Veteran's Day

Grimmwolf_GB · Post by **Grimmwolf_GB** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:43 am

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Nov 14 2009, 06:21 AM) France is around at the grace of other nations. As of WW2, France, like most of the rest of Europe was war weary and ruled out war to the point that they got invaded instead of taking on Germany when they still were capable of it.

Sorry, you are completely wrong. France didn't rule out war, that's why they built the maginot line, why they had a much stronger army than the germans. Their tanks where superior concerning fire power and armour, they had larger numbers of infantery divisions. They failed however to grasp the concept of mobile warfare and were quite surprised by it, like some german generals were as well. That's why the french were unable to react to a breakthrough of the magnitude of may 1940. Also, internal struggles weakened the morale, which combined with a series of losses led to a quick capitulation.

Orion wrote:QUOTE (Orion @ Nov 14 2009, 06:36 AM) You said traditionally rule out war, they set up rules with the DMZ after the Versailles treaty. Just because they got trounced doesn't mean they didn't try to defend themselves. If you want to blame someone for appeasement, you'll have to look further than just France, they were just a victim of proximity. If England had bordered Germany, they probably would have been crushed as well.

You can be certain of that. The british expeditionary force was cut of along with a third of the french army in May and allowed to retreat to england without its equipment. After that they were in no state to defend the island, but the german also were unable to cross the channel. England indeed had ruled out war for a long while and had neglected to build a sizeable and modern army. They however managed to win the war after all, thanks to the US and russia.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:57 am

But France and Britain and whomever coulda been pro-active and not given into Hitlers demands, if that meant war earlier on then so be it, that way the US of A wouldn't have had to get involved. You Europeans and your getting us into wars, oh and THANKS Britain for leaving the middle east a mess. and THANKS France for leaving Vietnam a mess.

Yep, anyways this is a thread to celebrate our veterans not to squabble over my pointless half-made-up arguments that you people seem to savor debunking.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:43 pm

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Nov 14 2009, 09:57 AM) Yep, anyways this is a thread to celebrate our veterans not to squabble over my pointless half-made-up arguments that you people seem to savor debunking.

Then don't dish out "France in WW-II" stuff when you have no clue about what actually went on. For details, see Grimms post above.

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:20 pm

*sigh*

Grimm

The reason we honor our veterns is we see them in a different light then you and yours.

Being a relatively new nation and lands when compared to Europe and Europeans, add in the nastiness of WWII via the German government at the time and it's got to be hard to get sentimental about your army's contibutions to things. Popular opinion in the seventies and eighties here was very similar, and imho many American who grow up around and right after Vietnam feel a sense of wrongness for blaming the soldiers for the war. Kind of what Gandalf said, and add in many of us have love ones serving rtfn in a war zone.

For example: I was flying out of St Louis which has a LOT of soldiers in the airport since the USO is headquartered there and I bought an entire table of soldiers their lunch. Why? Well they were fresh out of boot camp (tell tale buzz cut), so $#@!ing young, and they were going somewhere maybe to die, all for our country. After a war has been raging for all these years these men and women choose to go over and fight for their country, there was no surprise involved in it. You may not like the war but the bravery and scarifice of these men and women should not go un-noticed. "Support the troops" means support the people brave enough to wear the uniform, not I

*insert war or politican here* I realize that this yet one of the endless points that Americans get mocked for by others but frankly on this point I just feel really sad for those who don't "get it".

MrChaos

edit: Also it's been about 160 years since American service men and women have fired, in general, a shot on American soil (Kent State, and the 60s riots excepted *sigh* bad times, bad times) and truthfully are seen exclusively as protectors of the people and country from invaders. You might argue the point with the Civil War, and the Indian Wars to a degree but the US Armed Forces don't have a bad history internal to those who claim citizenship to the US.

This is not a rah rah team post but an explaination about something I have watched ebb and flow during my life. A sense of thankfulness to people who serve in the Armed Forces.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:28 pm

Eh, we're not a "new nation" (if you go by continuous government) either. We're one of the oldest nations in the world right now, the UK is definitely older, but just about every other country has drastically changed its governments through revolution since our founding.

One could argue that a nation is more than just a government, but if not the measure is pretty meaningless. (Whatever country happens to be on top of Mesopotamia would be the "oldest" nation)

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:40 pm

Orion wrote:QUOTE (Orion @ Nov 14 2009, 10:28 AM) Eh, we're not a "new nation" (if you go by continuous government) either. We're one of the oldest nations in the world right now, the UK is definitely older, but just about every other country has drastically changed its governments through revolution since our founding.

One could argue that a nation is more than just a government, but if not the measure is pretty meaningless. (Whatever country happens to be on top of Mesopotamia would be the "oldest" nation)

hmmm see your point Onion and I never really thought of it that way. Thanks.

I guess what I was trying to say was we just have less historical baggage to carry with us when compared to any of the European nations. Borders change, governments change, armies have killed civilians within their own border and people carry feelings and loyalities for generations over the last configuration which tends to muddy the water quite a bit. Better? *shrug* if it doesn't make it past the sniff test ok but it seems to me as an outsider to make some sense.

MrChaos

Grimmwolf_GB · Post by **Grimmwolf_GB** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:42 pm

I understand you, MrC. I partially agree, I partially disagree. The reputation of the german army in Germany is not bad, because they shot Germans during the war. I would not call the reputation of the army bad at all, in fact most people are happy when they show up to help during a flooding.

The problem is that the Bundeswehr reminds one of the 30 years of turmoil that were caused in Europe because of war mongering, pride, hatred and idiocy. Heck, they even wear very similar camouflage suits to the ones the Waffen-SS received, because Flecktarn is quite effective. Of course the Bundeswehr was also founded by the same german generals that lead WWII (some even WWI).

Of course I also know that Germany as a country better keeps on developing new weapons, tanks plains and so on, just in case anything unforeseen should happen.

Grimmwolf_GB · Post by **Grimmwolf_GB** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:49 pm

MrChaos wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos @ Nov 14 2009, 05:40 PM) I guess what I was trying to say was we just have less historical baggage to carry with us when compared to any of the European nations.

That's one huge reason why Germany wanted payback in 1939, why France wanted payback in 1914 (I am fully aware, that the treaty of versaille falsly claims that the first world war is Germany's fault), why Germany wanted payback in 1870. Historical baggage.
Before 1870, Germany was a place for others to fight wars in. French soldiers, russian soldiers, swedish, polish, austrian, ... all pillaged the german country side at least once. Freiburg (city I live in) and its surrounding countryside was so depopulated that people from switzerland had to be lured here with free land.

I am really glad that this vicious cycle was broken in 1945/1951. Otherwise France and Germany would probably be fighting again.

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:51 pm

Grimmwolf_GB wrote:QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Nov 14 2009, 10:42 AM) I understand you, MrC. I partially agree, I partially disagree. The reputation of the german army in Germany is not bad, because they shot Germans during the war. I would not call the reputation of the army bad at all, in fact most people are happy when they show up to help during a flooding.
The problem is that the Bundeswehr reminds one of the 30 years of turmoil that were caused in Europe because of war mongering, pride, hatred and idiocy. Heck, they even wear very similar camouflage suits to the ones the Waffen-SS received, because Flecktarn is quite effective. Of course the Bundeswehr was also founded by the same german generals that lead WWII (some even WWI).

Of course I also know that Germany as a country better keeps on developing new weapons, tanks plains and so on, just in case anything unforeseen should happen.

Grimm

I wasn't expecting you to go *facepalm* now I get it. You asked-ish so I gave you my looking at it from a simplistic outsiders view with regard to Germany, and comparing it to the US through the eyes of a man with a number of love ones in harms way including today. Sweeping generalities about nations and treating their citizens as homogeneous onlys hold so much water. Usually a thimble or two

MrChaos

edit: holy run on sentence Batman!

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:10 pm

Grimmwolf_GB wrote:QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Nov 14 2009, 10:49 AM) That's one huge reason why Germany wanted payback in 1939, why France wanted payback in 1914 (I am fully aware, that the treaty of versaille falsly claims that the first world war is Germany's fault), why Germany wanted payback in 1870. Historical baggage.
Before 1870, Germany was a place for others to fight wars in. French soldiers, russian soldiers, swedish, polish, austrian, ... all pillaged the german country side at least once. Freiburg (city I live in) and its surrounding countryside was so depopulated that people from switzerland had to be lured here with free land.

I am really glad that this vicious cycle was broken in 1945/1951. Otherwise France and Germany would probably be fighting again.

Noting binds people together like a common purpose and even more so a common foe. There is an American columnist and author who makes a similar point (maybe he stole the idea lock, stock, and barrel from the above) that as the economies of nations become more and more interwoven the idea of war becomes more and more unthinkable. Im sincerely pessimistic that you are just changing the nameplates since instead of it being Germany vs France for the umpteenth time it becomes the EU vs China now. *shrug* At least the baggage is gone

MrChaos <--- has his fingers crossed that Grimm and the author are right