France's WW-II Ceremony Acompanied by Protests vs. USA

by Gerard 70 Replies latest social current

• 

  hillary_step

  Arthur 'Bomber' Harris sanctioned the bombing of the open cities of Dresden and Berlin in supposed retaliation of the bombing of Coventry by the Luftwaffe.

  What complicated the issue was that the Brits were well aware of what the Goering had planned but were unable, or at least unwilling to send fighters to stop the German bombing raid. To do so would have tipped off the Germans that the Brits had actually intercepted and decoded German secret messages via Enigma, and Churchill was not prepared for them to know that Enigma existed at that time. He vowed vengage for Coventry and got it. As many people were killed in Dresden as Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. The fires were so ferocious that they sucked oxygen from the air and even those protected from the smoke and flames died of asphyxiation.

  The German's did target the civilian region of Warsaw with Stukas. They broke the will of an already defeated nation by launching wave upon wave of these 'screaming' planes. Charging Panzer divisions on horseback was not a wise strategy but it was all the Poles had, that and courage. The Polish army was filled with very, very brave people, they were outgunned and destroyed but fought like tigers to preserve their homeland.

  HS
• 

  Simon

  My grandfather faught in the south pacific, 20 years later my father faught in south-east Asia. One was a Dutch Army officier, the other in the Dutch Navy. They both agreed that Brits were the toughest soldiers they'd ever met. I guess there's an English Rambo story out there just waiting to be made.

  I think it's wrong to get into comparing 'who werr best'. The US troops won more battles than they lost which is what counted in the end. They were not as battle-hardened as some of the british troops who had already been at war for many years, faught under-fire etc...

  This was actually a major concern in the planning of the normandy landings and one of the reasons they faught separately (by nationality) at the different beaches rather than having mixed combined forces.

  (been reading the history)
• 

  roybatty

  Well, Libya happened because we stopped bombing them and playing "cowboys" (Reagan) and started TALKING.

  Hmmmm....I wonder why Libya didn't change their weapons program the 8 years Clinton was in office? Seemed like he was good at talking. BTW, did they find any WMD in Libya?
• 

  Narkissos

  Musical interlude from the previous one (WWI) -- one of my favorite Irish songs:

  http://toosvanholstein.nl/greatwar/music/williemcbride.html
• 

  Simon

  no. They had no WoMD.

  Looking at the timeline of Libya is very interesting BTW.
• 

  roybatty

  My grandfather faught in the south pacific, 20 years later my father faught in south-east Asia. One was a Dutch Army officier, the other in the Dutch Navy. They both agreed that Brits were the toughest soldiers they'd ever met. I guess there's an English Rambo story out there just waiting to be made.

  I think it's wrong to get into comparing 'who werr best'. The US troops won more battles than they lost which is what counted in the end. They were not as battle-hardened as some of the british troops who had already been at war for many years, faught under-fire etc...

  My ex-wife's grandfather was a medic in the American army during WWII. He downplays what he did and doesn't talk much about what he saw. I can't imagine any braver then those guys storming Omaha beach righ into a hail of bullets. What amazes me is that the majority of these men were "citizen soldiers", career soldiers.
• 

  Realist

  crazy,

  i assume you refer to the battle about warsaw. the germans forced the city to surrender (with over 100.000 polish soldiers inside). despite the heavy fighting 'only' 13% of the town were destroyed. 25.000 civilians were killed during the whole of the german invasion. most of the destruction took place much later. by the end of 1944 85 to 90% had been destroyed.
• 

  Realist

  simon,

  great posts! i really commend you for maintaining such a neutral standpoint on these issues.

  hillary,

  The German's did target the civilian region of Warsaw with Stukas. They broke the will of an already defeated nation by launching wave upon wave of these 'screaming' planes. Charging Panzer divisions on horseback was not a wise strategy but it was all the Poles had, that and courage. The Polish army was filled with very, very brave people, they were outgunned and destroyed but fought like tigers to preserve their homeland.

  interestingly hitler pointed out in his victory speech that the polish soldiers faught bravely. the polish cavallery attack the tanks because they thought it was paper tanks used to create a diversion. no one is attacking a tank with a bayonet.

  just on a side note...sturzkampfbomber carried only one bomb which usually hit the target with very high accuracy. it was used against military targets, transportation and industrial buildings. it was incapable of large scale bombings.
• 

  IronGland

  The French resistance was a vital part of the war effort.

  LMAO. More like, once the war was over, everyone suddenly found it convenient to remember they were resistance fighters. There was a small resistance movement that was helpful to the allies. Most simply accepted the occupation, a great many actively collaborated with the Germans. La Resistance was largely a postwar myth. Why the french are credited as victors and were given a postwar occupation zone in germany is beyond me.
  

  BTW, I'm not a French hater by any means. I think the older french have a term for it. 'The mud'. As in don't stir stir up uncomfortable questions about those times.

  France

  245,000

  350,000

  Lets not forget that a great many of those civilian deaths were French Jews sent to their death by their collaborating countrymen.
• 

  Realist

  regarding the french resistance....does anyone know the comedy show: Allo Allo???? with cafe rene???? hilarious stuff! http://www.phill.co.uk/comedy/allo/