USA-France Love-Hate Relationship

Off Topic
21

Since WWII, there are very few countries with whom the US has had consistently closer relations than with France despite the numerous differences. So why is the animosity so strong even while it is so tepid with regards to some of our actual enemies? Americans feel that they “earned” France as satellite state in WWII. They were rightfully in our sphere of influence yet they spent much of the cold war pursuing their own “third way” types of policies. Likewise Stalin despised Tito more than many of his outright enemies for taking a similar alternate course in the post war era.

Either that or my other theory that it’s the natural result our nationalities being the most obnoxious and self-righteous on earth. It’s always the most similar people who fight the most.

22

[quote]skor wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The US hates France because of Charles DeGaulle.

The US involvement was certainly key to winning WW2.

Incredibly ignorant, historically inaccurate statement. US stepped in after the war was pretty much won by Soviets. US did help USSR with food, but the most important battles were won in 1942 and early 1943 when that help wasn’t there yet (I think). US was not a key to winning WW2. I can’t believe that so many Americans are not aware of May 9 as a V-day for WW2 - the day Germany capitulated.[/quote]

Please. Without US involvement Britian would be isolated and a non-factor. Britian may well have stood without US involvement but without US men and equipment it would not have been a launching point for any type of invasion.

Hitler would not have spent one dime on Fortress Europe.

The eastern front would likely be a stalemate and went on for years.

Bombing of German cities and industry would have been non-existant. The effect of that bombing has been debated for 60 years but no question it helped win the war.

The proper term is VE Day not V day.

What most people tend to forget is the US was involved in the war prior to Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declarations of war. The US supplied material to the Allies and protected it with the US Navy in violation of our neutral standing.

The world would be a very different place if the US remained strictly neutral. The Nazi regime would have survived well past 1945.

23

[quote]victor lustig wrote:
I was under the impression rather than taking words from English to French and vice versa the common names and sounding words come from Latin.

I don’t actually believe the USA’s entry into WW2 was the deciding factor of us winning the war. You got to remember that Britain entered the war on the same premise as America, we declared war on Germany.

They (Hitler) wanted to leave us the hell alone and in turn let them get on with their stuff in Europe. Why ? because he knew the British Army was double hard. Check the history books it was the Russians that were the key players, the US and UK should think of their action as the decisive turn.

Even today everyone knows the British Army is probably the best Army in the world, I speak from personal experience.
I mean hell the US army even bases its special forces on our very own SAS, who are without a shadow of a doubt the worlds elite fighting force.

[/quote]

The best army in the world? Then how come they mean about diddly squat on the global theatre? Post WW II, when’s the last time the British army was the deciding factor in anything?

Maybe they are the best trained, I don’t know, I don’t know their training program. But to argue that they are the “best” army in the world makes me wonder what you mean by best.

I’m not trying to bash Britain; I have no feelings about England one way or the other, but to argue that they are still a major player on a global scale is a little tough to swallow.

Finally I don’t have anything against the French people; I’ve visited there and for the most part everyone was pretty nice to me. Much nicer in fact than in the Northeast where I’m from. I do think, however, that the country is run by a bunch of fools.

24

This is pretty much the reason America takes so much credit. We faced down one of the most competent naval forces in the world in Japan and our money and industrial power gave the allies a fighting chance.

Someone mentioned Russia and Stalingrad. It’s true that Russia suffered the most losses BUT Hitler’s split between Stalingrad and the Caucases wouldn’t have meant jack without US supplied funding that allowed Russia to pull back and restart their industrial base.

WW2 went to the countries with the most productive R and D and industrial base. At the time, no one beat America in that realm.

quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
skor wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The US hates France because of Charles DeGaulle.

The US involvement was certainly key to winning WW2.

Incredibly ignorant, historically inaccurate statement. US stepped in after the war was pretty much won by Soviets. US did help USSR with food, but the most important battles were won in 1942 and early 1943 when that help wasn’t there yet (I think). US was not a key to winning WW2. I can’t believe that so many Americans are not aware of May 9 as a V-day for WW2 - the day Germany capitulated.

Please. Without US involvement Britian would be isolated and a non-factor. Britian may well have stood without US involvement but without US men and equipment it would not have been a launching point for any type of invasion.

Hitler would not have spent one dime on Fortress Europe.

The eastern front would likely be a stalemate and went on for years.

Bombing of German cities and industry would have been non-existant. The effect of that bombing has been debated for 60 years but no question it helped win the war.

The proper term is VE Day not V day.

What most people tend to forget is the US was involved in the war prior to Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declarations of war. The US supplied material to the Allies and protected it with the US Navy in violation of our neutral standing.

The world would be a very different place if the US remained strictly neutral. The Nazi regime would have survived well past 1945.
[/quote]

25

I think most people have hit the reasons why the French and us don;t seem to get along very well. I have worked with the regular French Army (make me chuckle saying it) and the F.F.L. You can tell the tension between un and the regular army. The fear of us becoming a “superpower” really seemed to come out during the beginning of the war in Iraq! Well here are some pics you might enjoy.

26


Nothing like doing some weapons cross training with the F.F.L.
Dastang

27

I’m not arguing that USA helped. Maybe even A LOT. And I do agree that if not for the second front, Hitler’s regime would not fall in 1945. Yet US involvement was not a key to the victory - it was a catalizator.

[quote]camilio wrote:
This is pretty much the reason America takes so much credit. We faced down one of the most competent naval forces in the world in Japan and our money and industrial power gave the allies a fighting chance.

Someone mentioned Russia and Stalingrad. It’s true that Russia suffered the most losses BUT Hitler’s split between Stalingrad and the Caucases wouldn’t have meant jack without US supplied funding that allowed Russia to pull back and restart their industrial base.

WW2 went to the countries with the most productive R and D and industrial base. At the time, no one beat America in that realm.

quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
skor wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The US hates France because of Charles DeGaulle.

The US involvement was certainly key to winning WW2.

Incredibly ignorant, historically inaccurate statement. US stepped in after the war was pretty much won by Soviets. US did help USSR with food, but the most important battles were won in 1942 and early 1943 when that help wasn’t there yet (I think). US was not a key to winning WW2. I can’t believe that so many Americans are not aware of May 9 as a V-day for WW2 - the day Germany capitulated.

Please. Without US involvement Britian would be isolated and a non-factor. Britian may well have stood without US involvement but without US men and equipment it would not have been a launching point for any type of invasion.

Hitler would not have spent one dime on Fortress Europe.

The eastern front would likely be a stalemate and went on for years.

Bombing of German cities and industry would have been non-existant. The effect of that bombing has been debated for 60 years but no question it helped win the war.

The proper term is VE Day not V day.

What most people tend to forget is the US was involved in the war prior to Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declarations of war. The US supplied material to the Allies and protected it with the US Navy in violation of our neutral standing.

The world would be a very different place if the US remained strictly neutral. The Nazi regime would have survived well past 1945.

[/quote]

28

The Brittish on the other hand our some of our best Allies imo. I have worked with them several times and every time it has been a great experience. I would not say they have the greatest army as of course I would hold that title to our own. They do have a very great Army who has stuck by our side for a long time when other countries haven’t. Granted we did form alot of our beginning special forces unit after their S.A.S. mold. Who wouldn’t though. Basically I will always consider the Brittish one of our best Allies, they are trained very similar to our Army, fight amazingly and are very patriotic! I would buy them a beer anytime!
On a side note, it is funny when you first work with you crazy Brits learning your different words, ie. “torch” for flashlight.
Dastang

29

Well. “Who’s the king of the castle?” should be the name of this thread.
It was a joint effort that did the trick.
Remember? Team work?
You are being disrespectful of the sacrifice that people other than Americans made in WW2. Do you think that Hitler would have stopped with Europe?
Do you think that maybe the USA finally became involved because they saw where this was going next? American soil?
I have been to Paris a dozen times and want to say that there certainly are a whole bunch of ignorant French buggers who look down their nose at anybody who cannot speak their language flawlessly.
That does not mean they are all like that. Many Parisians are like many New Yorkers…only their city has any merit in the big scheme of things.
The french countryside is different and the simple people there are like the simple and hospitable anywhere in the world including America.
Making blanket statements about a Nation is ignorant and foolish.
Last but not least…France is a free country…free to make their own foreign policies. If your not with us your against us is not what will help bring democracy to the rest of the world.
Bush’s democracy is not the way most of the world wants to go. It’s just a bit too Nazi’ish for many. Remember Germany and the “fatherland”? Now we have America and the “homeland”. A bit scary.
America needs a change of leadership and image if it wants to continue to lead the world earning respect and loyalty in the process.
Freedom fries for everybody.
Now that is stupid.

30

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What most people tend to forget is the US was involved in the war prior to Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declarations of war. The US supplied material to the Allies and protected it with the US Navy in violation of our neutral standing.

The world would be a very different place if the US remained strictly neutral. The Nazi regime would have survived well past 1945.
[/quote]

Bump.

Japan was a tricky deal, if you look at the trade restrictions we placed on Japan pre-pearl harbor. Towards the end of the war we cracked their communication codes, and learned of their plans for surrender. We required unconditional surrender, which Japan would never do. Japan was willing to surrender as long as their emperor could remain throned. The emperor was like a god to them. We knew they would never, hence, we dropped the bombs, to make sure Russia wouldn’t take over the area, since they were slated to invade within days if japan did not surrender. Also, note that one of the bombs was plutonium, and the other uranium, i forget which - A devastating science experiment on our part.

31

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The Italian and the French Armies, well I need not insult them further.
[/quote]

thanks… just a little question which one of the italian armies you are talking about?

32

[quote]victor lustig wrote:
These posts always turn into UK bashing posts, I’m going off to sulk.[/quote]

that happens 'cause people often forget…

33

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What most people tend to forget is the US was involved in the war prior to Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declarations of war. The US supplied material to the Allies and protected it with the US Navy in violation of our neutral standing.
[/quote]
you are true… but as far as i know this kind of acts are called “commerce”.

i hope you know that prior of Pearl Harbor, US help wasn’t free of charge…

quote.

34

That’s one of the most uneducated re-writes of history I’ve ever, ever heard. So wrong I’m not even going to get into it.

35

[quote]Damici wrote:
… without the U.S. entering the war there would have been ZERO chance that the Allies would have won. ZERO. [/quote]

Then again despite wanting to stay out of the war in Europe, and then cunnivingly getting drawn in by Churchill [personally not pre-warning the US about his knowledge of the upcoming Pearl Harbor attack], the U.S had no choice but to get involved since the Nazis would’ve ABSOLUTELY taken over the rest of the world with Japan, and perhaps eventually the USA if the defiant British toe-hold in Europe was lost.

36

[quote]cadav wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The Italian and the French Armies, well I need not insult them further.

thanks… just a little question which one of the italian armies you are talking about?

[/quote]

The ones that were easily defeated in Northern Africa.

37

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The ones that were easily defeated in Northern Africa.
[/quote]

thanks for the info.
do you mean the fascist army.
cause as you know italian patriot army (CNL) fight to free Italy (northern part of it mainly) with the help of Alley supply.

the CNL army was then forced to dismiss at the end of WWII (April 25th 1945 for us)

38

Debatably, but probably so. As I said in an earlier post, staying out of the war would not have been without its consequences.

The point, going back to the intended subject of this whole thread, was that when a nation expends hundreds of thousands of its men’s and boys’ lives on your land, thereby freeing your country (and giving it BACK to you, not annexing it for our own purposes or anything), you do not shit on them a few years later by saying, like a blatanly jealous, petulent child, that that savior of yours needs to be “counterbalanced” in the world. I would never say that my best friend needs to be “counterbalanced,” or needs to have an opposing force in order to neutralize his abilities. What a shitty, back-stabbing attitude.

[quote]Vegilles wrote:
Damici wrote:
… without the U.S. entering the war there would have been ZERO chance that the Allies would have won. ZERO.

Then again despite wanting to stay out of the war in Europe, and then cunnivingly getting drawn in by Churchill [personally not pre-warning the US about his knowledge of the upcoming Pearl Harbor attack], the U.S had no choice but to get involved since the Nazis would’ve ABSOLUTELY taken over the rest of the world with Japan, and perhaps eventually the USA if the defiant British toe-hold in Europe was lost.

[/quote]

39

[quote]cadav wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The ones that were easily defeated in Northern Africa.

thanks for the info.
do you mean the fascist army.
cause as you know italian patriot army (CNL) fight to free Italy (northern part of it mainly) with the help of Alley supply.

the CNL army was then forced to dismiss at the end of WWII (April 25th 1945 for us)

[/quote]

I was referring to the facists.

I am not familiar with the CNL. I need to do some reading on that subject. Thanks for the heads up.

My wifes biological grandfather was killed fighting the Nazis in Italy.

40

[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:

Post WW II, when’s the last time the British army was the deciding factor in anything?[/quote]

Jesus tonight. Forgetting all the stuff between WW2 and say 1980, Falklands, I think defeating a much larger Army, Argentina, funnily enough equipped with lots of FRENCH gear like Exocet and Mirage.

Then Gulf 1, the role of the British was very important, particularly the tank divisions, RAF contribution to air strikes and SAS acitivity against Scuds which were pummeling Israel. Then of course Afghanistan, when Rumdsfelt (spelling?) say’s he want’s the Royal Marines in Afghanistan its not because he want’s Tony Blair to buy him a nice christmas present. As the UK isn’t huge, we don’t have a HUGE army, what’s the point when we get the US to supply the bulk of any fighting force. I don’t see the US saying in Gulf 2, go home UK forces we don’t need you. As an ex squaddie in British Army the attitude of US soldiers to us was always accomodating and respectful and vice versa.