Article about the French Air Force

[michaelmaltby]

"...the French were innocent victims who did not deserve (as you seem to believe) to be invaded by one of the most barbaric and oppressive regimes since the dark ages simply because they were not prepared to win such a war, by prepared I mean physically and not emotionally."

Pray for peace, prepare for war. Anything less is head-in-the-sand delusion, pattle.

Please - don't presume to state what I "seem" to believe, as I have never stated that France deserved to be invaded. What I have stated is that the collapse of France in 1940 is not surprising given the chain of events - and manpower losses - from the Revolution until 1918. This chain of events was compounded by an inflated sense of the value of French "culture" and love of empire.

".... passive people who mind their own business and don't set out to push overs around are weak". There is a difference between peace-loving and passive people. Peace requires sacrifice and hard work .... as Canadians well know after 1914-18 and 1939-45.

"... I am one such passive person but if anyone tries pushing me around then I will rip off their head and sh1t down the hole." Interesting .... given the situation in both the UK and Greece these days, pattle, I'm curious ...... would you say you're spending more time rippin' or sh1ttin' ....

Proud Canadian

MM

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...A decent channel, or, better, a decent ocean or huge land mass between you and the enemy can also help one to recover from mistakes in timely manner.."

By the same token, tomo, decent channels, oceans and land masses are a good excuse not to get involved in others' tribal blood-letting. Britain, the Commonwealth, USA ..... all could/should have left Europe to the inevitabilities of European economics and geo-politics ..... how does that work for you?

 

[tomo pauk]

Not sure whether you think about past or future?

 

[michaelmaltby]

Why can't I have both ...?

If you visit my photo diary on this Board - Realism more than Patriotism - you surely know my family's association with the Great War and WW2: outstanding service to King, Country and Empire - at the personal cost of health and wealth. With that imbedded in my soul since birth, I can't help but feel that Great Britain could and should have stayed out of the Continent and Poor Raped and Bayoneted Mistress-Belgium's 'distress'.

Who would have won WW1 if Britain and the Commonwealth had stayed out ..? No question: Germany (and Britain and the Commonwealth)


Would there have been a WW2 in this scenario ....? Would there have been a Russian Revolution in this scenario ...?

Yes to both questions ... but timing and circumstances perhaps quite different.

Now ... the 2nd option ... looking ahead. If there is war in Asia between China and an alliance of its neighbors ... is the west in or out ...?

If there is escalated conflict (proxy and non-proxy) between the Kingdom of SA and Iran .... are we in or are we out ...?

Enough about me ... ... let's talk about you ..

 

[Juha]

Why can't I have both ...?

If you visit my photo diary on this Board - Realism more than Patriotism - you surely know my family's association with the Great War and WW2: outstanding service to King, Country and Empire - at the personal cost of health and wealth. With that imbedded in my soul since birth, I can't help but feel that Great Britain could and should have stayed out of the Continent and Poor Raped and Bayoneted Mistress-Belgium's 'distress'.

Who would have won WW1 if Britain and the Commonwealth had stayed out ..? No question: Germany (and Britain and the Commonwealth) ....

Hello Michael
IMHO it was more complicated, as Palmerston? once said, Britain doesn't have eternal friends or enemies only eternal interests or something like that. And the main interests were:
-balance of power in the Continental Europe because British statesmen saw that in a long run GB could not hold its own against the combined economical resources of the Continental Europe
-and to keep Netherlands and Belgium free from the dominance of Continental great powers.

So in 1914 it was not a question of Belgians but British interests which got the UK to join the war. Germany had become the most powerful nation in the Continental Europe and the British leaders didn't want it to be able to become even more powerful and in essence the ruler of continental Europe. Russia had became the other possible threat but already in 1880s British had concluded that there was very little they could do against Russia so the only option to them with Russia was to try to get along with it.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Indeed, Juha, in 1914 Great Britain had its "complications" .... newly created young Belgium ... and Holland (strong historical Orange influence on the UK) not to mention an ever watchful eye over fractious Europe. But knowing what we know today ..... the supremacy of Germany that we see in Europe today seems inevitable ..... once German unification had come to pass. And that being the case -- we have massive amounts of blood and treasure invested in 2 world wars that were about teaching the new German nation .... how to play by the rules!

My response that you quoted was triggered by this earlier post:

"...A decent channel, or, better, a decent ocean or huge land mass between you and the enemy can also help one to recover from mistakes in timely manner.."

By the same token, tomo, decent channels, oceans and land masses are a good excuse not to get involved in others' tribal blood-letting. Britain, the Commonwealth, USA ..... all could/should have left Europe to the inevitabilities of European economics and geo-politics .....

World War I started a chain of events that could have been avoided .... and was not.

The re-occupation/annexation of German territories by Hitler started a chain of events that could have been avoided if France and the French people had possessed the fortitude and resolve to take action when the wolf stole the first chicken. They didn't ... neither did Britain ... both nations were still too traumatized.

 

[pattle]

Michaelmaltby, a large part of the cause for Hitler's rise to power was the poverty caused by the terms of the armistice, if the terms of the armistice had of been less harsh then Germany would not have been such a ideal breeding ground for extremists. Part of the whole Nazi thing was a reassertion of national pride through humbling the nations that humiliated in the Great War and also by regaining it's lost territories.
I don't know why you mention the Britain and Greece of today and it sounds as though you have little knowledge of the situation in either country, or in Germany for that matter.
Britain has been hit by the recession but we are getting by ok and it is fair to say that things aren't as bad in Britain as they are in most other European countries. In Greece the situation is way too complicated for me to find the time to explain here in writing, but I will say that the Greek people are making big sacrifices and are working hard to bounce back, don't believe what you hear about the Greeks in the press, they are in actual fact a very industrious, hard working and ingenious people who have a lot of spirit and understand that nothing is just going to fall into their laps.

 

[CobberKane]

Michaelmaltby, a large part of the cause for Hitler's rise to power was the poverty caused by the terms of the armistice, if the terms of the armistice had of been less harsh then Germany would not have been such a ideal breeding ground for extremists. Part of the whole Nazi thing was a reassertion of national pride through humbling the nations that humiliated in the Great War and also by regaining it's lost territories.
I don't know why you mention the Britain and Greece of today and it sounds as though you have little knowledge of the situation in either country, or in Germany for that matter.
Britain has been hit by the recession but we are getting by ok and it is fair to say that things aren't as bad in Britain as they are in most other European countries. In Greece the situation is way too complicated for me to find the time to explain here in writing, but I will say that the Greek people are making big sacrifices and are working hard to bounce back, don't believe what you hear about the Greeks in the press, they are in actual fact a very industrious, hard working and ingenious people who have a lot of spirit and understand that nothing is just going to fall into their laps.

Personally, like in the land of Oz. That means I get to consider every other Anglo-Saxon nation as a poor relative.

 

[pattle]

Personally, like in the land of Oz. That means I get to consider every other Anglo-Saxon nation as a poor relative.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you mean there is a higher standard of living in Australia than in the rest of the English speaking world then you are probably right. You have to remember that Britain is a tiny country compared to Australia but with a far larger population and worse weather, I think people in Britain envy Australia for these two things more than it's wealth.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... the poverty caused by the terms of the armistice ...."

Another great myth .. dispelled by the economist Adam Tooze (The Wages of Destruction). Germany was overall - compared to GB for example - a poor country in 1914. The Ruhr Valley (home of the Krupps) was an exception as were cities and industrial centres .... but in terms of rural existence and agricultural productivity - Germany was poor. Unable to feed a growing population.

I sympathise with those who starved during the war (from blockades and embargoes) and after the war from controls (French handiwork to make Germans suffer) ... but the root of German hunger was the state of the overall German economy in 1914 ..... and it remained backwards under the Nazis.

You love the victim card, eh, pattle, . Reality says that many, many Germans simply couldn't accept in 1918 that they had been defeated. Berlin almost went Red .... and the crackdown began ... the head-bashing began.

People who can 't accept that they're defeated do irrational things to themselves and to others .... but they don't learn from the experience (or learn the wrong lesson) .. and that failure to learn is a very dangerous trait.

As to modern UK and Greece. I'm just a dumb Canadian country boy .... co-existing with the rather large and influential Greek-Canadian population in Toronto. When Greek friends -- who pay their taxes, get building permits for their additions (swimming pools) and register their yachts -- describe to me the state of Greece's finances and the general lawlessness of tax compliance ... I get a timely picture of a society that expects government to be there for them without having to pay for that privilege, they're smarter than the rest of us ..

As for the UK, pattle, I've been in and out of the country for business since 1979 until my retirement in 2010. If things are better in Britain than some other parts of Europe surely that is because you have a Canadian in charge of the Bank of England.

I'm still curious, pattle ...... would you say you're spending more time rippin' or sh1ttin' ....

 

[tomo pauk]

Michael, I've not forget your question
The Britain is not in the same boat as it is the USA. It can be compared with Russia/SU - neither country will let that some power between Atlantic and Ural gains undisputed upper hand. They knew/know they would be faced alone in the next war (whether cold or hot) against that power. So both UK and R/SU will seek an ally (or more of them) to grind down the emerging power. From British perspective, it was either France or Spain, later it was Germany, and then the Soviet Union.
As for peacetime stuff - UK can either seat aside, and let Germany, Russia and France become allies, with increasing economies, and with far more influence in the world; or, they can join in (they are now), but more firmly and be real part of Europe, equal to other 3 main powers. Sure enough, a firm monetary hand need to be executed over those EU countries whose, both rich powerful and ordinary citizens, think they are not to obey fiscal and anti-corruption laws; politicians included, of course.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...As for peacetime stuff - UK can either seat aside, and let Germany, Russia and France become allies, with increasing economies, and with far more influence in the world; or, they can join in (they are now), but more firmly and be real part of Europe ..."

A fair analysis tomo ... but from the perspective of a European .... ... not an anglophone

From an anglophone's perspective ... I see another option. A re-focused Commonwealth as a block of influence. In terms of resource development $$$$ ( in a democratic government regulated environment) the 21st century belongs to Canada and Australia. Culturally, Hollywood is moving to New Zealand .... South Sahara english-speaking Africa is suffering from inept leadership .. and worse. India is learning to reform itself and prosper .... and Pakistan (the nuclear fist of Sunni Islam) is lost and gone .. I fear.

Canada has just signed a free trade agreement with the EU ... a great advance for both Canada and Europe ... but demonstrating that free trade does not require total subjection to the bureaucracy of Brussels ....

George Bush Jr. and Tony Blair killed the 'special relationship' between the UK and the USA ... bad intelligence will do that.

But .....the only alternative for Great Britain isn't Europe.

Britain has no future integrated into Europe .... whereas Britain has a great future being Great Britain in an integrated english-speaking world.

The Commonwealth saved GB in WW1 and WW2 .... allowing GB to stay in the fight and survive until the USA entered the picture. What other belligerent could make that claim .... France ...? was France saved by its colonial troops and resources ...? No way. Germany .....? Hardly ... what colonial resources! Whereas, England, from Palestine to Paschendale ..... good and bad .... was kept fighting by Commonwealth blood and treasure.

What worked before still works .... if you dust it off and give it a head slap .... but perhaps, tomo, these are just the ravings of a delusional Anglophone.

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm not sure that UK needs to be saved by anybody today. CW was a real asset in 20th century, I agree with you.
As for Canadian agreement with EU, I agree that is a boon for both sides. Canada and Australia combined will have to offer maybe more than Germany within 20 years, and each alone will have to offer more than UK, France or Italy within 20 years (Canada already has greater BDP than Spain).
The question is: what the UK, France or Italy will be able to offer (in economic sense) to the markets of other EU countries, USA, BRIC (even Brasil has greater BDP than UK or France now), Canada Australia? My dark-ish answer: not much.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...My dark-ish answer: not much."

That's fair ... all 3 seem bent on succumbing to rot and ruin. Political correctness is destroying the UK ... succeeding where the Norman Conquest failed ...
but much of what the Free World knows as law, justice, rights and good government has its roots in England .... not in Rome or Paris (.... but note, I do not dismiss Rome as the eternal city and home of the Vatican.)

I learned in business never to underestimate the $$$ value of legacy installed base .... .... and that's what the Anglosphere is, legacy installed base .

 

[tomo pauk]

Political correctness is destroying the UK

Not sure that is really the case. Lack of indigenous production of everyday stuff is rope around the neck for many EU countries, compounded by lack of most of natural resources. We buy what is Made in China; EU has no non-mined oil, gas, coal or minerals worth speaking about. Further, most of EU hetero married couples have only 1 or 2 kids; plenty of people I know (age 30-50) have none. In most of EU countries it is d@mn hard for a graduate to find a job (exception being Germany and some more vital, but smaller economies).
Talk about a receding society.

 

[Jenisch]

Back to the topic.

This part of the article is interesting:

By mid-June, however, the Luftwaffe was exhausted. It had lost 40 percent of its aircraft. Its flyers had been operating above hostile territory without navigational aids and with the certainty of capture in the event their aircraft were disabled. The air and ground crews were working from captured fields at the end of lengthening supply lines. The French, on the other hand, had conducted much less intensive flight operations, were able to recover the crews of disabled aircraft, were falling back on their logistical bases, and were bringing new units on line with brand new aircraft every day. By 15 June, the French and German air forces were at approximate parity with about 2400 aircraft each, but the French were operating from their own turf, and they had the support of the RAF. Mastery of the air was there for the seizing, but on 17 June the French air staff began to order its units to fly to North Africa. The justification put forth by the air staff was that the army was destroyed and could not protect the airfields.

There's controversy about this or was indeed factual? Because if it was, wow, the FAF did really well. Had they survived the 1940, certainly the quantity of D.520 fighters in operation would probably be substantial, together with American imports and RAF units. The LW would be really in trouble.

 

[CobberKane]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you mean there is a higher standard of living in Australia than in the rest of the English speaking world then you are probably right. You have to remember that Britain is a tiny country compared to Australia but with a far larger population and worse weather, I think people in Britain envy Australia for these two things more than it's wealth.

I was just referring to the the fact that due to some good management and a lot of good luck (ie, having lots of what China wants at the right time) Australia managed to dodge the GFC pretty much entirely. And don't be too enamoured with the Australian weather - I live in a tiny aboriginal community in the remote Northern Territory, smack in the monsoon and cyclone belt. Great place if you like fishing and hunting, but Neighbours it ain't.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...on 17 June the French air staff began to order its units to fly to North Africa. The justification put forth by the air staff was that the army was destroyed and could not protect the airfields."

We've lost the country .. save the airplanes and pilots. If davebender's statistics are correct (referenced at the start of this thread) for every mission the FAF was flying, the LW was flying three. I don't consider that "doing well" .... on home turf. Exhausted or not, the LW got the job done.

@tomo: "...EU has no non-mined oil, gas, coal or minerals worth speaking about...." I guess you've ruled out fracking ... .... pity.

 

[pattle]

Michaelmalty, no I don't particularly love the victim card. As much as I have enjoyed this debate with you I feel we have now come to a point were we are just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it that. Apart from anything else I think we have strayed too far into politics for comfort, which is an easy road to go down.
About the ripping and sh1tting thing, I have to do the ripping to get to do the sh1tting but it is not a pleasure for me, only something very tedious and inconvenient that's forced on me by people that I would rather just f off and die.
I hope that you have not sensed anger or annoyance in any of my posts it is only that I disagree with your views, no offence taken and I hope no offence given.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets stop talking about politics that has nothing to with the subject.