Have the French Forgotten Normandy?

Since we are on the topic of insulting the French, I would like to add a joke to this thread:

An American in France:

The only seat available on the train was directly adjacent to a well dressed middle aged French woman and the seat was being used by her dog.
The weary traveler asked, "Ma'am, please move your dog. I need that seat."
The French woman looked down her nose at the American, sniffed and said, You Americans. Your are such a rude class of people. Can't you see my little FiFi is using that seat?"
The American walked away, determined to find a place to rest, but after another trip down to the end of the train, found himself again facing the woman with the dog. Again he asked, "Please, lady. May I sit there?". I'm very tired."
The French woman wrinkled her nose and snorted "You Americans! Not only are you rude, you are also arrogant....Imagine!"
The American didn't say anything else, he leaned over, picked up the dog, tossed it out the window of the train and sat down in the empty seat.
The woman shrieked and railed, and demanded that someone defend her honor and chastise the American.
An English man sitting across the aisle spoke up indignantly "You
know, sir, you Americans do seem to have a penchant for doing the wrong thing. You eat holding the fork in the wrong hand. You drive your autos on the wrong side of the road.
And now, Sir, you've thrown the wrong bitch out the window."

 

Freakin' LOL, Roy. Nice shot.

 

Despite US intervention!

In actual fact, historians are now generally agreed (perhaps not US historians!) that despite the US intervention and participation Germany only lost and failed to keep France solely because of a massive change in Hitler's own leadership style. Hitherto, the German army adopted the Central Command approach to war. Essentially, the leaders/generals and officers in the field were empowered to take action as they sort fit without referring back to central command but at the same time worked to achieve the central command general initiative. Towards the end, Hitler himself assumed cobntrol of all the German armed forces and even interferred at the local level whilst being no where near what was going on! For example, the Panza reserve tanks that were capable of being moved at a moments notice to address the D-Day landings where they happened to be, were taken out of the control of the general on the ground. Hitler was 'phoned at his base in Bavaria and was found to be fast asleep and no one dared wake him. Not until the afternoon give he give the order for the panzas to move in - then it was too late. Had the general in charge on the ground been able to do what he had hitherto been able to do (make his own decisions!) things would probably have been very different!

We need to look at history and learn from it. The Middle East thing with Saddam is a replication of much of what happened in the Crusades back in the 12th century, albeit on a smaller scale. At the time Germany and England were the all conquering powers to slay what they percived to be the heathens! At the time the Islamic world was the most cultured and sophisticated on the planet!

I could go on but will stop!

'telfax'

 

Re: Despite US intervention!

When the earliest Muslims rode out of the Syrian desert around 640, the East Roman/Byzantine and Sassanid empires they attacked were incomparably more advanced than they were.

These original Muslim conquests were justified entirely in religious terms, even if many of the participating Arab tribes were seeking spoils.

That's how the culture of the medieval world worked. Religion was far more important to them than it is to (most of) us in the contemporary West. Even when medievals undertook adventures for soundly secular reasons, they inevitably justified their endeavors in terms of their culture's highest ideals. In their day, those motivating ideals were religious, and the crusading knights fought for God with crosses on their chests.

Today we claim to fight for things like democracy and liberty, the highest ideals of our new secular society.

 

Re: Despite US intervention!

Normandy was a calamity of errors and bad luck for the Germans. The German reserve force for the invasion was the 12th SS Panzer Division, which was an elite unit equipped with top-notch equipment like the Tiger & Panther tanks. The German officer responsible for the defense of France, Erwin Rommel, was on vacation at the time of the invasion. When the invasion took place, Rommel's second in command phoned Hitler for permission to commit the reserve force, but his assistant/lackey, Martin Bormann, wouldn't wake him.

Historians generally agree that Rommel would have committed the 12th SS Panzer Division w/o Hitler's permission, and even Dwight Eisenhower stated that such a deployment would have pushed the invasion back into the sea.


Bruce

 

Re: Despite US intervention!

Solely because of a change in Hitler's leadership style? So, Hitler would have just surrendered France without an allied invasion?

 

Re: Re: Despite US intervention!

I think what Telfax is saying is that the allies could not have successfully invaded France if the German military maintained strategic control.

The Canadians got to fight the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitler Jugend. Dozens of Canadian prisoners were executed and the commander Kurt Meyer was scheduled to be executed in Canada, after the war.

The sentence was commuted by Canadian generals, probably on the grounds that their troops did much the same thing without their direct knowledge.

 

Re: Despite US intervention!

Apart from a much smaller scale, the Crusaders sought to take back the Holy lands from Muslims and established colonies to protect pilgrims who ventured along the way.

I hardly imagine a parallel for today's "crusade"--unless you mean to transpose the story's pilgrimage to the oil trade...But this hardly requires deposing Saddam. Oil becomes important when you factor in a show down with Saudi--to get them to give up rendering Danegeld to Jihadists (i.e., to dimminish the support for terrorists).

--Orson

 

Re: Despite US intervention!

Thanks for the Monday morning smile!

 

How do you say bull**** in Chinese?

 

The French aren't wrong

A couple of points:

The Nazis started their little conquest in 1939 in Poland. Where was the USA? In the spring of 1940, Germany turned westward and took Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Where was the USA. On June 22, 1940, France surrendered to the Nazis. Where was the USA? We offered no help prior to their fall. None. Nor were we there during the rest of 1940, or 1941, or 42, or 43...it wasn't until June 6, 1944 that we landed on French soil, and lets not kid ourselves, it was for the purpose of getting to Germany, not in liberating France. Four year the French were under German rule while we offered no help at all. And for the rest of you history scholars, it was Germany who declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Second point. In 1981 there were a total of 5 vetoes in the UN Security counsel. France offered 4, as did the UK. We were there for all 5.

In 1982, there were a total of 8 vetoes. One by the UK and all 8 by the US.

In 1983 there were 3 vetoes. One by the USSR and two by the USA.

In 1984, the same as 1983.

In 1985, there were 7 vetoes, one by the UK and again, all 7 by the US.

In 1986, 8 vetoes, France had 1, the UK had 3 and again the US had all 8.

In 1987, there were 2 vetoes, both by the UK and the US.

In 1988 there were 6 vetoes, one by the UK and all 6 by the US.

In 1989, 5 vetoes, two by France and the UK and all 5 by the USA.

In 1990, 2 vetoes, both by the US.

Amazingly, in 1990 and 1991 there were no vetoes.

In 1993, one lone veto, by Russia.

1994, one again, by Russia.

In 1995, one veto, US.

1996, none.

1997, 3 vetoes, one by China, two by US.

1998, none.

1999, one, by China.

2001, 2 vetoes, both by the US.

2002, 2 vetoes, both by the US.

Between 1945 and 2002, there have been 192 vetoes cast in the Security Council and we have cast 76 of them. And of those 76, there were 53 times that we were the only negative vote.

My point? We vote our national interests. Why should we condemn France, Germany, Russia or China for doing the same?

In 1945 we were instrumental in forming the UN. We set up the guidelines. We affirmed them. We agreed with them. We have condemned those countries that have refused to abide by them. And now, because we can't get our way, we are going to ignore the pledge that we made 58 years ago and act in direct contravention of the will of the Security Council.

One last point. If we don't have to abide by the Security Council vote, why does Saddam? Why do we push 1441 as a ground for war when we are not willing to await the consent of the council before plunging the world into another war?

Wes Grady

 

Two relevant colums from George Will:

1. Permission From the Powerless

Excerpt:

2. U.N. Absurdity

Exerpt:

And one from Dan Thomasson:

The French disconnection

Excerpt:

 

But the fact remains, there are 5 members of the Security Council who hold the right of veto. Five. No more, no less and that isn't going to change. Today, on the brink of war, three of those five stand ready to veto any resolution authorizing a war. Now, we either abide by that decision until such time as those countries are ready to either approve the war or abstain from voting, or we ignore the vote and the Security Council and proceed to launch the war. If we choose the later, then we have right to object to Saddam's defiance over 1441, because as a country, Iraq has the same rights as the US in ignoring the UN. And we are then left to the old Might makes Right form of international law.

Wes

 

London tabloid The Sun covers the French impass:

"[Blair's latest UNSC] draft resolution was circulated among Security Council members on Wednesday night — but swiftly snubbed by the French.

"The row plunged Britain’s chilly relationship with France into a deep freeze. Experts feared it could take years, even decades, to rebuild the shattered entente. Tory foreign affairs spokesman Alan Duncan said: They have been hypocrites on the second resolution from the start.'

"Britain’s former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, accused Chirac of 'inhabiting a box with Saddam'.

"In a ferocious attack on Paris, he said: 'They are in effect giving comfort to Saddam Hussein.'"
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003120439,00.html

It's gonna get really ugly before the shooting starts, me thinks!
BEST idea? No "freedom" fries neologisms--let's just call 'em "chips" to honor Blair and to tell the French off when they haven't got any left.

--Orson

 

Re: The French aren't wrong

Canada declared war on Germany a few days after France. We first landed in France, at Dieppe, in 1942 and suffered a few thousand casualties. We were back again June 6, 1944.

Around 40,000 Canadians died in and around France in WWII plus 60,000 who died in WW1.

The thanks from France - Vive Quebec Libre - from de Gaulle in 1967. France just wants to tick off Anglos. No more - no less.

 

Actually I was wrong about 1942. The 1st Canadian Division landed in France in 1940 but couldn't make it to the front because all the surrendering French got in the way.

They escaped from the port of Cherbourg leaving behind a few POWs who couldn't read a map.

A point of pride was that they escaped with not only their artillery, but the artillery left behind by a British division.

 

You know, I'm in a dilemma. I really dislike this Bush-led psuedo-war on Iraq. I think it is a mistake, and I'm gratified to see the world step up against naked agression (albeit, aggression against an evil regime). Even France.

But I really hate France.

What to do?

Rich Douglas, pullin' for Cameroon.

 

Ah, but Rich, first you go to the Rue de Cerche Midi and look up Poulan's bakery, there you pick up a nice fresh boule. Then you stop at any wine shop and pick up a nice bottle of Cabernet... then up to the top of Paris, to Montemare and Sacre Coeur. You sit, you eat, you drink and then walk down to the center of town, all the while stopping and smelling the food and drinking in the flavor of Paris and you mingle with the people..... ah, yes.....

did I mention that Paris was my favorite city? Ten trips and not once have I felt unwelcome or unwanted. And I don't speak but a half dozen words of French.....

Wes

PS:

1. The Frenchman walks into a cafe in the morning, "bon jour, may I please have a baggette and a cup of coffee?"

2. The Englishman walks into the cafe in the morning, "Good morning, sir. If it isn't too much trouble, may I have a baggette and cup of coffee?"

3. The American walks into the care in the morning, "Gimmee a baggette and a cuppa coffee!"

and we accuse the French of being rude......

 

Why should the French make you feel unwelcome/unwanted when you are boosting their economy with tourist dollars?

 

Why not protest by taking a trip to Iraq and becoming a human shield? Put that military experience to work, Rich!