A complete military history of France.

[Drake Tungsten]

Noone was bashing them when they took part in the Gulf war in 1991.

France took part in the first Gulf War? The only French equipment I remember seeing was on the Iraqi side...

[Pekka]

Yeah, but it was mostly French Foreign Legion, who took some responsibility and conquered some village or so. Figures..

[TheStinger]

Horse is right.

The French held the Germans whilst the UK(and aussies and other commenwelath troops) slaughtered themselves in stupid offensives.

verdun though was the biggest of the lot

[Maroule]

thanks Molly and Alexander Horse!
don't worry too much though, 'les chiens aboient et la caravane passe '

('the dogs are barking but the caravan still moves along')

I felt bad some time ago to see some French stupidly and crassly anti-americans, but I now see that moronic stereotypes are duly spread around

As for the debate on US contribution on WWI, that's another point, and interesting one. Economic support was certainly vital, and that alone justifies gratitude. I'm not so sure about the military support, though, but it's a moot point. The essential issue, however, is how the US 'lost' the post war, and how Wilson's dream was destroyed by a reactionnary Congress and isolationnist policies that ended up by costing everybody a great deal of harm... At least this point wasn't lost on Marshall.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


France took part in the first Gulf War? The only French equipment I remember seeing was on the Iraqi side...

Irqan yesterday sued the US at Den Haag for delivering dangerous toxic material and viruses to Iraq in the 80s.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Noone was bashing them when they took part in the Gulf war in 1991.

France took part in the first Gulf War? The only French equipment I remember seeing was on the Iraqi side...

Probably they were too far ahead of you

Seems they were the first to enter Iraq.

From: http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark...sertstorm.html

On 0100 24 February, the French Daguet Division, with the 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division attached, crossed the undefended Iraqi border north of the Saudi town of Rafha. This action marked the beginning of the ground phase of Desert Storm.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sandman

I disagree. The Allies had overwhelming artillery, tank and aircraft superiority, which at this point is the deciding factor. If manpower is so all-important, then it would have taken more than a million Americans to put the Allies in complete numerical supremacy, and thus in your view, 'adequately' support offensives.

Uhhhhh........ Did I not make it clear that by the summer of 1918 the US did indeed have more than one million troops in France?
The allies had numerical superiority on the western front from 1915 to 1917 and still broke division after division attacking German lines. At this time the available instruments of warfare favored the defensive. Tanks were still far too unreliable to be effective weapons. Most broke down within a few miles of their start points. Tanks also suffered from severe command control problems as there was virtually no way that tasnks could communicate between each other or with command in battle. Tanks that managed to keep running by the time they hit enemy lines often then wandered aimlessly and ineffectively until they inevitabley broke down. Airplanes still were unable to effectively bomb as they could carry only a few hundred pounds of bombs, and still had no bombsights. Straffing wasn't very effective either, as the planes could not dive steeply enough to target the ground without risking a fatal loss of control.

Let's also not forget that even before the US entered the war the government of Great Britain had gone bankrupt, and became dependent upon American financial aid. By 1917 it could be said that the US was effectively paying for the allied war effort. Without US financial support the allies would have been orced to pay their troops and suppliers in inflated currency that would haver been essentially worhtles. Given all three factors which would have entered operation if the US had not been on the allied side: lack of sufficient reinforcements needed to stage counter-offensives, lack of food supplies to stave off starvation, and lack of money to pay troops and munitions suppliers I think you can understand that by the end of 1918 it might very well have been the allies who would have had to call off the war due to spreading rebellions in their cities.

[Sandman]

Yes, I did get it that there were more than a million American troops by summer 1918. My point is that this was not enough to put the Allies in total numerical supremacy. It would have taken another million or two to do this.

Besides, if the weapons still favoured a defensive stance as you seem to be suggesting, then the American troops would have very little effect.

Tanks were not a war-winner, but they had evolved considerably during the war, and by the summer of 1918 were becoming more formidable. They certainly did outrun their communications; just like the infantry.

The German airforce was virtually grounded by the end of the war due to a lack of spare parts. Whilst the offensive role of planes was very limited, the Germans undoubtably suffered from being unable to observe Allied movements.

Advances in artilley played a large role, with Allied artillery being far better than the German at this point. New tactics, such as the creeping barrage, and superior counter-battery fire reduced the dominance of the defensive posture.

I've never heard of Britain being bankrupt by 1918. Regardless, even if the US had not entered the war, the credit and food would still have been available, and was certainly very welcome.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Maroule
thanks Molly and Alexander Horse!
don't worry too much though, 'les chiens aboient et la caravane passe '

('the dogs are barking but the caravan still moves along')

I felt bad some time ago to see some French stupidly and crassly anti-americans, but I now see that moronic stereotypes are duly spread around

De rien.

I forgot to mention Catherine Deneuve, Yves Montand, Boucher, Massenet, Charles Trenet, Jacques Tati, Bertrand Tavernier, Berlioz, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Violette le Duc, Arletty, Jean Genet, Jean Vigo, Louis Malle, Francoise Hardy, Juliette Greco, Delphine Seyrig, Fontainebleau, Beauvais, Chartres, Moissac, Aix-en-Provence, Raymond Radiguet, Sarah Bernhardt, 'Le Samourai', Alain Delon....

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sandman
Yes, I did get it that there were more than a million American troops by summer 1918. My point is that this was not enough to put the Allies in total numerical supremacy. It would have taken another million or two to do this.

Yes it was, because by July 1918 the allies DID have a numerical superiority on the western front. Statistically the British and French were not even able to completely replace their losses in the spring of 1918. The bulk of replacements arriving on the western front in the summer of 1918 were Americans, some 600,000 disembarking in June and July alone!

I've never heard of Britain being bankrupt by 1918. Regardless, even if the US had not entered the war, the credit and food would still have been available, and was certainly very welcome.

I think the crisis actually occured in 1916! The British government was about to default on its obligations (payrolls, payments, and loans) when Wall Street stepped in at the request of Pennsylavannia Ave and Downing St.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Uhhhhh........ Did I not make it clear that by the summer of 1918 the US did indeed have more than one million troops in France?
The allies had numerical superiority on the western front from 1915 to 1917 and still broke division after division attacking German lines. At this time the available instruments of warfare favored the defensive. Tanks were still far too unreliable to be effective weapons. Most broke down within a few miles of their start points. Tanks also suffered from severe command control problems as there was virtually no way that tasnks could communicate between each other or with command in battle. Tanks that managed to keep running by the time they hit enemy lines often then wandered aimlessly and ineffectively until they inevitabley broke down. Airplanes still were unable to effectively bomb as they could carry only a few hundred pounds of bombs, and still had no bombsights. Straffing wasn't very effective either, as the planes could not dive steeply enough to target the ground without risking a fatal loss of control.

Let's also not forget that even before the US entered the war the government of Great Britain had gone bankrupt, and became dependent upon American financial aid. By 1917 it could be said that the US was effectively paying for the allied war effort. Without US financial support the allies would have been orced to pay their troops and suppliers in inflated currency that would haver been essentially worhtles. Given all three factors which would have entered operation if the US had not been on the allied side: lack of sufficient reinforcements needed to stage counter-offensives, lack of food supplies to stave off starvation, and lack of money to pay troops and munitions suppliers I think you can understand that by the end of 1918 it might very well have been the allies who would have had to call off the war due to spreading rebellions in their cities.

Dr. Strangelove, there seems to be a view among the Euro's that had the US not entered the war, 1918 would have seem a truce between the two sides. You are making a good case that the Germans would have won but for the American intervention, inlcuding financial aid.

[chequita guevara]

The Friendly French Resistance

ZNet Commentary
The Friendly French Resistance February 18, 2003
By Diana Johnstone

Only George W. Bush can match Jean-Marie Le Pen when it comes to bringing protesters into the streets of Paris. The estimated 250,000 people who demonstrated in the French capital on February 15 were clearly a cross section of the whole population, united in a rare consensus against U.S. plans to make war against Iraq.

Several thousand "Americans against the Bush war" joined the good-natured march down the boulevards, basking in the winter sunshine and the warm applause that greeted the "good Americans" all along the the boulevards from the Latin Quarter to the Bastille. "French anti-Americanism" as decried in U.S. newspapers is largely an invention pro-war propagandists trying to discredit any source of criticism by attributing it to dark sentiments such as anti-semitism. "USA we love you -- listen to us!" was the characteristic message on one of numerous home-made signs.

Anti-American no, anti-Bush yes! "War begins with Dubya", "Bush-Sharon assassins", "Bush, l'empire du pire", "Stop la Busherie" (a play on the word "butchery" in French), "Cowboy go back to your ranch"... Very many demonstrators were calling for "justice for Palestine" and for an "alternative globalisation".

A big banner showed photos of Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush side by side, the first labelled "Iraqi dictator", the second "world dictator". This may sum up the dominant sentiment behind the extraordinary worldwide protest on February 15: the perception the greatest threat to world peace today is the arsenal of weapons of mass destruction brandished by a leader who may not be a dictator at home but whose ambition to impose a "New Order" on the world unconsciously echoes Adolf Hitler.

While Jay Leno recycles ancient racist stereotypes of the "cowardly" French, in Europe it is obvious that today it takes far more courage to resist U.S. dictates than to go along with them -- especially in France, certain to serve as whipping boy of culturally challenged Americans.

It is hard to escape noticing that people do not oppose war because they are bullied by Saddam, but rather because they don't want to be bullied by the United States into supporting a war against a battered, disarmed, sanctioned and regularly bombed Arab country, a war the U.S. is sure to win... and then what? The happy end envisaged by the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Perle crowd is perceived elsewhere as delirium.

The French reaction has been very unruffled to the openly contemptuous attitude of the Bush administration, notably the famous distinction between "old Europe" and "new Europe" made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Europeans can be simply amused by being called "old", considering "old" goes with "wise".

However, the joke turned serious a week after Rumsfeld's snide remark, when the "new" Europe stood up to be counted in the form of a statement in the Wall Street Journal signed by the leaders of eight countries: Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark. Citing "shared values", the eight proclaimed their fidelity to Washington on grounds of gratitude -- a sort of new feudalism in international relations.

This open split within Europe put a sudden end to the longstanding illusion that the European Union was gradually developing a "common foreign policy". The hawks in Washington could chortle at having "isolated" Paris and Berlin. But the main point was that this gambit brought out into the open a heretofore unmentionable reality: that the United States is using the eastward expansion of both NATO and the European Union to cripple western Europe politically.

The intrusive U.S. insistence that the European Union should include Turkey goes in the same direction: a "Union" so divided in basic political outlook will never be able to offer coherent resistance to U.S. policy dictates.

For reasons of tact and diplomatic courtesy to the United States, this has been a nearly tabou subject in European political discussion. The tabou has been brutally broken by Rumsfeld and the manoeuvre of the eight "new" Europeans. The U.S. effort to divide and dominate Europe is now open and obvious, and there is no more point in being discreet about it. Tony Blair's self-proclaimed role as "mediator" turns out to be that of helping the United States divide and rule the continent.

The long term repercussions of this open sabotage of European unity in favor of the American empire are unforeseeable. The first open act of resistance followed rapidly when Germany, France and Belgium balked at playing along with the U.S. ploy of calling for NATO measures to "defend Turkey from the threat of attack from Iraq" -- a blatant pretext to involve NATO officially in the war preparations. Accustomed to having its vassals credulously bow to every pretext it offers in pursuit of its aims, the bully was furious. The Bu****es stormed that the laggards were completely "isolated".

The millions who marched in London, Rome and Madrid on February 15 made it clear that the leaders isolated from their own people were the ones who had proclaimed their allegiance to Emperor Bush II. Even before anti-war sentiment got a fresh boost from the UN Security Council meeting and the demonstrations, opinion polls all across Europe were showing overwhelming majorities -- from 70% to 90% -- opposed to war without, or even with, a U.N. Security Council mandate. Some of the strongest opposition was in Rumsfeld's "new Europe" -- Britain (90%), Spain (91%), Poland (72%), Hungary (82%).

The most politically significant message of the Paris demonstration, expressed on many signs and banners, was the demand that France use its Security Council veto to block a new resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. Rather by accident, France has found itself speaking for an enormous groundswell of world public opinion. Originally, president Jacques Chirac may (as his outraged critics in U.S. punditry allege) have intended merely to strut and fret his hour upon the stage, before following the U.S. into the war as Mitterrand did in the first Gulf War: "to preserve France's place at the peace settlement". That is clearly what the U.S. administration expected. That is what very many French people and European observers also expected of a Chirac who is considered jovial but vacillating and opportunist.

French diplomacy made an important contribution to drafting U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 adopted last November 8, calling for fresh U.N. inspections to make sure Iraq is rid of all weapons of mass destruction. The resolution was ambiguous enough to be seen merely as a method to justify war, as there were countless possibilities to declare non-compliance and no clear definition of compliance.

Perhaps, if the Iraqis had been less cooperative, the United States less arrogant, and public opinion more indifferent, France would have accepted a U.S. declaration of non-compliance and gone along with war, even reluctantly. That is what the United States expected. Instead, France has insisted that disarming Iraq is the real goal -- taking Resolution 1441 literally. The Bush administration, whose real goal all along was regime change, not mere disarmament, feels betrayed.

However, France, like the hero who discovers his unexpected valor in the heat of crisis, has been taking its role more and more seriously. The brutal contempt of the Bush team has had an impact. The unusual burst of applause greeting French foreign minister Dominique Villepin's brilliant Valentine Day speech to the Security Council was a strong signal. Surprisingly, France now actually finds itself in a position of moral leadership -- a position that has been stunningly vacant for many years.

The latest French public opinion poll shows 71% calling on their government to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block any pro-war resolution. French political leaders are aware that France's Security Council veto, like its nuclear force de frappe, can be "a good deterrent so long as we don't use it".

The French example may already have encouraged more timid Security Council members to vote against a war resolution, so that no veto would be necessary. Concluding a television round table that included Richard Perle, former prime minister Raymond Barre advised his countrymen not to be overly impressed by the furious boycotts of French products that will follow France's refusal to go along with the U.S. adventure. After conquering Iraq, the United States will find itself in such a mess that it will need all the friends it can get. And by trying to warn the United States of the historic mistake it is making, France is as good a friend as one can find in international relations.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned


Dr. Strangelove, there seems to be a view among the Euro's that had the US not entered the war, 1918 would have seem a truce between the two sides. You are making a good case that the Germans would have won but for the American intervention, inlcuding financial aid.

The finacial aid was crucial. The military aid prevented a more succesful outcome to the sprong offensives. They ran out of steam naturally anyway because the German economy was in ruins and it had run out of manpower. If there were no US troops it is possible the Germans could have got a truce on more favourable terms.

They would not have won, the blockade by the royal navy and the implosion of their allies meant there was no way Gernmany could have won.

[Dry]

Re: The Friendly French Resistance

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

ZNet Commentary
The Friendly French Resistance February 18, 2003
By Diana Johnstone

....

That is the most accurate text I've ever seen about the european feelings/positions.

Thanks for having post it Cheg.

[Sandman]

Yes it was, because by July 1918 the allies DID have a numerical superiority on the western front. Statistically the British and French were not even able to completely replace their losses in the spring of 1918. The bulk of replacements arriving on the western front in the summer of 1918 were Americans, some 600,000 disembarking in June and July alone!

I said supremacy, not superiority. How could 'over one million' have made such a difference between victory and defeat, given your assertion that defensive weaponry was still paramount and the millions already on the front? Apart from the marines, the American troops were inexperienced, and had to be supplied with Allied artillery, tanks and planes. The AEF was also still much smaller than the French or British armies.

I think the crisis actually occured in 1916! The British government was about to default on its obligations (payrolls, payments, and loans) when Wall Street stepped in at the request of Pennsylavannia Ave and Downing St.

I can't find any reference to this on the internet. Could you provide a source pleae?