France and the War on terror

Your point (though correct) lost all validity on the use of that statement:

Quote:

---

Go read about it on Wikipedia.

---

Do not try to learn about history from Wikipedia. If you would insist on doing that, may I recommend you learn about the Wars of England from the films of Mel Gibson. ~D He he joking.

Khrushchev himself confessed later however, that the Soviet Union was not prepared to risk nuclear war over Egypt. Since a land invasion of Paris would have required the USSR to have moved through Germany first, this would have meant engaging US troops along the way, which would have given the US grounds for a pre-emptive strike that many in the Eisenhower administration wanted. Though the USSR was a nuclear power at this point in history, its delivery systems were inadaquete to deliver a serious blow to the US, while the US could have eliminated the USSR as a serious military threat.

The REAL reason the US couldn't support the invasion was that it could not expect to be taken seriously in international politics if it criticised the USSR intervening in Hungary, while at the same time endorsing its allies did the exact same thing (albiet the allies were intervening for the right reasons). A fairly minor issue in comparison to what would have been achieved by a success in the Suez, but it just goes to show how willing the US is prepared to screw over its allies to protect its own interests.

The same way any country should really.

“you had all the dead Americans you wanted over in Dien Bien Phu”: can you comments this? American in DBP. The only one where the private company mad by Claire Chenault… No US soldiers in DBP, but French Soldiers in Korea… :book: Back to the debate please… ~D

Do you suppose the animosity from the Hundred Years War (that is what we call it, I don't know what the French call it) has carried over to now? Or maybe it was Napoleon? Hell, France helped win the battle of Yorktown. Can just one man (De Gaulle [what a great name]) really ruin nations relationships?

I'm just curious where the animosity comes from. And I don't buy arrogance or pride either.

Azi

I didn't say dead soldiers, I said dead Americans. For Christ's sake, talk about being ungrateful....The fact is, I seriously doubt your commanders at the time would have allowed actual dogtag wearing American GI's on the ground anyway. Let's not forget who these 'commercial' pilots were... this was Air America's first major operation.

Louis Ferte implied that any bad blood is our fault, because we didn't support you in the Suez. I explained why I thought we had to do that, and offered Dien Biem Phu, which was only 18 months before that, as evidence that we actually were doing what we could, when we could to help you guys out.

Never mind, Brenus, you're right. In the entire history of our nation, we've never done a damn thing for France. Back to the topic... Oops, I forgot, a smiley makes everything I say okay. ~D Now, back to the topic...

Al Khalifah, I think you're sadly mistaken if you believe the hype that the US was trying to bait the USSR into a conventional war. At that particular point, we would have lost, and lost badly, possibly encouraging the USSR to overrun all of Europe. We had our hands full fighting the North Koreans & the Chinese on the Korean peninsula. We eventually fought them to a draw, but it was pretty costly for us. Eisenhower may have been making some rousing speeches, but he knew better than anybody we were in no position to take on the Soviet Union in a conventional war.

Edit: And no, I don't rely on Wikipedia as my sole source for history (though thanks for the vote of confidence :inquisitive:). It does have a nice brief summary of the events though. If you want a few additional sources:
Global Security's take

Charles Stuart University

And finally, Ehistory's view

The French call it La Guerre de Cent Ans which the exact translation. And no, I don’t think it ruins the Franco-English relations.
France and England built their national Identity against each other, with wars during hundred years. The truth is both King could have claim the throne of the other country, and it happened. Until John Lackland, all the “English” Kings were buried in France. ~D
The last battle English/Belgium/Prussian vs French was Waterloo 1815. One century after, it was English-French vs Germany…
There are actually a huge French population in England, and a lot of English go to France and buy houses, work and live. I will go in two weeks shopping in Calais… ~:)

I don’t think animosity is the good world. Both countries are proud of their history, our common history, even if it was against each other. It is more competition and kind of folklore than something really nasty.

“In the entire history of our nation, we've never done a damn thing for France”: Did I say that? No. The US came during WW1 and WW2 to fight against the German’s invasion, and the last time they even were a great help to liberate France. But YOU have to recognise that until the start of the Korean War, the US was helping the Vietminh against the French (anti-colonialism), that the US constantly support the movement of liberation against the French/British Empires. And I don’t blame them for that.

I don’t think I have to be grateful for the initiative of a private man and his pilots (American) who, against the will of his own government, helped in parachuting foods and ammunition.
I also perfectly aware that the US financed the Indochina war in the frame of the Anti-communist crusade (after the visit of the Gal De Lattre de Tassigny in the USA) and that Nixon offered the A-bomb (Operation Vulture) when the fall of DBP was obvious. Don’t give me grief about what I am NOT saying.

In term to be ungrateful, no country can give lessons to others.

“you're right”: I am sorry to be. ~:)

Now, yes, go back to the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Do you suppose the animosity from the Hundred Years War (that is what we call it, I don't know what the French call it) has carried over to now? Or maybe it was Napoleon? Hell, France helped win the battle of Yorktown. Can just one man (De Gaulle [what a great name]) really ruin nations relationships?

I'm just curious where the animosity comes from. And I don't buy arrogance or pride either.

---

It's called 'La Guerre de Cent Ans' in French. Which literally translates as, suprise, 'the Hundred Years War'.
[edit: crap, I overlooked Brenus' post]

But that was in prehistoric times. Some stereotypes may have survived to this day, but it's not really a source of frustration at either side of the Channel, is it? You've got Agincourt, we've got Jeanne d'Arc. :duel:

(On a funny side-note: French nobility thought it unfair to use longbows, and threatened to cut of the index and middle finger of anybody caught using one. In typical English fashion, the average longbowmen's reply was the 'up yours' gesture made by these two fingers that is still in use in Britain today...)

Napoleon was brought down by the Eastern despots and the Russian winter. Waterloo only came after his major defeats, and is not really a source of any frustration either.

About De Gaulle I don't know, he seems to be very unpopular with the Anglo-Americans. As I'm not a Gaullist, I'm not too fond of him either. Though he does have his redeeming qualities: he gave France a sense of pride after WWII, he ended that stupid war in Algeria, and he seems to be very unpopular with the Anglo-Americans.

But seriously. Animosity? Nah, not really. Not with Great Britain at least. They're not really viewed as any particular arch-rival or anything. As long as we keep beating the crap out of the English at football they are welcome to bankrupt themselves with the Olympics in 2012.
What animosity there is, is allthogether less frustrated, less vile than with America.

With the US the situation has got a bit out of hand. Though I think it is more a matter of conservative America freaking out over France in the last few years, and of the extreme-left and extreme-right in France being all too critical of the US, to the point of paranoia. (The US the biggest threat to world-peace? Get real!). And to which in all fairness I should add that both extremes make up quite a sizeable amount of France. :embarassed:

"he gave France a sense of pride after WWII,"


A false sense of pride too be picky.

And at what cost? The hate of the Anglo World? Was it really worth it?

That's a bit unfair. I don't think many of us "hate France." I put France at roughly the same level as Russia now--prideful, jealous, dangerous, and sometimes friendly. I keep in mind this comment (quote?) I picked up somewhere, "France, they are there when they need you."

I've been considering a trip to a remote part of Russia for some research when I can swing it, but France has fallen off my travel itenerary (a pity, since I spent some years studying French, but never Russian.) I've also found some nice substitutes for French champagnes at a fraction of the cost, but this is primarily an economic consideration as the French champagnes are greatly over priced for the problems I've had with variability of the quality of one bottle to the next. I've had so many "corked" French champagnes that I've largely given up on them. Too bad, because when they are good they are unbeatable.

If any country collaberated it is england, we don't call it Londonistan for nothing. Englands policy on islamic terrorism was basicly 'leave us alone' and you can use London as a base.

This discussion is really amazing to me. Having heard all the argues I can imagine that France will soon be the leader against terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Al Khalifah, I think you're sadly mistaken if you believe the hype that the US was trying to bait the USSR into a conventional war.

---

Guess I'm not sadly mistaken then, since I don't believe that. The US did not want any sort of war with the USSR at this point. Some in the Eisenhower administration and even as late as the Kennedy administration wanted pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union, because the Soviets didn't actually have the delivery systems necessary to inflict a crushing blow on the continental United States, but they believed the Russians soon would.
The Russians didn't want any sort of war with the Americans at this point either and they knew that a nuclear strike against London or Paris would have provoked this. A conventional war against France or England would have required the Russians to go through American troops as well, which also would have provoked a war with the US.

That is what I was saying.

First, even if that's true, I don't think the Eisenhower administration knew the Soviets weren't scrapping for a fight. But I don't think it is. They took a huge gamble by invading Hungary and earlier, by shutting down traffic to East Berlin. They made no bones about the fact that they considered all of Europe their domain and that we were meddling where we didn't belong. I think you're being a bit naive if you think they wouldn't have attacked Germany or France if they thought they had the upper hand.

I completely agree, the Soviets would have attacked Germany or France without a second's thought during the cold war, if they had the upper hand.
But they never did. Such a move meant attacking America and at that stage in the Cold War America had the advantage. The Soviets had nothing to gain from such a move.
The Soviets never had the upper hand in the Cold War in such a way that would have allowed them to eliminate America while only taking moderate damage themselves. America did have this advantage but only for a while at the beginning of the war. Therefore neither side could openly attack the other, because of the threat of mutually assured destruction.

The Eisenhower administration didn't know the Soviets weren't scrapping for a fight. In all likelyhood they thought they were which is why they acted in the way they did, but the Soviets weren't. They were not prepared to risk the destruction of their homeland for the sake of Egypt, however, their threats were enough as was so often the case in the Cold War. It was too big a bluff for the US to call.

England and France...two countries that are inhabited by some of the most arrogant people in the world, and they exist cheek by jowl....nuff said.

btw the French got lucky in the 100 years war ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

England and France...two countries that are inhabited by some of the most arrogant people in the world, and they exist cheek by jowl....nuff said.

btw the French got lucky in the 100 years war ~D

---

Errrrmmm.....you mean we gave ourselves a huge handicap by suiciding our best knights at Azincourt before repelling you with inferior troops? ~D

At least it didn't take a chick to sort our armies out.