Posted on 05/18/2006 11:52:13 AM PDT by George W. Bush
Sarkozy's reform bill will "stiffen the rules for immigrants in France, establish a sort of quota system and let authorities cherry-pick who gets in - such as doctors, computer whizzes or sports stars." (Independent Online, South Africa) "The bill, which also makes it difficult for immigrants already in France to have their families join them, is expected to go to the [French] Senate for final approval in June." (BBC)
Sarkozy himself is the son of a Hungarian immigrant. Promoting his reform proposal, Sarkozy had earlier said that "We can't keep welcoming to France everyone who wants to come and to whom we can offer neither housing nor employment." (Le Figaro)
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The Germans did indeed have huge losses fighting on two fronts during WWI, but they were so superior to the French and British and Russians that they were losing only about one soldier to two of the enemy. That is why they were actually winning the war and the USA had to intervene.
Good idea, otherwise German will wind up with 500,000 words in the language, like English did.
And there was plenty between them and Paris. They didn't go to Paris, they went to the channel, to cut off the Allied armies in Belgium.
They were also counterattacked heavily by large French and British armor formations, at and just after the point of breakthrough. But they blew through them with ease.
Exactly. I remember reading a Military History article that talked about how the actual Maginot Line was not breached anywhere, with one brief exception. It actually worked, it just wasn't extended far enough. The French couldn't imagine that anyone could penetrate the Ardennes Forest, and left it unguarded. The Germans capitalized on that weakness. Had the Maginot Line extended all the way, WWII might have been over much quicker.
Sad truth bump.
"Um, it was Guderian, Rommel was on his right flank."
What are you saying- that Rommel didn't cross the Ardennes and the Meuse in 1940? He did, as did Guderian.
"And there was plenty between them and Paris."
No there wasn't. Sure, there were forces but not enough to stop the armored spearhead which confronted them. As soon as the French leader heard about the forces which had crossed the Meuse, he called Churchill and told him the Battle for France was over. He knew at that moment that their entire strategic plan had failed.
"They didn't go to Paris, they went to the channel, to cut off the Allied armies in Belgium."
That's true, but at that point the Germans had different ways to finish off France. They chose to trap the BEF and accompanying French forces and then deal with Paris.
"They were also counterattacked heavily by large French and British armor formations, at and just after the point of breakthrough."
Yes, in particular at Arras where the British fought hard and exacted heavy losses on the Germans. But that was the British and French armies which had been sent towards the German feint into Holland defending themselves. Those troops were not between the point of the German breakthrough and Paris. The road to Paris was wide open- the Germans simply chose to deal with the troops along the Atlantic first.
The forces between Guderian and Paris amounted to at least a corps of armor, a full division of which counterattacked the bridgehead before German tanks were even across (they were stopped by German infantry). But he didn't go to Paris, he went to the channel. He still had to fight off multiple armor brigade size counterattacks and did so easily.
The reason they went to the channel is their doctrine was annihilation battle, not striking for deep political or command objectives. Western armor theorists whose doctrines call for the latter consistently overlook this or downplay it. They don't like to admit that the greatest success in the history of maneuver warfare ignored their advice and followed much older principles. Which the Germans had employed since the 19th century and were in no way dependent on tanks etc.
The Germans coming through both Belgium and Holland were hardly a "feint", and succeeded frontally, along with the breakthrough success. Yes the main effort was in the Ardennes, but half the force was the fixing group in the north countries, and they attacked seriously, not as a feint.
The Arras counterattack was not larger than the French ones, it was smaller, the French made at least 3 of similar scale. Nor was it more successful. It was stopped readily by gun front tactics because allied combined arms was nonexistent. Brit doctrine at the time stressed armor acting independently - as its prewar theorists had called for - and that failed completely in practice.
The portion of the Allied armies dealt with in the northern pocket was about half. The French had forces to form new lines in the south and did so. But the odds left by the previous victory, along with the proven ability to break through at will, readily beat the remaining French in a second operation. There was, however, such an operation and serious fighting occurred during it, there were French forces to block the way to Paris, etc.
But they weren't winning against the rest minus the US by a year later, even though the US had not had time to get in seriously. Russia was beating them, and beat them. The Germans had the overall potential to defeat Russia, but out of overconfidence did not think they would need it and failed to fully mobilize their production to support a major land war of attrition when they attacked. They hoped to defeat Russia faster than that, a hope that proved naive. They only gave up on the idea of cheap victory there at the end of 1942 after the Stalingrad counterattack. At that point, they were already losing the war. It was largely the Russians who beat them. With the US in as well, the outcome was as they say "overdetermined" - they didn't have a prayer against both.
It makes me sick to my guts because that`s all I`ve been hearing my entire life as a US citizen..."you must do this because it is the law"...I could write a 500 volume book on the absolute hell I`ve been through with the IRS after a business I started failed, or how recently my livlihood was taken away from me after my car was vandalized and I didn`t pay $500 in tickets for "Equipment violations"..I literally got socked with ticket after ticket because my side view mirrors were smashed on my car and I couldn`t afford to immediately replace them. Never in my life have I even been considered for effin` amnesty, and the fact that these foreign pricks whose first order of business is to break our laws, who protest with their effin` Mexican flags like some kind of conquering heroes aren`t being slammed up the arse the same way I was for doing basically nothing drives me NUTS! Hey who cares if I can`t drive my taxi anymore, they can always hire these pricks who use phony ID`s and can`t speak a word of English. After all, they are doing the jobs "No American wants to do".
Sorry. No. The French legislation includes a path to citizenship, with far fewer hurdles than in the U.S. Senate legislation as currently stands. So it's actually "amnesty" according to the Buchannan/Tancredo crowd.
But even their amnesty doesn't have the provisions in the Bush/Senate amnesty, which allows sending for family, both direct and indirect. Our amnesty is much, much worse (directly getting us 30+ million within a few years).
And at least they shut the door first. And what they are demanding from the stayees is a lot more than we are (breathing).
They are still showing more cajones than we are (except the House Republicans, God bless 'em).
It sounds like you were just looking for a point to nit-pick on regarding who exactly made the crossing first (both Guderian and Rommel obviously made the crossing). But that clearly wasn't the point of my post.
The point of my post was and is that the French soldier can't be judged too much one way or the other based upon WW II since it was over as soon as the Germans made their strategic breakthrough through the Ardennes and over the Meuse. And that is the way the French president and the French high command judged the situation, as noted by Churchill after the war.
If you have a disagreement with that point, speak up and at least you'll be responding to the thrust of my post instead of scrutinize issues you can disagree and go off on a tangent on. If you say it wasn't over when the Meuse crossing was effected then uour view will be contrary to that of the French high command at the time. I tend to give credence to their evaluation of the situation on this issue.
Aren't these actions rather moot since they have such a high Muslim percentage already?
LOL way to rewrite History, America did not intervene, Japan attacked you and Germany declared war on you.
And if you are really interested in the merits of all the fighting men I recommend Max Hastings Armageddon.
There are conflicting reports but most agree about 3/4 of German losses were on the Eastern Front fighting the Soviets.
The Germans and Soviets when well led made better soldiers, coming from dictatorships where life was cheaper, they were able to withstand the horror and death of war. many also were brought up in martial environments the Hitler Youth and Kommosol both had a strong death and glory cult
On the Western side many had to overcome religious and western liberal upbringing before they could pull the trigger.
And the French left is condemning him. So are members of the priviliged minorities.
- France would be a great place to be if it weren't for the leftists and the residents who hate Christian values and culture.
On whether the battle was lost as soon as Guderian was over the river, they were losing it certainly but I don't think it was lost. The counterattacks that failed need not have. If you include those the claim is basically right.
One might still notice that the Russians were penetrated at least as badly and lost even more heavily, but mobilized additional forces fast enough to absorb losses of a similar scale. France did not have Russia's strategic depth and that works against a similar success. But the French did not try nearly as hard, either. Then there is the point that de Gaulle was willing and able to continue the war without metropolitan France. The British could have used the French fleet. French political direction of the war was limp, any way you slice it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.