Why do we hate the french again?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'll do better than that I personally know a half dozen people that were there. The attack of Pearl was a very risky move on the japs part. Many mistakes were made like not believing the radar, thinking the attack would be in McArthurs yard, thinking the japs would declare war first even though they had attacked without warning, repeatedly, in the past. Yes I know the Translation story.
But, we were hardly sleeping, do you think the carriers were out of pearl without their usual escorts accidently?

We were sleeping, admit it. I don't know anyone who was at Pearl. My Dad was with the Royal Canadian Air Force at the time and later flew the "hump" over India to Burma to supply Merrill and the rest of the US forces there. I have little respect for Pershing because McArthur disliked him strongly. My Dad was a huge fan of McArthur. So much for personal connects in WWII. Pearl took us by surprise, get over it, already.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I was trying to stay on topic.

So was I. However a discussion of the First World War must include the major combatants, don't you think? Sure, we could just talk about France. Let's see, in 1914 the French for some strange reason dug a bunch of trenches and fired off a bunch of ammunition and then in 1918 they stopped after thousands of young men from France had died. The end.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's right, Pershing refused to crawl in the trenches like the others. Maybe that's why we suffered 321K casualties (114K dead) compared to the 15 million the french, Brits and Russians totaled. Oh yeah, Pershing was really stupid.

Come on, you're not actually going to try to back yourself into a corner over PERSHING, are you? Give me something I can USE here, Bruce! Let's discuss Robert E. Lee's generalship or Rommel's or McArthur's or even Westmoreland's. I'm not wasting my time on Pershing. You can sing his praises if you want.

You over-looked one teensy little thing. Everyone else was in that damn war from 1914-1918 which (I'll help you out) = 4 years. US forces didn't arrive in Europe in any number until 1918. So, Pershing gets credit for the fact that we were involved in the conflict for only a year and the dead from our country were fewer in number than the dead from THREE others? See what I mean about attempting to defend Pershing?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'll stick with my "over simplified" version to your politically correct version.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY

Well, I suppose in a sense they WOULD be "politically correct." Hell, I'm sticking with the US Army's version. My Dad would expect no less of me.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Waiting with abated breath.

A-bated, really? Well, hang on while I go check my trap lines. You've caught me at a busy time. :p

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by marichiko

We were sleeping, admit it. I don't know anyone who was at Pearl. My Dad was with the Royal Canadian Air Force at the time and later flew the "hump" over India to Burma to supply Merrill and the rest of the US forces there. I have little respect for Pershing because McArthur disliked him strongly. My Dad was a huge fan of McArthur. So much for personal connects in WWII. Pearl took us by surprise, get over it, already.

Only the civilians were sleeping and only a fool would think that Roosevelt or the pentagon were getting very much sleep at the time or the 2 years before. Yes I know it wasn't built yet.
They new the war was coming, they could only guess where and when. They guessed wrong.

So was I. However a discussion of the First World War must include the major combatants, don't you think? Sure, we could just talk about France. Let's see, in 1914 the French for some strange reason dug a bunch of trenches and fired off a bunch of ammunition and then in 1918 they stopped after thousands of young men from France had died. The end.

Now you've got it! For 4 years the french did nothing but loose. To their credit they didn't acquiesce...that time.[quote]
Come on, you're not actually going to try to back yourself into a corner over PERSHING, are you? Give me something I can USE here, Bruce! Let's discuss Robert E. Lee's generalship or Rommel's or McArthur's or even Westmoreland's. I'm not wasting my time on Pershing. You can sing his praises if you want.[/Qoute] Good move...don't waste your time with something you don't know jack shit about.

You over-looked one teensy little thing. Everyone else was in that damn war from 1914-1918 which (I'll help you out) = 4 years. US forces didn't arrive in Europe in any number until 1918. So, Pershing gets credit for the fact that we were involved in the conflict for only a year and the dead from our country were fewer in number than the dead from THREE others? See what I mean about attempting to defend Pershing?

So you (and Silent) are saying that if we had followed the french example of fighting in the trenches we wouldn't have had their 76% casualty rate and the war would have ended soon any way? Grow up. Pershing may have been decimated 2 years earlier but it wasn't 2 years earlier, was it? Pershing did the right thing for and at the right time. He ended the war quickly with a casualty rate of 8%. :p

[Mr.Anon.E.Mouse]

marichiko said "People ignorant of European history (that means 99.9999999% of all Americans) find it easy to make arrogant assumptions."

That was so funny, milk came out my nose!

[lookout123]

you'll find the humor wears off shortly.

[Guyute]

Marichiko,
Actually, I am Canadian. I have never served in the Military. I have never met DeGaulle. I do not have a Masters in European History, but I have read quite a bit about WWII and some about WW I.

DeGaulle's war record is one thing, but his mouth is another. His out-of-line comment in Montreal regarding separatists insulted the Canadian government, of whom he was their guest, and was a slap in the face to a country who sent thousands to their deaths to liberate France. Imagine a British officer going to the South instead of Washington and announcing "Long live the Confederacy". Yeah, exactly- what an asshole.

As for the fact that your best college bud was French- WHOOP DE DOOOO! I worked with a French guy for 3 years who was the epitome of class; the stereotypical classy, well-spoken Frenchman. Unfortunately there are more than two Frenchmen. Also, unfortunately, the French military were demolished. Evidently your friend's bonhomie did not translate to effective military tactics. Hitler himself admitted that he was worried about France's vast numerical superiority, but he figured out in about two minutes that they couldn't get out of their own way in all-out combat.

The fact that DeGaulle humbled a few Germans, or tried to escape a prison camp, didn't change the fact that DeGaulle was an arrogant, pompous ass. Whatever ability he had to command may have resulted in temporarily slowing the Germans, but in the end he had to run with his tail between his legs, and then run around England mouthing off like the Krauts were lucky he wasn't still over there kicking ass...

Originally Posted by Guyute

Marichiko,
Actually, I am Canadian. I have never served in the Military. I have never met DeGaulle. I do not have a Masters in European History, but I have read quite a bit about WWII and some about WW I.

DeGaulle's war record is one thing, but his mouth is another. His out-of-line comment in Montreal regarding separatists insulted the Canadian government, of whom he was their guest, and was a slap in the face to a country who sent thousands to their deaths to liberate France. Imagine a British officer going to the South instead of Washington and announcing "Long live the Confederacy". Yeah, exactly- what an asshole.

Thank you for clarifying your reasons for your dislike of the man. Why didn't you say so in the first place? I have no opinion on his comments to Canadian separatists because like many Americans, I am woefully ignorant on that topic.

Originally Posted by Guyute

As for the fact that your best college bud was French- WHOOP DE DOOOO!

Yes, one person does not indicate a nation. My point, exactly.

[Trilby]

At this point your hostage bitch says, "baby, baby...wha's goin' ON?" and you all disperse in a rain of fire.

[lookout123]

huh?

[Happy Monkey]

I'm not sure who Brianna is channeling, but it reminds me of the Evil Midnight Bomber what Bombs at Midnight...

[Silent]

Alright, I after doing some re-reading last night I will have to retract some of my invective against Pershing.

He was not so much anti-British/French as he was ultra pro-American. To an extent that, some third parties have remarked, he was a bit blind to some of the weaknesses of his troops and the AEF in general.

[BygTex]

French Security Alert:

Be aware that the French government announced yesterday that it has
Raised its terror alert level from 'Run' to 'Hide'.

The only two higher levels in France are 'Surrender' and 'Collaborate.'

The rise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France's
White flag factory, effectively paralysing their military.

Sure it's old...but it's still funny.

[jaguar]

no, not really.

[warch]

Free trip to Arlington or Paris, Arlington or Paris, Arlington er....hmmm.....I gotta go for Paris. (France, not Texas)

[xoxoxoBruce]

When?

[footfootfoot]

Not to divert this armchair general's convention but I wanted to clear up something about "french fries".

The term is a corruption of "frenched fries. It refers to the way the potato is cut.

I hope french fries or what ever you want to call them are once again safe for democracy.

carry on. fry 'em if you got 'em.