Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

...Getting into France just got harder
SFGate.com ^ | 5/18/06 | Gomez per various cited news services

Posted on 05/18/2006 11:52:13 AM PDT by George W. Bush

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-187 last
To: dfwgator
re :Hitler would have won the war in Russia easily had he just treated the conquered Russians humanely, they would have considered Hitler a liberator from Stalin. Hitler forgot the primary lesson for winning wars, make the enemy want to surrender.

I totally agree, luckily for us race politics took precedence over military and other political considerations.

181 posted on 05/22/2006 2:20:56 AM PDT by tonycavanagh (We got plenty of doomsayers where are the truth sayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
"The Germans ... were so superior to the French and British and Russians that they were losing only about one soldier to two of the enemy."
The bigger truth is that German military thinkers were so stupid that they attacked enemies who outnumbered them 5:1.
So they got creamed.
Didn't learn.
Did it again.
And got creamed again.
That's not just not brilliant, it's apocalyptically bad, titanically incompetent.

The Germans showed some tactical capacity and made some gains in ground warfare. That usually happens when you attack first.
At sea, the Germans were pathetic.
In the air, they were inferior to the French in World War I and the British and the Americans in World War II, not just in numbers, but in overall capacity of operations. The German commanders did not understand either airpower or seapower, and squandered what they had.

In ground forces, German units were good tactically. Strategically, they ranged between mediocre and catastrophically bad. The only truly stunning German military victory was France, 1940, which came about because the French high command was even more incompetent than the German.




Funny alternative history. Or it's interpretation.

Would you please re-educate me from following misconcept ..

At the beginning of 20th century France and Russia were dominant powers of Europe (read world) second only to British Empire.

Today Russia is a beggar (yes I know that they have as much oil money as Saudi Arabia and a nuclear arsenal, they are still beggars), Brittain is American 51st state and France .. shall we say that it is not what it used to be. Although it has lost less (relative to what it had) indeed.

Also, look at german demands in WWI. End of customs barries in Europe, access to colonies, buffer zone of independent countries with Russia - in short, something that looks remarkably like EU.
182 posted on 05/22/2006 6:36:51 AM PDT by Grey Squirrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
"Doctors are doctors because they love medicine, not to make a social statement."

Exactly. In addition, they are among the best and the brightest. They should have the honor of being recognized as such, as well as many others should ...but, oh well..not in France.

So France will once again "bleed" and loose many of it's best. Who cares, right? They are not from the government./s

183 posted on 05/22/2006 8:16:01 AM PDT by Earthdweller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

France is not losing its doctors.
There is no medical exodus from France.

French doctors are respected in French society for what they do, and they make a good living.

All people in all professions everywhere grouse, and French doctors grouse, but they do not emigrate en masse the way that Canadian doctors do.

You're suggesting they do because of some fundamental flaw of the French system. France has had this system for a century. The doctors haven't left yet, and aren't starting to either. You need to tinker with your template.


184 posted on 05/22/2006 8:55:16 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Grey Squirrel

"At the beginning of 20th century France and Russia were dominant powers of Europe (read world) second only to British Empire."

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the most powerful economy in the world was that of the United States.

The second most powerful economy was Germany.

The most powerful navy was that of Britain, and the most powerful army was that of Germany.

At the end of World War I, the Americans stepped onto the world stage and the full measure of American economic might was revealed in contrast to Europe. Before the war, America was far away and disregarded, and Europe was considered the "cockpit", but all European economies were small compared to America (which became the world's first economic power in the late 1870s). America was not the first military power only because the Americans did not convert economic power into military power as the Europeans did. Instead, the Americans reinvested everything into further developing the internal American economy.

The British Empire was a ramshackle affair linking a bunch of militarily weak natives together by a technologically superior British Army (which was not, however, competitive in European terms until general conscription made it large during the Great War). The British invested a lot of money building railroads and infrastructure abroad, and reaped economic advantage from it for awhile, but they also had to guard it: not much of the colonial world WANTED to be colonies, and as soon as the British grip was weakened by the grinding wars against an economically superior and militarily dangerous Germany, the British were unable to hold onto their key colonies, especially India. With the loss of India, the remainder of the Empire barely broke even, and was a very heavy political burden. The French Empire was little different in that regard, although it was more closely stitched into France proper.

France was traditionally recognized as the great power of Europe, thanks to centuries upon centuries of history. But it was not objectively true. The French population didn't grow much at all in the 19th Century, with the result that the British and the Germans both outnumbered the French by World War I. The French economy was modern, but it could not compete with Germany both because of sheer German numbers and because of relatively ruthless German organization.

So, yes, there certainly was the image of power and prestige reposing with Britain and France and Russia, but the REAL economic powerhouse of the world had been located in North America for 4 decades before the world realized it in World War I, and the real economic and military powerhouse was Europe, not Britain or France. Russia had always been powerful because of sheer size and population. But the Russian economy was always weak, and Russia had shown that she was vulnerable to Western armies as early as the Crimea, never mind Napoleon.

France, Britain and Russia allied against the Germans because they say how aggressive and confident the Germans were, and the German willingness to make war to aggrandize Germany. And they were right.

You mentioned German demands in World War I. Sure, there were economic demands. But the real key point is that they were willing to fling armies at their neighbors and murder tens of millions of people to extract trade concessions. That was what made them lawless, and dangerous, and why they provoked nearly universal alliances against them. If my neighbor says that he wants me to take down my fence, and starts walking around the yard with a high powered rifle to make the point that he's serious, it's time for me and the other neighbors to call the police.

The basic truth remains: World Wars I and II both were started because the Germans chose to precipitously attack their neighbors. They had their reasons, but they did not HAVE to do it. They CHOSE to do it. They started both wars, and they lost both wars. A good military strategist was able to look at the correlation of forces, look what Germany had versus what her enemies had, and calculate odds, and realize that Germany was intentionally starting two wars she didn't have to start, and which would take amazing luck to win.
So, why did they start either war?

Pride.
German pride drove them to commit national suicide.
Twice.
That is not military competence. It is grand strategic ineptitude of an apocalyptic level. With small prospects of victory and no necessity to fight, Germany launched two disastrous wars. This makes German strategic thinking on a par with the Mexican Santa Ana. He did the same thing. It was just as stupid on either continent.

If you can't win, you should not start wars.
Germany couldn't win either war without tremendous luck.
Rolling the dice with the life of a nation is dumb when you don't have to.


185 posted on 05/22/2006 9:16:22 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
"There is no medical exodus from France."

Best to keep it that way and keep a healthy respect for all professions.

186 posted on 05/22/2006 9:40:28 PM PDT by Earthdweller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

"There is no medical exodus from France."
"Best to keep it that way and keep a healthy respect for all professions."

We agree.


187 posted on 05/23/2006 8:35:16 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-187 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson