American Military History

[Gawain 0]

Eric, I remember seeing some of the changes you mention in SA shortly after the Gulf War. From what I remember, you did have a blood bath, before and after apartheid.

I really wanted to respond to your concerns on the "French Military History" thread, and why France and America, while friendly are always nit-picking one another. This is going to get long, but I hope you'll be engaged enough to follow me on this.

France and America, while being strong, and strong-headed allies have always been "puzzles" to each other.

Writing as an American, I can say that France's behavior is unpredictable, designed to annoy, and isn't particularly effective. I imagine that France's perception of us, is along the lines of being simplistic cowboys.

There are elements of truth to both perceptions.

Geopolitically speaking (written by an American, remember ), France's stance as it regards Iraq doesn't surprise me one bit. Their stance in NATO doesn't surprise me one bit either, though I do think they put too many eggs in one basket on that issue -- more on that in a moment. I don't think they do this out of malice, but I suspect most Americans think they do. On a socio-economic scale, this might apply to other nations as well.

Why doesn't this surprise me? Because France's view, while not reconcilable all the time, can be understood. France's history has taught itself conflicting lessons. They don't like being influenced by other powers (US), nor do they have the leverage to build solid coalitions and alliances for the long term that might stand on equal footing with greater powers.

The US wants to invade Iraq. France doesn't -- a formal ally opposed to the invasion. One ally is opposing the action of what the other regards as critical to its interests. France didn't do this frivolously.

France was at its near-greatness in the early 19th Century. Napoleonic France nearly conquered all of Europe. France was near the top of its game, unafraid. However, this reach for "Empire" promised nothing by the way of resources and the unification of Germany created a reverse problem.

Unfortunately, it all ended in distaster for them. Now it's the 20th Century (speaks for itself really), two extraordinary catastrophes that overwhelmed France completely, and very nearly took it off the map for good.

For the past 200 years, the French experience is between dominance, which it cannot attain by itself, and alliance, which tends to work against such desires. Paris knows it cannot stand alone, it also never really trusts any alliance, including NATO.

Since the end of WWII, France has sought an alliance in which they have a deciding hand. Now the US is a superpower, something which France didn't want, but found indispensable (like, distrust, but depend upon). This sounds like a psychological break-down in the making, but it isn't. Simply, France is stuck on a continent it can't dominate, and yet it tries to do so anyway (diplomatically).

I could go on-and-on-and-on...here's the bottom line:

France's actions are not out of the ordinary. They like equilibrium. To them, the US is constrained only by its own fears and appetites. For France, the time since the end of the Cold War has been a bad
dream. The time since September 11, 2001, has been a total nightmare.

France wishes more than anything to be sovereign. Its sovereignty, however, is insufficient to guarantee its national self-interest. By itself, it cannot control its destiny, it must be part of something greater. France's nightmare comes to life, saving itself by losing itself to something more important than France.

France's behavior is neither mysterious nor unpredictable. It is, however, incapable of shaping history. France is caught between decisions it cannot make.

And that is one reason why we get so irked at them! *phew*....my hands are tired!

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Tonto 1]

Hi Gawain.

Good post. Unless you're French, of course.

SA 1992 - 1994....It was more like a blood basin. Is was way smaller than it might have been, and was initiated by a "third force" not involved directly in the negotiations.

The US is now at the top of its game, and doing a good job of staying there. I think - and I've learned that I sometimes think a lot of shit, so its just an opinion - that the US and France are quite similar really, in that the French had their day at shaping History (Why else did I sit at school learning about the French revolution, Napolionic era etc) and the US is now shaping theirs.

I'm pretty sure though, that no country can make it without the rest of the world if the world does not want that. Yes, The US has the power to end the game. To stop the world. But I can't understand how the US cannot see everyone was on their side a year and a half ago, and now that is no longer the case. England understands what it's like to be attacked at home. Bombed during the war on a nightly basis for years - and to a lesser extent as a result of the Irish struggle. They stand by you, because they understand your loss perhaps better than the rest of us.

I suspect many people from the USA beleive this desire for peace is a simple lack of commitment, and while people's attention span is short if not touched personally by events, that is not the case here - I think.

Its like surfing an exit. 3 seconds... cool.. 5 seconds maybe if its a fast jumpship. 15 seconds? That same once "right" body position is driving you away from the formation.

Thanks for your input.
Blue Skies,

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

But I can't understand how the US cannot see everyone was on their side a year and a half ago, and now that is no longer the case.

Au contrere mon frere...

France and Germany aside, who's no longer with us? (DPRK, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia don't count in this example)

Of the "willing" that I know of (signed a letter dated January 20, 2003, published in the Times of Londone):

Spain, Portugal, Italy, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, United Kingdom

Of the "helping significantly" that I know of:

Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Sudan, Yemen, Australia, Philipines, Indonesia, Pakistan a whole bunch of former Soviet Republics whose names I cannot spell, and am too tired to look up so I will not insult anyone right now... um who else, Russia, Japan, Canada, Belgium, Turkey and the rest of NATO...

We may not see the same fervor we saw on 9/12, but make no mistake, there wasn't a lot of diplomatic wiggle room regarding the war on terrorism as GWB said, "You're either with us, or against us. There will be no distinction between the terrorists and the states that give them safe passage."

Quote

I suspect many people from the USA beleive this desire for peace is a simple lack of commitment

I don't think that (I speak only for me), but I do think it is short sighted.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Tonto 1]

Hi Gawain

To quote Crocodile Dundee We're "like fleas arguing about which of us owns the dog we're on."

I'm also tired of this.

No one can be right all the time. Everyone makes mistakes.

Blue Skies,

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

We won it primarily because we could throw more weapons and people at it than Germany could.

And it didn't hurt that the people we threw at it defected from Germany and were highly motivated to win the war. A history channel piece suggested that Nazi Germany had so many classified R&D weapons programs, often duplicating each others research, they really had no clue or focus on what they had 'in house' to win the war...

Ken

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Eric, I remember seeing some of the changes you mention in SA shortly after the Gulf War. From what I remember, you did have a blood bath, before and after apartheid.

I really wanted to respond to your concerns on the "French Military History" thread, and why France and America, while friendly are always nit-picking one another. This is going to get long, but I hope you'll be engaged enough to follow me on this.

France and America, while being strong, and strong-headed allies have always been "puzzles" to each other.

Writing as an American, I can say that France's behavior is unpredictable, designed to annoy, and isn't particularly effective. I imagine that France's perception of us, is along the lines of being simplistic cowboys.

There are elements of truth to both perceptions.

Geopolitically speaking (written by an American, remember ), France's stance as it regards Iraq doesn't surprise me one bit. Their stance in NATO doesn't surprise me one bit either, though I do think they put too many eggs in one basket on that issue -- more on that in a moment. I don't think they do this out of malice, but I suspect most Americans think they do. On a socio-economic scale, this might apply to other nations as well.

Why doesn't this surprise me? Because France's view, while not reconcilable all the time, can be understood. France's history has taught itself conflicting lessons. They don't like being influenced by other powers (US), nor do they have the leverage to build solid coalitions and alliances for the long term that might stand on equal footing with greater powers.

The US wants to invade Iraq. France doesn't -- a formal ally opposed to the invasion. One ally is opposing the action of what the other regards as critical to its interests. France didn't do this frivolously.

France was at its near-greatness in the early 19th Century. Napoleonic France nearly conquered all of Europe. France was near the top of its game, unafraid. However, this reach for "Empire" promised nothing by the way of resources and the unification of Germany created a reverse problem.

Unfortunately, it all ended in distaster for them. Now it's the 20th Century (speaks for itself really), two extraordinary catastrophes that overwhelmed France completely, and very nearly took it off the map for good.

For the past 200 years, the French experience is between dominance, which it cannot attain by itself, and alliance, which tends to work against such desires. Paris knows it cannot stand alone, it also never really trusts any alliance, including NATO.

Since the end of WWII, France has sought an alliance in which they have a deciding hand. Now the US is a superpower, something which France didn't want, but found indispensable (like, distrust, but depend upon). This sounds like a psychological break-down in the making, but it isn't. Simply, France is stuck on a continent it can't dominate, and yet it tries to do so anyway (diplomatically).

I could go on-and-on-and-on...here's the bottom line:

France's actions are not out of the ordinary. They like equilibrium. To them, the US is constrained only by its own fears and appetites. For France, the time since the end of the Cold War has been a bad
dream. The time since September 11, 2001, has been a total nightmare.

France wishes more than anything to be sovereign. Its sovereignty, however, is insufficient to guarantee its national self-interest. By itself, it cannot control its destiny, it must be part of something greater. France's nightmare comes to life, saving itself by losing itself to something more important than France.

France's behavior is neither mysterious nor unpredictable. It is, however, incapable of shaping history. France is caught between decisions it cannot make.

And that is one reason why we get so irked at them! *phew*....my hands are tired!

I just read that exact same statement somewhere else. Did you write it originally, or copy it from somewhere?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

We won it primarily because we could throw more weapons and people at it than Germany could.

And it didn't hurt that the people we threw at it defected from Germany and were highly motivated to win the war. A history channel piece suggested that Nazi Germany had so many classified R&D weapons programs, often duplicating each others research, they really had no clue or focus on what they had 'in house' to win the war...

Ken

The military head of the V2 program, General Dornberger, wrote a history of Peenemunde that makes very good reading. He makes it quite clear that political meddling and ever shifting strategic goals put the project back by over a year. Much the same happened with the Me262 jet fighter program.

There's still a lot of dispute about the Nazi's nuclear program, probably due to much of the information still being classified.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Here's some data I got from a usually reliable US source. I have not checked the numbers myself, but it does put some things in context.

> World War 1
>
> Country # deployed # killed
>
> Russia 12,000,000 1,700,000
> France 8,410,000 1,357,800
> British empire 8,904,000 908,371
> Italy 5,615,000 650,000
> Romania 750,000 335,706
> US 4,355,000 126,000
>
> The Americans did not participate in the critical battles >of the last year of the war (Second Battle of the Marne and > the Amiens Offensive). The one major battle that they _did_ participate in the
> Meuse-Argonne offensive, the Germans had realised a month earlier that
> they were losing. This merely formalised it.
>
> World War 2
>
> Country # killed (excluding civilians)
>
> USSR 8,668,000
> China 1,324,000
> France 340,000
> Britain 326,000
> United States 295,000
>
> Aus, NZ, Canada, Rhodesia, S. Africa, etc 175,000
>
> Now let us see if the US _could_ have won
> (virtually) unassisted (as is maintained so often that we did. When
> the Allies landed in France, they were opposed by 45 divisions of
> German troops. Meantime, the Russians were facing 253 divisions.
> Now, if Hitler (oops, I said that name! :-)) had not been so stupid,
> do you really think that the US could have handled 6 times as many
> Germans? Probably the Russians could have won in Europe by
> themselves, although it would have taken another year (and yes, the US
> was delivering weapons to them), but it is doubtful that the western
> front would have been successful without the Germans being so heavily
> involved with the Russians.
>
> Also, you should read some history books _not_ written by Americans.
> (Maybe try some written by the Germans, as an unbiased source.) You
> would find that in over 3/4 of the battles that the US was involved
> in, some other country had to come in and finish the job. Look at
> Normandy, which Hollywood proclaims as such a huge American operation,
> with a minor assist from British and Canadian troops. The Americans
> seized _none_ of their objectives on schedule in the first week. The
> British and Canadians were usually a day or 2 ahead of schedule. In
> fact, the biggest problem faced by the British and Canadians was that
> their south flank was undefended, and the Germans kept looping around
> behind them. (That was where the Americans were supposed to be.) The
> Germans viewed the Americans as the weak link in the Allied forces,
> and _that_ is why they launched _all_ of their major counterattacks
> against American locations for the entirety of 1944 and 1945.
>

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I just read that exact same statement somewhere else. Did you write it originally, or copy it from somewhere?

Some of it is my opinion or work, some of the perspective is something I got in an email. My acquaintance noted that they paraphrased from a Stratfor political assessment and some references to the BBC. However, he didn't attribute anything specifically.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!