Uh, last I checked W is still welcome to come and the cemetaries that are over there are as peaceful as ever. This whole bashing both ways is more nationalism and less practical than anything. Still tons of Americans move to France and just as many French move to the US so it all can't be THAT bad!
France, like many in this country, has a habit of hating their friends more than they hate their enemies. That explains why they consistently align themselves with a nation that invaded France twice in the last 80 years and consistently poke a stick in the eyes of the two nations that have bailed them out each time their existence was on the line.
As Mark Twain said: "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. It is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
As Mark Twain said: "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. It is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
The French are smart, they want the Germans so massively integrated into europe that they'll never emerge as a nationalist group again.
Its their best defence for the future.
WW 1 and 2 were pretty messy.
WW 1 in particular, was a bloodbath on French soil.
They'll respect the war dead just fine.
There's quite a few million of them lying at rest in French soil.
[This message was edited by eek on June 04, 2004 at 10:55 PM.]
The French are smart, they want the Germans so massively integrated into europe that they'll never emerge as a nationalist group again.
Its their best defence for the future.
WW 1 and 2 were pretty messy.
WW 1 in particular, was a bloodbath on French soil.
They'll respect the war dead just fine.
There's quite a few million of them lying at rest in French soil.
[This message was edited by eek on June 04, 2004 at 10:55 PM.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
Just remind them that their father could have been named Fritz instead of Jaques.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its actually commonly accepted here in europe that daddy would have been one of comrade Stalins little elves if D-Day had not happened.
Just thought you might like to know that.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a big influence on Stalin too BTW.
For the record, 20% of your outputs in WW2 went into the Pacific, and 80% into europe.
The battle of Leningrad alone(one city), had more war dead that the total combined war dead of the western allies for WW2.
(Thats civilians and military personnel.)
So the Russians were well able to take huge losses.
The Manhattan project was the real peacemaker in 1945.
Just remind them that their father could have been named Fritz instead of Jaques.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its actually commonly accepted here in europe that daddy would have been one of comrade Stalins little elves if D-Day had not happened.
Just thought you might like to know that.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a big influence on Stalin too BTW.
For the record, 20% of your outputs in WW2 went into the Pacific, and 80% into europe.
The battle of Leningrad alone(one city), had more war dead that the total combined war dead of the western allies for WW2.
(Thats civilians and military personnel.)
So the Russians were well able to take huge losses.
The Manhattan project was the real peacemaker in 1945.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a big influence on Stalin too BTW.
For the record, 20% of your outputs in WW2 went into the Pacific, and 80% into europe.
The battle of Leningrad alone(one city), had more war dead that the total combined war dead of the western allies for WW2.
(Thats civilians and military personnel.)
So the Russians were well able to take huge losses.
The Manhattan project was the real peacemaker in 1945.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point Eek...for all the talk about Truman not dropping the A-Bomb over Tokyo I think a lot worse would have happened had the United States not shown the willingness to use the weapon. If Truman decided not to use it, who knows how the Russians would have taken the end of WW2? Deterrence, through the nuclear weapon, was likely the only way Western Europe suvived without WW3.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a big influence on Stalin too BTW.
For the record, 20% of your outputs in WW2 went into the Pacific, and 80% into europe.
The battle of Leningrad alone(one city), had more war dead that the total combined war dead of the western allies for WW2.
(Thats civilians and military personnel.)
So the Russians were well able to take huge losses.
The Manhattan project was the real peacemaker in 1945.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point Eek...for all the talk about Truman not dropping the A-Bomb over Tokyo I think a lot worse would have happened had the United States not shown the willingness to use the weapon. If Truman decided not to use it, who knows how the Russians would have taken the end of WW2? Deterrence, through the nuclear weapon, was likely the only way Western Europe suvived without WW3.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
The battle of Leningrad alone(one city), had more war dead that the total combined war dead of the western allies for WW2.
(Thats civilians and military personnel.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Leningrad was worse than Stalingrad? I think you meant Stalingrad in your statement.
[This message was edited by American on June 05, 2004 at 12:00 PM.]
The battle of Leningrad alone(one city), had more war dead that the total combined war dead of the western allies for WW2.
(Thats civilians and military personnel.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Leningrad was worse than Stalingrad? I think you meant Stalingrad in your statement.
[This message was edited by American on June 05, 2004 at 12:00 PM.]
No-one actually knows the true war dead numbers on the eastern front.
Stalin covered it up, and we only have 'official' communist numbers.
The entire civilian population was thrown into defending Lenigrad, and they had about 800,000 civilian deaths alone.
Stalingrad was famous because it was the first major defeat the Germans suffered.
Russian losses were about 500,000.
Handy link.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/ergrenier/East.html
Stalin covered it up, and we only have 'official' communist numbers.
The entire civilian population was thrown into defending Lenigrad, and they had about 800,000 civilian deaths alone.
Stalingrad was famous because it was the first major defeat the Germans suffered.
Russian losses were about 500,000.
Handy link.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/ergrenier/East.html
The Russians definately know the true meaning of sacrifice, that's for sure. I didn't know the civilian toll was that high during the 28 month seige of Leningrad. 800,000 deaths is a number that our culture can't even relate to.
One of Stalin's great motivational tactics was to not allow citizens to flee battle zones, figuring that this would cause the Russian forces to fight with more valor and urgency. Eventually, that's what happened. A Nazi on the front line in Stalingrad wrote home to his family saying that everything with a head, two arms and two legs was fighting against them there.
If anyone is interested, read the historical book "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor. It's an exhausting, fascinating and amazing account of the horrible struggle of that city. Has anyone out there read it?
I just saw the link on Leningrad...630,000 starved. Unbelievable. Eating the bodies of the dead was not an uncommon occurance in those under-seige hell-holes that were formerly cities.
One of Stalin's great motivational tactics was to not allow citizens to flee battle zones, figuring that this would cause the Russian forces to fight with more valor and urgency. Eventually, that's what happened. A Nazi on the front line in Stalingrad wrote home to his family saying that everything with a head, two arms and two legs was fighting against them there.
If anyone is interested, read the historical book "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor. It's an exhausting, fascinating and amazing account of the horrible struggle of that city. Has anyone out there read it?
I just saw the link on Leningrad...630,000 starved. Unbelievable. Eating the bodies of the dead was not an uncommon occurance in those under-seige hell-holes that were formerly cities.
As noted above, the French have a lot more dead soldiers buried there than they do Americans.
And the notion of giving the U.S. credit for 'giving them their country' is a major snub to the millions of French who fought in the resistance following the German takeover of their country, military-wise.
Finally, where would the Soviet Union be today if we had actually conducted Unilateral Disarmament? Most likely exactly where they are today, with maybe a couple years difference.
See they made the mistake of trying to take over sovereign nations via military force and/or control previously sovereign nations (Eastern Europe) using military force. Thus they were doomed to failure as sovereign nations don't respond well to being invaded and taken over.
It can be accomplished for a short term, but will fail in the end.
The only reason the Soviet bloc held Eastern Europe as long as they did was that upon takeover in 1946, the EE countries had been utterly decimated by WWII and thus had to 'surrender' for over an entire generation while they rebuilt their infrastructures...all along doing covert business with Western Europe which helped them create the needed muscle to walk again once the Soviets surrendered in 1988.
And the notion of giving the U.S. credit for 'giving them their country' is a major snub to the millions of French who fought in the resistance following the German takeover of their country, military-wise.
Finally, where would the Soviet Union be today if we had actually conducted Unilateral Disarmament? Most likely exactly where they are today, with maybe a couple years difference.
See they made the mistake of trying to take over sovereign nations via military force and/or control previously sovereign nations (Eastern Europe) using military force. Thus they were doomed to failure as sovereign nations don't respond well to being invaded and taken over.
It can be accomplished for a short term, but will fail in the end.
The only reason the Soviet bloc held Eastern Europe as long as they did was that upon takeover in 1946, the EE countries had been utterly decimated by WWII and thus had to 'surrender' for over an entire generation while they rebuilt their infrastructures...all along doing covert business with Western Europe which helped them create the needed muscle to walk again once the Soviets surrendered in 1988.
barman
Of course the french have more soldiers buried there - IT'S FRANCE. It is not a snub at all, they have been snubbing us since. I should have said that the Allied forces gave them there country back, which was occupied by Germany from coast to coast who built the Atlantic wall all up the coast. Yes - we did give them their occupied country back.
As to the number of soldiers buried there - it is around 9000 U.S. soldiers who died trying to liberate a country that most had never even been to.
I only brought this up due to the anniversary tomorrow and the memories of news reports last year when Frenchmen were desecrating our boys' graves.
As for the Soviets - barman - I think that they fought a little harder to keep their country
vol
Of course the french have more soldiers buried there - IT'S FRANCE. It is not a snub at all, they have been snubbing us since. I should have said that the Allied forces gave them there country back, which was occupied by Germany from coast to coast who built the Atlantic wall all up the coast. Yes - we did give them their occupied country back.
As to the number of soldiers buried there - it is around 9000 U.S. soldiers who died trying to liberate a country that most had never even been to.
I only brought this up due to the anniversary tomorrow and the memories of news reports last year when Frenchmen were desecrating our boys' graves.
As for the Soviets - barman - I think that they fought a little harder to keep their country
vol
barman,
Please don't tell me you honestly believe that by the U.S. totally disarming that the U.S.S.R. would just chill. I've heard some bold statements in my time but that takes the cake.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> See they made the mistake of trying to take over sovereign nations via military force and/or control previously sovereign nations (Eastern Europe) using military force. Thus they were doomed to failure as sovereign nations don't respond well to being invaded and taken over.
It can be accomplished for a short term, but will fail in the end.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must disagree with this sentiment. Maybe if the "short term" is more clearly defined, I might change my opinion. Is it 1 year? 10 years? 100 years?
Please don't tell me you honestly believe that by the U.S. totally disarming that the U.S.S.R. would just chill. I've heard some bold statements in my time but that takes the cake.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> See they made the mistake of trying to take over sovereign nations via military force and/or control previously sovereign nations (Eastern Europe) using military force. Thus they were doomed to failure as sovereign nations don't respond well to being invaded and taken over.
It can be accomplished for a short term, but will fail in the end.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must disagree with this sentiment. Maybe if the "short term" is more clearly defined, I might change my opinion. Is it 1 year? 10 years? 100 years?
