The French can go to hell!

[OZ]

If you are talking about the rebuilding Europe after the 2nd world war you are right

USA money and industry rebuilt Europe and japan after the 2nd world war , but I also think that had alot to do with USA thinking that would be the best way to fight Communist.

Lets not forget when USA entered the war after pearl harbor, it had luxury of building it's armforces and war industry up ,while everyone was fighting.Also coming through the war untouch on the home front(ex pearl harbor)

france and great briton didn't have that luxury

"england tried to kiss ass and loss" ??? what does that mean

as for "as far as AUSTRLIA goes i really find it hard to believe they ever thought the were part of the british empire."

yes we did(and canada) right up to the japs taking singapore

[MarkDel]

Oz,

While you are correct that England and France were in the war for two years before the U.S. entry, you have made some statements which are not entirely accurate...please check all dates and events I refer to later in this post and you will find that they are 100% accurate as I have researched them thoroughly before making this post. As for what "HipTwo" was talking about in his reference of England "kissing ass" I believe he was referring to the policy of appeasement practiced by Neville Chamberlain...you know that guy who came out of his meeting with Hitler in 1938 and told the world that Hitler was misunderstood and that he now had "Peace in Our Time"...all of this occuring AFTER the Nazis had invaded Austria. So let's examine some of your points one by one...

1. The U.S. did not intend to enter the war against Germany and were content to sit back and collect money from Lend/Lease until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor...WRONG. Roosevelt ordered the unheard of step of military conscription in the U.S. in September of 1940 in anticipation of eventually having to get involved in the war...a full six months before the Lend Lease Act came about in March of 1941. Roosevelt had backed out of world affairs for the latter half of the 1930's as the U.S. solved some terrible economic problems and as a result of this, they were totally unprepared to go to war in 1940 or 1941. This was due to a combination of no military spending in economic hard times AND an active role in the so-called Washington Conference Treaty of the early 1930's which severely limited arms buildup (mostly naval) during the 1930's. And that brings me to another point...

2. You imply that the U.S. was willing to sit back and let everyone fight it out...but England and France were guilty of the same thing for years before they declared war on Germany...and they only did so because it was inevitable that Germany would soon come after them. ALL parties were guilty of waiting too long to tackle the Germany and Japan problems which were evident in the early 1930's and OBVIOUS by 1935 when Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles by ordering military conscription and BOTH Germany and Japan failed to abide by the Washington Conference Treaty.

3. Germany invaded Austria in March of 1938...NO country did anything except Chamberlain did manage to "fellate" Hitler in his conversations about their meetings.

4. Germany invaded Austria in March of 1939...again...England, France and the rest of Europe did nothing.

5. Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939 and only then did England and France declare war on Germany...and at that point...it did not take a genius to figure out that they were on the Nazi menu eventually.

6. As for your sob story about the Russian losses...that's a fuckin' joke. As late as August 1939 the Soviets had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany...and the only reason they got involved was because Hilter backstabbed them...not to mention..they saw the war as an opportunity to grab Latvia and other small nations as a "defensive" manuever against the Nazis. For their actions, the Soviets were kicked out of the League of Nations (early version of the United Nations) and Stalin was finally seen by many in the West for the slimeball that he was. The Soviets were in strictly for what territory they hoped to gain over the long haul and the rest of the allies tolerated their vile presence because Stalin offered his poorly armed but voluminous army as cannon fodder in the West.

7. So Pearl Harbor did not cause the U.S. entry into the war...it merely hastened what was clearly in the planning stages, hence the massive military buildup of 1939 and 1940 in the U.S.

8. To imply that World War II could have been won by the allies without the aid of the U.S. is ludicrous revisionist history at its worst.


However, your comments on World War I are for the most part accurate. The U.S. only got involved in the war at the very end, and while they did play a key role in a decisive battle at the end, it was clearly the British and the French who were most responsible for the German defeat. In fact, one could argue that France has never really recovered as a nation from their terrible losses in World War I. And one could argue that England, although still a military power, was also never really the same after World War I.

[OZ]

Well must of what you are saying is right. And I’m not down playing what the USA did in the 2nd world war, just down play it to any yank who just gets he's info on the 2 world war from the moves or the history channel.

Now you say " Roosevelt ordered the unheard of step of military conscription in the U.S. in September of 1940 in anticipation of eventually having to get involved in the war"

Well that would be a good time start, after just seeing the fall of France in may 1940 and the battle of Britain in July,

As for "You imply that the U.S. was willing to sit back and let everyone fight it out...but England and France were guilty of the same thing for years before they declared war on Germany..."

You are right, Neville Chamberlain hope like hell there would be no war, closed his eyes and said, there will be no war, there will be no war,

And as for the "sob story about the Russian losses" Stalin should have been killed before Hilter , and yes there was a pact with Germany ,and Soviets took the Baltic republics, but when "Hilter backstabbed them" and started the Russia front , it pulled a ******* lot of germans away for north Africa and british and commonwealth forces. And if 10 million dead is not a sob story what is?

7. So Pearl Harbor did not cause the U.S. entry into the war...it merely hastened what was clearly in the planning stages, hence the massive military buildup of 1939 and 1940 in the U.S.

When? when it was all over like the 1st world war, and eveyone was dead

Roosevelt may have been planning for war,but hell the hell was he going to get it passed the isolationism congress

Well it is good to see someone in USA knows a little bit about the war out side of the moves you to hiptwo with your lend-lease program. When I was last in the States,I got asked by two young guys playing BJ at the MGM casino in vegas "did i know that the japs bombed Pearl Harbor" I laugh and said" no we have only had T.V in Australia for the last ten years, when did that happen".

[Geekinstein]

What'd I do? Wander into the History Channel meets Crossfire?

[DrunkenGoon]

Well, didn't the Russians get 1/2 of Poland, the Baltic countries and Moldova in the "non-aggression" Ribentroff-Molotov? You don't get a deal like that from the Germans unless they have ulterior motives... All they wanted was a little peace on the east front until there was a East Front. Of course, by the time there was a East front, there's wasn't much left to conquer in the West. The Nazi's thought they'd march on to the Siberian oil fields that they needed to keep their Blitz-krieg going around the Axis.

Very good point on the Americans not being able to get into it because of Congress. The Japs let their egos get the best of them otherwise, most of us might be called Franz or Ulf and be having sourkaut as part of out daily diet.

May all your bets be winners

[hiptwo]

markdel, bingo. i really believe the USA and British goverments KNEW Japen was going to attack the USA. only one's to stand in their way in the pacific was Austrlia and the USA. with our navel power at that time, i know what i would do. i damn sure would not invade Austrlia. like i've said before iam not trying to bash any country. look at this in a nother way, France,Russia,USA. are probably the biggest arms dealers in the world. bigest problem France and Russia don't care WHO they sell too.

geekinstein back to sports.

[fin]

Russia invaded Finland in late November 1939 so they got to a pretty early start in the conquering stuff. USA and Britain both disapproved the action, but didn't really do anything about it.

[OZ]

finland stop the red army for awhile, to the size of Russia won it in the end

[This message has been edited by OZ (edited 02-19-2001).]

[OZ]

Originally posted by OZ:
finland stop the red army for awhile, to the size of Russia won it in the end

[OZ]

haha posting quotes to myself what a d-ickhead

[gooden]

MarkDel, continuing on one of your points, historians often point to the biggest tragedy of WWII as the passive approach that France AND Britain took to Germany's invasion of Poland in 9/39. The Nazi's strategy was simply blitzkrieg: all forces to a lightening-quick eastern invasion, and negligible protection on their western front. Many experts truly believe that a timely response from Britain alone would have made the damages to the German army to great to sustain future broad-based campaigns.

Now Gigago, I agree that it may not be entirely fair to hold the French to these actions. After all, Great Britain made this same unfortunate mistake. The difference is that England proven to be a very good ally ever since, while France has been simply irritating in foreign relations. Look to the crisis in Libya during 4/87 (I think). They refused to allow our planes in their airspace, and offered negative support throughout that episode. And that's just a microcasm of their unwillingness to provide any real benefit to "advancing the common good", so to speak.

One also shouldn't blame the US for "standing by the sidelines" for two years. The fact of the matter is that a) proper allied offensives by our European friends should have been sufficient, b) the US was providing substantial financial support as it was, and c) Germany's successes were still, and I think justifiably, not seen as an immediate and serious threat. Of course, the gloves always should involuntarily come off when domestic soil is injured (Pearl Harbor).

One more thing: I'm not some patriotic fanatic. I try to take an impartial view on every matter, sometimes even taking a point of departure in a light most favorable to the foreign adversary. I had this converstaion with my friend, and he responded to my concerns with the American air strike. And France does have a right to their opinion. However, they should NOT be as tactless in voicing these opinions as they ultimately were. As a NATO member, they have an obligation to compromise their most adamant beliefs for the sake of the organization's stability. Like any successful group, you never air your sentiments if they are openly critical of a cohort. Again, tact is vital is this regard.

If France should be blamed for anything, it should be for being such an awful "teammate", and not their independent concerns.

[gigago]

gooden, I believe the american soldier during WW2 fought for a reason. This reason was freedom. freedom to think, freedom to be who you are, freedom to live.
But now this chuckz guy is saying that French people should not think like they want, that they should think the "chuckz" way. what a ******* conception of liberty is that ? what an insult for those who died for this cause !

chuckz open your eyes... just look at your own country constitution...: FREEDOM OF SPEACH. does that ring a bell ?

[chuckz]

WRONG!

remember the saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

i don't believe the united states saved frances' sorry pompous asses so they could later turn around and deny us air space to fly and in essence cause the death of american soldiers.

i also don't believe the soldiers who died in ww2 are saying "well, we fought for FREEDOM and that means the french can deny us the right to use their air space to protect the cause of freedom.

if you believe what you say, your line of thinking is that of the french.

[Woodstock]

I'm not going to take a stand on the history "facts" posted here but I feel compelled to say the following: The "French", meaning the people of France, have nothing to do with their government's doings so making remarks about the French this and the French that is reprehensible. It's like saying that "Gringos", meaning the people of the US are arrogant self-centered bullies, because of the way their governments behave.
The FRENCH are a marvelous people with an exquisite heritage and culture, and while their politicians may stink, so do those of most other countries.

VIVE LA FRANCE!

[Jeff K]

Yea Woodstock, let's not blame the Germans for the atrocities of WWII. It was their politicians. Let's not blame the Americans for the atrocities against the Indians. It was their politicians. Always blame somebody else. A government is made up of the people of a country, and you can't seperate the two for convenience sake.