The Homosexual Agenda – What’s the Point?
"Britain hadn’t been distracted by the last Frenchman who wouldn’t surrender.”
I was unaware that Charles DeGaulle, Pierre Koning, Georges Clemenceau (the “Father of Victory” in WWI), Ferdinand Foch, Jean de Lattre de Tassingy, the Millions of Frenchmen who helped crush the Central Powers, and the Hundreds of thousands of Free Frenchmen who fought Germany in WWII and China, North Korea, the Viet Mihn, and Algerians afterwards were contemporaries of Napoleon.
Perhaps I missed the chapter where the British at Waterloo defeated the French Tank Charge.
Sorry, but you have to give the French credit where it is due. They have had their colossal missteps like the rest of us, but that doesn’t mean they are completely spineless.
Posted by Turtler
10/19/2008 at 01:55 AM
Terrible how the mighty have fallen.
Posted by Turtler
10/19/2008 at 02:04 AM
Good points Turtler. You forgot Petain (though his accomplishments in WWI were doubtless overshadowed by his Vichy years. How do you spell ‘surrender’? Collaboration!)
Yes, DeGaulle, Clemenceau, Foch, et al didn’t surrender. They didn’t win either. Why Clemenceau is the ‘Father of Victory’ escapes me. U.S. intervention saved them in both world wars. History is written by the victors. The French, when not surrendering, seem to play a ‘prevent defense’.
As I recall, we also took over the French (losing) side in Indochina. And won! Until the John Kerry Democrats cut funding.
My point is that France has been militarily a paper tiger since Napoleon.
Sad, really. France is a wonderful country, but, they surrender. Look at their on-going problem with ‘rioting youths’. Rioting Muslim immigrant youths.
Personally, I blame ‘multiculturalism’.
The point was that Britain might well have retaken the ‘colonies’ if the Napoleonic Wars hadn’t been a distraction. As it was, the Brits did serious damage sacking Washington D.C.
I just did some research.
King of England during the Revolution: George III
King of England during the War of 1812: George III
Incidentally, name the last President to personally lead troops in battle?
President James Madison personally commanded an artillery emplacement during the British sacking of Washington D.C. This gave time for Dolly Madison to escape.
When you vote this November 4th, keep that in mind. Can this President actually lead troops in battle?
Personally, I wouldn’t follow B. Hussein Obama to the loo.
"Why Clemenceau is the ‘Father of Victory’ escapes me.”
Google a biography of him. I don’t think it misleading to say that he was to France in WWI what Churchill was to Britain in WWII.
“U.S. intervention saved them in both world wars.”
In WWII that is certainly justified. In WWI, it is infinitely less so. The indisputable fact remains that the US only intervened in the final year of the war, AFTER most of the technological, tactical, and strategic innovations were already out there. The fact remains that the US only entered the war in the last year of it, and the AEF played a side-show role in the 100 Day’s Campaign. While the AEF was eventually built into a fighting force of considerable size, both in terms of manpower and material, its fighting record is considerably overshadowed by those of the Western Allied “Old Guard,” though it did do far better than the Germans and Austro-Hungarians and usually defeated them in battle.
The fact remains that, by the time the German Empire collapsed thanks to the revolution in late 1918, the American contributions were still far overshadowed by the contributions of other nations. In WWI, the US was not the “Arsenal of Democracy” it was in WWII, and, indeed, the Western Allies provided more material to the US than the other way around, and it was on British and French ships that the AEF was transported to Western And Austro-Italian Fronts. The main issue of whether the US could be said to have saved the Western Allies from going the way of the Eastern Allies (Russia and Romania), is whether or not the then-rump AEF provided the slight “edge” that helped stop the vastly larger German Army from sweeping into Paris, an idea I remain unconvinced in to say the least.
That isn’t to say the US didn’t help in WWI, as the defeats we inflicted upon the Mexicans during Pancho Villa Expedition helped keep them from an alliance with the Kaiserreich, and we did help inflict crucial defeats on the Germans during the tipping point of the war (1918, when all the cards were still on the table as to who would win.) I just means that the idea that the US “saved” the Western Allies is an idea I find largely unfounded.
“They didn’t win either.”
Guess what? They were fighting against a larger foe in both WWI and WWII, and under immense strain. The fact is that is damn-near impossible to make a decisive breach in a trenchline when all you really have are infantry without truly mobile heavy weapons (as was the problem before 1916), and it is equally hard when your home country is occupied by the enemy (as was the problem up until 1944). The fact is that if the US was facing a similar situation, I doubt it would be said that we won decisively either.
And you seriously underestimate the French victories at the First and Second Battles of the Marne (which stopped the Germans at the Gates of Paris), their participation in the Battle of Ameins (which was, in fact, largely drawn up by Foch and Joffre, as well as other Western Allies commanders like Haig, King Albert, etc), the battle of Bir Hakeim (which helped save North Africa from Germany by giving the Western Allies enough time to regroup after the disaster at Gazala), their crushing of the Colmar Pocket (which helped prevent German reinforcements from flowing into the Low Countries), and a few others.
“As I recall, we also took over the French (losing) side in Indochina.”
BZZZTTT! Wrong answer.
The French no more lost Indochina militarily than we did. In fact, they actually did better to an extent: they were able to practically clear out the South and the Thai frontier in spite of both VM and Thai resistance to them. It was primarily Uncle Ho’s spinning, the fact that the VM could get huge supplies of resources from China, and the condemnations of French “Imperialism” that forced France to pack up and head home. Sort of like what happened to us.
“The French, when not surrendering, seem to play a ‘prevent defense’.”
First, ‘prevent defense?’ WTF? and secondly, the fact remains that we never had to really share our border with a colossus like the 2nd or Third Reichs. 19th Century Britain may come close, but not particularly.
“My point is that France has been militarily a paper tiger since Napoleon.”
Not really since Napoleon. Their WWI, WWII, Korean War, Indochina War, and Algerian War history certainly outclass anything the “Sun King” of the 17th century ever did, but it does mark the start of a decline. I would say that France has been a paper tiger since the 1960’s, though. But that is more due to lack of will than anything else.
“King of England during the War of 1812: George III”
On paper, that is true. But in fact, it is not. Because George the III had been permanently confined since 1811 after his “Madness” took hold of him. The “Regency Act” stripped him of most of his powers until he got better (and he never did from his 1811 outbreak). So, the actual power lay in the hands of the Prince of Wales (the future George IV) and Parliament.
“Personally, I blame ‘multiculturalism’.”
I concur. It is a shame to see how the mighty have fallen so far.
Posted by Turtler
10/19/2008 at 05:00 PM