Noah Roberts wrote in message ... (to Matt Nemmers):
Matt Nemmers wrote:
You made my point in your own argument, Noah. WE were liberating THEM.
Yeah, they helped, but it was *their* country, for God's sake.

Maybe you have also forgotten a little part of history called the
American Revolution.

"In America, no man is much praised for himself, but for the purposes of party,
or to feed national vanity."
--James Fenimore Cooper (Home as Found)

French support--diplomatic, financial, logistical, and military--was a major,
if not a decisive, factor in explaining why the United States was able to win
its independence from Great Britain.

As the United States's ambassador to France, Benjamin Franklin probably did
more than anyone else except George Washington to help achieve the final
victory in the American War of Independence. Franklin's brilliant diplomacy
succeeded in persuading the French to support lavishly the American nationalist
cause. Toward the end of the war, the Americans were being largely financed
by French subsidies and loans, and American soldiers were being regularly
supplied with French gunpowder and other stores.

The conclusive Battle of Yorktown (1781) was primarily a French victory,
secondarily an American one. First, the battle--indeed, the campaign--could
never have been won without the presence of the blockading French fleet, which
stopped the British fleet from arriving to relieve the besieged British army
of Cornwallis. Second, Washington's and Lafayette's besieging army had
significantly more professional French soldiers (7800) than Continental Army
regulars (5545), though there were also about 3000 American militia on hand.
In short, probably most of the combat power of the combined land forces at
Yorktown came from the French. After their surrender, indeed, most of the
British officers evidently preferred to believe that they had been defeated
by the French (their fellow European professionals) rather than by the American
colonists.

"We think that we are generous because we credit our neighbour with the
possession of those virtues that are likely to be a benefit to us."
--Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Gray)

--Nick

Noah Roberts wrote in message ...
I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that the French resistance
was one of the pivital forces in that war. If it wasn't for the French,
at the very least many more of our men would have died, at the worst we
would have lost. The french acted as couriers, spies, and repeatedly
threw wrenches in the works of the Nazis. The French people played a
HUGE part in WWII and probably lost as many, if not more, to the Germans
during that time then we did.

"Les Francais sont tellement differents les uns des autres, comprenez-vous,
tellement prets a se dechirer! Il fallait bien leur trouver un denominateur
common. Ce ne pouvait etre que la patrie."

"The French are so different from one another, you see, so ready to tear each
other apart! It was essential to find a common cause. It could only be
patriotism."

--Charles de Gaulle

Dear Mr. Roberts,

The history of France under German occupation (1940-44) is highly complex and
controversial, with some competing myths being marketed for popular acceptance.
In my view, you have rather overrated the importance of the French Resistance
because you seem to have accepted an early postwar myth that the French, except
for a small minority of avowed Nazi collaborators (the easily recognisable
villains in Hollywood's films), were solidly united behind the heroic
resistance fighters. Actually, only a small minority of the French (not
including such sincerely anti-Nazi intellectuals as Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone
de Beauvoir) were really active in the Resistance, though many sympathisers
were ready to give discreet assistance. On the other hand, the currently
fashionable American notion that almost all the French welcomed the German
occupation because they were pro-Nazi or perhaps even masochistically enjoying
themselves being conquered subjects is also a myth.

For further viewing:
"Le Chagrin et la Pitie" ("The Sorrow and the Pity") is a 1971 documentary
film directed by Marcel Ophuls, which caused a sensation in France.

In fact, here is a quote:
After the war General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote: "Throughout France the
Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their
great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much
longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves."

General Eisenhower also once stated that the French Resistance was worth the
equivalent of fifteen Allied divisions in the field, yet that seems to have
been a rhetorical overstatement.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRresistance.htm

And if you actually read that page you will see that the French that
aided that campaign did so at great cost to themselves.

Whenever the French maquisards did attempt to fight protracted conventional
battles, even on apparently favourable ground, with the Germans, they soon
discovered that they were outgunned and vulnerable to ruthless reprisals.

"Tears of Glory: the Heroes of Vercors, 1944" by Michael Pearson is a history
of the doomed French effort to establish that mountain bastion of resistance.

"The Oradour Massacre and Aftermath" by Robin Mackness proposes the hypothesis
that the infamous massacre of the village of Oradour-sur-Glane (10 June 1944)
by elements of the 2nd SS Panzer Division 'Das Reich' (en route to Normandy)
was not a reprisal authorised by the German high command, but only a freelance
operation conducted by a local commander seeking personal revenge.

"War destroys any conception of goals, including any conception of the goals
of war. It even destroys the idea of putting an end to the war."
--Simone Weil

--Nick

"StanB" wrote in message ...
"Nick" wrote in message
om...
(snipped)
"We think that we are generous because we credit our neighbour with the
possession of those virtues that are likely to be a benefit to us."
--Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Gray)

Bwanna Nick, what's this have to do with the price of spears?
StanB

Here's a link to my post in the thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice"
(30 July 2003), wherein I cite evidence to prove that StanB has lied about me:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V27416E75

--Nick

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
(Don Mihokovich) wrote in message . com... (to Noah Roberts):
(snipped)

"God damn the United States for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles!"
--William James (1842-1910: member of the Anti-Imperialist League)

"Much has been made of the high caliber of the opponents of imperialism in the
League, whose list of officers reads like a combination of the 'Social Register'
and 'Who's Who in America'. One historian has calculated that seventy-three
percent of the League's leaders were college graduates, and that half of these
went on to earn graduate or professional degrees, at a time when less than one
percent of the population held college degrees. Most of these officers were
products of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, which places them in a very small
elite....However one wants to define its membership, the anti-imperialist
movement adds up to a very impressive group of distinguished Americans. Its
leading historian, E. Berkeley Tompkins concluded, 'It is doubtful that any
other organization could boast a more outstanding leadership. If the nation
could be said to possess an elite, these gentlemen would surely qualify.'"
--Stuart Creighton Miller ("Benevolent Assimilation": the American Conquest
of the Philippines, 1899-1903, pp. 113-4)

"In Luzon and the northern islands the organized Filipino resistance had
died out within three years of those first shots fired in a Manila suburb
in February 1899. It had taken the American army 2811 separate battles and
actions to subdue the people it had come to liberate."
--Richard O'Connor (Pacific Destiny, p. 280)

Don Mihokovich wrote to Noah Roberts:
The core values adopted by the US Air Force may very well summarize the
core values of our Country, and perhaps even aspirational goals for the
USCF:

Integrity First
Service Before Self
Excellence in All We Do

How were those "core values" represented in the United States's recent claims
about "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) in Iraq?

Why could not non-American military forces display similarly facile slogans?

"Mein Ehre Heisst Treue." ("My honour is loyalty.")
--the motto of the SS

"Arbeit Macht Frei." ("Work makes you free.")
--a motto of Nazi concentration camps

--Nick

Nick (The Liar) wrote:

Mr. Nemmers:

The Americans did *not* liberate France alone, but as part of an Allied effort.
In his book, "Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation of Paris",
John Keegan also describes the contributions of the British, Canadian, Polish,
and Free French forces.

While it is true the Americans did not liberate France in 1944
by themselves, it is also true that without the American Army
none of the other armies would have been able to participate
in that liberation.

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick wrote to Matt Nemmers:
The Americans did *not* liberate France alone, but as part of an Allied
effort. In his book, "Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation
of Paris", John Keegan also describes the contributions of the British,
Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces.

While it is true the Americans did not liberate France in 1944 by themselves,
it is also true that without the American Army none of the other armies would
have been able to participate in that liberation.

Here's how General Douglas MacArthur of the United States, the Supreme Allied
Commander in the South Pacific theatre of the Second World War, and his staff
reported on the contributions of the Australian forces under his command:

"Whenever a communique came from MacArthur's headquarters, it was prefaced
with 'American and Allied forces...' even if there were only a dozen Americans
involved. If there were *no* Americans involved, the communique would begin
with the phrase, 'Allied forces...' ... many Australians bitterly resented
MacArthur's glorification of himself and American forces."
--Eric Bergerud (Touched with Fi the Land War in the South Pacific, p. 248)
(Bergurud is an American military historian.)

'Though modesty is praised by everybody, immodesty is much oftener successful.'
--Charles Johnstone (The Reverie)

--Nick

Nick (The Liar) wrote:

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick wrote to Matt Nemmers:
The Americans did *not* liberate France alone, but as part of an Allied
effort. In his book, "Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation
of Paris", John Keegan also describes the contributions of the British,
Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces.

While it is true the Americans did not liberate France in 1944 by themselves,
it is also true that without the American Army none of the other armies would
have been able to participate in that liberation.

Here's how General Douglas MacArthur of the United States, the Supreme Allied
Commander in the South Pacific theatre of the Second World War, and his staff
reported on the contributions of the Australian forces under his command:

"Whenever a communique came from MacArthur's headquarters, it was prefaced
with 'American and Allied forces...' even if there were only a dozen Americans
involved. If there were *no* Americans involved, the communique would begin
with the phrase, 'Allied forces...' ... many Australians bitterly resented
MacArthur's glorification of himself and American forces."
--Eric Bergerud (Touched with Fi the Land War in the South Pacific, p. 248)
(Bergurud is an American military historian.)

Not only is this completely irrelevant, but it wanders off on
a tangent. A practice which you consistently attempt in your
role as Anti-US Propagandist.

The relevant facts a without the US, there would have been
no invasion of France in 1944. Great Britain, even with all
her Dominion forces and other allies did not have the strength
to defeat Germany. Without the US, Great Britain, even with all
her Dominion forces and other allies did not have the strength
to defeat Japan.

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Liar) wrote:
The Americans did *not* liberate France alone, but as part of an Allied
effort. In his book, "Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation
of Paris", John Keegan also describes the contributions of the British,
Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces.

While it is true the Americans did not liberate France in 1944 by themselves,
it is also true that without the American Army none of the other armies would
have been able to participate in that liberation.

The liberation of France in 1944 was an *Allied* victory, not just an American
victory. Yes, I doubt that the British, Canadians, Poles, and Free French
could have won without the support of the United States forces. And I doubt
that the United States forces could have won without the support of the British,
Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces. Why not share the credit?

Several men in my family fought on the Allied side during the Second World War.
One of them was a general, who made decisions that led to the killing of
thousands of men. Another of them was a private in the infantry, who dug his
own foxhole and griped about military regulations. The newspapers and the
history books might say that the general made a greater contribution than the
private toward winning the war. Yet we know that both of them did their best,
and today we honour both their memories of service equally.

'Victory in Burma came, not from the work of any one man, or even of a few men,
but from the sum of many men's efforts. We all, even those among us who may have
seemed to fail, did our best. Luckily, that combined best proved good enough.'
--Field Marshal William Slim (Defeat into Victory, preface)

--Nick

Have you not seen Enigma or U571? The Americans practically won the war
single handedly don't you know

(funny, I thought us brits had some hand in it somewhere. Perhaps making the
tea?)


"Nick" wrote in message
om...
Briarroot wrote in message
...
Nick (The Liar) wrote:
The Americans did *not* liberate France alone, but as part of an
Allied
effort. In his book, "Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the
Liberation
of Paris", John Keegan also describes the contributions of the
British,
Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces.

While it is true the Americans did not liberate France in 1944 by
themselves,
it is also true that without the American Army none of the other armies
would
have been able to participate in that liberation.

The liberation of France in 1944 was an *Allied* victory, not just an
American
victory. Yes, I doubt that the British, Canadians, Poles, and Free French
could have won without the support of the United States forces. And I
doubt
that the United States forces could have won without the support of the
British,
Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces. Why not share the credit?

Several men in my family fought on the Allied side during the Second World
War.
One of them was a general, who made decisions that led to the killing of
thousands of men. Another of them was a private in the infantry, who dug
his
own foxhole and griped about military regulations. The newspapers and the
history books might say that the general made a greater contribution than
the
private toward winning the war. Yet we know that both of them did their
best,
and today we honour both their memories of service equally.

'Victory in Burma came, not from the work of any one man, or even of a few
men,
but from the sum of many men's efforts. We all, even those among us who ma
y have
seemed to fail, did our best. Luckily, that combined best proved good
enough.'
--Field Marshal William Slim (Defeat into Victory, preface)

--Nick

Don't care to much about the rest, but from my reading it appears that
Enigma was a british invention, used by the brits, but in strong
"coordiantion" with the usa...


Raithmir skrev:
Have you not seen Enigma or U571? The Americans practically won the war
single handedly don't you know

(funny, I thought us brits had some hand in it somewhere. Perhaps making the
tea?)


"Nick" wrote in message
om...

Briarroot wrote in message

...

Nick (The Liar) wrote:

The Americans did *not* liberate France alone, but as part of an

Allied

effort. In his book, "Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the

Liberation

of Paris", John Keegan also describes the contributions of the

British,

Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces.

While it is true the Americans did not liberate France in 1944 by

themselves,

it is also true that without the American Army none of the other armies

would

have been able to participate in that liberation.

The liberation of France in 1944 was an *Allied* victory, not just an

American

victory. Yes, I doubt that the British, Canadians, Poles, and Free French
could have won without the support of the United States forces. And I

doubt

that the United States forces could have won without the support of the

British,

Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces. Why not share the credit?

Several men in my family fought on the Allied side during the Second World

War.

One of them was a general, who made decisions that led to the killing of
thousands of men. Another of them was a private in the infantry, who dug

his

own foxhole and griped about military regulations. The newspapers and the
history books might say that the general made a greater contribution than

the

private toward winning the war. Yet we know that both of them did their

best,

and today we honour both their memories of service equally.

'Victory in Burma came, not from the work of any one man, or even of a few

men,

but from the sum of many men's efforts. We all, even those among us who ma

y have

seemed to fail, did our best. Luckily, that combined best proved good

enough.'

--Field Marshal William Slim (Defeat into Victory, preface)

--Nick