The Fall of France 1940

[Freebird]

Precisely my point, using post-war 20/20 hindsight to find justification for maneuvers which were at the time questionable does not make a valid arguement. As for my statement on Gen. Gort, "...General Lord Gort, the BEF commander, was a most unfortunate choice. Although he is usually spared any serious blame for the debacle that followed, it would seem that he was pesimistic from the very first moment he arrived in France, and by May 1940 his only instinct was to cut and run".

John Mosier, The Blitzkrieg Myth pg. 140-142. Not Mozier's word, he is citing from a British source no less, author Hamilton in his book Monty, pgs. 328-30.

Gort was not the best British general, but he was not responsible for the French collapse

I find this astonishing, since all of my sources indicate the Germans had still not gotten past the Oise and Sambre rivers! All of my maps clearly show that on the 16th of May, remnants of Corap's 9th Armee were still engaged with the enemy between Beaumont and Vervins, with Touchon's 6th Armee arriving in Laon. The BEF at this stage is shown well to the North, West of Brussels. How on earth is the BEF engaging the enemy to it's REAR behind the French 1st Armee?

West Point Atlas for the Second World War, Europe and Med. Theatres, Maps #11-#12.

Another of my books "Sixty Days that Shook the West" by Jacques Benoist-Mechin (Map #3, pg. 111) also shows the BEF still East of Lille on the 18th.

Yes, I never said that they were not.

I've been kind to have spent all night digging out all of my books to give you my sources of information, I can only hope you will return the courtesy.

Here is an interesting exerpt from Mosier's book, Chapter 6: The German Assault and the Fall of France: May-June 1940, pg. 143:

(After receiving Reynaud's panicked phone call)

"..Churhill took the French at face value and decided that the BEF should think seriously about the possibility of evacuation. Given the nervousness of the senior British commanders, the mere hint of the possibility was enough. Ostensibly the order given on the 16th was simply to retreat, but this would precipitate the collapse."

"The BEF was in a position on the RIGHT of the Beglian army, not it's left. So a British withdrawal would not only force the Belgians back into a position along the seacoast, it would make it impossible for them to maintain a base inside their country sufficient to defend it. Of all the leaders, military and civilian, it was the king of the Belgians, Leopold III, who saw this the most clearly: if the British retreated, the Belgian army would be cut off and forced to surrender. Without those two armies, the French could not hope to defeat the Germans. So the British decision guaranteed that the Germans would win."

No because the Belgians, BEF French 1st all retreated together on the 17th to hold the Charleroi canal/Senne river, which runs through Brussels. The Belgians were nowhere near the seacoast, they retreated into their capital on the 17th

Don't like it, write to the author,his words not mine. I think he makes a lot of sense.



There are also plenty of GERMAN reports detailing their bravery. What exactly is your point here?

There were some French units that fought well, and some that did not. The problem was with their command

Hard to do when their ally in the middle decides to pull out.

Nobody pulled out, all the allies were being pushed back by the Germans on the 16th 17th, and all at the same time

Well, this could be thrown into the "what if" category. But I'd bee willing to venture and say that had the BEF stayed alongside it's allies, EVEN while in a retreat, the Belgians may have been able to hold out longer, the withdrawal and evacuations more organized and less chaotic, and perhaps the French
1er Armee would not have been cut off and encircled at Lille.

No, then they all would have been encircled together, instead of 330,000 escaping. From the 18th to the 20th THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WOULD STOP THE GERMANS FROM ENCIRCLING THE ALLIES


This was of no more of importance than Col. de Gaulle's 2 counter attacks towards Montcornet. One is overly glorified by British historians while the other hardly gets any mention. Considering they both failed in their objectives, I find this rather amusing.

It worried Von Rundtsted so much that didn't want to risk his Panzers attacking Dunkirk!

See second map, the positions on May 16. Armies coulored BEF red, Belgian green, Frech 1st 7th dark blue, French 9th medium blue. Panzer spearhead positions on May 18, 19, 20, when they reached the sea. Note that the French 1st, BEF Belgians have all been pushed back about 5 - 6 miles.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

Gort was not the best British general, but he was not responsible for the French collapse

Where did I say he was resposible for the French collapse? I argued that that Gort's actions were very much responsible for the collapse of Belgium's forces. From an earlier post of mine on this thread: "...given that the BEF was on Belgian's right , their withdrawal insured that the Belgians would be forced with their backs to the sea and no alternative but to capitulate.".

Yes, I never said that they were not.

???? Please clarify. First you stated: "...as on May 16th they (BEF) had began exchanging fire with German armoured units TO THEIR REAR, meaning that the Germans had already gotten behind the French 1st army on their drive westward"."

I corrected you by clearly pointing out that this was not the case. Are you supporting my correction, or refuting it? You have me a little confused here.

No because the Belgians, BEF French 1st all retreated together on the 17th to hold the Charleroi canal/Senne river, which runs through Brussels. The Belgians were nowhere near the seacoast, they retreated into their capital on the 17th

1- With the BEF retreating, the Belgians are forced to do the same, and continue doing so until they have their backs to the sea.
2-The French are also forced to do the same, hence why they appear to all retreat together.
3-The British (on the 16th) decide it is "best to retire towards the canal behind the city of Brussels (the Lys Canal).".

This clearly put Brussels within the British zone, not the Belgian's. Last quote sourced from "Sixty Days that Shook the West", Jacques Benoist-Mechin, pg. 107.

No, then they all would have been encircled together, instead of 330,000 escaping. From the 18th to the 20th THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WOULD STOP THE GERMANS FROM ENCIRCLING THE ALLIES

That is your opinion. I'm more of the opinion that had there been more unison, the Allies would have been able to evacuate more troops, not less, and that the French troops stuck in Lille doing the easternmost rearguard action would not have trapped. I also believe the Belgian's would have been able to stay in the fight longer. I'm not argue that the endgame would have been different, I'm argueing that more allied troops would have been saved.

It worried Von Rundtsted so much that didn't want to risk his Panzers attacking Dunkirk!

If you're refering to the Arras battle, "a supporting contingent from one of Gen. Prioux's DLMs, Rommel believed himself to have fought off an attack by five Allied divisions. He so reported to Kluge and Rundstedt.".

From Strange Victory, Ernest R. May, pg. 442

After being rereading parts if this book, I notice the French contingent was there at Arras that SAME day, in addition to those that arrived the day afterwards. Yet very few record this, why? It was most likely these tanks that cause Rundstedt to call off the advance for fear of the possible counter-attack from the south. This unfortunately never came.

As for the maps, those are some of the very same maps I have in my possesion. I stand by my original arguement that in the whole 1940 debacle, the British are in now way blameless for the situation in the fighting the Franco-Belgian zones. May I kindly ask where you are getting your information?

 

[Freebird]

Where did I say he was resposible for the French collapse? I argued that that Gort's actions were very much responsible for the collapse of Belgium's forces. From an earlier post of mine on this thread: "...given that the BEF was on Belgian's right , their withdrawal insured that the Belgians would be forced with their backs to the sea and no alternative but to capitulate.".

The withdrawl was ordered by Gamelin. The Belgians are responsible for their own destruction, having refused to cooperate with the Allies earlier.

???? Please clarify. First you stated: "...as on May 16th they (BEF) had began exchanging fire with German armoured units TO THEIR REAR, meaning that the Germans had already gotten behind the French 1st army on their drive westward"."

I corrected you by clearly pointing out that this was not the case. Are you supporting my correction, or refuting it? You have me a little confused here.

I was agreeing that the BEF are still west of Lille. The report I quoted was not on the 16th, it was on the 17th. A report to Gen. Barker of British I corps of German armoured units crossing the Oise river, by British supporting units, as the Germans crossed the rear areas of the BEF French armies. It does not specify who is in combat, but presumably the French units contesting the Oise crossing. In any even it was Gen Gamelin who ordered the phased withdrawl to the Escaut river beginning on the evening of the 15th (see GermanWarMachine.com I've posted the link below.)

1- With the BEF retreating, the Belgians are forced to do the same, and continue doing so until they have their backs to the sea.
2-The French are also forced to do the same, hence why they appear to all retreat together.
3-The British (on the 16th) decide it is "best to retire towards the canal behind the city of Brussels (the Lys Canal).".

No, all units were ordered to retreat by Gamelin

This clearly put Brussels within the British zone, not the Belgian's. Last quote sourced from "Sixty Days that Shook the West", Jacques Benoist-Mechin, pg. 107.



That is your opinion. I'm more of the opinion that had there been more unison, the Allies would have been able to evacuate more troops, not less, and that the French troops stuck in Lille doing the easternmost rearguard action would not have trapped. I also believe the Belgian's would have been able to stay in the fight longer. I'm not argue that the endgame would have been different, I'm argueing that more allied troops would have been saved.

I disagree, if the British had not been quick enough to shift part of their army to the south flank to prevent the Germans from capturing the Channel ports before the BEF French Belgian remnants got there, NO evacuation would be possible. Also remember that nobody NOT EVEN THE ROYAL NAVY expected that any more than about 40 - 50 thousand could be saved.

If you're refering to the Arras battle, "a supporting contingent from one of Gen. Prioux's DLMs, Rommel believed himself to have fought off an attack by five Allied divisions. He so reported to Kluge and Rundstedt.".

From Strange Victory, Ernest R. May, pg. 442

After being rereading parts if this book, I notice the French contingent was there at Arras that SAME day, in addition to those that arrived the day afterwards. Yet very few record this, why? It was most likely these tanks that cause Rundstedt to call off the advance for fear of the possible counter-attack from the south. This unfortunately never came.

No, it was the engagement with the British Matilda IIs in which some of the Totenkopf anti-tank gunners abandoned their positions because the 37mm antiTank gun could not penetrate the British tanks. The French did indeed play an important part in this battle and should be credited. My apologies.

As for the maps, those are some of the very same maps I have in my possesion. I stand by my original arguement that in the whole 1940 debacle, the British are in now way blameless for the situation in the fighting the Franco-Belgian zones. May I kindly ask where you are getting your information?

As the maps show, on the 16th the BEF French Belgians have retreated a few miles by the 16th. On the 17th they are behind the Charleroi canal, and on the 18th the are behind the Escaut.

As I am travelling right now I do not have access to all my books, but I will give a couple of links. Details of the Battle from German War Machine

Battles Campaigns: Battle of France, 1940

The map of France May 16 1940 is from the Jewish Virtual Library
.
The Vichy Regime

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

The two links you've provided: the Battle Campaigns is interesting, albeit with very general and non-specific information, at least in my view. I'm not really certain why you've brought up a Vichy related website, since it deals mostly with post-1940 battle French regime and society, and nothing with what we're discussing. Could this be the same Vichy that we, the USA, gave diplomatic recognition to almost immediately after the armisitice and in doing so, ignored the fledgling Free french movement?


freebird , and others -

It is quite clear we have reached an impasse regarding the battle of France in May-June 1940, as it appears neither you or I will convince the other of our viewpoints. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the specifics of the day-by-day operations of the Allied retreat, and what their consequences were.

I am going to maintain my original assertion that the British were a great deal responsible for the Belgian collapse, as well as the encirlcement of the remnants of French 1er Armee in Lille. I feel I have provided much evidence, much of it researched by renowned historians in the past 10 years, which support my assertions and I've posted them clearly for all to see. I also feel that recently (past 10-15 years), there have been many works written disputing, and even proving false the recieved wisdom of the past 60+ years. Quite naturally, you're just as passionate in argueing otherwise from your perspective, and I can respect that. I commend you for keeping the debate civil, which I unfortunately cannot say the same for other forums I participated in.

Nevertheless, it is my emphatic belief that the French and Belgian recieved undue criticism in the battle of 1940, despite their many fault elsewhere, and yes there were plenty of them. That said, I can see why in a forum with mostly US/UK members, there are many who choose to view the role of the British in that battle as completely faultless, which in my view, is flat wrong and smacks of revisionism. Bad relations between France and the USA over the Iraq issue, in my view, only exacerbated these myths and false rumors to suit many people's already existing prejudices.

In conclusion, I thank you for the debate, and I would encourage others views works written by 2nd and even 3rd parties to the war to recieve a comparative outlook of the overall situation in order to better understand what really happened. By doing so, I discovered that one can easily seperate the myths from the reality.

So, for the time being (and barring anything statement which I find so ridiculous that it merits a response), I'm taking a break from this particular discussion and going back to reading about airplanes.

 

[plan_D]

VG;

Why talk about the Gembloux battle as if it instantly turns the tables on the Germans? You can see from the entire campaign that the French were offering armoured resistance piecemeal and were being destroyed as thus. You forget the superiority of French armour over their German counter-parts in this conflict, and this superiority is recognised by all histories.

The French losing 100 tanks to the 150 of the Germans in this battle is pretty horrific for the French given the fact that Germany had no heavy tank to match the likes of the Char B, and no tank to match the S-35.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

VG;

Why talk about the Gembloux battle as if it instantly turns the tables on the Germans?

I wasn't saying that it had turned the tide. I was supporting my repsonse to your earlier statement: "the French were practically useless in armoured tactics and that was key to winning the battle."

The key here was tactical air support, of which the Allies had practically very little to none, but the Germans had understood it's value very well and used it quite effectively.

...and yes, it was a horrific battle.

 

[Glider]

VG this is an area of which I admit to knowing little and looking at the postings, intend to read up on.
Obviously you have a greater understanding than I on this area, so can I ask you which book you would recommend that I start with?

Many thanks

David

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

VG this is an area of which I admit to knowing little and looking at the postings, intend to read up on.
Obviously you have a greater understanding than I on this area, so can I ask you which book you would recommend that I start with?

Many thanks

David

Hello David,

While I certainly do not claim to be an expert, far from it, I'm very interested in WW 2 history as much as the next person on a forum such as this. It just so happens that for the past 13-14 years, the 1939-1940 years interests me the most.

As for books, I am happy to recommend one that should still be in print (on paperback).

The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940 - Julian Jackson
Of all the works concerning 1940 that i've read, I think this one is the most fair. Very well written, not only examines the military but also the political and societal consequences of 1940. Not solely a 20/20 hindsight lesson, but I feel Jackson really tries to understand the "boot on the ground", so to speak, of why people acted/reacted the way they did. Definately the most studious and serious work I've seen on the subject yet. I highly recommend it. J. Jackson is critical of all where it is deserved and gives praises where it is due.

btw - Julian Jackson isn't American or French, but British.


A much older book which I like is:

Sixty Days that Shook the West - Jacques Benoist-Mechin
A day by day account of the battle, both military and political on a per day basis, thus making it simple to understand. Overall it is good, with some generalization here and there, as well as some specifics. I like it because there is a good bunch of early accounts of the High-Commands inter-squabbling as well as national leaders. A sense of panic sets in as you go along.

Unsure where you might find a copy, but maybe Amazon would be a good place to start.

Good Luck!
Kind Regards,
-Yann

 

[plan_D]

I meant, VG, that it seems you were using Gembloux as evidence of French abilities to use armour effectively in combat. Gembloux is one encounter in which it seems the French managed to gather enough armour together to make a difference, but throughout the battle for France it was proven that the French, nor the British, had the tactics of armoured warfare grasped.

When comparing the French to their German counter-parts, it's safe to say that the French were practically useless at controlling armoured [and supporting] units in an effective and decisive manner.

Tactical air support was not a decisive factor, in the French landscape it was possible for troops to gain cover from any air attack. This was true in 1940 just as much as it was true in 1944, when the German forces faced the Allied air onslaught. The only area in World War II where tactical air was the key to success was North Africa [no cover] - everywhere else it just made life easier.
The Allied tactical air units were present over the front anyway. The problems facing them was the fluid front, lack of intelligence, lack of air cover and the ferocity [plus ability] of German light and medium anti-aircraft defences.

The battle of France was decided by the units on the ground. And whichever side of the argument you're on [Every Ally was to blame, only the French, only the British ?] you should recognise (and this is for everyone) that you're attempting to deny the true brilliance of the German military planning and action in the Battle of France.

That's where the blame it on one or all the Allies came from; no one wants to recognise the fact that the Nazi Wehrmacht was supreme [in tactical ability] in 1940.

 

[AL Schlageter]

That was ONE of the breakthroughs. We've already discussed this and it's common knowledge. What is your point?

Looking at the map posted for May 16 I see no large German advance in the area of the BEF and Belgians.

I do see the French 7th Army bugging out from the far left of the line leaving the Belgians with extra line to defend.

I also see on another map the French 1st Army being rolled back by the Germans much more than the German gains made in the sector of the BEF up to May 18. Are you saying the BEF should have stayed put and been out flanked? On May 21 the BEF was on the next defensive line, the Escouf R.

What were the French Armies on the southern German flank doing? Not much from what I can see.

On May 26 the Germans had reached the coast and had almost cut off the BEF from escaping and being made POWs.

The Belgians were doing much better than the French in defending from the German attack but surrendered on May 28 thus the BEFs left flank was wide open.

That said, I can see why in a forum with mostly US/UK members, there are many who choose to view the role of the British in that battle as completely faultless, which in my view, is flat wrong and smacks of revisionism.

One must also question your objectivity with a French nick and a questionable sig.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

Looking at the map posted for May 16 I see no large German advance in the area of the BEF and Belgians.

I do see the French 7th Army bugging out from the far left of the line leaving the Belgians with extra line to defend.

I also see on another map the French 1st Army being rolled back by the Germans much more than the German gains made in the sector of the BEF up to May 18. Are you saying the BEF should have stayed put and been out flanked? On May 21 the BEF was on the next defensive line, the Escouf R.

What were the French Armies on the southern German flank doing? Not much from what I can see.

On May 26 the Germans had reached the coast and had almost cut off the BEF from escaping and being made POWs.

Had you bothered to read my previous post, you'd see I back my assertions with very credible sources.

The Belgians were doing much better than the French in defending from the German attack but surrendered on May 28 thus the BEFs left flank was wide open.

I realize the Writers Guild may have been on strike recently, but is a five year old writing this for you?

One must also question your objectivity with a French nick and a questionable sig.

The question of objectivity is a bit ironic, as I posted sources, whereas you haven't.

 

[AL Schlageter]

Oh my, our French revisionist has troubles reading maps and blaming the British for the French incompetence.

Yup, you post references that support you excuses for French incompetence.

Now is it the BEF or the French sector that has the shortest yellow line in these 2 maps?

Also note where the French 7th Army ended up after leaving the Belgians holding the bag on the left.

Now what yellow line is the shortest in this map?

Yes the Belgians put up a better fight than did the French who melted fast like a snowball on a hot summer's day.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

Al, I live here in the US. See the cute little flag under my user name, and the state I live in? The fact that you didn't catch that is telling. For your information, I hold dual nationalities with both the US and France, despite being born here (dad US, mom Fr.). Same goes for my brother.

Adding colors to maps which I have myself (and proved they need revising - backed up with sources) with cute colored lines is no arguement. These maps do not provide for day-to-day account (unless you're one of those types who doesn't see any importance in those). I feel I've presented enough evidence showing that ALL the Allies shared a good portion of the blame, the French, the Belgians, AND the British.


The only things you've proven to me is:

1- you're good with crayons.
2- you're still not reading posts and only trying to reinforce your belief using very outdated recieved wisdom.
3- your bias (or should I say your bigotry) against the French perspective is too apparent, thus automatically loses all sense of objectivity.
4- Casualty records alone disprove your arguement.
5- You exhibit every sign of being a troll.

At least the other members on this thread disagreed and argued with me in a gentlemanly manner, why are you incapable of doing the same? Why don't you do yourself a favor, and find one of the books I've listed and read it. I don't care if you agree/disagree with it, but I least give me the satisfaction of knowing that you're capable of an arguement worth debating and holding some water. Until then, I really don't feel that any further posting on your part merits a response. Let us know when you've read something.

Meanwhile, enjoy your coloring.

 

[AL Schlageter]

At least the other members on this thread disagreed and argued with me in a gentlemanly manner, why are you incapable of doing the same?

I realize the Writers Guild may have been on strike recently, but is a five year old writing this for you?

1- you're good with crayons.

Meanwhile, enjoy your coloring.

Yes this is so gentlemanly. More like juvenile.

As for your references:

Jacques Benoist-Mechin, a Frenchman, so clearly has bias. As for the Englishman, well, the latest fashion in GB is self bashing.

I feel I've presented enough evidence showing that ALL the Allies shared a good portion of the blame, the French, the Belgians, AND the British.

True but with the French having at least a 50% portion of the blame. All I see is you making excuses for the rapid French retreat by blaming the Brits, and the Belgians.

2- you're still not reading posts and only trying to reinforce your belief using very outdated recieved wisdom.
3- your bias (or should I say your bigotry) against the French perspective is too apparent, thus automatically loses all sense of objectivity.

2- You are not very good at answering questions.

3- Your French heritage reeks of bias (or should I say your bigotry), thus automatically loses all sense of objectivity.

5- You exhibit every sign of being a troll.

Takes one to know one.

 

[drgondog]

freebird , and others -

It is quite clear we have reached an impasse regarding the battle of France in May-June 1940, as it appears neither you or I will convince the other of our viewpoints. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the specifics of the day-by-day operations of the Allied retreat, and what their consequences were.



Nevertheless, it is my emphatic belief that the French and Belgian recieved undue criticism in the battle of 1940, despite their many fault elsewhere, and yes there were plenty of them. That said, I can see why in a forum with mostly US/UK members, there are many who choose to view the role of the British in that battle as completely faultless, which in my view, is flat wrong and smacks of revisionism. Bad relations between France and the USA over the Iraq issue, in my view, only exacerbated these myths and false rumors to suit many people's already existing prejudices.

You have not been around long enough or haven't paid attention if you think the rank and file member thinks Britain or US 'faultless'. To say so smacks of a plea for sympathy that not everybody sails into your camp and swallows your point of view. You compound thta deficiency with ill concealed contempt for those holding another point of view.

I personally bailed out of the ascerbic discourse because it smacked of 'fornicating with a skunk' - in other word I enjoyed all I could stand which wasn't much!

I am reminded that since France helped us win our Independence, that relatively few to very few French soldiers have been laid to rest on American soil or on battlefields all over the world supporting any other US cause in which we asked for your help (you as in La Belle France).

It was OK for us to choke up 500,000 plus dead, and 10 times that in wounded ,of our own so that your relatives could either stay French or regain your country in two world wars.. that was then.. In Viet Nam you had to take a hike, Korea?(did you show up? - I can't remember).

As for Iraq today? you were too busy trading with Saddam (including sales of defensive weapons technology that unfortunately for him did not work) to honor our reqest for help.

On the other hand whenever I am in England, France or Belgium or Holland I see a virtual sea of crosses and stars of David with the remains of US soldiers ferilizing 'local soil'. Some have been there for 90 years, some only 60.
Iraq is only one of many acts by France since DeGaulle, that showed how little respect France has for the US. For those of us that hold France in some contempt one might ask how many times we asked for your (yes YOU) support and were rejected.

Should France ever be in grave peril I have no doubt we will be there simply because we are sentimental about a friendship that existed once 240 years ago that helped us win our freedom - and unfortunately we have short memories

QUOTE]

As Bob Hope was fond of saying "Thanks for the Memories".

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

You have not been around long enough or haven't paid attention if you think the rank and file member thinks Britain or US 'faultless'. To say so smacks of a plea for sympathy that not everybody sails into your camp and swallows your point of view. You compound thta deficiency with ill concealed contempt for those holding another point of view.

Before joining this forum, I took a great deal of time to peruse through the archives. My research told me everything I needed to know. I also learned that bringing up another point of view is not welcome by some members here, including yourself. I presented a well researched case for my point, and instead of showing any willingness to debate the case with sourced material, and a few members such as yourself responded with denial and veiled hostility.

I personally bailed out of the ascerbic discourse because it smacked of 'fornicating with a skunk' - in other word I enjoyed all I could stand which wasn't much!

And yet you decided to post your views anyway. 8)

I am reminded that since France helped us win our Independence, that relatively few to very few French soldiers have been laid to rest on American soil or on battlefields all over the world supporting any other US cause in which we asked for your help (you as in La Belle France).

It was OK for us to choke up 500,000 plus dead, and 10 times that in wounded ,of our own so that your relatives could either stay French or regain your country in two world wars.. that was then.. In Viet Nam you had to take a hike, Korea?(did you show up? - I can't remember).

As for Iraq today? you were too busy trading with Saddam (including sales of defensive weapons technology that unfortunately for him did not work) to honor our reqest for help.

So your obvious disdain for the French also spills over into other eras in history? May I ask where I may have mentioned the American War of Independence, WW1, Korea or Vietnam? No? It would seem I didn't. So I ask you, why did you bring them up, other than the fact that you strongly believe the French should bow down and kiss your feet? Or perhaps it is much more convenient to forget the fact that the French lost more soldiers in WW 1 than the US has in all of it's wars combined? Yes, I feel it is VERY convenient for you.

As for Korea, you may wish to learn something here:

French Battalion in the Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for Vietnam, you may recall both France and the US left under less than honorable circumstances.

Iraq? Please! Explain to me how this has anything to do with 1940? Or for that matter AWI, WW 1, Korea, Vietnam? Tell me drgondog, how deep does your hatred of France go? Was it impossible for you to simple say "We agree to disagree" on the 1940 discussion without launching a litany of reason why you think the French suck?

On the other hand whenever I am in England, France or Belgium or Holland I see a virtual sea of crosses and stars of David with the remains of US soldiers ferilizing 'local soil'. Some have been there for 90 years, some only 60.
Iraq is only one of many acts by France since DeGaulle, that showed how little respect France has for the US. For those of us that hold France in some contempt one might ask how many times we asked for your (yes YOU) support and were rejected.

And here you are completely out of your league because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Were YOU on the Normandy beaches on June 6, 1944? Were YOU at Belleau Woods in 1918? Please stop comparing yourself with those generations. The French have no reason to be grateful to YOU! The previous generations who commited themselves did so for reasons which I doubt you can understand. I have ancestors who fought and died for BOTH the US and France, and I've only begun to understand. Stop patronizing me with your "gratitude" drivel, you have no meaning of the word. Pardon me for being half French, I must disgust you.

Should France ever be in grave peril I have no doubt we will be there simply because we are sentimental about a friendship that existed once 240 years ago that helped us win our freedom - and unfortunately we have short memories

...and limited knowlegde too, but feel free to stay home. Perhaps if you turn off the Bill O'Reilly you might realize that both French and American soldiers have laid down their lives for a mutual cause during much of that 240 years, but the fact that you wish to not recognize that is not the fault of the French, or other Americans, but of yourself alone. I challenge you to put aside the apparent animosity you have for France and the French. Both countries have had greivances towards eachother no doubt, thats what democracies do, but to regard a disagreement between to countries as an ultimate act of betrayal is only taking things completely out of proportions.

I've stated my case. If you, or Al wish continue bashing, then be my guest -bash away! Just be aware that French-bashing disguised as intellectual discourse is quite transparent, and you're won't be fooling anyone.

Now, if you care to return to Gort, Gamelin, Dunkirk, Belgium, tanks, German planning, etc....I'll be happy to engage. Otherwise, I'm done here and I'll move on.

Have a nice Holiday Season.

 

[drgondog]

Before joining this forum, I took a great deal of time to peruse through the archives. My research told me everything I needed to know.

I would suspect you fell short

I also learned that bringing up another point of view is not welcome by some members here, including yourself. I presented a well researched case for my point, and instead of showing any willingness to debate the case with sourced material, and a few members such as yourself responded with denial and veiled hostility.

As a matter of fact that turns out to be untruthful - for me personally, you jumped into a discussion I was engaging in with Freebird and started the ball rolling with your sarcasm without so much as an 'introduction' and then proceeded to denigrate everybody's POV that contrasted with your own - and haven't stopped. Show me where I responded in denial to a thoughtful point of view you expressed and I will apologise.

You were so busy proclaiming yourself the knowledgeable (and unimpeachable) sourse of facts that you blew away several thoughful (and polite) rebuttals in a very impolite and disrespectful manner.

I respond to lack of respect and courtesy with the same approach.

And yet you decided to post your views anyway. 8)

I did. My 'monkey fornicating with the skunk analogy' was about as useful as your 'three in a boat' analogy. I just could not resist poking fun at a.) your witty style, b.) your stupid analogy and c.) your whining about all the UK/US posters who were picking on you and La Belle France.

So your obvious disdain for the French also spills over into other eras in history? May I ask where I may have mentioned the American War of Independence, WW1, Korea or Vietnam? No? It would seem I didn't. So I ask you, why did you bring them up, other than the fact that you strongly believe the French should bow down and kiss your feet? Or perhaps it is much more convenient to forget the fact that the French lost more soldiers in WW 1 than the US has in all of it's wars combined? Yes, I feel it is VERY convenient for you.

I 'picked on' your stupidity in thinking US animosity toward France was somehow rooted in Iraq. You were clueless to root causes so I attempted to showcase other reasons for US resentment - like pulling arrogant asses out of the ditch twice when France needed us but displaying a single digit salute when we asked for France's support.

As for Korea, you may wish to learn something here:

French Battalion in the Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually I WAS aware of it sir.. which is why my subtle remark was too subtle as you obviously missed the irony. They were a huge help against the 1,000,000 plus 'volunteers' from Peoples Republic of China. Did we forget to thank you?

You had fewer personnel there than the Turks, any of the Commonwealth nations - and especially the Aussies and Brits, and even Greece - for a UN 'Peace Action'. This is five years after the Brits and Canadians, and Aussies and Indians and New Zealanders (and Russians) picked up the 'slack' left by the French waving their second National Flag - namely the white one.

General DeGaulle personally thumbed his very long nose at Truman when he asked for a larger commitement in Korea.. and darned if a year or two later we didn't send aircraft and supplies to France/Viet Nam at your request to help out in Viet Nam.

As for Vietnam, you may recall both France and the US left under less than honorable circumstances.

We didn't leave because we were defeated militarily, and we didn't come back when NV broke their treaty (suprise) because the Dems were having too much fun with Nixon to honor the US commitment several years after we withdrew. If that is dishonorable withdrawal please contrast away with France, if you care to?

Iraq? Please! Explain to me how this has anything to do with 1940? Or for that matter AWI, WW 1, Korea, Vietnam? Tell me drgondog, how deep does your hatred of France go? Was it impossible for you to simple say "We agree to disagree" on the 1940 discussion without launching a litany of reason why you think the French suck?

Iraq was the reason you assumed there is animosity from US/UK toward France.. you were clueless. In my own arrogance for your thought process I rebutted the thinking (and your whining)..for that I apologise - I treated you with the same lack of respect that you accorded me.

In WWI, and WWII you wanted and needed our help. Do you think you would have turned back the German offensives in late 1917 and 1918?? Pullese! In WWII some of you actually wanted to fight the Germans so we (Britain and US) supplied those with weapons, and even pulled off to one side so the French troops could enter Paris first. I'm not denigrating Free French forces but you weren't a difference maker - contrary to DeGaulle's opinions.

Were YOU on the Normandy beaches on June 6, 1944? Were YOU at Belleau Woods in 1918? Please stop comparing yourself with those generations. The French have no reason to be grateful to YOU! The previous generations who commited themselves did so for reasons which I doubt you can understand.

No I wasn't - but yes I do understand.. it is conceivable that the current generation does not and that will have consequences down the road.

I have ancestors who fought and died for BOTH the US and France, and I've only begun to understand. Stop patronizing me with your "gratitude" drivel, you have no meaning of the word.

You can trace your ancestry back to 1700's ? - I'm impressed. Who was he?

Actually sir, I know quite well that France has Zero Concept of reciprocity and gratitude - that is not even a lingering concept in my mind - but yes I DO have gratitude to the Brits and the Aussies and the Canadians and the South Koreans and the Japanese and the Germans that came when we asked . They came at great political and financial peril in some cases.

Pardon me for being half French, I must disgust you.

No, at least not because you are half French. I don't care if you are half Zulu or half Indian or all American. You irritate me because you do NOT have a clue why so many Americans WHO WERE at NORMANDY and BELLEAU WOODs, who were still living when DeGaulle started the process of denigrating everything we stood for, were enraged!! and still are. There are a LOT of vets that like many French people but dispise the politics and lack of support when we asked for it.


...and limited knowlegde too, but feel free to stay home.

You have no clue what my knowledge base is but you attack without thought.

I suspect without proof that my passport and world travel experiences would be in excess to far in excess of your own. I suspect my educational background and work experiences will equally outpace your own.

As to personal experience with France and French people, the worst I have ever been treated in context of rudeness is in France and that experience has been repeated many times for the last 40 years. The only people approximating that level of disrespect (for me) live on Manhattan Island

Perhaps if you turn off the Bill O'Reilly you might realize that both French and American soldiers have laid down their lives for a mutual cause during much of that 240 years,

If you paid attention to last post you would have noted that I paid homage to that sacrifice. I failed to mention, out of courtesy, that it was in France's best interest to do so - not out of altruism? France NEVER acts out of altruism or sense of obligation - at least not where the US is concerned! As to last 240 years - I see 1770's but scant sacrifice after that. Refresh my mind once again for all the valiant French soldiers that laid down their lives for America since then? Will that collection of graves and crosses outnumber your toes? If you can please illustrate what you mean by that?

I challenge you to put aside the apparent animosity you have for France and the French. Both countries have had greivances towards eachother no doubt, thats what democracies do, but to regard a disagreement between to countries as an ultimate act of betrayal is only taking things completely out of proportions.

You are entitled to have your own opinion about what constitutes betrayal and 'disagreement' - but it is clear that France/French have a different point of view than say the Aussies

I've stated my case. If you, or Al wish continue bashing, then be my guest -bash away! Just be aware that French-bashing disguised as intellectual discourse is quite transparent, and you're won't be fooling anyone.

You haven't MADE a case, either for your rudeness in the way you started in this thread, then accelerated from there, or the French military performance in WWII ...

Now, if you care to return to Gort, Gamelin, Dunkirk, Belgium, tanks, German planning, etc....I'll be happy to engage. Otherwise, I'm done here and I'll move on.

Great - move on.

Have a nice Holiday Season.

Thank you, same to you with reciprocal enthsiasm.

 

[plan_D]

I have to make a simple remark here about the French in World War I ... they were defending their own country, so I should hope they laid more lives down than any other nation.

And for drgondog, I believe that the French and British could have defeated Germany without U.S aid simply because of the introduction of the tank. The battle of Cambrai has proven to me that the Allies had the potential to unleash a devestating blow to the, still, unprepared German Army.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And for drgondog, I believe that the French and British could have defeated Germany without U.S aid simply because of the introduction of the tank. The battle of Cambrai has proven to me that the Allies had the potential to unleash a devestating blow to the, still, unprepared German Army.

I have to agree.

While the US entering into WW1 brought fresh soldiers to the battle it did not effect the outcome of the war. There were too little US soldiers too late in the battle to effect the outcome of the war.

I happen to know a bit (not everything ) about the US involvment in WW1simply because I was required to learn it because I was a member of the 1st Infanty Division which was the US unit sent to France.

 

[drgondog]

I have to agree.

While the US entering into WW1 brought fresh soldiers to the battle it did not effect the outcome of the war. There were too little US soldiers too late in the battle to effect the outcome of the war.

I happen to know a bit (not everything ) about the US involvment in WW1simply because I was required to learn it because I was a member of the 1st Infanty Division which was the US unit sent to France.

Guys for me it's speculation (for all of us) regarding what the consequences were for no intervention of US troops in 1917-1918. What is true is that the US drafted 4,000,000 and was sending 10,000 perday by June 1918. I think the British, in comparison drafted 6,000,000 the entire war.

What is not speculation is that the British were pushing the Germans back and the situation at home for Germany was dire, economically and with respect to further reserves. They had potential resources from East to draw on for a protracted war

What is not speculation is that the Germans agreed and Armistice after failing in their Offensives, some major attacks were halted barely even with US.

What is not speculation is that the Germans were faced with certain total defeat on the battlefield as a result of our intervention and resource pool - but I remain convinced that Britain and France could have prevailed without us - no argument on my part

Had we NOT thrown our weight in and the war had continued, how many more million Brit and French soldiers would have died before a conclusion - however it turned out?

For US, the casualties were the highest RATE (by far) of any of our wars surpassing even the War Between the States, and were more than 50% of that War in less than a year and a half.