Say Anything Blog

For those Democrats out there the US and England can’t carry 99% of the load in all of the worlds trouble spots.

You probably mean the U.S. and the U.K.   

France may well be unable to invade Normandy but they do still have some diplomatic clout.

Given the quality, depth and size of their armed forces they would be able to do far more in Iraq than any European power save the U.K.

Ep-  Lots of speculation on France’s abilities.  I’ll go with their history.  We even had to fight them in WW II—recently declassified documents.

This is a good case of, "OK, you guys don’t want us to ‘go it alone’, now either put up, or shut up."

Another alternative is that certain people have poor memories, or selective recall.  I recall an interview with that racist woman from GA who couldn’t remember in less than one minute that she claimed "racial profiling".  One minute later!  Memory is a component of intelligence.

Chief RZ,

We had to fight some elements of the Vichy French forces in North Africa.  Free French forces proved to be vital components of the Allied invasions of Italy and southern France (indeed, the French had the ablest commander in Italy, especially when compared to such personages as Mark Clark).     

I’ll go with their history. 

No, you’ll go with some of their efforts in WWII (as is evidenced by your statement).  I seriously doubt any expertise on your part concerning the success and/or failure of French arms since the creation of a truly French state at the Treaty of Verdun in 843 CE.

Chief RZ,

BTW, resistance to the Torch landings by some elements of French forces there (amongst other things) is a well known part of the story of the invasion of North Africa. 

Ep-- If six British Divisions had not been on the continent during the opening months of WW I, do you seriously contend that the Germans would not have been in Paris by 1915?  The main problem with the French is that they can not decide which side they are on.  They left NATO in the 60s and seriously toyed with communism.  They took Sadam’s Oil for food money.  I have been there.  Most frenchmen (and women) are friendly.  It is the Parisians that are probably still upset at the way the US forces took over their Capital in 1944.  Napoleon did put together a grand army in the 1800s.  He, like Hitler was defeated by the Russian winter.  I would like to see the results of the next election there.  Do you have an update?

Being "well known" and declassified are two different things.

It may have been well known that Dresden was bombed and 250,000 civilians were killed, but not declassified until well after Vonnegut’s 1970 book/movie Slaughterhouse Five.

Final point.  I would gladly welcome the French military into the community of nations that oppose communism and facism*.  I do not agree with Michael’s definition the USA is facist.  We elect our President.  We embrace diversity in our executive branch, and not just for looks, but for intelligence and abilities. 

In fact Napolean did take Moscow, he used St. Basil’s cathedral as a stable.  On the other hand he didn’t go there with an French force, but since he aquired the other armies in his conquests that probably doesn’t matter.

I think it’s more interesting in what France has done lately.

France was an ally in the first Gulf War.  According to Norman Schwartzkoff the French Commander didn’t want to be in the assault as he feared his armored vehicles weren’t up to it.  Schwartzkoff put him out on the right flank where they were to protect us against the empty desert (my words not the Generals).

Each day of the assault was remarkable in that the French moved but ended further from the front lines each and every day. 

Chief RZ,

If six British Divisions had not been on the continent during the opening months of WW I, do you seriously contend that the Germans would not have been in Paris by 1915? 

Yes, its quite possible; within the first weeks of the war the French military had found competant commanders and the Germans were making numerous mistakes (not keeping the rightwing strong by sending forces over to Prussia, etc.).  Indeed, that’s one of the conclusions of the military historians in the What If? series, because one of the questions about 1914 is what would have happened if the British commander (French) had continued to lose his nerve during in 1914. 

They left NATO in the 60s and seriously toyed with communism. 

De Gaulle wanted to create a strong France independent of the U.S., partly because WWII taught them the lesson that you can’t count on allies for one’s protection (thus the creation of France’s nuclear forces, etc. - a development foreshadowed by De Gaulle’s speech after the fall of France in 1940). 

It is the Parisians that are probably still upset at the way the US forces took over their Capital in 1944. 

The French Second Armored was the first into the city. 

I would like to see the results of the next election there.  Do you have an update?

Chirac is out (no one in France wants him as President again).  de Villipen is in deep trouble.  Sarkozy remains strong.  As far as candidates from the left are concerned, there are also some contenders.

Chief RZ,

If six British Divisions had not been on the continent during the opening months of WW I, do you seriously contend that the Germans would not have been in Paris by 1915? 

Yes, its quite possible; within the first weeks of the war the French military had found competant commanders and the Germans were making numerous mistakes (not keeping the rightwing strong by sending forces over to Prussia, etc.).  Indeed, that’s one of the conclusions of the military historians in the What If? series, because one of the questions about 1914 is what would have happened if the British commander (French) had continued to lose his nerve during in 1914. 

They left NATO in the 60s and seriously toyed with communism. 

De Gaulle wanted to create a strong France independent of the U.S., partly because WWII taught them the lesson that you can’t count on allies for one’s protection (thus the creation of France’s nuclear forces, etc. - a development foreshadowed by De Gaulle’s speech after the fall of France in 1940). 

It is the Parisians that are probably still upset at the way the US forces took over their Capital in 1944. 

The French Second Armored was the first into the city. 

I would like to see the results of the next election there.  Do you have an update?

Chirac is out (no one in France wants him as President again).  de Villipen is in deep trouble.  Sarkozy remains strong.  As far as candidates from the left are concerned, there are also some contenders.

within the first weeks of the war the French military had found competant commanders.

And the French "army" mutinied later in the war because of these competant commanders, right? 

Oh yeah, the French only had success in the Napoleanic war because Napolean was a Corsican. 

The.Whistler,

That’s a fairly uncharitable appraisal.  Read James J. Cooke’s 100 Miles from Baghdad: With the French in Desert Storm for a far more balanced protrayal.

The.Whistler,

You’re talking about the April-May 1917 mutiny.  1914 and 1917 were different years and the April-May mutiny was indeed quelled by a French commander - Petain.   

Oh yeah, the French only had success in the Napoleanic war because Napolean was a Corsican. 

This ignores the work of his general staff as well as the highly motivated, nationalistic French army.  Indeed, it borders on the absurd, since French arms did well in war prior to Napoleon’s rise (after all, it wasn’t armies commanded by Napoleon which beat back the armies that invaded France following the revolution). 

I’m taking that from Stormin’ Norman’s book.  He didn’t come out and say that.  He said that he needed them on his flank.  Against what I might ask?

As far as their being further away from the front I got that from the day by day charts in Stormin’s book.

I am assuming that the empty South-Western desert in Iraq is not dangerous and could be patroled by aircraft.  Other than that I’m right on. 

Anyway, I can see this is going to be some nationalistic pissing contest for those who want to dump on France, but the fact remains that the French have very competant military and military industries.

the April-May mutiny was indeed quelled by a French commander - Petain.

Umm Like all French Generals he surrendered.  "OK we’ll grant you’re mutinous demands if you agree to fight." 

 Although frankly it was the incompetence of the French leadership that led to the mutiny.

Anyway, I can see this is going to be some nationalistic pissing contest for those who want to dump on France, but the fact remains that the French have very competant military and military industries.

Untested in battle...The Israelies fly f-16’s now, now Mirage’s.  The French built an aircraft carrier that didn’t work.  

The last time the French were our ally they didn’t help.  

The French worked diplomatically against us in our buildup to remove Saddam.  The French Government has whipped up ant-American sentiments to keep his butt in ‘the chair’.  The French participated in the oil for food scandal.

I’m sorry I don’t see them as a desireable ally. 

The.Whistler,

Umm Like all French Generals he surrendered.  "OK we’ll grant you’re mutinous demands if you agree to fight." 

Ahh, no.  Petain executed quite a number of the instigators and did not give into the demands of the mutineers. 

Although frankly it was the incompetence of the French leadership that led to the mutiny.

No, it was due to the flawed tactics of a particular commander, tactics which had worked well to secure the end of the battle of Verdun. 

I am assuming that the empty South-Western desert in Iraq is not dangerous and could be patroled by aircraft.  

It wasn’t empty, as Cooke’s text details.

Given the quality, depth and size of their armed forces they would be able to do far more in Iraq than any European power save the U.K.

They’d be able to tie up a very large army by themselves, guarding and feeding that many prisoners would be a manpower burden even the U.S. would have a hard time handling. The only good thing that would come out if would be selling all those rifles, once you cleaned the dust off of them that got there when they dropped them.

The French built an aircraft carrier that didn’t work.  

They had typical sea trial problems associated with any new class of ships.  They built a nuclear power aircraft carrier from scratch, a significant feat.  This is always such a bogus criticism.

The French worked diplomatically against us in our buildup to remove Saddam. 

Well, that would be true of any person or nation which opposed the war right?  Arguing that this reveals some sort of nefarious motives (as you imply) seems silly on its face. 

The French Government has whipped up ant-American sentiments to keep his butt in ‘the chair’. 

(A) No they didn’t. (B) They didn’t have to.

The French participated in the oil for food scandal.

A few members of the French government may have done so (just as some Americans did so as well), but the government-wide claims made by many have never been born out.

I’m sorry I don’t see them as a desireable ally. 

That was an interesting volte face.

When Danger Reared It’s Ugly Head, The French Bravely Turned and Fled.

30,000 men decided to leave their trenches and walk home. Many men had not been home in the three years since the war had begun. Officers were allowed to go home on a regular basis, but lowly privates were not given these privileges. Even British soliders got home more often than French troops who were fighting in their own country.

In addition to the men who left the trenches, some 54 divisions (about one-half of the French army), refused to obey orders from commanding generals. Discipline in the army collapsed and panic spread in the French High Command and government.

If the army quit fighting, then the war would be lost and all the sacrifices made would be for nothing.

Reaction was quick on the part of the High Command. Several older generals were quickly replaced and a new overall commander was selected. General Petain, who had fought several successful battles, was chosen to lead the army. He immediately took charge of the situation. Mass arrests were made of all leaders of the mutiny. 24,000 men were tried and found guilty. 400 were sentenced to death, but only 50 were shot, the rest were sent to Devils Island to serve their sentence.

Petain also implemented a number of improvements for the men in the army. Better food, home leaves and periods of rest were put into effect. After six weeks of mutiny, the French army had been restored. Yet, a powerful change had come over the army.

It became clear that the French army would fight to defend their country, but would not go over to attack. This meant that England and members of the British Empire would now do the bulk of the fighting on the Western Front.

I missed the last sentence somehow. 

This meant that England and members of the British Empire would now do the bulk of the fighting on the Western Front.

The.Whistler,

First let’s note that is not the title of the link.  Let’s also note that it does not describe the tone or the substance of the language that you copied and pasted. 

It became clear that the French army would fight to defend their country, but would not go over to attack. This meant that England and members of the British Empire would now do the bulk of the fighting on the Western Front.

The question is, did that remain the case?  No, the French spearheaded offensives in 1918 after all that helped to bring down the German empire.  Nor is an army which is defending the nation from which it comes "fleeing."  Do you want me to keep on fisking your silly nationalistic tirades? 

The.Whistler,

Here’s a question for you.  Who came to the aid of the British when their army nearly collapsed during the German spring offensives of 1918?  The French are the ones who closed gaps in their lines and helped stem the tide of the German advance. 

The.Whistler,

Read John Keegan’s book on WWI; it will help you quite a lot. 

Have a good one.

The.Whistler’s form of analysis is take some isolated event and to conflate it into some general principle.  If such were the case then the American performance under Mark Clark in Italy would condemn the U.S. military to continuous infamy.

France was an ally in the first Gulf War.  According to Norman Schwartzkoff the French Commander didn’t want to be in the assault as he feared his armored vehicles weren’t up to it.  Schwartzkoff put him out on the right flank where they were to protect us against the empty desert (my words not the Generals).

Actually, the French were on the left flank.  Their force consisted of one brigade from the Freign Legion.  Their mission was to secure an airfield about 12 miles into Iraq that would serve as a forward supply base for the 101st. It took them two days to cover the 12 miles against no opposition.  The 101st became so frustrated that they went ahead and established their own FOB further forward by securing the areas themselves.  Had they waited on the French, they would have never made it to the road from Baghdad in time to cut it off before the war ended.

Ep-  I do not want to unnecessarily "dump" on the French.  I visited Verdun, and Bitche.  Wars are sometimes won on personalities, sometimes on munitions, sometimes on intelligence, and sometimes on morality and fortitude of those at home.  We should agree that the latter led Russia to leave the field of battle near the end of WW I.

The Guns of August seemed to me to be a fairly well written and unbiased history of that period.  Do you agree?

One point I would like to drive home are elections and support, or non-support of the citizens of a country.  I will be looking to see if France follows Canada and Germany; moving toward a more conservative form of government.

You did take some license in one comment and I ask for supporting evidence:  Which US government officials/offices took Oil for food money from Sadam?  Do you agree that France, Germany and Russia are guilty of taking billions as well as the United Nations?

When is the next election in France?  Are you there now?

Actually, the French were on the left. Right Flank.

Ummmm...I was thinking the Iraqi left.  Yeah, that’s it.  I wouldn’t get my left and right wrong.  

Can we just say North Flank?

Regarding how this all started, Michelle Malkin went to a cached page, took a screenshot, and posted the image on her site because didn’t like the politics of the people. It’s not her place to justify the disclosing of this information because she deemed that they were terrorizing people.

That’s an issue for the Santa Cruz police department to deal with, not her own brand of vigilante justice. 

As for her own personal details - Malkin included that on her own e-mail list and that’s how it went public. She launched her personal information about herself BY herself. 

And the anti-racist One People’s Project website promptly released her new details.  Someone took it a step further and used live.windows.com and yahoo maps to do a Graphic.

Payback’s a bitch eh’ Malkin? 

Her refusal to remove these kids contact information was not from conviction, but from revenue. Every journalist in the world knows that contact information on a press release is for journalists to call for more information or interviews, not to be published (or even pointed out) in the publication itself. If she were any kind of ethical person she would have pulled the information when asked.  If she were something resembling a human being with “feelings”, she would not have republished the information once the students themselves removed it. Michelle is a vicious, vindictive, venomous egoist with no discernible ethics nor even a shred of human decency. If she wants to be The Minority Woman Who Believes Minorities and Women Suck, that’s her right. But she should at least have the integrity to acknowledge that she has done wrong and to stop compounding the wrong. And she should not give us that disingenuous crap about how she doesn’t condone death threats and nobody should misuse her posting and reposting of personal information.

You’d look more smarter if you posted this on the right page.

No he wouldn’t!

Chief RZ,

The Guns of August seemed to me to be a fairly well written and unbiased history of that period.  Do you agree?

Its a bit dated in its analysis.  The most up to date general comment on the war these days is Europe’s Last Summer.

Which US government officials/offices took Oil for food money from Sadam? 

My point was that some Americans were implicated, whether they were government officials or not.

Do you agree that France, Germany and Russia are guilty of taking billions as well as the United Nations?

No, since the scandal wasn’t worth that much.

When is the next election in France? 

Presidential elections are every five years in France (as of 2002).  So the next election is in 2007.

Are you there now?

Not currently.

"you just can’t keep Democrats happy"

They don’t seem to be able to light up your world much either.

By the way, is it okay now to call French fries French fries again or are we still going with the Freedom fries thing? How about French toast? I get mixed up on who we’re supposed to hate.  I think it’s:

1) Iraqis

2) Iranians

3) Palestinians

4) Arabs in general

5) Retired generals who oppose Rumsfeld

6) All Democrats/liberals

7) If we’re Protestants, then Catholics and vice versa

8) Muslims

9) All nations of the Middle East...except Israel of course

Have I left anyone out?