Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally'

[Col. Mustard]

The issue was restriction of free trade, not how many of those who died (1198) were American. I'd consider unrestricted submarine warfare a pretty good example of the restriction of trade.

Allegations/circumstantial evidence of munitions was probably irrelevant in 1915.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

But it was a British ship, not an American one. What possible connection to American commerce does a British ship have?

The theory at the time was that neutral ships could have free trade even while combatant nations fought, the only restrictions being on munitions. Lusitania was not a neutral ship, it was a British one and Britain was at war with Germany.

 

[Col. Mustard]

Huh?

A British ship bringing, say, tourists to the US has no connection to American commerce?

In many parts of the world, even combatants make an effort to spare civilian casualties, hospitals, etc. The fact that Germany chose to sink a civilian ship (whether or not Germany's claims of war cargo were true) did not sit well with us.

 

[Waitone]

There just doesn't seem to be any end to the insults the French must endure at the hands of the Americans. Not only have we interferred with their wars and pushed them out of the way during the Normandy invasion (if you doubt me just go to the French WW II museum at Les Invalid in Paris) the French wine industry is largely American in origin.

IIRC, several decades ago the French suffered a blight that attacked their vineyards. The solution was to import plants out of Napa Valley and graft American roots onto French grape plants. Does that mean the foundation of the French wine industry is American? No wonder those people have a diaper rash.

 

[moa]

It does seem silly at this point in time why France seems to be failing to understand the inevitable. A state of war still exists between Iraq and the UN, and the USA and the UK about to restart serious hostilies.

After all, of late, the Iraqi military has been shooting at American and British aircraft over the no-fly zone practically every day.

I am reminded of a situation that occurred back in the 1960s or thereabout. Apparently, President De Gaulle of France insisted to then President Eisenhower that all US troops must vacate France.

Eisenhower's response was, "Does that include the ones in cemeterys too?"

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

A British ship bringing, say, tourists to the US has no connection to American commerce?

Perhaps of national interest to Americans, but not in terms of the international law of the time. That law was talking about actual commerce, not people travelling on foreign ships. The issue was whether or not neutral ships could trade with combatant nations, not whether neutral tourists could travel on combatant ships.

In many parts of the world, even combatants make an effort to spare civilian casualties, hospitals, etc. The fact that Germany chose to sink a civilian ship (whether or not Germany's claims of war cargo were true) did not sit well with us.

No doubt, but that doesn't mean that the sinking of the Lusitania was a violation of US neutrality, or an issue of American sea commerce.

 

[cratz2]

This thread is getting pretty... uh... unbearable for me to read.

The French are not entirely worthless during the 20th Century. Close, but not entirely. They have long harbored and aided known terrorists, not just terrorists in the making as the US tends to do. They have much invested in Iraq and I think this time, if it does come to war, that the powers that be are not going to allow the US to obtain any more oil than they can including destroying reserves. This will costs the French a lot of money.

I personally don't care one way or the other about the war with Iraq. I see positives and negatives which make no difference on this thread. Point is, over the past 50 years or so, the French have demonstrated what kind of fighters they are and what alliances they hold dear. It would not seem that they hold any alliances with The United States any longer. If France completely disappeared right now, how badly would it affect the United States? What about the opposite?

 

[CZ-75]

France and Britain HAD to give in to Hitlers European demands, they simply couldn't fight him themselves. Neither had the military or the resources for such a war.

BS. Until the '38 Munich Accords, France and England could easily have dispatched Hitler, and even then they had a paper strength well in excess of the Germans. Quality and morale were a different matter.

Hitler occupied the Rhineland with a battalion, n'est-pas? France could have stopped Hitler by themselves in '36.

Poor military morale and an unwillingness to take appropriate action, as well as a false sense of security behind the Maginot were the reason France got clobbered. Poor generals and bad, obsolete strategy too.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

The French simply couldn't take action, the government was shaky enough as it was without starting a war which is about the last thing the French people wanted at the time. The government would probably have collapsed completely.

Great Britain simply didn't have the resources to fight Hitler on her own, she was having enough problems with her empire. And until fairly late in the 30's she simply didn't have the airpower or tank forces which would have certainly been needed.

 

[moa]

Not too many years ago divers inspected the Lusitania wreckage. It apparently showed evidence of large internal explosions. In a number of places the hull was blown out. The ship sunk apparenlty quite quickly, which is one of the reasons for the high death toll even though it sunk off the coast of England.

It has long been suspected that the Lusitania's manifests where incomplete and deceptive. It was suspected that the ship was carrying munitions including gun-cotton (nitrocellulose) which can be used for the manufacturing of explosives, none which were listed on the ship's manifests.

 

[CZ-75]

The French simply couldn't take action, the government was shaky enough as it was without starting a war which is about the last thing the French people wanted at the time. The government would probably have collapsed completely.

Germany didn't have many resources, either, until sometime after the Spanish Civil War, which they were fighting with a lot of biplanes and a few 109s and medium bombers. I think the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht had a paper strength of a half-million men around this time, which was around a quarter of what the French had available, theoretically.


So, rather than resources, as first stated, it was really that France lacked the WILL to fight.

 

[T.Stahl]

Well, without the help of the USA Germany hadn't been able to start WW2 at all.

 

[CZ-75]

Well, without the help of the USA Germany hadn't been able to start WW2 at all.

Does this statement have something to do with the Dawes Plan?

 

[T.Stahl]

If that plan had something to do with the American petrol industry delivering crucial fuel additives that lasted for the whole war, then yes.

 

[CZ-75]

No, just a way to avoid paying the frogs reparations, in gold reichsmarks, until the 1970s.


Tell us about our patriotic petroleum industry. I thought Germany fought the war on Ruhr coal-based synthetics and Romanian and N. African oil.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Yes, and the United States provided a lot of the petroleum and the steel that fueled the Japanese war machine, too.

My question to that is, so how would anyone know in the 1930s that there's going to be a war in the 1940s?

Just when do you shut down trade with the nation that you suspect will become the agressor?

Simple answer is you can't know, unless you have a time machine.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

IIRC, (I loaned the book out) the Standard Oil-I.G.Farben connection got the Luftwaffe about two years worth of an additive whose name and purpose eludes me, and I'll never know how they got Roosevelt administration approval, in 1938, but it's a little hard to view that as a greater crime than the contemporary Munich.

Steve

 

[T.Stahl]

Yes, Germany produced a lot of its gasoline by liquefying coal, but it lacked the additives to rise the octane number and prevent the engines from knocking (right word?).
And yes again, the delivery took place shortly before the war broke out.

My question to that is, so how would anyone know in the 1930s that there's going to be a war in the 1940s?

Well, how was anyone to know that the mujaheddins would change their minds and objectives? Or Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Pinochet,... . Oh this damned thinking of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

So France should have attacked Germany in the early thirties (remember Hitler only gained real power in '33) because she should have known that Hitler was going to start a new world war, but America is at no fault for trading with Germany for vital war supplies up until the actual war?

This is absurd. Hindsight is always 20/20, but the view at the time for both situations was quite different. I have said this a thousand times on several different boards, but the argument that the western powers should have attacked Germany based on the SITUATION AT THE TIME, is absolutely fallacious.

 

[T.Stahl]

..., but America is at no fault for trading with Germany for vital war supplies up until the actual war?

...and after the war started.
And guess who filled up German U-boats in the Atlantic?
And guess why the OPEL and FORD factories weren't bombed?
(And when they were bombed Henry Ford was bold enough to demand reparations from the US government!)

 

[Stephen Ewing]

And guess who filled up German U-boats in the Atlantic?

Okay, I give: Who?

I am absolutely certain the U.S. did NOT, repeat, NOT perform this act. I would be VERY interested in citations of this action, as I've got a few shelf-feet on the U-boat war, and NOBODY, British, German, or American even hints at this.

Excluding, of course, a handful of activities very similar to the Graf Spee's behavior in Monte Video.

Incidentally, how could Henry Ford sue for the bombing of a Ford factory that wasn't bombed?

Steve

 

[CZ-75]

So France should have attacked Germany in the early thirties (remember Hitler only gained real power in '33) because she should have known that Hitler was going to start a new world war, but America is at no fault for trading with Germany for vital war supplies up until the actual war?

For my part, France should have attacked in '36 when Hitler occupied the DEMILITARIZED Rhineland with troops. A clearer belligerent act would be harder to imagine w/o actually occupying French territory.

This was, after all, a buffer meant to safeguard France's borders.

Hardly absurd, and definitely within the timeframe of Hitler's power. Germany was just re-arming, too. So not much of a threat to France's resources or stability, unless 2M French troops aren't the equal of a German battalion (don't answer that.).

 

[CZ-75]

additives to rise the octane number and prevent the engines from knocking

Tetra-ethyl lead?

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

[/B][/QUOTE].
Hardly absurd, and definitely within the timeframe of Hitler's power. Germany was just re-arming, too. So not much of a threat to France's resources or stability, unless 2M French troops aren't the equal of a German battalion (don't answer that.).[/B][/QUOTE]

You don't seem to understand. It is not that France could not have defeated Germany militarily at that time. It is that the people as a whole simply did not want another war. As I have said too many times, things look different depending on your time reference and cultural reference. France in the 30's had still not gotten over WW1, and the loss of millions of men, millions of francs, and a huge chunk of land. Not to mention the fact that France was in the middle of a depression, one which had started earlier and was harsher than the American Great Depression.

And in any case, it was not just throwing the Germans out of a narrow strip of territory. Such an action could easily spark full-scale hostilities with Germany, necessitating invading Germany proper, or fighting an extended war along the border, neither of which France was prepared to do.

 

[CZ-75]

I understand all too clearly that France didn't have the will to fight, the reasons for which you've explained quite well.

That France would have fought a protracted war w/ the Germans seems silly, but then that is colored by perspective given by the benefit of time. The Germans were ordered to retreat at the first sign of French military activity.

I further believe that the French ambassador (Poincare?) had an inkling of the German plan, yet the French didn't even bother to send reinforcements to dissuade the Germans from making the attempt.