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

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They guessed wrong.

Thank you. :p

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Now you've got it! For 4 years the french did nothing but loose. To their credit they didn't acquiesce...that time.

It was a stalemate, Bruce. Read your history books. The Brits and the French against the Germans. No one went much of anywhere.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Good move...don't waste your time with something you don't know jack shit about. 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

See my reply to Lookout, above. I wouldn't be talking about "not knowing jack shit" after your little oversight in regard to information from the Office of Chief of Military History. Glass houses and all that, you know.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Thank you. :p

They were not asleep as you claimed. :p

It was a stalemate, Bruce. Read your history books. The Brits and the French against the Germans. No one went much of anywhere.

Unlike you I read my history and talked to the people that made it.
No one went much of anywhere except the cemetary.
And Pershing ended the stalemate that would have continued had he crawled in the trenchs with the french.

See my reply to Lookout, above. I wouldn't be talking about "not knowing jack shit" after your little oversight in regard to information from the Office of Chief of Military History. Glass houses and all that, you know.

What oversight? I made no oversight. You are just trying to obfuscate the disscussion with bullshit details like you did with the post about tactics. But that doesn't work because results not endless details are what count. I don't care if your father was chairman of the joint chiefs, you don't know what your talking about, if you did it wouldn't take you so long to look everything up before posting.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh....and the french suck. :p

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You are just trying to obfuscate the disscussion with bullshit details like you did with the post about tactics. But that doesn't work because results not endless details are what count. I don't care if your father was chairman of the joint chiefs, you don't know what your talking about, if you did it wouldn't take you so long to look everything up before posting.

Right, wouldn't want to dilute a debate with any nasty old facts. Name-calling is so much more fun without them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Right, wouldn't want to dilute a debate with any nasty old facts. Name-calling is so much more fun without them.

For someone who professes to be well educated you sure don't comprehend what you read very well. I didn't say facts, I said bullshit details. You can argue details about any thing in history but it doesn't change the result. That's what's important.
Left to their own, the french would have dragged on like the Iran-Iraq war.

Oh Silent, thanks for the tip on DeGaulle in Morocco. Should have know he wasn't actually involved in the fighting.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

For someone who professes to be well educated you sure don't comprehend what you read very well. I didn't say facts, I said bullshit details. You can argue details about any thing in history but it doesn't change the result. That's what's important.
Left to their own, the french would have dragged on like the Iran-Iraq war.

Oh Silent, thanks for the tip on DeGaulle in Morocco. Should have know he wasn't actually involved in the fighting.

With all due respect, I'm educated enough to reject stone-walling without data to back it up as an acceptable method of debate. You can throw hissy fits all you like, but your statements mostly have not been backed up by any data. Its a lazy way out to call facts that don't support your pet peeves "bullshit details." I might call the chart you cut and pasted above, "bullshit detail", if I were to go by your usage of the phrase.

[Silent]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

I don't think I said anything of the sort.
My main points were/are:

1) Pershings tactics were out dated by 1918. The only reason they suceeded was due to the Americans being aligned against a tired, decimated German army.
2) Do not credit Pershing with any sort of insight with his choice of these out moded tactics. Being in the right place at the right time is not military genius, it's luck.
3) French tactics by 1918 were not as evolved as German or Canadian tactics. I am not holding them up as an example of elite WWI infantry.
4) Do not quote casualty rates from the entire war and expect the to have any real significance. Had the Americans been in the conflict from 1914 fighting a fresh German army without the lessons of the previous 4 years of fighting, I'm sure their casualty rates would have been right up there.
5) Do not attempt to say "Pershing ended the war". He was supporting cast. An important part, yes, but the forces which defeated the bulk and elite of the German army of 1918 were not American.

You know, I think the reason that a lot Americans have this hate on for the French is that many French have an open disdain for Americans.
And why do the French have this disdain for Americans? A couple of reasons:
1) Americans tourists have the worst reputation for being ignorant, arrogant loud mouths. Having witnessed first hand some of what that's is based on, I can't say that it is entirely un-earned.
2) The French have an insecurity about themselves. They are as proud of their country as Amercans are about theirs, but loss of international prestige, the diminishing importance of the French language, and the fact that their pride has taken a couple of stiff blows in the last century, has resulted in them attempting to take any comfort they can about themselves.

The above is just my opinion garnered from traveling abroad.

And I'm not trying to defend the French. I think their knee-jerk anti-americanism is childish. But I also think that whole "Freedom Fry" thing was infantile too.
I've actually heard Americans say that the French are ungrateful after they "saved their asses". :
Never has America gone to war to save France. The fact that the Germans were removed from French soil was mere pragmatism. France was the easiest route to get at the Germans.
And as far as the French were concerned, it was just pay back for the help they gave during the American Revolution.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree with your "opinion garnered". Nobody's better than us, especially when it comes to being ignorant, arrogant loud mouths.

My point was don't sell Pershing short, he was smart enough not to continue the trench death stalemate.

[Silent]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree with your "opinion garnered". Nobody's better than us, especially when it comes to being ignorant, arrogant loud mouths.

My point was don't sell Pershing short, he was smart enough not to continue the trench death stalemate.

I guess we'll have to disagree about Pershing. All my reading indicates that his choice of tactics were mainly influenced by his low opinion of French and British troops and his high opinion of his own soldiers. He felt that all the Hun needed was to face some "Real Men". He disregarded advice from several sources and went his own way. The fact that he was sucessful despite all that means I place him into histories "Lucky Bastards" bin as opposed to the "Military Geniuses" one.

In his defence, he inspired the men who followed him (a trait not to be dismissed lightly) and was not put off by the bloody necessaties of fighting in that era.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Silent

I guess we'll have to disagree about Pershing. All my reading indicates that his choice of tactics were mainly influenced by his low opinion of French and British troops and his high opinion of his own soldiers. He felt that all the Hun needed was to face some "Real Men". He disregarded advice from several sources and went his own way. The fact that he was sucessful despite all that means I place him into histories "Lucky Bastards" bin as opposed to the "Military Geniuses" one.

In his defence, he inspired the men who followed him (a trait not to be dismissed lightly) and was not put off by the bloody necessaties of fighting in that era.

Aren't all winning Generals lucky bastards?

[lookout123]

Silent - i usually get burned if i assume anything, but... it sounds like you've never been in the military.

One of the reasons Pershings men would run into withering fire was because they believed in him. one of the reasons they believed in him is because had earned their respect. it is standard for a commander (especially one in command of green troops) to be boisterous and build them up - telling them (and anyone else who can hear) that they are the absolute best unit in existence. there is no one smarter, stronger, tougher, meaner... he says this to give them the confidence that is needed in a situation where the individual can look to his left and right and no that 1 of 3 will die in the coming hours or days.

the commander will undoubtedly be transferred or promoted to a new unit, and will shortly thereafter begin making the exact same claims about the new unit - you are the toughest, most bad ass MFers around! no one can stop you if you stick together!

if the brits and french were offended at Pershings insistance that HIS troops were the best and the brits and french weren't worthy of any praise, then too bad. do you really think he felt that way? or is it more likely that his troops were hearing how badly chewed up the brits and french were and he needed to give them the confidence that it wouldn't/couldn't happen to them?

Silent - ignoring or choosing not to follow the advice of military leaders who had gone to trenches is not a sign ignorance or foolishness - it is an acknowledgment that a completely different thought process was needed. America was weak on many war materials - but it had plenty of men. an overwhelming number of men if used properly. while Pershing was not a military genius, he knew what the situation was, what his strengths were and acted accordingly.

judging him against modern values and strategic thought wouldn't be proper.

[Silent]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Silent - i usually get burned if i assume anything, but... it sounds like you've never been in the military.

You would assume incorrectly.

Originally Posted by lookout123

One of the reasons Pershings men would run into withering fire was because they believed in him. one of the reasons they believed in him is because had earned their respect. it is standard for a commander (especially one in command of green troops) to be boisterous and build them up - telling them (and anyone else who can hear) that they are the absolute best unit in existence. there is no one smarter, stronger, tougher, meaner... he says this to give them the confidence that is needed in a situation where the individual can look to his left and right and no that 1 of 3 will die in the coming hours or days.

If you read above, I give him credit for having the ability to inspire the men below him. Not an insignificant ability, and a requirement for anyone to be successful in command for any length of time.

Originally Posted by lookout123

if the brits and french were offended at Pershings insistance that HIS troops were the best and the brits and french weren't worthy of any praise, then too bad. do you really think he felt that way? or is it more likely that his troops were hearing how badly chewed up the brits and french were and he needed to give them the confidence that it wouldn't/couldn't happen to them?

My opinions about Pershing's attitudes were not derived from his pre battle speeches, or talks to his troops. They are garnered from the writings of men who were there with him as well as his own notes. He was an Anglophobe who viewed the French (after touring their lines) as weak and defeatest.
He does not come right out and say these things (especially to his allies) but it is what I and many historians have garnered from the written records and writings of the men who were there.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Silent - ignoring or choosing not to follow the advice of military leaders who had gone to trenches is not a sign ignorance or foolishness - it is an acknowledgment that a completely different thought process was needed. America was weak on many war materials - but it had plenty of men. an overwhelming number of men if used properly. while Pershing was not a military genius, he knew what the situation was, what his strengths were and acted accordingly.

That's just it. He did not dismiss the recomendations of his allies to try something new. What he did was not new. It was not inovative. It was the same old tactics that were used in 1914 with a couple of adjustments in equipment and artillery usage. The fact that he did not send thousands to a pointless death was entirely due to the quality of the troops facing him. Had the Americans been deployed in the Arras sector, or perhaps closer to Ypres, the results would have been quite different.

I give him credit for his leadership. I give him credit for resisting French and British pressure to deploy the AEF piecemeal. As for his military capabilities, I defer to Douglas MacArthur, who considered Pershing a desk soldier with no grasp of tactics or innovation.

Originally Posted by lookout123

judging him against modern values and strategic thought wouldn't be proper.

Who is doing that? I'll give you a short list of current-at-the-time tactics Pershing did not use:

Creeping barrage, trench raids, interdictive artillery fire, independant platoon action, squad level LMG support, counter battery fire.

Some of these were employed by local commanders, but they were not in Pershing's "Play book". His "Wave" attacks and direct artillery fire methods were so 1916..

:p