Why do we hate the french again?

[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4) Do not quote casualty rates from the entire war and expect the to have any real significance.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 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.

[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

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hissy fits are a chick thing, that's your department. I don't hissy fit.
You said I was over simplifying, I said you were over complicating because you can argue the value of 4 foot vs 6 foot trenches or the merits of one caliber bullet over another, ad nauseum. It doesn't change the facts;
1~ the french fought for 4 years and got no where with a 76.3 % casualty rate.
2~ Pershing ended the war in months with an 8.2% casualty rate.
That's it....the bottom line....we won.


Oh...3~ the french suck.

[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.