Why do we hate the french again?
 

Seriously! I remember banning evian water and people saying "freedon fries" when France didn't want to help us go to war against Iraq, but is that the only reason??
I mean, what does that have to do with all of France's citizens?
I hope people aren't judging all of US based on Bush.
Maybe there's more to it. Could someone fill me in?

the french have a long history of sucking ass. the idea that they have only recently started to dislike us is a myth. the frogs were pissed at allied troops even as they were being liberated.

Because they are French.

(I think the whole Freedom Fries thing is laughable (Fries are as Belgian or so a friend told me in high school), but I have never expressed a fondness for things French ... brie, escargot, mimes, Gerard Depardieu ... all French, all not worth my time. The only thing I come close to liking is crepes, and well ... overly thin pancakes drizzled in orange flavored booze? I'd rather have ice cream.)

i always thought the french were our pals until i did some work with their military and spent some time in their embassy. *ahem* fuck the frogs.

Ira Einhorn.

But I do love a nice baked brie...

i dig chicks named Bri - does that count?

The French live to be contrary. They LOVE contrariness--but only in themselves. They also pour sauce over everything and pronounce it delicious. I do like French bread, though.

Aw--Lookout! :blush: you made my day!

That's the difference.
french ~ Baked Brie ~ tasty but weak.
American ~ Baked Beans ~ firepower galore. :shotgun:

Don't you remember? They set off that bomb over here. :worried:

We hate them because they feel as strongly about France as we do about the good ole USA.

or maybe it is because they won't admit their power to do anything but talk belligerently ended some time ago.

america isn't quite yet there, but give us some time. a couple real international powerhouses will rise only to push us down the ladder of relevancy.

Basically because they can be as arrogant, nationalistic, and self-centered as we are, without the military and economic arsenal to back it up.

Maybe because they have a knack for having someone pulling their irons out of the fire after being steamrolled, then acting like they would have done it anyway if they had a bit more time (De Gaulle was a puke like this), and then being to proud to admit that they were fucked if the good guys didn't help.

You know why French army rifles are such a great deal at surplus sales- they have never been fired and only dropped once!!

Hitler's troops embarrassed them so badly I am surprised they even had the termerity to call DeGaulle a *cough*General.

For me it's not so much the French I dislike, but Parisians. Because the Parisians shower infrequently, the women have hairy armpits, they have a history of surrendering their country and being ingrateful when their bacon is saved by the United States, they are arrogant and rude pricks who think their shit doesn't stink (though there's a lot of that in the Red States of America), they want our tourist dollars but treat us like we're a nuisance, etc.

That being said, they often have to deal with ignorant and "ugly" Americans who don't learn any French language or culture and who go to France and expect everyone else to accomodate them and adjust to American culture. They, like most of the rest of the world, see America like a baby holding a .44 magnum. America is a much newer country, doesn't respect the sovereignty of traditions of other nations, tries to bully every other nation on earth by pointing that big gun at them, etc.

ENOUGH, ALREADY!

The ugy American is definately alive and well! Look here, I have traveled in Europe and endured some bizarre behavior on the part of SOME French people. But then again, when I was in grad school, my best friend was a woman from France. She was a trip! Very witty and warm and interested in American culture.

When It comes to WWII, where were WE when Rommel did his surprise maneuver around the Maginot line? Asleep, waiting for Pearl Harbour. Where were the Brits? Running like hell for Dunkirk, that's where.

People ignorant of European history (that means 99.9999999% of all Americans) find it easy to make arrogant assumptions. First of all, WWI was fought on French soil. Any of you genius's ever read All Quiet on the Western Front ? No? I didn't think so. Run down to your public library and get a copy. I'll wait.

(*TAPS FOOT IMPATIENTLY*)

OK, WWI was one of the most awful wars in modern history. Thousands gave their lives for an inch of territory either way. It was brutal, trench warfare. It was stupid, horrible, and pointless.

"In Flanders fields the poppies grow..."

Nah, none of you people have read Rupert Brooke, either. Never mind.

The French people were so horrified and outraged by the deaths and suffering of trench warfare in WWI, that there was zero popular support for building up an agressive military in the 20's and 30's. The French just wanted to be left alone, thank you. Their posture was DEFENSE, hence the Maginot line which actually was pretty clever - they just didn't extend it all the way to the Adrienne. Now everybody today knows the words blitzkrieg and the name Rommel, but this man and that technique were a stunning developments back in 1940. If you folks don't think Patton or McArthur or Eisenhour would have been put on the retreat by a surprise attack of panzer divisions over the Canadian border, led by no less a general than Rommel, himself, think again.

As far as Charles de Gaule, he was wounded twice at the beginning of WWI and promoted to captain in 1915. He was ultimately captured by the Germans at Verdun and made 5 escape attempts from the German prison camps.
After the armistice, de Gaulle was assigned to a Polish division being formed in France. He fought against the Red Army during the civil war and won Poland's highest military decoration, Virtuti Militari.

De Gaulle's military ideas appeared in his book, The Army of the Future (1934). In the book he criticized the rigid theories of war that was exemplified by the Marginot Line. The book was unpopular with the politicians and the military who who refused to strengthen France's peace-time military force between the wars.

On the outbreak of the WWII, at Caumont, De Gaulle became the only French commanding officer to force the Germans to retreat during the German invasion of France.

So, you wouldn't call De Gaulle, a general, eh? Just what branch of the military do you serve in, anyhow, chief?

You know, I've met al kinds of assholes and idiots but recently radar has moved into this new category I don't have a name for that combines, almost bizarrely, irrational and extreme xenophobia, an aparant need to insult everyone and a complete lack of any logic or reason, anyone care to come up with a name for this?

I think mostly because you haven't frigging been there. Having very recently spent a week wandering around the west coast of France I can confidently say that the amount of women liable to give you whiplash you turn around so fast is higher than anywhere else in the world I've been to.

if you are going to insult and show your superior knowledge, at least get it right.
the line is IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow know what the next line is? the author is John McCrae. he was a Canadian.


no offense - but that has been a day or two ago. (honestly) don't assume that everyone who holds no fondness for the french is a chestbeating, flagwaving, xenophobe. some of us actually have experience with these people. i have a number of clients and aquaintances who are french. the two or three who don't fit the mold don't change the facts - i served with the french military. i spent A LOT of time in the french embassy. my opinions (and that is all they are) are based upon my observations of the french among their own. their guns, nor their dicks, have been big enough to justify their overflowing arrogance which is only rivaled by their condescension of all things non-franco in origin.
yeah, i've read it a fair few times. if you'll pull your arrogant head out of your tight ass long enough to decide - which chapter would you like to discuss. the bird's song near the end was especially poignant if you ask me.

"hey our male population has recently been decimated by a war of attrition fought in trenches - let's build a stagnant line of defense and call it a day. yep. brilliant.

You got me on the author, but not the lines:

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Here's Rupert Brooke:

If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England.

But come on, Lookout, other than you and me, how many folks know that much about the poets and poetry of WWI and the nature of the fighting that inspired it? My point still stands.

1990 Not yesterday, but not the stone ages, either. I went back for a second Master's after I'd been in my profession for a while.

My comments were not aimed at you, but the poster whom I quoted. Yes, the French can be arrogant. So can the Americans. You did not not make the statement that de Gaull should not be called a general or call into question the bravery of the French people or the reasons why they would have the attitudes that they did between the two world wars. These are the things I was addressing.

Chapter 7. Meeting the three women. Lets talk about that. Its easy to skip to the end and read the last page several times and get the bird's song part. And I won't call you arrogant or accuse you of having your head up your ass, either.

Many excellent military scholars have conceded that the Maginot Line would not have been a bad idea if it had been extended all the way across the Adrienne. De Gaull disagreed. My point was not so much about the wisdom or lack there-of the Maginot line, but rather of the strong distaste for warfare that the people of France acquired as a result of WWI. Sure, hind sight is always 20/20.

Uh, minding our own business and staying out of the war? It had kind of been established that because The Great War had been so horrendous that we really didn't want to get involved in global conflict?

That's kind of what I vaguely recall from history class.

And the French were precisely of the same opinion. Both France and the US were subjected to a sudden attack by an enemy. The US had geography on its side. France didn't.

It sounds like a case of "There's something about you I hate about myself"

That's brilliant, stacey. could you expound on that a little? I like!

OK, i'll fess up, i was being an ass in my response to you Marichiko - i shouldn't have insulted you. my apologies.

as far as the poem goes? the word "grow" is only present in the last line.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Apologies accepted, Lookout. We were actually both right about the lines. One was the first, one was the last. You got the author right, too, so my hat is off to you. I have to hand it to you, you are more well read than many folks. ;)

Hardly asleep, we were already preparing, at least on paper, how to handle Hitler if Europe fell and he tried to claim Canada.
As for the attack on Pearl Harbor, yes, that was a semi-surprise but the Jap threat was not. The attack was expected in the far east.
Excellent example of arrogance...thanks.
Yes it was, for years and years because the french didn't have the brains or balls to take it to Germany
Ah...another excellent example, thank you.
Yes it was and when the Americans arrived the french wanted our boys to crawl into the trenches and continue the same stupid tactics they had used for years. Plus they wanted us to do it with crap weapons that they would charge us for.
It's only when the Americans said fuck the french and took the battle to the Germans did the stalemate finally break and push the Germans back to Germany.
Oh..that's when the french took charge again and sowed the seeds of WW II.
Kudos...a third excellent example.
Nay, nay, they were so busy pompously flogging the German economy they didn't notice they were promoting WW II.
I've no way of knowing if Germany could have been stopped at that point but I highly doubt it.
First of all we wouldn't have been surprized. Secondly, retreat maybe but to regroup not acquiesce. To fire up the still and reload shells instead of standing on the corner in our best suits, crying.
Since you're an expert on De Gaulle, tell me, was he in charge of the french troops in Morocco that shelled our boys trying to land in Africa?
I'll bet even De Gaulle knew enough to try to fight from a position of strength if you can.
Mari, condescension is not your position of strength. ;)

Damn, Bruce........How could ANYONE add to that?...
dats right....you da man.....I wish I was half as smart as you.
History major?
"I told 'em 'bout my history.." [quote] SLING BLADE

You are welcome. Semi-surprise? On paper? Almost doesn't count. Ask the families back then of the men killed at Pearl Harbour. Not exactly a stunning American victory, now was it? Great preparation for the Jap threat. Yeppers.


In that case, nor did our esteemed British cousins who were also fighting in that particular war. In fact, the Brits declared war on Germany before the French did.

General Pershing of the US was hardly a military genius either. By time the American Expeditionary Force got around to joining the conflict in 1918, Pershing resisted using American forces as reinforcements for British and French units, as suggested by the Allies. Pershing also maintained the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British and French commanders. As a result the American Expeditionary Force suffered a very high rate of casualties in its operations in the summer and fall of 1918. No one nation had the market cornered on stupid slaughter of its troops in that particular conflict. The US was no exception.

Saying that they wanted us to enter the war with "crap weapons that they would overcharge us for" is a vast over simplification of the problem of supplies and weaponary in that era for the US military.

SNIP: The demand for arms was so immense and immediate and the time required for contracts to be let and industry to retool so lengthy that the Army for a long time would have to train with obsolete weapons in and, the end, would have to depend heavily on Allied manufacture.

The one weapon providing no particular problem was the rifle. To add to already existing stocks, the Army's own arsenals increased production of Springfields, while plants that had been filling Allied orders modified the British Lee-Enfield rifle to take U.S. ammunition for use by U.S. troops. All American units reaching France during the first year had to be equipped with Allied machine guns and automatic rifles, but new and excellent Browning machine guns and automatic rifles began coming off U.S. production lines in volume by mid-1918. Of some 2,250 artillery pieces used by American forces in France, only a hundred were of U.S. manufacture. Similarly an embryonic U.S. Tank Corps used French tanks, and in some instances British and French tank battalions supported U.S. troops. The Air Section that expanded rapidly to 11,425 flying officers, of whom 5,000 reached France, also had to depend primarily on planes provided by the Allies. The United States did produce a good 12-cylinder Liberty airplane engine, and a few U.S. planes saw service in latter weeks of the war. SOURCE

I'll reply to the rest of your remarks later.

Marichiko,
Actually, I am Canadian. I have never served in the Military. I have never met DeGaulle. I do not have a Masters in European History, but I have read quite a bit about WWII and some about WW I.

DeGaulle's war record is one thing, but his mouth is another. His out-of-line comment in Montreal regarding separatists insulted the Canadian government, of whom he was their guest, and was a slap in the face to a country who sent thousands to their deaths to liberate France. Imagine a British officer going to the South instead of Washington and announcing "Long live the Confederacy". Yeah, exactly- what an asshole.

As for the fact that your best college bud was French- WHOOP DE DOOOO! I worked with a French guy for 3 years who was the epitome of class; the stereotypical classy, well-spoken Frenchman. Unfortunately there are more than two Frenchmen. Also, unfortunately, the French military were demolished. Evidently your friend's bonhomie did not translate to effective military tactics. Hitler himself admitted that he was worried about France's vast numerical superiority, but he figured out in about two minutes that they couldn't get out of their own way in all-out combat.

The fact that DeGaulle humbled a few Germans, or tried to escape a prison camp, didn't change the fact that DeGaulle was an arrogant, pompous ass. Whatever ability he had to command may have resulted in temporarily slowing the Germans, but in the end he had to run with his tail between his legs, and then run around England mouthing off like the Krauts were lucky he wasn't still over there kicking ass...

Thank you for clarifying your reasons for your dislike of the man. Why didn't you say so in the first place? I have no opinion on his comments to Canadian separatists because like many Americans, I am woefully ignorant on that topic.

Yes, one person does not indicate a nation. My point, exactly.

I'll do better than that I personally know a half dozen people that were there. The attack of Pearl was a very risky move on the japs part. Many mistakes were made like not believing the radar, thinking the attack would be in McArthurs yard, thinking the japs would declare war first even though they had attacked without warning, repeatedly, in the past. Yes I know the Translation story.
But, we were hardly sleeping, do you think the carriers were out of pearl without their usual escorts accidently?
Yeah, on paper. You have to do that before you ramp up production of material, which had started. Of course the pols were siphoning some of that off for lend-lease, but it had started.
Were we ready for a major land war? No. The government was still trying to figure out how to convince the public that wanted to stay out of it. Gee, maybe Pearl Harbor was part of that.


Two wrongs make a right? I was trying to stay on topic.

That's right, Pershing refused to crawl in the trenches like the others. Maybe that's why we suffered 321K casualties (114K dead) compared to the 15 million the french, Brits and Russians totaled. Oh yeah, Pershing was really stupid.
I'll stick with my "over simplified" version to your politically correct version.
Waiting with abated breath. :cool:

We were sleeping, admit it. I don't know anyone who was at Pearl. My Dad was with the Royal Canadian Air Force at the time and later flew the "hump" over India to Burma to supply Merrill and the rest of the US forces there. I have little respect for Pershing because McArthur disliked him strongly. My Dad was a huge fan of McArthur. So much for personal connects in WWII. Pearl took us by surprise, get over it, already.


So was I. However a discussion of the First World War must include the major combatants, don't you think? Sure, we could just talk about France. Let's see, in 1914 the French for some strange reason dug a bunch of trenches and fired off a bunch of ammunition and then in 1918 they stopped after thousands of young men from France had died. The end. :eyebrow:

Come on, you're not actually going to try to back yourself into a corner over PERSHING, are you? Give me something I can USE here, Bruce! Let's discuss Robert E. Lee's generalship or Rommel's or McArthur's or even Westmoreland's. I'm not wasting my time on Pershing. You can sing his praises if you want.

You over-looked one teensy little thing. Everyone else was in that damn war from 1914-1918 which (I'll help you out) = 4 years. US forces didn't arrive in Europe in any number until 1918. So, Pershing gets credit for the fact that we were involved in the conflict for only a year and the dead from our country were fewer in number than the dead from THREE others? See what I mean about attempting to defend Pershing?

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY

Well, I suppose in a sense they WOULD be "politically correct." Hell, I'm sticking with the US Army's version. My Dad would expect no less of me.

A-bated, really? Well, hang on while I go check my trap lines. You've caught me at a busy time. :p

Actually, taking the fight to Germany was exactly the French's strategy in the opening phases of the fighting 1914. The French, however chose the wrong point for their assaults (fighting the previous war, as many nations are inclined to do) and ended up rushing into the Germany envelopment.

Ummm, don't give me that. I know American history books are terribly biased, but check your facts.
By 1918 more then 2/3 of the German infantry and 3/4 of their artillery were aligned against the British to the north of Paris. The American role in the majority of the fighting of 1918 consisted of making sure the Germans could not redeploy more strength to the north by making sustained, large scale attacks of the kind the French were too tired and worn down to make.
The reason for the high percentage of American casualties was not their equipment, but rather the failure of Pershing (another arrogant bastard, by all accounts) to adopt the artillery/infantry tactics used by the majority of front line troops by 1918. His continued use of wave style frontal assaults (at a time when the elite of both sides were using squad style fire and manuever tatics) only suceeded due to the state and number of the German troops arrayed against them. Those same tactics tried 2 years earlier would have resulted in an even greater slaughter of American troops and, very likely, little sucess.

Actually, no he wasn't. He was on a British ship off shore pissed off that he was not allowed to land with the troops.

Let's see, now. we are sending American troops over to a war that has been eating trench troops alive. should we put our fresh troops in as reinforcement in the trenches? here is an idea - let's do something that will be extremely bloody and brutal for the short term, but has a much better chance of bringing the war to a close sooner. while the majority of the german military is still tied up maintaining the strongpoints of their trench system, let's attack their weaker points en mass. it will be bloody, but one of two things will happen - A) you will find THE weak spot and snap the line, or B) they will have to rebalance troops along the line to prevent option A, thus allowing the allied troops to then push the entire line back in a methodical manner. Pershing was not a military genius, but he would have been downright stupid to have fallen into the trap of lending American troops as mere reinforcements.

At this point your hostage bitch says, "baby, baby...wha's goin' ON?" and you all disperse in a rain of fire.

:eyebrow: huh?

I'm not sure who Brianna is channeling, but it reminds me of the Evil Midnight Bomber what Bombs at Midnight...

Only the civilians were sleeping and only a fool would think that Roosevelt or the pentagon were getting very much sleep at the time or the 2 years before. Yes I know it wasn't built yet.
They new the war was coming, they could only guess where and when. They guessed wrong. Now you've got it! For 4 years the french did nothing but loose. To their credit they didn't acquiesce...that time.[quote]
Come on, you're not actually going to try to back yourself into a corner over PERSHING, are you? Give me something I can USE here, Bruce! Let's discuss Robert E. Lee's generalship or Rommel's or McArthur's or even Westmoreland's. I'm not wasting my time on Pershing. You can sing his praises if you want.[/Qoute] Good move...don't waste your time with something you don't know jack shit about. So you (and Silent) are saying that if we had followed the french example of fighting in the trenches we wouldn't have had their 76% casualty rate and the war would have ended soon any way? Grow up. Pershing may have been decimated 2 years earlier but it wasn't 2 years earlier, was it? Pershing did the right thing for and at the right time. He ended the war quickly with a casualty rate of 8%. :p

Well, Lookout, I imagine historians could debate this endlessly. I'm going to give a snip from a Great WWI site. Tons of information there from a wide variety of sources. This thread has really drifted along hasn't it? Maybe that's why Brianna seems so confused! ;)

The initial attack was carried out according to schedule but the successive waves showed great inaptitude in following up the advance. Officers as well as men did not understand how to make use of the terrain. Instead of seeking protection when they encountered opposition they merely fell back. To crawl backward or forward on the ground or to advance in quick jumps does not seem to by understood by the Americans. They remain lying on the ground for the time being, and then just stand up again and try to advance.

Neither in mass formations nor individually do the Americans know how to conduct themselves in an attack.

The higher command, also, did not understand how to grasp quickly the new situation and exploit it to the best advantage. After the infantry had reached its objective the higher command failed. They were not familiar with the tactical principles in the use of divisions and attack units for the destruction of the enemy. It was therefor possible for the [German] Army Detachment, under the most difficult conditions, to extricate itself from its precarious situation in one night, and, with only a short distance intervening between it and the enemy, to occupy new positions of resistance…



U.S.
Assault formations too dense and lacking flexibility. . .scouts seldom used. . .supporting arms improperly deployed. . .junior officers show little initiative. . .command HQ too far in the rear.


Exactly two weeks after St. Mihiel, the greatest battle of the AEF, the Meuse-Argonne Offensive began. With some units redeployed from St. Mihiel without any chance to digest the lessons they had just learned and with other divisions placed into the line with minimal training, things came unraveled.

According to Alan Millett and his associates who grade the AEF with a D for tactical performance::

The US approach to war [had become] basically attritional and the US also failed to emphasize surprise and exploitation of advantages. The failure to capture Montfaucon on the first day of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive was the biggest example of this. The 4th Division could have circled the hill as the 79th division in front was stalled. But, directives hindered the thinking of commanders and the Germans reinforced the position, helping stall the offensive.





The 35th Division on the Attack the Second Day of the Argonne Offensive
The Germans Staff after the start of the Argonne. Offensive put it rather brutally in one of their analyses:

The American Infantry is very unskillful in the attack. It attacks in thick columns, in numerous waves echeloned in depth, preceded by tanks. This sort of attack offers excellent objectives for the fire of our artillery, infantry and machine guns.


In 1989 Historian and Army Officer Rod Paschall analyzed what had happened to the AEF.

It had gone wrong. [in the Argonne]. Even in the best of conditions it was doubtful whether nine divisions could be supported over such a poor network of roads. The Americans were tied to a simple but inflexible plan that called for attacking on line, anchoring flanks with the advance of neighboring units, and keeping within the confines of divisional boundaries, a system that the Germans had learned to abandon long before.


Col Paschall explains there was a problem with basic tactical doctrine. of the AEF:.

…American doctrine was based on the 1917 Field Service Regulations, which were hardly revised from the prewar 1911 version. The manual specified that the attack should be conducted under the conditions of fire superiority , with advance achieved by infantry rushes. Fire superiority was to be gained by accurate rifle fire. For the Americans, the bane of Western Front attackers--the machine gun--was viewed as a "weapon of emergency". . .To be sure, artillery would assist the infantry, but the soul of an American assault was the rifleman.

General Hunter Liggett, observed in April 1918 that he could find no definitive U.S. instructions on open warfare. There was little doubt that all the U.S. officers talked about it, but when one attempted to find precise doctrine for its execution, the existing literature was a bit thin. Liggett made his concern known to Pershing's headquarters, and action was eventually taken. New Doctrine was published--after the war was over.

Marichiko - any time you take green troops with only basic combat skills and align them against a bloodied but experienced opponent there will be some mistakes made at a tactical level. so what is your point? what should Pershing have done? i don't want a hindsight view of things - this was real war, real bullets, real time. you never know exactly what your opponent has, is thinking, is doing - you only have what you think they have, are thinking, are doing.

so with that backdrop - what better way did Pershing have to end the war?

and BTW - citing foreign military command's opinions of American leadership strengths and weaknesses is not exactly flawless. i seem to remember quotes from British officers complaining about the American's absolute ignorance of the proper use of infantry. that may have been during the revolutionary war.

But.... Pershing ended it quickly with a very low casualty rate. You can nit pick till the cows come home but them's the facts. :p

Thank you. :p

It was a stalemate, Bruce. Read your history books. The Brits and the French against the Germans. No one went much of anywhere.

See my reply to Lookout, above. I wouldn't be talking about "not knowing jack shit" after your little oversight in regard to information from the Office of Chief of Military History. Glass houses and all that, you know. ;)

That was several quotes, the last one from an American officer. Pershing trained American troops in Paris for 6 months before committing them to battle. This was another complaint the allies had against him - the inordinate (to them) length of time before Pershing would commit his divisions. You can have very experienced soldiers, but they will die just like raw troops when forced to make stupid battleground stances.

They were not asleep as you claimed. :p


Unlike you I read my history and talked to the people that made it.
No one went much of anywhere except the cemetary.
And Pershing ended the stalemate that would have continued had he crawled in the trenchs with the french.What oversight? I made no oversight. You are just trying to obfuscate the disscussion with bullshit details like you did with the post about tactics. But that doesn't work because results not endless details are what count. I don't care if your father was chairman of the joint chiefs, you don't know what your talking about, if you did it wouldn't take you so long to look everything up before posting. :lol:

Oh....and the french suck. :p

Right, wouldn't want to dilute a debate with any nasty old facts. Name-calling is so much more fun without them. :eyebrow:

I don't think I said anything of the sort.
My main points were/are:

1) Pershings tactics were out dated by 1918. The only reason they suceeded was due to the Americans being aligned against a tired, decimated German army.
2) Do not credit Pershing with any sort of insight with his choice of these out moded tactics. Being in the right place at the right time is not military genius, it's luck.
3) French tactics by 1918 were not as evolved as German or Canadian tactics. I am not holding them up as an example of elite WWI infantry.
4) Do not quote casualty rates from the entire war and expect the to have any real significance. Had the Americans been in the conflict from 1914 fighting a fresh German army without the lessons of the previous 4 years of fighting, I'm sure their casualty rates would have been right up there.
5) Do not attempt to say "Pershing ended the war". He was supporting cast. An important part, yes, but the forces which defeated the bulk and elite of the German army of 1918 were not American.

You know, I think the reason that a lot Americans have this hate on for the French is that many French have an open disdain for Americans.
And why do the French have this disdain for Americans? A couple of reasons:
1) Americans tourists have the worst reputation for being ignorant, arrogant loud mouths. Having witnessed first hand some of what that's is based on, I can't say that it is entirely un-earned.
2) The French have an insecurity about themselves. They are as proud of their country as Amercans are about theirs, but loss of international prestige, the diminishing importance of the French language, and the fact that their pride has taken a couple of stiff blows in the last century, has resulted in them attempting to take any comfort they can about themselves.

The above is just my opinion garnered from traveling abroad.

And I'm not trying to defend the French. I think their knee-jerk anti-americanism is childish. But I also think that whole "Freedom Fry" thing was infantile too.
I've actually heard Americans say that the French are ungrateful after they "saved their asses". :headshake:
Never has America gone to war to save France. The fact that the Germans were removed from French soil was mere pragmatism. France was the easiest route to get at the Germans.
And as far as the French were concerned, it was just pay back for the help they gave during the American Revolution.
:lol:

I agree with your "opinion garnered". :beer: Nobody's better than us, especially when it comes to being ignorant, arrogant loud mouths. ;)

My point was don't sell Pershing short, he was smart enough not to continue the trench death stalemate.

I guess we'll have to disagree about Pershing. All my reading indicates that his choice of tactics were mainly influenced by his low opinion of French and British troops and his high opinion of his own soldiers. He felt that all the Hun needed was to face some "Real Men". He disregarded advice from several sources and went his own way. The fact that he was sucessful despite all that means I place him into histories "Lucky Bastards" bin as opposed to the "Military Geniuses" one. :)

In his defence, he inspired the men who followed him (a trait not to be dismissed lightly) and was not put off by the bloody necessaties of fighting in that era.

For someone who professes to be well educated you sure don't comprehend what you read very well. I didn't say facts, I said bullshit details. You can argue details about any thing in history but it doesn't change the result. That's what's important.
Left to their own, the french would have dragged on like the Iran-Iraq war.

Oh Silent, thanks for the tip on DeGaulle in Morocco. Should have know he wasn't actually involved in the fighting. :headshake

Aren't all winning Generals lucky bastards? :lol:

Silent - i usually get burned if i assume anything, but... it sounds like you've never been in the military.

One of the reasons Pershings men would run into withering fire was because they believed in him. one of the reasons they believed in him is because had earned their respect. it is standard for a commander (especially one in command of green troops) to be boisterous and build them up - telling them (and anyone else who can hear) that they are the absolute best unit in existence. there is no one smarter, stronger, tougher, meaner... he says this to give them the confidence that is needed in a situation where the individual can look to his left and right and no that 1 of 3 will die in the coming hours or days.

the commander will undoubtedly be transferred or promoted to a new unit, and will shortly thereafter begin making the exact same claims about the new unit - you are the toughest, most bad ass MFers around! no one can stop you if you stick together!

if the brits and french were offended at Pershings insistance that HIS troops were the best and the brits and french weren't worthy of any praise, then too bad. do you really think he felt that way? or is it more likely that his troops were hearing how badly chewed up the brits and french were and he needed to give them the confidence that it wouldn't/couldn't happen to them?

Silent - ignoring or choosing not to follow the advice of military leaders who had gone to trenches is not a sign ignorance or foolishness - it is an acknowledgment that a completely different thought process was needed. America was weak on many war materials - but it had plenty of men. an overwhelming number of men if used properly. while Pershing was not a military genius, he knew what the situation was, what his strengths were and acted accordingly.

judging him against modern values and strategic thought wouldn't be proper.

You would assume incorrectly.

If you read above, I give him credit for having the ability to inspire the men below him. Not an insignificant ability, and a requirement for anyone to be successful in command for any length of time.

My opinions about Pershing's attitudes were not derived from his pre battle speeches, or talks to his troops. They are garnered from the writings of men who were there with him as well as his own notes. He was an Anglophobe who viewed the French (after touring their lines) as weak and defeatest.
He does not come right out and say these things (especially to his allies) but it is what I and many historians have garnered from the written records and writings of the men who were there.

That's just it. He did not dismiss the recomendations of his allies to try something new. What he did was not new. It was not inovative. It was the same old tactics that were used in 1914 with a couple of adjustments in equipment and artillery usage. The fact that he did not send thousands to a pointless death was entirely due to the quality of the troops facing him. Had the Americans been deployed in the Arras sector, or perhaps closer to Ypres, the results would have been quite different.

I give him credit for his leadership. I give him credit for resisting French and British pressure to deploy the AEF piecemeal. As for his military capabilities, I defer to Douglas MacArthur, who considered Pershing a desk soldier with no grasp of tactics or innovation.

Who is doing that? I'll give you a short list of current-at-the-time tactics Pershing did not use:

Creeping barrage, trench raids, interdictive artillery fire, independant platoon action, squad level LMG support, counter battery fire.

Some of these were employed by local commanders, but they were not in Pershing's "Play book". His "Wave" attacks and direct artillery fire methods were so 1916..

:p

With all due respect, I'm educated enough to reject stone-walling without data to back it up as an acceptable method of debate. You can throw hissy fits all you like, but your statements mostly have not been backed up by any data. Its a lazy way out to call facts that don't support your pet peeves "bullshit details." I might call the chart you cut and pasted above, "bullshit detail", if I were to go by your usage of the phrase.

Hissy fits are a chick thing, that's your department. I don't hissy fit.
You said I was over simplifying, I said you were over complicating because you can argue the value of 4 foot vs 6 foot trenches or the merits of one caliber bullet over another, ad nauseum. It doesn't change the facts;
1~ the french fought for 4 years and got no where with a 76.3 % casualty rate.
2~ Pershing ended the war in months with an 8.2% casualty rate.
That's it....the bottom line....we won.


Oh...3~ the french suck. :lol:

Alright, I after doing some re-reading last night I will have to retract some of my invective against Pershing.

He was not so much anti-British/French as he was ultra pro-American. To an extent that, some third parties have remarked, he was a bit blind to some of the weaknesses of his troops and the AEF in general.

no, not really.

Free trip to Arlington or Paris, Arlington or Paris, Arlington er....hmmm.....I gotta go for Paris. (France, not Texas) :)

When? :question:

Not to divert this armchair general's convention but I wanted to clear up something about "french fries".

The term is a corruption of "frenched fries. It refers to the way the potato is cut.

I hope french fries or what ever you want to call them are once again safe for democracy.

carry on. fry 'em if you got 'em.
;)