It's been going on for years

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Blaise said:

A debt going back 220 years? Come on! That's six times the Cupless span of the Maple Leafs. There are French people alive today who owe their lives and liberty to the Americans, and they should be grateful. In WW I and WW II combined the Americans sent millions of soldiers and airmen and took huge numbers of casualties. Exactly what did the French send in the Revolutionary War? It was a microscopic token that paled in comparison, n'est-ce pas? I guess in your logic it's the thought that counts, not the size of the sacrifice.

Blaise,

I respect your debate with Mr. B, but I must offer something at this point.

I understand your position about comparing contributions of France and the USA. I liken it to Rwanda in '94. The Belgian government pushed to get a UN-led presence in Rwanda and when that mission went sour they took off at the high-port while looking for scapegoats to defer their irresponsiblity onto. Specifically, they found it convenient to blame a foreigner, a Canadian general, for the mission going bad. MGen (ret'd) Romeo Delaire was quite right in pointing out that a lot of Canadians never made it home and are resting for enternity in Belguim as a result of trying to liberate that country. And, when he needed them the most in Rwanda, Belgian troops pulled out.

It is true that the US involvement in WW I was welcome. However, by the time the Americans arrived (a little under two years left in the conflict I think) the German economy was close to bankruptsy and the war effort was receiving no support from the public. The Allies had already turned the tide of the war but American in volvement quickened things up substantially. Yes it's true that the Europeans should feel grateful, but not just to the Americans. I think Europeans are grateful to every country that had a hand in their liberation.

Also, it's true that the Americans took huge casualties in WW I. However, the statistics are misleading. The Americans shouldn't have taken as many casualties as the did in that short timeframe. Most of their ground casualties came as a result of inexperience in the conflict and a reluctance to take advise from those already battle-hardened. Had the US kept up that casualty rate over the entire span of the conflict their statistics would have been (more) staggering if compared to those of other countries.

As for WW II, there was no way in Hades the Allies were going to win without American involvement. It not only ended the war in year, but it also proved necessary counter to Russian expansionism as well (after the decisions at Malta, well ... won't go there).

Cheers.

[blaise]

I don't think the British and French could have held if the Americans hadn't shown up. They had taken tremendous casualties.On May 27, 1918, Ludendorff's troops routed 12 divisions (9 French, 3 British) and on May 30 reached the Marne. On that date 2 US divisions moved into position, held the bridges, and counterattacked, driving the Germans back across the Marne. Ludendorff, confronted by fresh troops, called off his offensive on June 4. By July American troops were arriving at the rate of 300,000 a month. The Americans stopped the Germans at the second battle of the Marne (the decisive battle of the war) and the Allied counteroffensive began on July 18.

If you looked at the Russian front you would see that after the battle of Stalingrad in 1943 the Germans were unable to mount a successful offensive and fought defensively thereafter. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Soviet tank divisions were decisive. By the middle of January 1944 the Russians had lifted the siege of Leningrad and were driving toward the Baltic states and Poland. All this before the Normandy landings on June 6, 1944. In July the Russians entered Poland and in August they reached the Balkans.

M. Beaux-Eaux suggests that I am glorifying the US. I am not. I certainly do not agree with the aggressive foreign policy of this Bush administration. By early 1965 I was solidly opposed to the Vietnam War. I am fully cognizant of the expansionist history of the US. I am, however, countering his preposterous claim that there would not have been an independent US without French assistance. Anyone who examines the population growth, land area, and natural resources of American North America should readily perceive that it would have been only a matter of time before the British were expelled. By the end of the Civil War the Union forces were more powerful than those of the British Empire except in naval power, and that doesn't even take account of the Confederacy.

France? A failed military power that after the failure of Napoleon has lost every war it has fought without powerful allies. It was kicked out of Mexico, routed in the Franco-Prussian war, nearly conquered by the Germans in WW I, vanquished in 1940, defeated in Indo-China, forced to withdraw from Algeria. Without the US (and Hitler's folly in attacking the USSR too late in 1941) today's French schoolchildren would probably be learning German as a second language.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Blaise said:

I don't think the British and French could have held if the Americans hadn't shown up. They had taken tremendous casualties.On May 27, 1918, Ludendorff's troops routed 12 divisions (9 French, 3 British) and on May 30 reached the Marne. On that date 2 US divisions moved into position, held the bridges, and counterattacked, driving the Germans back across the Marne. Ludendorff, confronted by fresh troops, called off his offensive on June 4. By July American troops were arriving at the rate of 300,000 a month. The Americans stopped the Germans at the second battle of the Marne (the decisive battle of the war) and the Allied counteroffensive began on July 18.

Actually the decisive battle of the entire war should have been Vimy Ridge. The French and British tried taking the ridge prior to handing it over to the Canadians. It was an incredibly well-planned attack that established some significant benchmarks in many areas, but especially the value of passage of information. Every soldier going into the attack knew the objectives, timings, etc.

However, the miliatry mindset hadn't progressed as fast. While Gen Sir Julien Byng felt it was wiser to waste bullets rather than lives, his hands were bound by Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig (who felt God was guiding his decisions). There was no thought given to what to do after breaking through the enemy lines. You took your trench and simply stopped. However, as Gen Sir Aurthur Currie pointed out, Vimy was such an incredible breakthrough that had the British High Command realized this, the Germans would not have recovered.

If you looked at the Russian front you would see that after the battle of Stalingrad in 1943 the Germans were unable to mount a successful offensive and fought defensively thereafter. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Soviet tank divisions were decisive. By the middle of January 1944 the Russians had lifted the siege of Leningrad and were driving toward the Baltic states and Poland. All this before the Normandy landings on June 6, 1944. In July the Russians entered Poland and in August they reached the Balkans.

Stalingrad was a poorly though-out decision to continue the seige and it cost Germany the entire war.

To reiterate though, I think the Russians would have gone much further than Berlin had the Americans not been there, Blaise. I sometimes reflect on what might of been had Patton gotten his way and Roosevelt not given up so much at Malta.

I am, however, countering his preposterous claim that there would not have been an independent US without French assistance. Anyone who examines the population growth, land area, and natural resources of American North America should readily perceive that it would have been only a matter of time before the British were expelled.

I think the French quickened US independence. Granted, without their involvement, I honestly believe the end result to be the same. But I also feel it would have taken much, much longer to expel the British if the French hadn't assisted.

cheers.

[blaise]

I shudder to think of what might have happened if Patton had not been harnessed.

I agree that the Canadians fought valiantly.

Haig and most of the other Brit generals were callous idiots who sacrificed their youth for nothing. Hence the appellation The Lost Generation.

[Skilly]

Blaise said:

if I had been the Canadian PM I would have annexed St.-Pierre et Micquelon in response. So there!.

And I hope you would be giving it to Nova Scotia.

[blaise]

Skilly said:

And I hope you would be giving it to Nova Scotia.

Of course I would!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

I think the French quickened US independence. Granted, without their involvement, I honestly believe the end result to be the same. But I also feel it would have taken much, much longer to expel the British if the French hadn't assisted.

cheers.

I must admit that if it weren't for French involvement in the War of Independence George W Bush would be speaking English.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

I hate it when my opinions keep getting cluttered up with facts.

[blaise]

M. said:

I must admit that if it weren't for French involvement in the War of Independence George W Bush would be speaking English.

I'm sure he would have mangled French if Montcalm had been victorious.

[franko]

Blaise said:

I'm sure he would have mangled French if Montcalm had been victorious.

Could he mangle worse that Chretien, the man who can speak neither official language?

[PTH]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

Stalingrad was a poorly though-out decision to continue the seige and it cost Germany the entire war.

Not really.... whatever happened in Russia, the war would end at the latest in August 1945 with a mushroom cloud over Berlin.

[MC Habber]

PTH said:

Not really.... whatever happened in Russia, the war would end at the latest in August 1945 with a mushroom cloud over Berlin.

But Hitler didn't know that (nor did Russia). And I'm not sure that would have ended the war with Germany - it did not effect the outcome in Japan.

[blaise]

MC said:

But Hitler didn't know that (nor did Russia). And I'm not sure that would have ended the war with Germany - it did not effect the outcome in Japan.

It's been rumored that racial considerations would have spared German territory from atomization.

[franko]

Blaise said:

It's been rumored that racial considerations would have spared German territory from atomization.

It's been suggested that racial considerations were a contributor to the war, in that Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest helped push Hitler to exterminate those who he felt were not fit.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

PTH said:

Not really.... whatever happened in Russia, the war would end at the latest in August 1945 with a mushroom cloud over Berlin.

Actually, PTH, would Germany have had the time to complete their heavy water experiments had they not opened up the Eastern Front?

Cheers.

[PTH]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

Actually, PTH, would Germany have had the time to complete their heavy water experiments had they not opened up the Eastern Front?

No way. Atomic science was a "Jewish" science that Hitler couldn't stand, and Germany's scientists were far too theoretical to put together a weapon in a reasonable time frame.

As to not using Nukes for racial reasons, at that time the A-bomb was just seen as a bigger than normal conventional explosive, the really nasty radioactive effects were unknown to all, so I can't see why it wouldn't have been dropped on Berlin.

Anyhow, my point was just that whatever changes to the timeline we could make in Russia once the fighting is on, Germany still loses.

An interesting premise would be to wonder what would have happened had Russia been ready - Britain and the US were too weak to do anything, we might have had a communist Europe that way.
--

If we want a realistic alternate timeline where Germany wins out in wwii, you have to cut wwii short in 1940 or 1941, without a war in Russia and without the US getting it's industrial might involved. Having Halifax become PM rather than Churchill in 1940 would probably do it.

[blaise]

franko said:

It's been suggested that racial considerations were a contributor to the war, in that Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest helped push Hitler to exterminate those who he felt were not fit.

I'm saying that according to the rumor Truman would have been less inclined to use the bomb against the Germans. We'll never know, because Germany surrendered several months before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atomized.

[blaise]

PTH said:

No way. Atomic science was a "Jewish" science that Hitler couldn't stand, and Germany's scientists were far too theoretical to put together a weapon in a reasonable time frame.

As to not using Nukes for racial reasons, at that time the A-bomb was just seen as a bigger than normal conventional explosive, the really nasty radioactive effects were unknown to all, so I can't see why it wouldn't have been dropped on Berlin.

Anyhow, my point was just that whatever changes to the timeline we could make in Russia once the fighting is on, Germany still loses.

An interesting premise would be to wonder what would have happened had Russia been ready - Britain and the US were too weak to do anything, we might have had a communist Europe that way.
--

If we want a realistic alternate timeline where Germany wins out in wwii, you have to cut wwii short in 1940 or 1941, without a war in Russia and without the US getting it's industrial might involved. Having Halifax become PM rather than Churchill in 1940 would probably do it.

The scientically untutored politicians may have seen the A- bomb as just a super explosive but some scientists realized that the fission of uranium might be asymmetrical, yielding radioactive isotopes as well as enormous thermal and mechanical energy.

Speaking of the relative condition of the the US and the USSR in 1945, the former was at its peak and had several years' lead over the latter in A-bomb production. Had the USSR been in the driver's seat in the postwar years, it would not have backed down in the Berlin airlift crisis and agreed to end its land blockade.

[blaise]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

Actually, PTH, would Germany have had the time to complete their heavy water experiments had they not opened up the Eastern Front?

Cheers.

Not so. I discussed this with Werner Heisenberg. The Nazis had a rather modest program. Hitler became impatient and eventually diverted scientific resources into the development of the V1 and V2 rockets.

[PTH]

Blaise said:

The scientically untutored politicians may have seen the A- bomb as just a super explosive but some scientists realized that the fission of uranium might be asymmetrical, yielding radioactive isotopes as well as enormous thermal and mechanical energy.

Well, it's the politicians who made the decisions, so if radiation was not a factor for them in their decision, it's very likely IMO that Berlin would have been visited by a mushroom cloud.