies seems to be French way of diplomacy and has been like that since the Grand Alliance that France had with Scotland dating back to the 14th and 15 th centuries. Seems like France up until the last 10 yrs has proved France some what despicable. Even to the degree of marketing weapons to Iraq even when a weapons embargo was inplace against Iraq by the UN. And lets not forget French companies dealing in the Food for Oil scandal. It appears a French company called Total was right up to their neck in that scandal with full knowledge of the French Govt of the day. And might i add that as France sits on the UN Security Council and condemns the UK and the USA on the war on terror and being involved in Iraq, France has her own nasty little war in the Congo Region of Africa to contend with. Whats that word again hypocrit, seems to describe France quiet well


----------



## ndicki (Nov 3, 2006)

Total-Fina-ELF is a semi-national company (if you know about how big business works here in France, you'll understand what that means), which is incidentally France's biggest company. They were making money hand-over-fist in the food-for-oil thing, EMAC is quite correct. And, of course, they had their contacts in Saddam's government - which would not be the case post-invasion.

Bear in mind that the thing France reproached the Allies with was not (as the Germans honourably did) being inethical and starting a war without UN backing, but wanting to get hold of the oil. They still go on about that. Ethics had no place in any of the arguments they put forward against the war; the Germans, on the other hand, were straight from the start, and did not keep shifting their position in the way the French did. And that, in my opinion, is why there was no ill-will against the Germans, but there still is against the French.

Not having UN backing did not stop the French invading Yugoslavia, did it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

And speaking of them making money off of other people blood. I remember getting to Tikrit in Iraq and finding missiles dated 2002 and made in France by French companies in bunkers at an old Iraqi Airfield near Tikrit.

There was a fricken embargo on selling weapons to the Iraqis, Ofcourse the French sold them weapons though. That is how they there money, selling weapons to illegal countries. That is the real reason they did not want military action against Iraq, they did not want the truth to be told that they were illegally selling arms to Iraq.

I am in full agreement with ndicki, FBJ, and Emac44 about the French.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 3, 2006)

Didn't know that one, Adler, though to be honest, it's only to be expected. "filthy hypocrites" does not even come close.

BTW, do you remember round 1 in the Gulf? Their defence minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, insisted that all decisions taken by the Frog Div be passed by Paris before implementation. That in itself is bad enough, but when you then learn that he was at the same time the Chairman of the France-Iraq friendship Association, you start to get the idea. He claimed that he did not feel there was any conflict of interest! He did step down before things got too 'serious' - understand before any fighting began - , but how much he told Saddam remains open to speculation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

He probably was in bed with Saddam.


----------



## k9kiwi (Nov 3, 2006)

From the Article written in Brisbane Courier Mail.

The graves of the 61 Australia soldiers lie in the path of a proposed airport at Chaulnes on the banks of the Somme in France. The Australian Prime Minister Mr. John Howard has indicated that he supports the campaign to save the last resting place of these brave Australians. Mr. Howard said that the views of the French Ambassador did not reflect those of the French people.

As many as eight Commonwealth cemeteries may be affected. Three of these eight cemeteries contain the remains of the 61 Australian Diggers. They are:-

- The Fouquescourt British Cemetery
- The Bouchoir New British Cemetery
- The World War II Meharicourt Communal Cemetery


----------



## ndicki (Nov 3, 2006)

The views of the Ambassador probably didn't. The majority of the French population _REALLY_ couldn't give a f**k.


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 4, 2006)

So gentlemen. At the beginning of this Thread submitted by Syscom it was stated that the English were selfish at Dunkirk. Supposively said by some obscure French General. The English were never selfish at Dunkirk or any where else. Over many years the French have proved to even their closest allies how Gallic Logic works and in dealing with allies to France. As a matter of fact i read a piece in the Brisbane Courier Mail that France was investigating secret files about their own actions in Rwanda during early 1990s. It appears France as a peacekeeping nation in Rwanda acted humanly to local Rwandians during some of the massarces in that country. But some years later accounts have come forward that French Troops had made very large glaring errors in Rwanda causing the deaths of local civilians in Rwanda. And that the French Govt had covered it up. This report was in the our local paper here in Brisbane. And thanks Kiwi for getting all the numbers on which cemetries would be effected by a runway and airport in France. Funny isn't it it was only Commonwealth War Grave sites effected how strange was that. And as for the German Govt oposing the War in Iraq. the difference is Germany opposed it on principles something i admire the German Govt doing. I might not agree with what they are opposing but the German Govt stuck by its principles and that i like. However the French Govt stuck by its business concerns and so called Principles and appears just a grubby little wretch of a place


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2006)

I will repeat...... I am not the author of this, I only posted it as I saw it another forum.

I dislike the French myself and think they have only themselves to blame for their collapse in 1940.


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 4, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I will repeat...... I am not the author of this, I only posted it as I saw it another forum.
> 
> I dislike the French myself and think they have only themselves to blame for their collapse in 1940.



I never meant to say that you was the author to that Syscom but thank you for the thread

But the one thing that really annoyed me about the French and that just at the begiining of Gulf War 2 French students and activists were going to protest about the war in Iraq. That i recognize their right to do so to protest but the location of their protest was obscene. They were going to protest at the cemetries of US servicemen killed in action during the Normandy Campaign in 1944. To some credit the French Govt had that stopped because of the International protest that would have occured if protests had gone ahead, Literally i don't care if you want to protest against the US and her Allies about the war in Iraq but the location of a protest has to be thought with care and certainly not at a War Memorial or Cemetry of men who came to free your own country that had placed their own lives at risk to save your country 60 odd years earlier that in itself to me is not only bizzare but out rightly obscene and showed no respect for the family and friends of US servicemen who would have been at the War Memorials and Cemetries on the day of that protest. To me that isn't politics but sheer gall and disrespect to the men who paid with their lives to free France from oppression. Its not something i was brought up to appreciate in democracy. by all means yes protest that is your right to do so and i support you in protesting even though i might not agree but i will never support any one protesting over the bodies or at a cemetry to servicemen and women killed in a war to the degree the French were going to do


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2006)

I see no problem with the relocation of gravesites as long as it performed with dignity most of the graves have been relocated before after the first war they were moved to consolidate them as there were so many gravesitesites. About 10 years ago in Fort Erie Ontario which is across the Niagara River from Buffalo Ny they located the graves of about 20 or so American Troops that had been killed in the war of 1812 they were moved with no outcry but with military escort and great dignity a very moving sight


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2006)

I agree.

As long as the graves relocation is done with dignity and honor, then it should be no problem.

The earth belongs to the living, not the dead.


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I agree.
> 
> As long as the graves relocation is done with dignity and honor, then it should be no problem.
> 
> The earth belongs to the living, not the dead.



Maybe the earth belongs to the living. but the soldiers of the passed generation deserve our respect. unfortunately it isn't just a handful of graves but over 14,000 of them from 3 different War Cemetries. And it is how the French Govt went about it by not notifying the approiate authorities and govenrments about the removal of those War Cemetries to be moved elsewhere and relocated to another area. The logistics in itself would have been massive and each Grave would have to be numbered and each grave would have to be given full military honours at every stage. Do you envisage the French Government going to that infinite detail with honour and respect for not only the Grave but also the living relatives of that deceased soldier would have to be notified about the relocation of the said Graves. Hell if the French Govt kept the airport development under wraps and where the runways were going to be located the French Govt would not have done it set down by Commonwealth War Graves Commissions proceedures. And that is what upset most relatives of soldiers buried at those 3 War Cemetries. ! they were not notified 2 the Cemetries lands were ceeded to War Graves Commission and was never to be used but for the purpose they were intended for and the French Govt could only take the land back if it was in the best interest of France. 3 the Airport development site only effected British and Commonwealth Graves 4 And according to members of the French Govt the Airport development was in the wrong place as transportation hubs were miles away 5 And the general feeling of the relatives and communities and countries involved was one of  with the French Govt over the handling of this situation as it came on the heels of France's opposing Gulf War 2. 6 france wished to avoid international outrage over airport development as to where it was to be located and by not saying anything emboiled itself into international outrage when the media discovered the intent of the French Govt over the whole situation. If France had set out from the very start to talk to various Governments and consulted Commonwealth War Graves Comission possibley none of the outrage would have occured but the French Govt didn't. Plus this came on top of Commonwealth War Graves sites being vandalized in other areas of France by extremist opposed to Gulf War 2 so it wasn't as simple as just moving a few graves. as it totaled into literally well over thousands of graves from 3 different War Cemetries to be moved


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 6, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> From the Article written in Brisbane Courier Mail.
> 
> The graves of the 61 Australia soldiers lie in the path of a proposed airport at Chaulnes on the banks of the Somme in France. The Australian Prime Minister Mr. John Howard has indicated that he supports the campaign to save the last resting place of these brave Australians. Mr. Howard said that the views of the French Ambassador did not reflect those of the French people.
> 
> ...



And Kiwi put in the precise number of Cemetries that would have been effected I said only 3 but that only involved Australians buried at British War Cemetries. The total number of effected War Cemetries were as high as 8 and i fail to see the French Govt adherring to proper proceedures in the removal and relocation of these Cemetries and handled in the proper manner set down by Commonwealth War Graves Comission


----------

