Private salon Ch. Stoeng / Hannibal

[deathings]

I heard Bush was air National Guard. Never seen Vietnam.

[hannibal]

Only to lay a few minefields !!!!! Now you are talking like Bush again.

Please!!!! I can speall nuclear, you know!

At this early stage of the war the French/British dream was to make a good naval blocade of the Germans and then to strangle them from the north.

The plan was to make a naval blockade (this understands also laying minefield like in WW1) and occupying Narvik to deny the iron ore traffic to the Germans. But before these plans were laid (Operation "Wilfried") the British and again somewhat reluctant French made plans to help Finland against USSR. The idea was to create the expeditionary corps of 100,000 British and 50,000 French troops which would land at Petsamo or went through Narvik and Kiruna. Naturally Swedish and Norwegian government denied these possibilities. So later when Norway was under threat they simply already put from the closet the old plan and old troops, who were already prepared for Artic warfare and shipped them to Norway. But it was too late... More about British and German military plans you can read here:

URL: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I didn't know that 5th Scots Guards underwent a ski training in Chamonix?!? We had some SAS troops on ski training a couple of years ago. They all said they underwent a ski training in Northern Norway. I don't know whether that was true or not but my father has told me that their skiing was something he will regret until the rest of his life for not taking the camera to record them.

Unfortunately yes, the French gave them the bomb in the first place.

Precisément. And who was at that time against Israel getting nuclear weapons? USA.

What I really meant was that France is the only other western and democratic nation that has a nuclear force with real world wide delivery vectors.

What do you mean by real "world wide delivery vectors"? Do you mean that they are able to detonate one of their war heads anywhere in the world? But so can UK, Russia and soon also China. South Africa also made some nuclear warheads, but later destroyed them. Japan in my opinion is also capable of making a nuclear bomb in a very short time. Maybe France is capable of setting a nuclear bomb anywhere on this world, but I doubt it is capable of waging a large scale war like Americans are in Iraq or Afghanistan. We all saw Brits and French politicans on work in Bosnia and Herzegowina and Croatia. Until Americans didn't interven nothing happened. Neither UK nor France could muster enough aircraft to make a decent air strike. It was funny if it would not be sad.

Don't talk about the UK, it is Bush that have the right to press the botton not the British.

If it would go for British interests and self-survival I don't think they would wait for Washington D.C. to authorize the button press.

So like it or not, the only real possible (not already controlled by the US) partner is France. Unfortunately, Bush have to treat France as partners and not as subordinates.

That's called stubborness. French policy was always something special. But that doesn't mean that it was also always very successful.

That is why he hates them with passion and is always criticizing in a very narrow minded and short sighted way (maybe to please his electorate). I am not a very big fan of Jacques, but he knows how to manage France’s place in the world and he was in the government when Bush was still ducking and diving to NOT go to the Vietnam war.

1.) But you seem to forget that without British and Americans the French would never had that "this place in the world" at the first place. It were the Americans and British who trained and equipped the French Army in WW2. France was even in 1944 still very much divided nation. I have read just the other day that when Maréchal Pétain was driving through Paris on his way to Germany the streets in Paris were still full of people greeting him. There are also some estimates that in fact very low percentage of French took actively in the resistance. I have read just the other day a book by one French historian that the number estimated is about 5% of French population. But Americans and British were wise enough to blink on one eye. France, like UK, will slowly have to realize that she is not anymore as powerful and influential as in 19th century, when both were creating their colonial empires, from which they got much of their greatness and wealthness.

Franklly in my opinion Poles contributed much more to the war efforts in WW2 than the French. The French had more than 120,000 troops in UK in 1940, but only how many... ca. 2,000 joined General De Gaulle. Others opted repatriation back to France. Same goes for Syria 1941 - out of 35,000 troops, only 5,000 chooses to join Free French and most of them were again legionnaires and colonial troops. France can thank no one but those small group of people around General De Gaulle that saved the French honour in 1940. And the main military unit that played the most important role in this was the Foreign Legion. I don't know if they have told you this in the FFL. But in my opinion they should.
2.) Bush was not the only one who was ducking. Clinton was too yet no one was holding this that much against him. I remember him during one of his inspection visits of US troops in Korea and his "binocular accident". Nor no one remembers today his Somalia blunder.

Actually they where ready for anything that could avoid having the battle in France (a repetition of WW1)

That was inevitable. You cannot expect to held 80 million Germany just on the Norwegian Front. German army was strong enough to open a second front and that was definitely in France 1940.

[hannibal]

Nobody knows for sure whether North Korea has nuclear weapons or not, but what is sure is that they fired medium range test missiles over the Japan sea a couple of years ago, which all experts reckon they had the capability of carrying nuclear war heads.

But so did Iran.

URL: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Stoeng]

They all said they underwent a ski training in Northern Norway. I don't know whether that was true or not but my father has told me that their skiing was something he will regret until the rest of his life for not taking the camera to record them.

Yes I have heard some horror stories about the intensive ski training the SBS had in Norway. They say it would be a perfect show realty TV

What do you mean by real "world wide delivery vectors"? Do you mean that they are able to detonate one of their war heads anywhere in the world? But so can UK, Russia and soon also China. South Africa also made some nuclear warheads, but later destroyed them. Japan in my opinion is also capable of making a nuclear bomb in a very short time. Maybe France is capable of setting a nuclear bomb anywhere on this world, but I doubt it is capable of waging a large scale war like Americans are in Iraq or Afghanistan. We all saw Brits and French politicans on work in Bosnia and Herzegowina and Croatia. Until Americans didn't intervene nothing happened. Neither UK nor France could muster enough aircraft to make a decent air strike. It was funny if it would not be sad.

UK can do nothing without the US and certainly not launch a nuclear strike. Russia and China will never be our allies (however, who knows) Japan and South Africa is just words to fill in the lines. Many countries have the capabilities to have nuclear weapons but for various reasons they don’t.
France is the only other western democracy with an independent nuclear strike force, therefore the only counter weight against the US and their future downwards slide towards a complete loss of credibility in this world
(I can already hear you screaming)

In Bosnia the US did not move until all parties where ready to talk, it is easy to come in at the 12th hour and save the situation. You forgot to tell me how the US managed their little operation in Somalia (maybe the outcome was less glorious)

Regarding the air strikes, I have had the doubtful honor of directing air strikes in Bosnia and Somalia. The British and the French would voluntarily do a Low-Low and very effective strike. The US preferred laser guided High-High strikes that would only work if the bloody bomb worked well and it was not always the case.

If it would go for British interests and self-survival I don't think they would wait for Washington D.C. to authorize the button press.

They cannot launch without the OK and codes from NATO in other words the US.

That's called stubborness. French policy was always something special. But that doesn't mean that it was also always very successful.

True !!

1.) But you seem to forget that without British and Americans the French would never had that "this place in the world" at the first place. It were the Americans and British who trained and equipped the French Army in WW2. France was even in 1944 still very much divided nation. I have read just the other day that when Marechal Petain was driving through paris on his way to Germany the streets in paris were still full of people greeting him. There are also some estimates that in fact very low percentage of French took actively in the resistance. I have read just the other day a obok by one French historian that the number estimated is about 5% of French population. But Americans and British were wise enough to blink on one eye. France, like UK, will slowly have to realize that she is not anymore as powerful and influential as in 19th century, when both were creating their colonial empires, from which they got much of their greatness and wealthness.

Franklly in my opinion Poles contributed much more to the war efforts in WW2 than the French. The French had more than 120,000 troops in UK in 1940, but only how many... ca. 2,000 joined General De Gaulle. Others opted repatriation back to France. Same goes for Syria 1941 - out of 35,000 troops, only 5,000 chooses to join Free French and most of them were again legionnaires and colonial troops. France can thank no one but those small group of people around General De Gaulle that saved the French honour in 1940. And the main military unit that played the most important role in this was the Foreign Legion. I don't know if they have told you this in the FFL. But in my opinion they should.

I 100% agree with you on this dark page in French history, and I cannot explain or cover this story. However, regarding the different nations sacrifice during the WWII the realty is somehow different.
With all the respects I owe to all the US soldiers that lost their lives while liberating Europe. We owe them our existence as free nations today. However, there is still a few facts to not be forgotten.
The US only made a financial profit for almost no loss in the WWII. They came in late at a very well calculated moment (don’t tell me they did not know about Pearl Harbor) and where able to make huge financial gains for finally only minor human losses.
The WWII losses per nation per 1000 habitant where:
US 3.1, UK 7.6, France 13.4 and POLAND !! 161.6. In other words the French suffered 4.3 times more than the US and the Poles 52 times more.

Thank you for reminding us that the voluntaries that opted to stay with De Gaulle where for an important part the foreigners.

That was inevitable. You cannot expect to held 80 million Germany just on the Norwegian Front. German army was strong enough to open a second front and that was definately in France 1940.

No but the allies, at that time of the war could hope to be able to make a friendly invasion of the Scandinavian countries and try to bring the conflict to the German soil by coming from the north (no Sigfried line)

[Rapace]

There are also some estimates that in fact very low percentage of French took actively in the resistance. I have read just the other day a book by one French historian that the number estimated is about 5% of French population

True, but their input was invaluable. As per Gen Eisenhower, the actions of the French maquis before and after D-Day were worth 15 divisions. On the other hand there were no more that 5% 'hard core' collaborationists either. In fact most of the population was just trying to survive and waiting to see who would win.

France can thank no one but those small group of people around General De Gaulle that saved the French honour in 1940.

Agree.

And the main military unit that played the most important role in this was the Foreign Legion.

Disagree. Yes the Legion played an eminent role on the Free French side and nobody question this (13DBLE was awarded the Croix de la Libération by Gen De Gaulle). But numerically, they were not the majority, far from that, if you had up all the units who made up the 1ère Armée Française of Gen de Lattre, the French expeditionnary corps of Gen Juin during the campaign of Italy and the 2nd Armoured Division of Gen Leclerc.

[hannibal]

Yes I have heard some horror stories about the intensive ski training the SBS had in Norway. They say it would be a perfect show realty TV

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEEHHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE HEHEHE..... You can't see me but I am here just now rolling with laughter. Can really no one have any video footage of them?

UK can do nothing without the US and certainly not launch a nuclear strike.

And France can? No offense but France couldn't even airlift some 800 men from the 2eme REP to Kolwezi in 1978. The United States Air Force provided France with necessary transport aircraft. Something tells me that today it is not much different. It is known that the weak point of almost all European armies is transport capacity.

Russia and China will never be our allies (however, who knows)...

It seems Mr. Jacques doesn't share your opinion about Russia.

Many countries have the capabilities to have nuclear weapons but for various reasons they don’t.

So why should Iran have? Who threatens Iran? Incompetent and corrupted Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Turkey? Iraq? Bahrain? Qatar? I can't see any major military power here. Iranian clero-political hierarchy sees nuclear weapon not as a mean to protect Iran from foreign intervention but as a mean to fortify their position and for islamists to remain on power for a very long time. And now a man or a woman should ask himself the most important question: do we want subsequently free and democratic Iran or do we want trouble-making, islamic and radical Iran, where border between religion and insanity is very thin?

France is the only other western democracy...

I see so the main enemy of France are USA and UK and not Arab islamic extremists and terrorists? I am speechless. There is always something new that I learn. I only hope France will not be again generous with supplying Iran with nuclear components like it was in case of Israel and Iraq - I am sure you have seen that TV footage of Saddam Hussein and Jacques Chirac touring him through French nuclear facility near Marseille (Istres, I think?) in late 1970s or early 1980s. Most Iraqi engineers were trained in France and Italy and surprise suprise a couple of months later Hussein opened his nuclear facility near Baghdad. Excuse me but I miss some consistency here. France was selling her nuclear program like candy to every jerk that came along. What kind of policy is this? UK and USA have been much more careful with this delicate question, so naturally I also thrust them more when it comes to these questions.

(I can already hear you screaming)

Nah... I am not like that.

In Bosnia the US did not move until all parties where ready to talk, it's easy to come in at the 12th hour and save the situation.

Nonsense. The USA moved in when it was obvious that EU policy was bringing no results and that people there are actually being killed - I think the breaking point was when a group of civilians was hit by a grenade on the Sarajevo market and the footage was then broadcasted all over the world, including CNN. I think those images of torn bodies of kids and women really shocked the world and finally brought the public opinion in favour of intervention. Before that we had Srebrenica when a French general blocked the request by Dutch battalion commander from Srebrenica to air strike to bomb the neighbouring Serb positions around the UN protected territory. Later when US launched their air strike against Serbs in Bosnia it was evident that Serbs had practically no air power and their AA defence was also more or less obsolete so if EU with UK and France would have the necessary balls they would carry out those airstrikes themselves and I am sure they could thus end that bloody war in a month or two. And save thousands of lifes. But instead they crawl back to the Americans to do the job for them. Again. Later when Kosovo and Yugoslavia was attacked it happened again: an officer from NATO headquarters was found secretly passing information to the Serbs and again he was French. I really didn't understand which side was French policy in those years. They were offering Milosevic talks and he naturally took this as green light for further attacks. Same in Ruanda.

You forgot to tell me how the US managed their little operation in Somalia (maybe the outcome was less glorious)

It was a disaster. There is not much to be said here. Somalia was a complete mess from A to W. No one was knowing there who is buying and who is drinking. Hell I don't even know if Somalia had a legitimate government when UN came there. You were there, do you remember any? All the power was in the hands of local war lords and gangs.

Regarding the air strikes, I have had the doubtful honor of directing air strikes in Bosnia and Somalia.

Where exactly in Bosnia and Somalia? How much air and ground power did France actually contribute during Somalia and Bosnia Campaign?!? I know that in Somalia the Americans had 25,000 troops, while the rest of twenty-two nations (including super-powers like India, Pakistan and France) contributed a rather miserable number of 13,000 troops. If I remember well the French troops (including Foreign Legion contingent) were first stationed in Mogadishu until December 1992 (or was it 1993) when they got engaged with US Marines in that famous incident with an old van overloaded with civilian passengers being fired upon. After that French were moved to somewhat peaceful Hoddur area, where there were no more problems. The Americans remained in troublesome Mogadishu.

My point is that Americans always provide 90% of air, transport, ground and naval power, while Europe is always lagging behind like a crippled three-leg dog. So I am sometimes furious when seeing criticism about how Americans are handling this or that business. Criticizing is always easy job, but who is doing the job? If you (plural) think you could handle Iraq better than they, so why don't you go there? Or to any other hot spots? When Liberia and Haiti were in chaos (nothing new, I know, but still), again everyone was looking at the Americans. Until they didn't send that aircraft carrier with several thousand Marines nothing changed. Where was France?!

Off the record, this peacekeeping in Ivory Coast is also a joke if you ask me. It is a rotten compromise, which will never work. It never did and never will. At least not in Africa. If you want to win a battle or war you have to go to the end or else you will bond to loose. I mean you never go to a football match to play draw, do you? But to win. We have too many rotten compromises, which are in long term bringing us nothing good. Just troubles.

[hannibal]

They cannot launch without the OK...

NATO is made up from more than twenty members and everyone has the right for veto. Including Norway. So I don't see what is wrong with France asking her allies before using nuclear weapons. If it wouldn't do that someone might get wrong impressions about France being a Texas trigger-happy cowboy ... hehe...

I 100% agree with you on this dark page in French history, and I cannot explain or cover this story....

Me personally doesn't bother France at all. They have certainly earned their place and honour back, although this honour was fought and won for them by a very small grouo of people. What I hate is that today or in the past you could hordes of people hanging like parasites on this honour and knocking on the chest like "We won the war". But usually this people were not even in the resistance. Mitterrand is a good example. Where was he in 1940 when France most badly wanted him? He was sucking up as a civil servant to Petain's government in Vichy. But later he was presenting himself like he was nothing less but "Jean Bart" of the French resistance. Same goes for French Communist Party! 99% of them joined the Resistance in June 1944... Where were they before? Everyone can suck up "five before midnight".

With all the respects I owe to all the US soldiers that lost their lives while liberating Europe. We owe them our existence as free nations today.

True. We should not forget this. France should particularly be grateful to the Americans for they came twice to rescue them. In 1918 when French and British army were just about to collapse during the Kaiserschlacht battle. This resulted in German defeat from which France was again profiting: new colonies in Africa and Middle East, various concessions etc..

The US only made a financial profit for almost no loss in the WWII.

Well you need something to pay workers, don't you? I doubt they would be working for five years for "sandwich and juice". While USA was mass producing thousands of tanks, trucks, warships, jeeps, guns etc. for US, British, (Free) French, Polish, Czech, Norwegian, Dutch, Chinese, Yugoslav, Greek and Soviet armies most of French and Czech armament factories were making big profits working for the Germans. Citroen and FIAT were earning piles of money from producing trucks and other stuff for the German war effort.

They came in late at a very well calculated moment (don’t tell me they did not know about Pearl Harbor)

Ah, don't tell me you are another of those geeks who believe in this conspiracy crap that FDR knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Usually this very same people also claim that the Japanese Attack Fleet was spotted by a Dutch submarine and the Dutch warned the Americans. Of course this is nonsense, because there was no Dutch submarines in a radius of several thousand miles from the track where Admiral Nagumo's Kido Butai was steaming to Hawaii. Besides that it was not a calculated moment. A calculated moment would be if they would enter the war during the Battle of Britain, when UK was fighting alone against Germans. In December 1941 the situation was somewhat different because UK already got a powerful ally - USSR (June 1941). In December 1941 the World War 2 was for me decided. No one can fight against UK, USSR and USA at the same time.

and where able to make huge financial gains for finally only minor human losses.

Don't tell me that Norway, Sweden and Denmark were not making the same financial profits from selling goods (crops) to Germany and Allies during WW1?

The WWII losses per nation per 1000 habitant where:
US 3.1, UK 7.6, France 13.4 and POLAND !! 161.6.

1.) Does this number include French Jews and those who were executed as German collaborators? 2.) can this number really be an authentic evidence of how much did one country contribute to the final victory? The Americans provided with more than half troops, most materials and equipment for all combattant sides. And they fought on two fronts unlike USSR, UK and France. Only Germany was faced with the same situation.

Thank you for reminding us that the voluntaries that opted to stay with De Gaulle where for an important part the foreigners.

You are welcome. In my humble opinion World War 2 was the proudest hour of the Foreign Legion. When the darkest hour was coming upon Europe, they had chosen the right side and did not leave the boat like did so many others. And for this you need guts.

No but the allies, at that time of the war could hope to be able to make a friendly invasion of the Scandinavian countries and try to bring the conflict to the German soil by coming from the north (no Sigfried line)

I don't think I exactly follow you. You mean amphibious assault in Firisia and Schleswig-Holstein? The Germans would massacre their fleet with their powerful Luftwaffe (especially Ju-87s) in the North Sea before a single British or French soldier would set his foot on German or Danish soil. Besides that for something like that they would need strong air cover.

[hannibal]

True, but their input was invaluable. As per Gen Eisenhower, the actions of the French maquis before and after D-Day were worth 15 divisions. On the other hand there were no more that 5% 'hard core' collaborationists either. In fact most of the population was just trying to survive and waiting to see who would win.

I have nothing to add here, just where was the French patriotism in June-July 1940, when De Gaulle issued his call to several thousands French troops in UK and colonial empire, which have not been subjected to the German or Italian occupation.

Disagree. Yes the Legion played an eminent role on the Free French side and nobody question this (13DBLE was awarded the Croix de la Libération by Gen De Gaulle). But numerically, they were not the majority, far from that, if you had up all the units who made up the 1ère Armée Française of Gen de Lattre, the French expeditionnary corps of Gen Juin during the campaign of Italy and the 2nd Armoured Division of Gen Leclerc.

Dear Patrick: I think that Charles and I were talking here primarly about the 1940-41 period and not about what happened later in post-1942 period. As I said in one of my previous messages as far as I am concerned for me the war was decided on 11th December 1941, when everyone including Feldmarschall Franz von Halder knew what was the outcome of the war. When General De Gaulle put his famous speech and appeal to all Frenchmen to fight under his leadership against Germany and Italy only 1,300 of the 20,000 armed French troops in United Kingdom responded to his call, the rest opted for repatriation to France. Of these 1,300 volunteers some 900 were Foreign Legionnaires under Lt.Col. Dimitri Amilakwari from the 13th Demi-Brigade of the Foreign Legion, who had fought in the unsucessfull Norwegian campaign. Subsequently they were the ones who paraded in London on 1st July 1940 as the "Legion de Gaulle", later redesignated Free French Forces (FFL). Later many more foreigners joined the Foreign Legion in London, mostly those who lived in London.

[Stoeng]

NATO is made up from more than twenty members and everyone has the right for veto. Including Norway. So I don't see what is wrong with France asking her allies before using nuclear weapons. If it wouldn't do that someone might get wrong impressions about France being a Texas trigger-happy cowboy ... hehe...

France takes its own decisions and have their own nuclear subs that can be anywhere right now. There are not enough airpower or infantry divisions in this world to compensate fore this power.

Me personally doesn't bother France at all. They have certainly earned their place and honour back, although this honour was fought and won for them by a very small grouo of people. What I hate is that today or in the past you could hordes of people hanging like parasites on this honour and knocking on the chest like "We won the war". But usually this people were not even in the resistance. Mitterand is a good example. Where was he in 1940 when France most badly wanted him? He was sucking up as a civil servant to Petain's government in Vichy. But later he was presenting himself like he was nothing less but "Jean Bart" of the French resistance. Same goes for French Communist Party! 99% of them joined the Resistance in June 1944... Where were they before? Everyone can suck up "five before midnight".

Yepp !! 100%

Well you need something to pay workers, don't you? I doubt they would be working for five years for "sandwich and juice". While USA was mass producing thousands of tanks, trucks, warships, jeeps, guns etc. for US, British, (Free) French, Polish, Czech, Norwegian, Dutch, Chinese, Yugoslav, Greek and Soviet armies most of French and Czech armament factories were making big profits working for the Germans. Citroen and FIAT were earning piles of money from producing trucks and other stuff for the German war effort.

BS : They where paid peanuts, or actually the price the Germans wanted to pay.

Ah, don't tell me you are another of those geeks who believe in this conspiracy crap tht FDR knew about the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Usually this very same people also claim that the Japanese Attack Fleet was spotted by a Dutch submarine and the Dutch warned the Americans. of course this is nonsense, because there was no Dutch submarines in a radius of several thousand miles from the track where Admiral Nagumo's Kido Butai was steaming to Hawaii. Besides that it was not a calculated moment. A calculated moment would be if they would enter the war during the Battle of Britain, when UK was fighting alone against Germans. In December 1941 the situation was somewhat different because UK already got a powerful ally - USSR (June 1941). In December 1941 the World War 2 was for me decided. No one can fight against UK, USSR and USA at the same time.

No no, don't try to mix eveything in to a big cloud of confusion. The US was making big $$ on the war from 1939. Why on earth should they enter the war in 1940? To save the Europeans? BS
The US only entered the war when their industry ran in to overcapacity and where producing more than the allied nations could pay for. Then they entered the war and were able to let the industry continue at maximum power. They where now able to use all the production and finally invoice (material and men) the allies after the war. Finally and as a bonus they made the loosing side pay war damage for the next 50 years.

It is obvious that the US new about Pearl Harbor. They had all the info months before, and the confirmation weeks before from intercepted diplomatic traffic.
There is a lot to say about the US, but they are not stupid and they are very efficient (even in 1941) and suddenly they where blind, deaf and half asleep.
Then suddenly when it suited them the most the Japanese makes a brutal attack and pulls them in to the war. It is too good to be true.

This subject is obviously very sensible (there are still people that remember the US losses on that day) but one day it will come out.
This is for the moment not an historical fact but my personal humble opinion and should therefore only be considered as that.

Don't tell me that Norway, Sweden and Denmark were not making the same financial profits from selling goods (crops) to Germany and Allies during WW1?

HHEEEIINN ??? I do not know for Sweden, but in Denmark and Norway all possible goods where simply confiscated as war reparations.

1.) Does this number include French Jews and those who were executed as German collaborators?

Yes I would suppose so, it is the total losses from a modern encyclopedia and should even include the French that died on the Eastern front.

2.) can this number really be an authentic evidence of how much did one country contribute to the final victory?

I did not say contribution, I said suffering.

The Americans provided with more than half troops, most materials and equipment for all combattant sides. And they fought on two fronts unlike USSR, UK and France. Only Germany was faced with the same situation.

Yes but only the US made their allies pay for everything. In that case it is real fact in winning the war (bravo) but is has no moral value, and the "client" has no reason to be thankful and humble. He has paid for the show.
My only respect goes to all the US personnel that died or suffered during the liberation of Europe. It is for their personal sacrifice, not for the US, they did not sacrifice anything.

I don't think I exactly follow you. You mean amphibious assault in Firisia and Schleswig-Holstein? The Germans would massacre their fleet with their powerful Luftwaffe (especially Ju-87s) in the North Sea before a single British or French soldier would set his foot on German or Danish soil. Besides that for something like that they would need strong air cover.

Mein Gott!! The JU 87 where sitting ducks even in 1939.
Take some time and read the allied plans for late 1939 and early 1940. I consider you very capable of finding the right sources and assess the info much better than me.

[Stoeng]

HHEEEIINN ??? I do not know for Sweden, but in Denmark and Norway all possible goods where simply confiscated as war reparations.

Sorry I misread WWI for WWII.
And so ??? We where neutrals, it was certainly not our war.

[rickyhimalayan]

this is according to my knowledge , but I'm not sure about this....


well I do not agree that Iran is technologicaly advance country.. specialy in the area of nuclear weapon programe..thats why Pakisatni Nuclear scientist Mr A.Q Khan.. provided most of the technology to Iran, ( why cant Iran develope its technology herself..).
where as reports also say that chineas and north Korean Gov.. provided most of the help..and Mr A. Q Khan acted as a midle man.(Pakistan).

Now note down that even Pakistan did not develope its nulear weapons totaly herself.. (Mr A.Q khan used to work in Portugal as a Thermal scietist (or something similar to that).. when he did steal some plan or blue print.. of a technology which is used in nulclear programe,, and ran away back to home in Pakistan. and later on he became the father of Pakistan nuclear programe.. here too Chineas Gov provided lots of support to Pakistani nuclear program.

[Stoeng]

And France can? No offense but France couldn't even airlift some 800 men from the 2eme REP to Kolwezi in 1978. The United States Air Force provided France with necessary transport aircraft. Something tells me that today it is not much different. It is known that the weak point of almost all European armies is weak transport capacity.

Yes this is true, but the worst is that Europe don’t have a common defense policy, and it is highly unlikely that they will get one within the next 50 years.
The point is that the power of France is not in the conventional forces, they are close to non existent, at least compared to the US. The power is in their nuclear strike force that is under national control. This allows France to be able to make a nuclear strike anywhere in the world and puts France in a position as an allied and partner with the US. Not as a subordinate.

It seems Mr. Jacques doesn't share your opinion about Russia.

Yeahh, he doesn't listen to me anymore

So why should Iran have? Who threatens Iran? Incompetent and corrupted Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Turkey? Iraq? Bahrain? Qatar? I can't see any major military power here. Iranian clero-political hierarchy sees nuclear weapon not as a mean to protect Iran from foreign intervention but as a mean to fortify their position and for islamists to remain on power for a very long time.

They should NOT have. Do you think I am crazy?

And now a man or a woman should ask himself the most important question: do we want subsequently free and democratic Iran or do we want trouble-making, islamic and radical Iran, where border between religion and insanity is very thin?

No very likely in the near future, the regime is well in place.

I see so the main enemy of France are USA and UK and not Arab islamic extremists and terrorists? I am speechless.

I didn’t say that, maybe my written expression is not so well but under no circumstances have I considered the US or the UK as enemies.
I am saying that I am not always agreeing with the US current actions. I know very well that my personal opinion is not so important, but the point I am trying to make is that France has all the rights in the world to make its own decisions and to have and independent policy that is anyway never hostile to the US or the UK.
France is fighting terrorism every day, but it is not looking for weapons of mass destruction or hidden terrorist camps in Iraq. Most of the terrorists in Iraq arrived there after the coalition troops and the WMD was never there.

There is always something new that I learn. I only hope France will not be again generous with supplying Iran with nuclear components like it was in case of Israel and Iraq - I am sure you have seen that TV footage of Saddam Hussein and Jacques Chirac touring him through French nuclear facility near Marseille (Istres, I think?) in late 1970s or early 1980s. Most Iraqi engineers were trained in France and Italy and suprise suprise a couple of months later Hussein opened his nuclear facility near Baghdad. Excuse me but I miss some consistency here. France was selling her nuclear program like candy to every jerk that came along. What kind of policy is this? UK and USA have been much more careful with this delicate question, so naturally I also thrust them more when it comes to these questions.

But Saddam never came close to make a bomb. I suppose D. Rumsfeld was on Summer vacation in Iraq.

Nonsense. The USA moved in when it was obvious that EU policy is bringing no results and that people there are actually being killed - I think the breaking point was when a group of civilians was hit by a grenade on the Sarajevo market and the footage was then broadcasted all over the world, including CNN. I think those images of torn bodies of kids and women really shocked the world and finally brought the public opinion in favour of intervention. Before that we had Srebrenica when a French general blocked the request by Dutch battalion commander from Srebrenica to air strike to bomb the neighbouring Serb positions around the UN protected territory. Later when US launched their air strike against Serbs in Bosnia it was evident that Serbs had practically no air power and their AA defence was also more or less obsolete so if EU with UK and France would have the necessary balls they would carry out those airstrikes themselves and I am sure they could thus end that bloody war in a month or two. And save thousands of lifes. But instead they crawl back to the Americans to do the job for them. Again. Later when Kosovo and Yugoslavia was attacked it happened again: an officer from NATO headquarters was found secretly passing information to the Serbs and again he was French. I really didn't understand which side was French policy in those years. They were offering Milosevic talks and he naturally took this as green light for further attacks. Same in Ruanda.

Complete short sighted single minded rubbish. The Balkan conflict was a little bit more complicated than that. You forgot to tell about the US delivering by air at night (Landing on the road to Tusla) weapons to the Bosnian muslims. All this supervised by Iranian Hezbollah. It is strange how the world changes

It was a disaster. There is not much to be said here. Somalia was a complete mess from A to W. No one was knowing there who is buying and who is drinking. Hell I don't even know if Somalia had a legitimate government when UN came there. You were there, do you remember any? All the power was in the hands of local war lords and gangs.

Rubbish! The complete power was in the hands of the UN forces. But media hammering about US losses and Canadian stupidity (sorry Joe) and the always important factor of oil or rather no oil in this case, lead to that the big nations (France included) lost interest and left the operation in the hands of countries like India and Pakistan.

Where exactly in Bosnia and Somalia?

Bosnia 1995 exactly where and what I would like to leave outside this forum. Somalia 1993 in the sector covering 0 to 300 km west of Baidoa (Bay region). Only helicopter strikes done by the French ALAT or the Indian forces. Twice US helicopter strikes during attacks while escorting US convoys in the Mogadishu area.

After that French were moved to somewhat peaceful Hoddur area, where there were no more problems. The Americans remained in troublesome Mogadishu.

BS !! The CNN remained in Mogadishu so that you could know how bad it was. The Legion fixed the problem their way and there where no CNN to tell you about it and we did not take photos to show our girfriends like the Canadians or some some prison wardens lately.

My point is that Americans always provide 90% of air, transport, ground and naval power, while Europe is always lacking behind like a crippled three-leg dog. So I am sometimes furious when seeing criticism about how Americans are handling this or that business. Criticizing is always easy jobe, but who is doing the jobe? If you (plural) think you could handle Iraq better than they, so why don't you go there? Or to any other hot spots. When Liberia and Haiti were in chaos (nothing new, I know, but still), again everyone was looking at the Americans. Until they didn't send that aircraft carrier with several thousand marines nothing changed. Where was France?!

Dear Hannibal, you are quite right, but I have no whatsoever criticism against the US armed forces. I have always had the best possible cooperation with them. They are always effective, friendly and helpful. I hope that they will bang the terrorists in Iraq back to the Stone Age and create some stability there.
I do not think I could do the job better, but I think it was unjustified to go there. However, I have been in Iraq before and know them quite well.

What I do not like is the US invasion of Iraq in the first place. No UN resolution (so we make our own democracy) no terrorists (they came later and Bin Laden hated Saddam with passion) No WMD. Nothing. Just oil and good contracts for Mr Bush’s personal friends.
If they wanted to fight terrorism, why didn’t they go to Sudan or Yemen where the terrorist camps exist? Why didn’t they finish the job in Afghanistan? Why don’t they help Russia in their problems with Muslim Terrorists?

Off the record, this peacekeeping in Ivory Coast is also a joke if you ask me. It is a rotten compromise, which will never work. It never did and never will. At least not in Africa. If you want to win a battle or war you have to go to the end or else you will bond to loose. I mean you never go to a football match to play draw, do you? But to win. We have too many rotten compromises, which are in long term bringing us nothing good. Just troubles.

Unfortunately, for Africa there is no hope.

[kriegohnehass]

Stoeng is right. The US had deciphered Japanese diplomatic cables. In fact in Nv. 41 they deciphered and read one which baldly stated to the jp. negotiators in the US to maintain a bogus front after nov. 30 1941 despite their (jp. goverment) intentions to end real negotiations with the US and strike allied forces in the Pacific to facilitate the capture of Dutch East Indies oil fields. This ominous interception of intelligence is historical FACT. Moreover, jp. naval codes had been broken (see "PURPLE") and Nagumo's fleet was known to be at sea and radio silence discipline HAD been broken and intercepted on a couple of occasions. It also should be noted that adm. Kimmel and gen. Short (navy and army commanders on PH) were NOT notified of the jp. diplomatic cable interception. Military command in DC sat on this info. If this isn't an example of machiavellian political chicanery i don't know what is.

[hannibal]

France takes its own decisions and have their own nuclear subs that can be anywhere right now. There are not enough airpower or infantry divisions in this world to compensate fore this power.

Aha, so France can take unilateral "own Decisions" when it feels threatened but United States can't? Sure France has her five or six nuclear submarines capable of launching nuclear warheads on any target, but then again we are talking here like every problem is solved by nuclear force. Ninety-nine percent of armed conflicts in this world can be solved by conventional weapons and here France can't do nothing. Whether it goes for peacekeeping nations or for military interventions France contribution is always small, meaning under her capabilities or what someone would expect from such European super-power. It is always the Americans who do the lion's share and get all the critics for doing the things. It's bizarre. No wonder all "low-life" countries like iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons. By getting their hands on it they can more or less easily abolish their entire army and live "on five percent interest rate".

BS: They where paid peanuts, or actually the price the Germans wanted to pay.

Are you sure they were paid just "peanuts"?

The US was making big $$ on the war from 1939. Why on earth should they enter the war in 1940? To save the Europeans? BS

The public opinion in United States was against USA entering in another war: isolationism, isolationist movement, Wendell Wilkie (not to mention that German embassy secretly financially supported isolationist movement and hoped for Wilkie's victory on the US election in 1940). They only too well remembered the devastation Europe suffered from World War I and the fact that USA lost 117,000 KIA/D in four or five months of the the Great War, fighting only a few last battles in St-Mihiel salient and Argonne forest, which could not be compared with the great battles in the Flanders, Somme, Champagne or Verdun.

The US only entered the war when their industry ran in to overcapacity and where producing more than the allied nations could pay for. Then they entered the war and were able to let the industry continue at maximum power. They where now able to use all the production and finally invoice (material and men) the allies after the war.

I see. So when their warehouses were full of unsold military equipment they ordered an attack on Pearl Harbor? Ok, let's get serious, Charles. The fact is quite the reverse. USA at first couldn't keep with demand as they were receiving major orders from United Kingdom, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia and even France. Even as the war progressed the CA Bearn with escorts were sailing to France with a cargo of brand new Curtiss Hawk fighters. This caused that US army itself was badly equipped - their troops on the Philippines and Hawaii didn't receive much of the necessary equipment. Kimmel and Short were begging for Washington for more bombers and patrol planes to keep up the patrol perimeter around Hawaii islands, but Washington simply couldn't send them because they have been sold to UK and France. This is explained in Burlingame's book "Advance Force Pearl Harbor". The Allied nations of course had to pay for this because the Americans had to pay something to their workers in the factories. With what should they pay them if not money? America couldn't pay for herself all those major arms orders from her own budget. Germans and British also paid for Norwegian fish when they were buying it during the Great War 1914-1918, not so? So why didn't you then give it to them for free???

Finally and as a bonus they made the loosing side pay war damage for the next 50 years.

You mean Germany, Japan and Italy? Who invested in them and helped them to bring them on their feet? American money - Marshall Plan. While East European countries, including Poland were languishing under communist dictatorship all three major former Axis countries were economically and politically prospering. Thanks to the American vision that there cannot be world progress without economically strong Europe and Japan. So the money these governments paid for weapons and material during the war came back to Europe.

Before the war Czechoslovakia was one of the most industralistic countries (BATA, Skoda, Aero etc.) in Europe with high standard, distinguished universities, scholars and for that time very developed grade of democracy (one of the few countries which did not ban the CZ communist party from public life, if I am not mistaken). After 1948 this was all gone. Today you can see German capital in most major Czech banks and enterprises.

So who is paying to the Americans and who is not is a matter of considerable discussion.

It is obvious that the US new about Pearl Harbor. They had all the info months before, and the confirmation weeks before from intercepted diplomatic traffic. There is a lot to say about the US, but they are not stupid and they are very efficient (even in 1941) and suddenly they where blind, deaf and half asleep ... This is for the moment not an historical fact but my personal humble opinion and should therefore only be considered as that.

Pure science-fiction. Indeed what you and the gentleman Krigerhass below are offering me are your personal opinions or if I may say pure speculations. Offer me some evidence for this if you can. So far many have tried but found no evidene whatsoever. Cordell Hull got his telegram when Japanese airplanes were already flying to Pearl Harbor and from the content of the telegram it could only be seen that Japan has decided to attack, but not WHERE they were going to strike. No one was thinking of Japan being capable to came with six CVs and escort ships undetected so close to Hawaii to launch a suprise attack. Most thought the first attack will be launched against DEI, Malaya and the Philippines. They seemed most reasonable targets and in fact the Japanese landed at Kota Bharu 90 minutes before Pearl Harbor was attacked! And Japanese Kido Butain maintained strict radio silence during their entire voyage (read Chiyaha's diary in the Goldtsien's and Dillon's PEARL HARBOR PAPERS), so there is no chance the Americans could know where are the Japanese CVs. Their intelligence detected that the CVs were missing from Japanese ports only on 2 or 3 December 1941.

Yes I would suppose so, it is the total losses from a modern encyclopedia and should even include the French that died on the Eastern front.

How many French Jews, Spanish and other resistance fighters, anti-communist legionnaires on the East Front and French collaborators were gassed, killed and executed? Do we have any numbers so that we can to incorporate them into this number? I would say that they would make 1/3 of all French casualties in WW2. But of course I also ask myself if this number includes Senegalese, Indochinese, Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian soldiers who fought on French side?

Yes but only the US made their allies pay for everything.

So did France happily sell her obsolete World War 1 equipment to Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia between the wars. For money.

In that case it is real fact in winning the war (bravo) but is has no moral value, and the "client" has no reason to be thankful and humble. He has paid for the show.

The client can be happy that he got the necessary weapons considering that US Armed Forces themselves were heavily under-equipped and unprepared for the war. I wonder if all other nations would react the same. I don't recall France and UK helping Poland with any military shipments or concrete military actions.

Mein Gott!! The JU 87 where sitting ducks even in 1939.

Interesting. It seems Ju-87s were not sitting ducks in autumn 1941 when they had Cunningham's fleet for pigs breakfast in the waters around Crete. Ju-87 was a powerful weapon especially against shipping if it had enough fighter protection. And Germans would be bond to provide it for their Ju-87s from the airfields in Northern Germany, Netherlands and Denmark. The North Sea is a closed and rather narrow sea, so the Allies would not stood a chance to come near to the German sea unnoticed. There were Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, coastal artillery, minefields, submarines, coastal fortresses and entire Heer standing on the shores. The situation would be even worse if the Germans would during such suicide attempt control the Sola airfield near Stavanger. Then they would have more or less all aces in their sleeve.

Take some time and read the allied plans for late 1939 and early 1940.

I have and I can't remember any plans for any Franco-British attack against Germany through the North Sea. The most notable plans I remember are the attempt to send a 150,000 strong expeditionary corps to Finland through Norway and Sweden in 1940, to occupy Narvik and deny the Germans the iron ore from Kiruna and Gallivare and to bomb Soviet oil refineries in Baku from French airfields in French Levant and British airfields in Iraq. Another excellent scheme, if you ask me. Called Operation "Pike".

Sorry I misread WWI for WWII. And so ??? We where neutrals, it was certainly not our war.

Hehehe... Excellent. And so were United States neutral until 7 December 1941. Until that date they were officially neutral and it was also not their war either.

[hannibal]

well I do not agree that Iran is technologicaly advance country.. specialy in the area of nuclear weapon programe..thats why Pakisatni Nuclear scientist Mr A.Q Khan.. provided most of the technology to Iran, ( why cant Iran develope its technology herself..). where as reports also say that chineas and north Korean Gov.. provided most of the help..and Mr A. Q Khan acted as a midle man.(Pakistan).

Born in a middle-class Muslim family in Bhopal, India, his family migrated to Pakistan in 1952 following the country's partition from India five years earlier. Trained as an engineer at the University of Karachi before moving after graduation to West Germany and Belgium for further studies. There he joined the staff of the Physical Dynamics Research Laboratory (FDO) in Amsterdam. FDO was a subcontractor for the URENCO uranium enrichment plant at Almelo in the Netherlands, which had been established in 1970 by the United Kingdom, West Germany and the Netherlands to assure a supply of enriched uranium for European nuclear reactors. He had access to highly classified documents (?!?) and had passed highly classified material to a network of Pakistani intelligence agents. And now he was passing the knowledge to North Korea, Iran and Libya. Why not instead writing a book so that we could all buy it from Wal-Mart and get to know the secrets of how to make a nuclear rocket in our kitchen? i know, my sarcasm is talking here... but still I find it very worrying when dubious countries like Iran, North Korea and someone else are trying to obtain nukes. It is funny how always poor and autocratic countries are interested in nuclear weapons... I wonder why.