:D

A pic from one of my recent games. I was on a continent with Pericles, Justinian and De Gaulle. After conquering Justinian I wanted to attack De Gaulle but he had a huge stack (64 units, though very outdated) so I thought I had to build some more units first. But then I saw this:

http://www.schurkenuser.de/uploads/20071204_sod.jpg

He had packed his huge stack into a border city which was under massive cultural pressure from Pericles to prevent rebellion. Bad thing for him: The city was completely surrounded by greek land and Pericles hated him. So he couldn't leave the city anymore without declaring war on Pericles who was stronger than him.

So I declared war and took most of the french cities. All the while his SoD watched helplessly from the isolated city :lol:
Eventually I made him my vassal, freed his stack and gave him a lot of military techs. He upgraded his units to infantry and I had a free decent army that guarded my cities :goodjob:

Thats funny :)

you wonder what it takes for the ai to liberate doomed cities and free up the troops. i've seen this before, but not with such a large stack.

His troops were there not only as a potential strike force, but also to prevent the city from going into revolt (or switching ownership). That's how it's done, with the latest troops available.

I'd say this is more a comment on the AI than the French. I've seen the Mongols do almost the same thing as you're showing us here.

I've also seen the Americans build Oxford university in a city that was almost completely desert and had no appreciable tech income... I should wrangle up that saved game and start a thread entitled "See how stupid the Americans are" ;)

He had packed his huge stack into a border city which was under massive cultural pressure from Pericles to prevent rebellion.

:lol:! i've noticed them piling troops into cities threatening to revolt in BtS. miss B packed so many in one city that the "chance to revolt" line disappeared even tho the city was less than 10% hers. i was actually kind of proud of them for responding to that now, and trying to hold on to their cities. but in this case, with that sneaky IronCrown character nearby ... you're right, it was not the best move :crazyeye:.

His troops were there not only as a potential strike force, but also to prevent the city from going into revolt (or switching ownership). That's how it's done, with the latest troops available.

What is the calculation to determine the amount of troops needed for this. I has always assumed that troops in garrison would help, but haven't played with it to see what the calculation would be.

I.e., how many troops to reduce revolt % by 1% (or whatever the calc is)?

Thanks!

Well it was a dumb AI move for sure, but then again... I can see You and Pericles beeing in the Modern Era and you have Infantry and Tanks. Do you really care where the AI dumps a stack of curasiers by that time ? :rolleyes:

He may have wanted those troops there to keep the city, but....
If it can't work any tiles, why keep the city?

Aftershafter:
.
I think this is more of a shot at the french since in both WWs they basically surrendered right away

And another poster shows his lack of historical knowledge...

Aftershafter:
.
I think this is more of a shot at the french since in both WWs they basically surrendered right away

Are you so sure about that, re: World War I?

I believe that the Western Front was in France the entire war... and that the French were distinctly actively throwing their men to the German machine guns, on the mistaken notion that valor would overcome bullets.

The French were overrun and had to surrender very quickly in WW II. However i dont remeber France surrendering at all in WW I, and i think it's because they didn't.

Aftershafter:
.
I think this is more of a shot at the french since in both WWs they basically surrendered right away

The French had one of the highest human loss counts in WWI, and they never surrendered in spite of that. I'm well aware of why shots like this are made, and they're pretty ignorant considering the history of the French in general past one war 70 years ago.

I'm not French, nor do I have any real vested interest in the French (though, I do like Louis and I'm warming up to Napoleon in Civ... Oh, their brandy/liquers rock too), but credit where credit is due - and the French really get the shaft in this area due to bad strategy (see: Maginot line) during WWII. For this one notable blunder, no-one seems to forgive them, while things like the Bay of Pigs and Operation Barbarossa are chuckled off when speaking of the nations they are associated with.

Besides, if you really think the French just gave up in WWII, read Du Gaulle's Civilopedia entry. The surrender of the French government was a result of the poor defensive strategy embodied by the Maginot line, and the fact that the Germans literally took the government without ever having to fight the French - like they had to tooth and nail in the first world war, and for centuries before that in countless engagements.

Since everyone on the internet (and their dog too!) says that France always surrenders it must be true! And that Napoleon fella? Pfft, figment of imagination.

That's really an interesting thread ...

Well Napoleon is clearly a noob. One of those - incereadible usefull - tips at the Civ Loading screen says "Can't fight Land War in Asia" - he obviosly did not red that before going for russia.

Maybe he preferred CivIII over CivIV?

Something similar is said about jungle, isn't it ? Let me remember who tried this ?

Something similar is said about jungle, isn't it ? Let me remember who tried this ?

No idea who you are tlaking about :mischief:

Was Napoleon even in CivIII ? I only remember Jean D'Arc.

French are not terrible at wars!! Yes, they lost a few but if you look at the calliber of enemies most would have.

The German blitz was immense groundbreaking stuff. No one could stop it, there was the British Expeditionary force helping too. As said previously the French kicked some ass in world war 1. Especially with their fighters.

All in all through history they had tough foes! (mainly the Brits).

Just remember Americans, France won you your independance pretty much. :P

I chose the thread title only because I knew it would attract more readers and as the dumb AI happened to be french I couldn't miss out on it, could I? :mischief:
(if I had had a choice, I had named it "see how incredibly bad the Italians are at war" for more historical accuracy :lol: )

That said, the French were beaten several times by the Germans/Prussians. In fact, german troops had not lost a war against the french arch-enemy for over 100 years, except WWI ;)

What is the calculation to determine the amount of troops needed for this. I has always assumed that troops in garrison would help, but haven't played with it to see what the calculation would be.

I.e., how many troops to reduce revolt % by 1% (or whatever the calc is)?

DerangedDuck has a math-y article about culture mechanics posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=225927). it depends on a lot of things, there's no simple answer to your direct question. reading the article will tell you about how troops work and about what other stuff can help (religion plays a part, etc).

French are not terrible at wars!! Yes, they lost a few but if you look at the calliber of enemies most would have.

The German blitz was immense groundbreaking stuff. No one could stop it, there was the British Expeditionary force helping too. As said previously the French kicked some ass in world war 1. Especially with their fighters.

All in all through history they had tough foes! (mainly the Brits).

Just remember Americans, France won you your independance pretty much. :P

While I agree in general with the statement "French are not terrible at wars!!" I would disagree on several points. First of all "No one could stop it" referring to the German Blitz is just plain false. The Russian stopped it. And drove it back. The main reason people criticize the French in world war II is because the Maginot line demonstrated EPIC amounts of failure in terms of comprehending military strategy of the day (of which, as someone else mentioned, they had prior warning from De Gaulle). As for "the French kicked ass in world war 1. Especially their fighters." Fighters, especially french fighters did not play a defining role in world war I. They were used for scouting and taking down enemy scout planes. And if any fighters did "kick ass" in word war I, it was the German fighters (see: red baron). As for french kicking ass in general in world war I, they "kicked ass" as much as anyone else did in that war; which is to say, not really. Both sides lost huge amounts of troops in pointless charges against entrenched foes. Lastly, France did not win the Americans their war of independence. they helped toward the very very very end when the brits were loosing. While it is true they did help, they mainly did it to spite the brits. They never risked anything, the brits simply got tired of fighting American tenacity. The french accelerated this process, but not by that much.

For anyone interested in intelligent discussion of France's defeat in World War II from a primary source, read Strange Defeat by Marc Bloc.

French ships had a massive impact on the war of independance. I dont have time to go into details but hte final battle where the british were surrounded the french stopped reinforcements getting through. This was the point when Britian realised they could win battles, but independance was inevitable.

French aircraft were amazing in ww1. When i have more time i will go into the details im about to go out, i will when i get back tho.

The Red Baron, though a high scorer didnt often kick ass. In fact, though i think its a great character, if you check the history he was not so amazing. He would stay high, watch his squadron engage and dive down on damaged fighters, shooting the pilot. Not very Chivilrous. Then zoom back to safety. The time he messed this up and couldnt get height again was the time he was killed. Most great pilots of WW1 lived short careers because of the risk. Richtofen knew this and played it safe using the power of his plane and numbers to his advantage.

Lastly Russians did stop the Blitz, but only by throwing insane numbers at it. That is, they didnt really figure a way to beat it, they just dug in, waited for weather, used WW1 mentality and Stalin brutally threw his troops at them in their millions. Again situation reversed, no one was going to beat Russia.

What i meant, and what i should have written was "No one would have stopped the Blitz in its first showing" eg, No one had a chance against it until they learnt combined arms. I just posted a fast post and didnt realise it would be picked apart, thats why i wrote "kicked ass" instead of details...

Even at the end of the war, when people knew what to expect and when the German Airforce had been wrecked by RAF at the battle of Britain and their best soldiers were trying to hold back Russia. Even then the Blitzkrieg was a force to be reckoned with. Just look at the battle of the bulge, with more numbers and logistics it would have had a greater success!!

I chose the thread title only because I knew it would attract more readers and as the dumb AI happened to be french I couldn't miss out on it, could I? :mischief:
(if I had had a choice, I had named it "see how incredibly bad the Italians are at war" for more historical accuracy :lol: )


ps hahahahah :lol: I like this one.

I remember one time when I was fighting evil French enemies. They went through Holy Roman Empire to atack me, and then marched back using theirs open passage agreement. I Could't strike back due to the HRE not wanting a deal. They pretty much defeated me there.

French ships had a massive impact on the war of independance. I dont have time to go into details but hte final battle where the british were surrounded the french stopped reinforcements getting through. This was the point when Britian realised they could win battles, but independance was inevitable.

French aircraft were amazing in ww1. When i have more time i will go into the details im about to go out, i will when i get back tho.

The Red Baron, though a high scorer didnt often kick ass. In fact, though i think its a great character, if you check the history he was not so amazing. He would stay high, watch his squadron engage and dive down on damaged fighters, shooting the pilot. Not very Chivilrous. Then zoom back to safety. The time he messed this up and couldnt get height again was the time he was killed. Most great pilots of WW1 lived short careers because of the risk. Richtofen knew this and played it safe using the power of his plane and numbers to his advantage.

Lastly Russians did stop the Blitz, but only by throwing insane numbers at it. That is, they didnt really figure a way to beat it, they just dug in, waited for weather, used WW1 mentality and Stalin brutally threw his troops at them in their millions. Again situation reversed, no one was going to beat Russia.

What i meant, and what i should have written was "No one would have stopped the Blitz in its first showing" eg, No one had a chance against it until they learnt combined arms. I just posted a fast post and didnt realise it would be picked apart, thats why i wrote "kicked ass" instead of details...

Even at the end of the war, when people knew what to expect and when the German Airforce had been wrecked by RAF at the battle of Britain and their best soldiers were trying to hold back Russia. Even then the Blitzkrieg was a force to be reckoned with. Just look at the battle of the bulge, with more numbers and logistics it would have had a greater success!!
As ot he firstbolded comment, this is simply not true. First, if you go into Russia and you don't go prepared for the winter you're an idiot. Period. Second, the Germans were prepared for the winter as shown by their prolonged winter siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg). Also, the turning point of the war on the eastern front was Stalingrad where Russian forces outmaneuvered the Germans. also if you look at the numbers, the soviets had the highest casualties, but the Germans had their highest casualties on the eastern front. My point is the battle of the bulge, and all other events on the western front were nothing compared to what happened on the eastern front. The Americans only stepped into WWII after the Germans were losing ground and the soviets were winning, and they only stepped in to make sure that western Europe didn't fall to communism (and it is a good thing that it didn't). Also, with improved numbers and improved logistics, any military campaign can be made a great success. The reasons the Germans didn't have this is because they were busy getting hammered by the soviets in the east. The fact is though, the western front and all conflicts on the western front were nothing compared to what happened on the eastern front. Look up the German casualties on the eastern front and the soviet casualties, compare them to allied casualties on the western front and German casualties on the western front. Numbers show that the war was decided on the east.

Regardless, even if what you said about the eastern front was true (which it isn't from a technological standpoint either, as in the second half of the war the soviets had the T-34 tank (superior to the panzer) and the best artillery of the day at their backs.), at least the Russians dug in and fought it out. The french didn't even try. They surrendered.

As to the comment about the American civil war, the French did secure a faster end to the war for the Americans. However, by the time of meaningful french intervention the war had already turned in the Americans favor (see: Battle of Kings and battle of cowpens). Therefore, your earlier statement of "Just remember Americans, France won you your independance pretty much. :P" is just not true. The french helped end the war faster, but it was the Americans that facilitated their own victory.

I'd say this is more a comment on the AI than the French. I've seen the Mongols do almost the same thing as you're showing us here.

I've also seen the Americans build Oxford university in a city that was almost completely desert and had no appreciable tech income... I should wrangle up that saved game and start a thread entitled "See how stupid the Americans are" ;)

Doesn't add anything relevant to the discussion or give any justice as to what the point of the thread is, but hey I guess we can forgive.:rolleyes:

Doesn't add anything relevant to the discussion or give any justice as to what the point of the thread is, but hey I guess we can forgive.:rolleyes:

Well, it's obvious from everyone elses' benign reaction that I'm the only one who had this concern, eh?

As for not adding anything to it, I prefaced my complaints with a statement that I'd seen the Mongols do something like this before, and therefore it was more likely a comment on the AI than the French in particular. That is A) adding something relevant (it's the AI, not the French), B) giving justice to what the point of the thread was (discussing circumstances under which the phenomenon the thread creator was concerned appeared, specifically ones he did not mention).

you guys are saying that the french are bad at wars, well its the exact opposite. there the best at wars.
1)medieval age they attacked and conquered the holy romen empire (medieval germany)
2)Napoleon conquered most of europe and is known as the greatest military leader of all time with genghis khan alexandrer and ceaser
3)world war 1. they suffered tons of casulties and they fought till the end and ended up winning. their aircraft dominated
4)ww2. so they did surrender but that was only because there army was stationed at the franco-german border and the germans went through belgium and attacked france and that is how they lost.
and to people who dont know history the french actually had a bigger army than germany. and when the brits and americans liberated france in 1944 france ended up building a massive army and conquiring 1/5 of germany. (brits conquered 1/5 same with americans and russians conquered 2/5)
5) and lastly modern france. a prosperous modern thriving nation which has the second strongest economy and army and population in europe.(behind uk)
and the most amount of land in europe(not counting russia)
6)also france is the country with the highest tourism and they helped us build the panama canal. they gave us the statue of liberty and of course they helped america win their independence.
id say there the greatest country out their right now.

Although I dont think France was terrible at wars, your entire post is full of holes

you guys are saying that the french are bad at wars, well its the exact opposite. there the best at wars.
1)medieval age they attacked and conquered the holy romen empire (medieval germany)
France had never conquered the Holy Roman Empire in the Medieval Era
2)Napoleon conquered most of europe and is known as the greatest military leader of all time with genghis khan alexandrer and ceaser
Agreed, however, take in mind that the French Continetal Empire collasped with his defeat
3)world war 1. they suffered tons of casulties and they fought till the end and ended up winning. their aircraft dominated
Agreed, but it was the British tight grip on German shipping that push Germany to the brink on destruction. France sat in a hole in a mud and although heroic defended France, made a stupid mistake of sending its navy to bombard Neutral Greece instead using it to fight Germany
4)ww2. so they did surrender but that was only because there army was stationed at the franco-german border and the germans went through belgium and attacked france and that is how they lost. (Yes, we know how France lost humiliatingly in WWII because they were too naive to expect an attack from belgium)
and to people who dont know history the french actually had a bigger army than germany. and when the brits and americans liberated france in 1944 france ended up building a massive army and conquiring 1/5 of germany. (brits conquered 1/5 same with americans and russians conquered 2/5)(wrong wrong and wrong, France did not conquer 1/5 of Germany, It was given to be first occupied by France and it was only 1/4) and that was also when the War was about to end under the MAIN strenght of the Russians, Americans and Brits
5) and lastly modern france. a prosperous modern thriving nation which has the second strongest economy and army and population in europe.(behind uk)
and the most amount of land in europe(not counting russia)Wrong again, Aside from Russia, It has the Third strongest economy in Europe, third largest population, and ukraine has more land
6)also france is the country with the highest tourism and they helped us build the panama canal. they gave us the statue of liberty and of course they helped america win their independence. No the French tried to make the Panama Canal but then failed, the americans took the project 40 years later
id say there the greatest country out their right now.
That is subjective

Although I dont think France was terrible at wars, your entire post is full of holes


That is subjective

France has more land than ukraine. it has a bunch of overseas territories that doubles its mainland size and yes it is the 2nd biggest economy.

They did conquer 1/5 of germany. once they got liberated they became a world power and attacked germany. Need proof, play hearts of iron doomsday, a game made by historiansit also says that indeed france conquered holy roman empire. you might need to read up on your history

While I agree in general with the statement "French are not terrible at wars!!" I would disagree on several points. First of all "No one could stop it" referring to the German Blitz is just plain false. The Russian stopped it. And drove it back. The main reason people criticize the French in world war II is because the Maginot line demonstrated EPIC amounts of failure in terms of comprehending military strategy of the day (of which, as someone else mentioned, they had prior warning from De Gaulle). As for "the French kicked ass in world war 1. Especially their fighters." Fighters, especially french fighters did not play a defining role in world war I. They were used for scouting and taking down enemy scout planes. And if any fighters did "kick ass" in word war I, it was the German fighters (see: red baron). As for french kicking ass in general in world war I, they "kicked ass" as much as anyone else did in that war; which is to say, not really. Both sides lost huge amounts of troops in pointless charges against entrenched foes. Lastly, France did not win the Americans their war of independence. they helped toward the very very very end when the brits were loosing. While it is true they did help, they mainly did it to spite the brits. They never risked anything, the brits simply got tired of fighting American tenacity. The french accelerated this process, but not by that much.

Bah! What BS! The colonists didn't stand a chance on their own. The French, Spanish and Dutch saved their hides! As for "they helped toward the very very very end when the brits were loosing," that is ridiculous. The French were waiting till the Americans won at least one decent victory before they decided to help. And that was in 1778, and Britain didn't start "losing" till 1781. Also, before the French joined, the Americans had 1 musket for every 12 soldiers! Ben Franklin even suggested that they equip militiamen with longbows, they were so desperate! The supplied huge amounts of weapons, and their navy made many a battle so much as possible by holding off the British long enough for American-French forces to get in position. To say they hardly accelerated the process is the lie of the century.

France has more land than ukraine. it has a bunch of overseas territories that doubles its mainland size and yes it is the 2nd biggest economy.

They did conquer 1/5 of germany. once they got liberated they became a world power and attacked germany. Need proof, play hearts of iron doomsday, a game made by historiansit also says that indeed france conquered holy roman empire. you might need to read up on your history

:rolleyes: When did a video game about the Soviet Union starting a nuclear war become a reliable Historic reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_military_history#Middle_Ages
Show me here where it says "France Conquered the HRE". It your talking about the Carolingian Empire then your still wrong since the Caroligans height that emcompasses from modern France to Germany was in 843 and the formation of the HRE was in 962.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bizone
4 zones of occupation of Germany.

Redo your math, it doesnt double French Land and also, people dont really count French overseas terrotries as part of Mertopolitan France but if you say it that way then yes, France with its Overseas Non-European terrotries are the largest country in Europe.

And no France is the third largest economy. After Germany and Uk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

Hey try this marvellous thing called Wikipedia! It gives you facts!

I feel I should reinstate that the point of this thread isn't to batter the French or to argue that the French rocked, but that the thread title was merely a bad joke. It was really just AI stupidity..

The German blitz was immense groundbreaking stuff. No one could stop it, there was the British Expeditionary force helping too. As said previously the French kicked some ass in world war 1. Especially with their fighters.



people always seem to forget this point

The german tactics at the time were way ahead of what everyone else was doing, no one before them had figured that instead of spreading your tanks among the infantry, it was better to mass them and punch through enemy lines and make havoc behind their lines

if it wasnt for the english channel, and vastness and weather of Russia, the results in France would have been repeated.

As ot he firstbolded comment, this is simply not true. First, if you go into Russia and you don't go prepared for the winter you're an idiot. Period. Second, the Germans were prepared for the winter as shown by their prolonged winter siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg). .


this is inaccurate, Hitler really believed that the war with Russia would be over in months (the poor performance of the soviet troops during the winter war with Finland being one of the reasons) consequently German troops on the intital invasion of the Soviet Union were not properly equipped for cold weather

the immense size of soviet union also stretched german supply lines to the limit, not to mention allowed the soviets to completely evacuate practiaclly their entire war industry out of range of german bombers behind the ural mountains

they also got a huge boost for lend-lease, millions upon millions of dollars of US equipment, especially trucks, allowed them to concentrate on making weapons

the soviets did do the brunt of the fighting against germany and killed more germans then any other ally in the war, but dont overstate it, at one point german troops were less then 40 kilometers from moscow, it was a close fight

as the dumb AI happened to be french I couldn't miss out on it, could I?
Well, let it be recorded that as the company who developped the game and the AI is American, the AI didn't happened to be French. It was an American AI. :p

Wow glad some people agree with me. I think its an interesting discussion. Most people forget while Britain was fighting in America she had a full scale awar on with France and Spain who both did their best to make sure America split from Britian thus weakening her.

As for the Germans being prepared for the war in Russia :eek: this is one of the most famous points in world war II.

The fact they fell to the same fate as Napolean by not being equiped because they thought they would roll through them quickly as said by Philo_Beddoe is what makes that campaign amazing.

Their tanks froze solid because they were overengineered. Their soldiers had to steal clothes from dead to try to keep warm. They burnt their fuel to try to stay warm. The guage of the train tracks in Russia was different so they had to adapt to this slowing logistics. It was a nightmare, combined by the Russian policy of slash and burn as they retreated as they had done against Napolean.

As for the T34 being better then german tanks this is wrong again. German tanks were the best in the war. They just didnt have the capacity to make enough. They were better than both the sherman and t34. The difference being there were 3 or 4 of each for each german tank. So they had little or no chance. The beauty of the Sherman and T34 was that they were simple, and easy to mass produce, German tanks, like all german engineering, were overengineered perfection, and too hard to make.

As for the T34 being better then german tanks this is wrong again. German tanks were the best in the war. They just didnt have the capacity to make enough. They were better than both the sherman and t34. The difference being there were 3 or 4 of each for each german tank. So they had little or no chance. The beauty of the Sherman and T34 was that they were simple, and easy to mass produce, German tanks, like all german engineering, were overengineered perfection, and too hard to make.
Actually, the German PvIII and IV were not better than the T34. It's only when the new Panthers and Tiger arrived that the Germans got the upper hand again

:rolleyes: When did a video game about the Soviet Union starting a nuclear war become a reliable Historic reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_military_history#Middle_Ages
Show me here where it says "France Conquered the HRE". It your talking about the Carolingian Empire then your still wrong since the Caroligans height that emcompasses from modern France to Germany was in 843 and the formation of the HRE was in 962.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bizone
4 zones of occupation of Germany.

Redo your math, it doesnt double French Land and also, people dont really count French overseas terrotries as part of Mertopolitan France but if you say it that way then yes, France with its Overseas Non-European terrotries are the largest country in Europe.

And no France is the third largest economy. After Germany and Uk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

Hey try this marvellous thing called Wikipedia! It gives you facts!

well apparently france did conquer some of germany according to your site. for the rest of it. you can never trust wiki because they can let an 7 year old enter his history project as a page on wiki. there is no security.


I feel I should reinstate that the point of this thread isn't to batter the French or to argue that the French rocked, but that the thread title was merely a bad joke. It was really just AI stupidity..


if were not trying to batter the french then maybe this thread name should be changed to see how stupid the AI are at war.

As for the T34 being better then german tanks this is wrong again. German tanks were the best in the war. They just didnt have the capacity to make enough. They were better than both the sherman and t34. The difference being there were 3 or 4 of each for each german tank. So they had little or no chance. The beauty of the Sherman and T34 was that they were simple, and easy to mass produce, German tanks, like all german engineering, were overengineered perfection, and too hard to make.

This is only partially true, the T-34 was actually superiour to the anything the germans had at the time of its appearance (panzer III's and IV's), it was the T-34 that prompted the development of the more powerful Panthar (panzer V) and tiger (panzer VI) tanks.

The Panther was a direct response to the Soviet T-34. First encountered on 23 June 1941, the T-34 decisively outclassed the existing Panzer IV and Panzer III. At the insistence of General Heinz Guderian a team was dispatched to the Eastern Front to assess the T-34.

For anyone interested in intelligent discussion of France's defeat in World War II from a primary source, read Strange Defeat by Marc Bloc.

I cannot stress the importance of that message, that's probably the most intelligent thing that has been said here. I think his name is actually Marc Bloch. He also wrote a book about the agrarian history of France, revealing just how awesome the development of agricultural methods and agricultural land was in France.

As for people really believe that France always surrenders and is crap at war, well, too bad for you.

4)ww2. so they did surrender but that was only because there army was stationed at the franco-german border and the germans went through belgium and attacked france and that is how they lost.and to people who dont know history the french actually had a bigger army than germany. and when the brits and americans liberated france in 1944 france ended up building a massive army and conquiring 1/5 of germany. (brits conquered 1/5 same with americans and russians conquered 2/5)



Anyone ever played Risk...I won a lot of Drunken Games at University using this strategy :D but I also lost a lot of games too :) Having your weeker territories Defended by only 1 army and Border territories defended by 10-15 armys....sure at your turn you still possess Island/England and Ukrain but you lose the iner territories

Ukrain is not week :)

Aftershafter:
.
I think this is more of a shot at the french since in both WWs they basically surrendered right away

That's absolute rubbish. The French fought extremely bravely in the First World War and lost two million men while the Americans were sitting on their butts, profiteering on war loans and weapons sales.

the soviets did do the brunt of the fighting against germany and killed more germans then any other ally in the war, but dont overstate it, at one point german troops were less then 40 kilometers from moscow, it was a close fight

Not really... If Moscow had fallen, the Soviets whould have continued the fight from the rest of their vast territory.

The Germans (and it wasn't just Hitler, it also applies to the German High Command) underestimated Russian resilience and the sheer size of the country. And never forget that the Soviets accounted for 90% (ninety per cent) of all German losses in the Second World War.

Curious how a post about AI stupidity turns into a full-blown historical debate...not that it isn't entertaining :p

Curious how a post about AI stupidity turns into a full-blown historical debate...not that it isn't entertaining :p

You think that's bad? Get a picture of Shaka, Mansa Musa, Zara, or Darius doing something really dumb and call it "Look at how stupid those people with dark skin are!"... I don't think the qualm is so much with the laughing at the AI as wording it as laughing at a particular group.

Especially true, given American racist hipocrisy. Criticizing dark-skinned people is a bigoted no-no, whereas one can badmouth the French anywhere and anytime and not be looked down upon for it.

Especially true, given American racist hipocrisy. Criticizing dark-skinned people is a bigoted no-no, whereas one can badmouth the French anywhere and anytime and not be looked down upon for it.

It's not just an American thing. In Canada, we like to think of ourselves as nice people. Those nasty Americans had slaves and were racist! FOR SHAME! We would never do anything like that! We're nice Canadians! Oh what the hell, an aboriginal crossing the street? DRIVE FASTER!

Ya, extreme, I know. But it's essentially true. So many of us are champions of peace and acceptance, but when it comes to aboriginals... I've heard some truly heinous things come out of people's mouths here.

Not really... If Moscow had fallen, the Soviets whould have continued the fight from the rest of their vast territory.

The Germans (and it wasn't just Hitler, it also applies to the German High Command) underestimated Russian resilience and the sheer size of the country. And never forget that the Soviets accounted for 90% (ninety per cent) of all German losses in the Second World War.

Yeah but in a centralized planned economy like the Soviet Union was, the loss of Moscow and all of its government functions would have been devastating.

They Soviets would have undoubtedly carried on, but loosing Moscow could have turned the tide for them for the worse.

Moscow was an easily the Soviets most important city.

Originally Posted by PotatoOverdose

the Germans were prepared for the winter as shown by their prolonged winter siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg).

Not really, this only shows they were capable of improvising winter equipment and tactics against outnumbered and encircled enemy, while they failed miserably to do so at Moscow, where they faced fresh (meaning: not tired:rolleyes:), experienced and well-equipped siberian units (moved from Far East right in time) combined with untrained and desperate draft-soldiers, used as meat shields by soviet HQ. Winter alone would be only a drawback in German plans, the real blow was scorched - earth tactics, death penalty for Soviet soldier for practically anything than dying in trenches (including special units with machineguns at the rear as "motivators" and sending "traitor's"/"coward's"/whatever family to gulag as a "bonus") and... Japan. "Tokugawa" simply chose to attack another "worst enemy", leaving Hitler high and dry despite their sooo embraced "defence pact";)

Originally Posted by PotatoOverdose
My point is the battle of the bulge, and all other events on the western front were nothing compared to what happened on the eastern front. The Americans only stepped into WWII after the Germans were losing ground

Indeed. Yet even simple fact that UK was still there forced Germans to leave significant amount of units in the Western and Southern Europe; more so, every tank sent with Rommel to Africa, every worker diverted from making tanks to making subs meant also diminishing power in the eastern front. In fact the moment Allies started their operations around Italy, Hitler ordered to withdraw bulk of air force from the battle of damn KURSK, though, frankly, there was little chance of success at that point anyway. Finally after Overlord it's easy to see how much simplier it was to Stalin's forces. Don't be fooled by lone numbers of produced tanks or cannons - even after Stalingrad USSR army was stretched far to thin, with so many hands needed in industry drafting could be mostly issued in to-be-liberated lands, and this liberating was greatly supported by vast, VAST amounts of allied aid and their increasing activity in other fronts.

Originally Posted by PotatoOverdose
in the second half of the war the soviets had the T-34 tank

Well, T-34 was around in both parts of war - in the first it was clearly the best tank, including probably all possible viewpoints; in the second - numbers, better engine and being prepared for almost all-kind of terrain did the trick. And we didn't even start talking about IS monsters, even Tiger crews were advised to ambush those and try to shoot in the sides/back - "Sherman deja-vu" anyone?:D

Originally Posted by PotatoOverdose
at least the Russians dug in and fought it out. The french didn't even try. They surrendered.

This is in my opinion the best point in entire off-topic thread

Originally Posted by PotatoOverdose
First of all "No one could stop it" referring to the German Blitz is just plain false. The Russian stopped it. And drove it back.

Oh, well, we can only guess those who developed blitzkrieg thought that after driving crazy amount of miles into enemy territory (dunno three, four times as France?:lol:), humiliating and throwing in dissarray entire army, taking, devastating or freezing for the time of transfer over 60% of industry, laying siege of the most important (economically) city and threatening political capital, making enemy leader leave at other borders little more than a Warrior with Archer, war would be finally over :rotfl: At least France required far less effort, Poland and SHS, even Norway were taken in far more preferable conditions... I.E. at Kursk Germans broke through heavily dug-in troops, their tanks fought successfully against insane odds (when often single soldiers or DOGS could take them out jumping from trenches and using explosives :spear: ), and they eventually lost only because after those heavily dug-in troops were... another lines of heavily dug-in troops, and after them - Soviet reserves and whole armoured armies, not to mention German attack was sufficiently described by Soviet intelligence months earlier. It's not the point blitzkrieg was stopped, neither - it was stopped by impossible odds - it simply wasn't some kind of uber-tactics, which could be applied anywhere. We can easily say though, that when it was used PROPERLY and with prerequisites, it worked magic and it hasn't been stopped:king:

Originally Posted by PotatoOverdose
The main reason people criticize the French in world war II is because the Maginot line demonstrated EPIC amounts of failure in terms of comprehending military strategy of the day (of which, as someone else mentioned, they had prior warning from De Gaulle).

This is very kind way of saying the truth, maybe even too kind. Not only they had De Gaulle's warnings - they had firsthand experience from Poland, hell, they had all possible tactical information since Polish army has reemerged in their territory along with government. They had over 8 months since they entered the war - and did practically nothing. They had bigger army than Germans, they had even more tanks, with significant number of superior models! Let us not forget support of well-equipped BEF (British Expeditionary Force) along with RAF and both powerful fleets, dwarfing anything Germany could send in. Believe it or not, but they even got German attack plans from different and independent sources:cry: ...

And to correct some minor issue - in BOTH wars French had all information possible saying Germany will attack through Belgium. In 1914th they totally ignored it and escaped Sedan-like annihillation only thanks to bravery of Belgium, BEF, one intelligent army commander in right place and Russia - Tzar actually threw his best and most experienced soldiers to death far before they could mobilise whole army and Germans, to simplify it, took the bait. All this memorable fighting spirit France had then would mean totally nothing otherwise... In 1940th they actually decided to enter Belgium, (leaving Maginot Line as it should be - as a protection from being flanked) but did it so "well" that Mannstein cut through Ardennes and got large part of their army in a sack. Even so, they had still vast amount of troops and equipment to put in decent fight, but they failed in so pitiful way, that some bright points could be shown only in single units performance:mad: SHS has been attacked from three sides in 1941, by far more superior enemy and with half-mobilised army - and they've still shown more spirit than French, so-called world power of those times

Originally Posted by PhiloBeddoe
This is only partially true, the T-34 was actually superiour to the anything the germans had at the time of its appearance (panzer III's and IV's), it was the T-34 that prompted the development of the more powerful Panthar (panzer V) and tiger (panzer VI) tanks.

I might add that Panther was so heavily "updated", that it could hardly be a comparative model for T-34, because it would make "heavy tank to medium tank" dispute. In the end Soviet Union got more mobile, less dependent on roads and easier to learn/handle armoured force - Germans actually have never got decent medium tank, apart from late PIV models, though they used them often in western front, since late T-34 were clearly outmatching those (but despite that, allied troops had some Tiger-fetish and saw them everywhere:rolleyes:)


Originally Posted by Churchill25

France has more land than ukraine. it has a bunch of overseas territories that doubles its mainland size and yes it is the 2nd biggest economy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Outre-mer_en.png

Huh... i hope we are not counting Pacific's water as land and claimed part of Antarctic as part of country. After all Germans actually threw number of swasticas all over the place during WWII and, strangely, nobody cared:lol:

Originally Posted by Churchill25
They did conquer 1/5 of germany. once they got liberated they became a world power and attacked germany.

That's the first time i hear being liberated meant becoming world power for France:lol: As for their war effort as "Free French" - please...:cry: Some memorable stands in Libya and Italy, but hardly of "world power" significance, they even preferred bulk of their fleet to be sinked by British/themselves than to let it fight Germans. This "conquer" of 1/5 Germany was in fact a petty bargain made by De Gaulle, who was never tired of threatening that "insulting French pride" will mysteriously make France turn over to communism:mad: He used the very same BS to drag US into Vietnam, when his alleged "world power" desperately needed... ammo, transport and air support to reinstate French colonial rule there with soooo heroic results:cry: Though US have only themselves to blame they believed his **** enough to send their own troops eventually:crazyeye: And after this what? Sues blamage? Algieryan fiasco? Oh, riiight, they have nukes... and so Pakistan, and so Israel, and so what??

...and don't you even get me started with using "HRE" term... like France fought HRE as a political entity, heck, like HRE fought ANYONE, standing together as a political entity... no, wait, Bouvines?... too bad they fought against Imperator of scraps of the Empire with next to none internal/church support and with opponents breathing down his neck...but hoooray, French won...

Originally Posted by dragodon64

The supplied huge amounts of weapons, and their navy made many a battle so much as possible by holding off the British long enough for American-French forces to get in position. To say they hardly accelerated the process is the lie of the century.

Hey, every nation has it's own "Original Lie", don't be so hard on them:D You should hear about Polish claims of defeating Julius Caesar, made around 13th century and repeated for quite some time:goodjob:

Originally Posted by PhiloBeddoe

Yeah but in a centralized planned economy like the Soviet Union was, the loss of Moscow and all of its government functions would have been devastating.
They Soviets would have undoubtedly carried on, but loosing Moscow could have turned the tide for them for the worse.

Point is the Moscow has been taken number of times before and in the end it always became some motivation for the defenders. As for economy - Soviets have proven capable of moving industry over and over again, in fact they evacuated most of institutions from Moscow before real battle began there. I agree though, even taking it burned would mean at least getting communication point of strategic importance - not to mention finally cutting last serious lend-lease railway from northern shores. But seeing Soviet Union survive countless blows during 1941th and still functioning makes me question you:) The whole point of this genocidal system was to make a nation an obedient and selfless machine, ready for any sacrifice - once you break so many ppl, it's hard to imagine losing Moscow would made them suddenly switch into "give me liberty or give me death" mode - especially when Germans offered them slow extermination in case of winning:nuke:


...i can't believe after months and months of reading i registered to post in "The Greatest Off-Topic of All-Times", go ahead and call me crazy...

You know, your "France surrendered immediately, Russia dug in and fought back" point would have a LITTLE more credibility if not for the pesky things known as fact :

Soviet Union : Roughly twenty millions square kilometers
France : Roughly five hundred thousand kilometers.

Soviet Union (1941) : 196 millions inhabitants
France (1939) : 41 millions inhabitants
Germany (1939) : 76 millions inhabitants.

Trying to compare how France faced the blitzkrieg with how Russia faced it is just utter male cow feces. Russia had the land and population to fight a tactical withdrawal combined with a war of attrition. France, no.

You know, your "France surrendered immediately, Russia dug in and fought back" point would have a LITTLE more credibility if not for the pesky things known as fact :

Soviet Union : Roughly twenty millions square kilometers
France : Roughly five hundred thousand kilometers.

Soviet Union (1941) : 196 millions inhabitants
France (1939) : 41 millions inhabitants
Germany (1939) : 76 millions inhabitants.

Trying to compare how France faced the blitzkrieg with how Russia faced it is just utter male cow feces. Russia had the land and population to fight a tactical withdrawal combined with a war of attrition. France, no.

The whoooole point is France didn't have to make a "tactical retreat" or "war of attrition", it would be more than enough to use their force with a mere glimpse of determination. For Pete's sake, they were considered world power then - and like i see even now by some... They had fairly amount of modern equipment and bigger army than Germans (nope, this potential of 76 millions doesn't matter in blitzkrieg itself, when you actually TRY to broke it; and think about adding colonial population, as Germans had none and French actually drafted many troops this way). See above about British, who actually fought there too.

and why Soviets had to apply this tactics?

For almost 20,000 tanks Soviets had in service, many were outdated, many more with completely inexperienced crews, literally running them into trees, even more without parts and supply. France had more tanks, some of them even better, and more capable crews & organization. Most of Soviet air force were caught unprepared and destroyed on airfields, including deaths of countless able pilots, Luftwaffe dominated the air for years. No possibility of strategical surprise in France because of 8 months of war, not to mention RAF presence, nor planes of their own, comparable to German. Elite of USSR officer's cadre was exterminated during Great Purge, leving army with rather green successors. France was known from it's military experts and advisors in many countries, and it's officer's core was solid. Stalin ignored every bit of information and as sole dictator he decided to ignore German threat even after war started, leading to destruction of tens of armies. France has been a republic, operating on totally different level of decisions and war plans making, they even tried to response to German plans, but both how they interpretated information and execution of operation speak for itself. Surely, in war space is only one of many factors? While Soviets had rather worthless Siberia and lowly populated deserts filling most of those numbers, France had huge colonial empire, with developed military bases, munition storages and whole economic support for war; Brits once again are coming to mind... And you need time to make use of demographic advantage. Note, that losing densely populated land to Germany right in the beginning of war crippled much of Soviet advantage on this field, their industry was less mechanized too, so required more workforce. France lost the whole war in time Germans used to merely move beyond Belarus later...

Withdrawal? You can't beat blitzkrieg with mere withdrawal, because the whole idea of blitzkrieg is to constantly cut off, get to rear areas and supply lines, cut off, desorganize incoming reinforcements, cut off etc... so even you finally withdraw to Moscow, you can easily wake with no initial border forces left, just like Soviets did - when you don't have mobile force at disposal, you have to establish solid defence in the deep and fed off panzer spearheads to buy yourself some time. Then it's a matter of choice and your capabilities to whether outmaneuver or soak defence line with more troops and weapons. After Ardennes breakthrough French had that choice - either to exploit a growing empty space between German tanks and infantry or establish defence on one of many large French rivers. They tried first (most notably - Frankforce, but also many useless counterattacks involving letting lone divisions to the slaughter), they tried second - both times failed, with growing numbers of soldiers in disarray and totally demoralised. Soviet troops, spreading in retreat, surrendering in millions, weren't even expecting war and hated their old regime, French were HAVING it for 8 months and can't say about similar level of dissent, not to mention all this boasting like "war will be over in months" you can find in related sources, press and memories. And so it was over in less than 40 days! How come De Gaulle's forces could resist so fiercely, along with Scottish 51st, not to mention other countries while bulk of French army just melted in days? Do you want to say that it was like "Oooh, we can't retreat more than 1000km, this is so wrong, we already lost!". Strangely, even in horrors of WWI, it took both Verdun and Somma to create some meaningful dissent in French ranks... And humiliating capitulation? With large fleet, vast colonies, almost HALF OF THE COUNTRY still in their hands? Good thing no one told Brits they have only few cities to retreat into i.e. in Africa, war could be far more ugly with Suez and Iraq lost...

Just to reply to someone who stated the French did nothing in the air, in
WW1. They actually developed the first reliable fighter plane, flown by all
the Allies: The Nieuport 17.
And have a look at the top 4 air aces of WW1, by confirmed kills:
1) Manfred von Richtofen (Germany) -80 kills
2) Rene Fonck (France) -75 kills
3) Mick Mannon (Anglo-Irish) -73 kills
4) Billy Bishop (Canadian) -72 kills
and of course,
Eddy Rickenbaker (U.S.A.) - 27 kills
(not in the top 20)
My little contribution, just to put things in perspective.;)

I was going to post something long here, but I think I can sum it up by: I find some of the posts here ungraceful in their length at trying to discredit a country's effort. What's the point? Go try to prove your point in a forum where people actually have the time and the will to prove you wrong, like here http://www.ww2f.com/ I dunno.

Can we go back to discussing AI?

I was going to post something long here, but I think I can sum it up by: I find some of the posts here ungraceful in their length at trying to discredit a country's effort. What's the point? Go try to prove your point in a forum where people actually have the time and the will to prove you wrong, like here http://www.ww2f.com/ I dunno.

Heh, and i wasn't going to post at all, but the discussion that interested me developed here, not anywhere else, so it seems "those ppl" were already in place:p (and if u don't need examples, then consider lenght related to magnitude:rolleyes::lol:)

Can we go back to discussing AI?

Funny thing is, even this original screenshot had little to do with AI, since if Alexander doesn't want to give open borders, he simply won't give it and in short term only a war could change it;) I saw AI liberating continental cities, but for some reason it had hardly anything to do with borders, not to mention it happened... once or twice in dozens of games. Besides, seeing how hard is to get a city from AI, this might be somehow connected and simply blocked with "never" instead "if... then" - and "never" fits more to "A" than "I":)

French Military History Part

I think it was an Armchair General that I read awhile back, maybe some other magazine, but the author of the article analyzed the French tactics of the last hundred and fifty years, and drew some interesting conclusions.

Emperor Louis Napoleon of France lost to Bismarck's armies during the Wars of German Unification in the early 1870's. At that time, the French believed their tactics had been too conservative. French generals decided to revive the spirit of the original Napoleon and train their officers to be more aggressive, and their men to love the bayonet charge. They refocused their strategy around attack, not defense.

And then WW1 rolls around, and unfortunately, the weapons of war have changed. The introduction of modern artillery and machine guns mow down thousands upon thousands of French troops ordered into foolish assaults by generals trained to do just that: attack, attack, and attack. The large loss of life in WW2 causes the French to again rethink their strategy, and this time they chose the opposite end of the spectrum: they believed the time of offensive war was coming to a nadir, and switched towards favoring long defensive lines with more static guns, and dispersing their tanks as infantry support vehicles for defense instead of concentrating them for offense.

Again, the French were shown to be wrong. WW2, with the introduction of tanks and aircraft (okay...so these technically existed towards the end of WW1, but I'm talking about effective tanks and aircraft, not the slow, vulnerable, prone-to-failure beta versions you saw in 1917), changed the scope of warfare again to the offense. And again, the French simply had the wrong strategy--their defensive lines were circumvented, and their country sacked.

I find people quick to criticize the Maginot line, but when you ask why they built it, they tend to not have a decent answer besides accusing the French of being mentally retarded. The answer is that they were using their experiences in a previous war as a guide for future conflicts. The author's final conclusion was that the French were always a war behind in military tactics. If anything, it wasn't a lack of material, technology, people, etc., but rather a lack of foreseeing how those new materials and technologies would affect strategy.



Well, that's really all I'm posting. I haven't seen any crazy AI behavior like this, but I feel so jealous that somebody had a useful vassal and not some worthless arctic rump state like I typically end up with.

French Military History Part

The large loss of life in WW1 causes the French to again rethink their strategy,

To some extent, French were able to reform their strategy even during WW1 itself, same about uniforms, artillery, or simple fact that not only standing army soldiers were actually able to fight in this new war. One of the reason they survived were those adapting skills their HQ had. Verdun was in fact a contradiction of their offensive doctrine. Sadly, they didn't show so much elasticity during WWII - though there were both time and loud voices of reason from their own officers.

I find people quick to criticize the Maginot line, but when you ask why they built it, they tend to not have a decent answer besides accusing the French of being mentally retarded.

Same here, I've seen "Maginot Line Bashing" as rather quick, cheap and overused trick in many discussions. The joke is, it was neither as useless nor retarded as it's being constantly claimed to be:crazyeye: Bottom line, even if we consider it strategically obsolete, it could still be strategically used, at very least providing information: "they won't attack us there" ;)

...hmm, i even think there could be some fun with in-game feature, expanding "fortification warfare" to the point of building some Maginot-cousin:rolleyes: we could at least test it's alleged retardation in "practice":) it could give AI with it's constant turtling or those behind techrace helping hand, or at least some fingers

dude you went to town on page 3 haha.

and yeah okay they didnt surrender in ww1 but by saying they lost the most people means they don't suck at war? You would think they would realize what happens when u run guys straight into a machine gun. England did. America did?

And in WW2, come on guys. Napoleon? He had his days but stay out of Russia man. Waterloo (city in Iowa) baby

they lost the most people

But... they haven't lost the most ppl :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

...i have my doubts about Wiki, but this one's been done right - Germany and Russia were first in military casualties, then was France and right after her - Austria - Hungary.

You would think they would realize what happens when u run guys straight into a machine gun.

See one post above, I won't be quoting myself, that's just wrong:D One sentence became kinda famous back then though - "I'm waiting for tanks and Americans":rolleyes:

OK lets take this thread to its source.
The reason why Americans on this board don't like the French and believe this fantasy is because GWB decided that he needed someone to blame for the world not wanting to slaughter hundreds of thousands in an illegal war in Iraq. Since the French were right about it all along, and since the Americans have lost most of the wars they have been in since WW2 it really is a bit much, isn't it?
By the way in case you were thinking that the US acted well in WW1 and WW2 I suggest you consider why the US Republican Party and the public resisted entering both wars until a few years has passed while their "allies" struggled. They were more interested in profiteering that helping their friends.

Perhaps the French were giving you some of your own medicine.

Yeah but in a centralized planned economy like the Soviet Union was, the loss of Moscow and all of its government functions would have been devastating.

They Soviets would have undoubtedly carried on, but loosing Moscow could have turned the tide for them for the worse.

Moscow was an easily the Soviets most important city.

Agreed, but all the Soviet government departments evacuated Moscow when the Germans approached the city. So did most of the leaders, the most notable exception being Stalin. Though I have no doubt he would also have got out of the city in time if it had fallen. Anyway, the whole central government, complete with archives and lower functionaries, would have set up shop further east if Moscow had fallen. As it was, they all had to take the train back, with their archives, after the German assault stalled. And don't forgot that the German were near the end of the tether when they sighted Moscow. They had killed or captured millions of Russians, but they still had underestimated the importance of the sheer size of the country, and of the huge population.

Just to prevent misunderstandings, let me say that I do not think Stalin was a good man. And when it comes to his performance as a war leader, for the three first days after the German senak attack he seems to have been competely stunned and unable to do or say antyhing. He did not even go on air to hold one of his usual speeches. But then he rallied, and, perhaps more importantly, so did Russia.

A final note: Thanks to Richard Sorge, a German journalist living in Tokyo who was actually a Soviet agent, the Russians learned that Japan had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union even though it was kept busy by Germany. Acting on that information, the Soviets transferred most of the well-equipped, rested and relatively well-officered Siberian regiments to the west. They came in very handy... Incidentally, Sorge had also warned the Russians that the Germans meant to attack, but Stalin refused to believe it. Sorge must be regarded as the most successful spy in the Second World War. I can't help wondering why he is not included in the game as a Great Spy. How on earth is it possible to include failed terrorists like Guy Fawkes and Thomas Babington but not Sorge? And I am almost sure Klaus Fuchs isn't included either, though he was a good deal more efficient than the Rosenbergs.

dude you went to town on page 3 haha.

and yeah okay they didnt surrender in ww1 but by saying they lost the most people means they don't suck at war? You would think they would realize what happens when u run guys straight into a machine gun. England did. America did?

And in WW2, come on guys. Napoleon? He had his days but stay out of Russia man. Waterloo (city in Iowa) baby

England did not realize what happens when one sends massed men against machine guns. They committed exactly the same mistake. So, in fact, did the Germans. The difference between Britain and France is that by the time the British had mobilized a proper army to replace their little Expeditionary Force (all professional soldiers, and mostly dead by then), the French had already lost huge numbers of men fighting practically alone against an enemy which was more numerous. As for the Americans, they didn't join the fighting until late in 1917, and by then, even the most retarded general would have realized that massed attacks against enemies entrenched with machine guns behind barbed wire was not a good idea. (A few who refused to accept it because they would then have to admit their incompetece were retired or transferred to other posts. One of them was Douglas Haig, head of the British forces in France. Another was Erich von Falkenhayn, the man responsible for the disaster at Verdun, which he mistakenly thought would bleed France to death; in fact, though the French losses were horrific, the German ones were even larger.)

Your comment about Napoleon indicates that you are one of those incurable France-bashers. Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So let me ask you: Where has America shown military brilliance lately? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Oh, wait - Grenada, of course. What an achievement.

By the way, why isn't there any barbed wire in Civ? Could be fun - for the defending civ, that is.

I would have thought Blake would have worked on the AI's logic a bit more in this. I had problems like this in Warlords, Shaka was my worst enemy, but he grabbed a Greek City (everybody was taking their shots on poor Alexander). Shaka then moved basically his entire offensive military into that city (like 30 units and while he still had an open path to it, he moved additional reserves from his homeland), despite the fact I was playing Pangea and his nation was way on the other side of planet. My culture ultimately surrounded the city, and I was forced to park a bunch of troops in case it got dicey there (my culture couldn't eat the city, with all the guys he had there). What really bugged me, was I don't think I ever opened borders with Shaka, may be I did, but once he got rifling, he upgraded every single stinking guy there.

I really wish there was a bit more of a raze the city logic, or to gift that city away, clearly it was a waste to park a major chunk of his military in a worthless city. Or in that case, without an open border or even a single plot for the city to work, why can't the city automatically revolt or starve to death?


Your comment about Napoleon indicates that you are one of those incurable France-bashers. Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So let me ask you: Where has America shown military brilliance lately? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Oh, wait - Grenada, of course. What an achievement.

So, by your own logic, you would call yourself an incurable American basher? :rolleyes:

And in WW2, come on guys. Napoleon? He had his days but stay out of Russia man. Waterloo (city in Iowa) baby

Would it be crass of me to point out that Waterloo is in Belgium, and the battle there occurred more than two years after Napoleon left Russia?

Point is the Moscow has been taken number of times before and in the end it always became some motivation for the defenders. As for economy - Soviets have proven capable of moving industry over and over again, in fact they evacuated most of institutions from Moscow before real battle began there. I agree though, even taking it burned would mean at least getting communication point of strategic importance - not to mention finally cutting last serious lend-lease railway from northern shores. But seeing Soviet Union survive countless blows during 1941th and still functioning makes me question you:) The whole point of this genocidal system was to make a nation an obedient and selfless machine, ready for any sacrifice - once you break so many ppl, it's hard to imagine losing Moscow would made them suddenly switch into "give me liberty or give me death" mode - especially when Germans offered them slow extermination in case of winning:nuke:


There also was a little matter called patriotism. Even Russians who detested Communism did not want the Nazipigs to take over the country and enslave them. Stalin exploited the surge of national feeling, and there is a reason why the German-Russian war of 1941-45 has always been known as "the Great Patriotic War" in Russia, from the time of Stalin to this day.

So, by your own logic, you would call yourself an incurable American basher? :rolleyes:

No. I'm simply explaining why the American France-bashing crowd should put a sock in it. Get it now?

No. I'm simply explaining why the American France-bashing crowd should put a sock in it. Get it now?

Telling people to "put a sock in it" while turning around and feeding the flames by nation-bashing is not even close to being the best way of going about it.

Random observations:
---------------------

1. In general, it is easier to amend/improve an inadequate Wiki entry than to convince people with vague whining about Wiki.

2. Napoleon was a Corsican.

3. Most German officers were against Hitler's plan for Russia, that campaign doesn't prove their incompetence.

4. Most Americans who dislike the French do so for reasons unrelated to Republicans. Examples: the Vichy treatment of the Jews, as well as the lack of gratitude towards Americans after WWI, WWII, French Indochina, etc.

5. WWII: The French are certainly on the hook for defaulting on their treaty obligations to the Polish. Also, many people don't know that when the Germans attacked through Belgium, there was already a declared war for quite some time between Germany & France (it wasn't like Pearl Harbor), so the Maginot error is less excusable. Many people do know that the French & British policy at the time is called "appeasement." Ooooops, wrong policy.... that bit of cowardice turned out to be costly.

Random observations:
---------------------

1. In general, it is easier to amend/improve an inadequate Wiki entry than to convince people with vague whining about Wiki.

2. Napoleon was a Corsican.

3. Most German officers were against Hitler's plan for Russia, that campaign doesn't prove their incompetence.

4. Most Americans who dislike the French do so for reasons unrelated to Republicans. Examples: the Vichy treatment of the Jews, as well as the lack of gratitude towards Americans after WWI, WWII, French Indochina, etc.

5. WWII: The French are certainly on the hook for defaulting on their treaty obligations to the Polish. Also, many people don't know that when the Germans attacked through Belgium, there was already a declared war for quite some time between Germany & France (it wasn't like Pearl Harbor), so the Maginot error is less excusable. Many people do know that the French & British policy at the time is called "appeasement." Ooooops, wrong policy.... that bit of cowardice turned out to be costly.

2. What of it? His troops were French.

3. Most German officers (including the German general Staff) were convinced that they would conquer Russian in three months. It's a matter of record. Of course, after the war they tried to blame it all on Hitler.

4. The France-bashing only started after France's refusal to give the green light to the invasion of Iraq, so frankly, I think you are mistaken here. And what's the whining about "French ingratitude towards America after Indochina"? What do you claim that America did with regard to Indochina that the French should have been grateful about?

5. The Americans cheered the Munich appeasement wildly at the time. I can't be bothered to counter the rest of your ill-informed claims. All you have to offer is the standard "Rah rah America roolz and we won both world wars on our own" rubbish.

Telling people to "put a sock in it" while turning around and feeding the flames by nation-bashing is not even close to being the best way of going about it.

This discussion has nothing more to give. I'm heading out of it, but first I can't help noting that you obviously didn't mind all the wild flaming of France one little bit. It was only when the fire moved to the subject of America that you started to take an interest. That is known as hypocrisy.

2. Napoleon was a Corsican.

And that's make him French, as France bought Corsica to Genoa 3 years before Napoleon's birth, to be sure he would be born French.


4. as well as the lack of gratitude towards Americans after WWI, WWII, French Indochina, etc.

Wrong. Because of what the American governments make the American people believe is a lack of gratitude.


5. WWII: The French are certainly on the hook for defaulting on their treaty obligations to the Polish.

Germany attacked Poland the 1st. France declared war the 3rd of September 1939. Same as the United Kingdom.

According to the Franco-Polish military convention, the French Army was to start preparations for the major offensive three days after the mobilisation started. The French forces were to effectively gain control over the area between the French border and the German lines and to probe the German defences. On the 15th day of the mobilisation (that is on September 16), the French Army was to start a full scale assault on Germany

A French offensive in the Rhine river valley area (Saar Offensive) started on September 7, but at the time France not fully mobilize yet, and intelligence made them believe the Germans had more troups than they really had, and it was necessary to continue mobilization to carry on the offensive.

Russia attacked Poland the 17.

So, the Allied were then faced with the choice to DOW on Russia to...

The German blitzkrieg was simply to fast. According to the Franco Polish plan, the French were to attack the 16, and USSR attacked the 17. At the time, the Anglo-French

The problem with Polish expectations was that the French and British commitments greatly exaggerated their capabilities. Although France promptly declared war, the French mobilization was not complete until early October, by which time Poland had fallen. In Britain where mobilization was more rapid, only 1 in 40 men were mobilized (compared to 1 in 10 in France, and 1 in 20 in Poland), thus providing only a token force against Germany's forces of several million. The presumption that "something could have been done but wasn't" overlooks the basic fact that the West, just like Poland, was ill-equipped to fight Germany even with the majority of German forces engaged in the east.

So the French didn't really default on their obligation, but the mobilization was poorly organized and to slow to make a difference, before it was to late.

You can continue arguing, saying that "you should have seen it coming", bu I'll remind you that all the countries that faced the German new tactics were quickly crushed, until they learn how to fight. The French army in 1944 is completly different from the French army in 1940. Same for the British. Or the Russian.

And if you insist of being better prepared, I could just quote a city councellor, who after a building was destroyed by a fire, said "the fire equipment should always be tested the day before a fire start".



Also, many people don't know that when the Germans attacked through Belgium, there was already a declared war for quite some time between Germany & France (it wasn't like Pearl Harbor), so the Maginot error is less excusable. Many people do know that the French & British policy at the time is called "appeasement."
Appeasement was before September 1939.

In 1940, France send her best troops in Belgium to meet the Germans. The problem wasn't Germany going through Belgium, it was Germany going through the Ardennes, an hilly wooded area that was considered (wrongly) impassable by tanks, and thus allowing the Germans to cut the supply lines.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/1940-Fall_Gelb.jpg

I can also remind you that the French had 90,000 and 200,000 wounded during the 6 weeks of the battle of France.

I wonder how they got killed if there was no fighting. Friendly fire from the British?

I'm also quite fed up with the people who keep singling France out, "booh! They lost against the Germans in 1940", when all the other countries who faced the German ground forces were initially beaten, including the UK and the USSR... And the Americans who had a lot of difficulty during the Tunisian campaing (has did the other allies).

UK was saved by the channel. USSR by the size of the Russian plains. America was never threatened home and had time to build an army, and develop winning tactics in "secondary" front such as North Africa...

France had none of this luxury.

I wonder too why everybody's supposed to be so "grateful" for America's
help in the world wars.
In WW1, they were 3 years late and only took part after U.S. maritime
shipping was attacked by German U-boats. The material aid was pretty
significant though and helped shorten the war. Except that it wasn't aid.
It had to be paid for! And American troops only took part in the closing months
of the war when the tide had already turned.

In WW2, they waited another 2 years before Germany declared war on them
as part of their defence pact with Japan. Lend-lease, of course, supplied
Britain in its darkest hour, but it wasn't aid either! Britain only finished paying
off it's lend-lease loans a couple of years ago. Of course everybody knows
and appreciates American losses in WW2, but you didn't just do us a favour.
It was your war too, a World War against tyranny, wasn't it?

So, a bit less of this "But they're not grateful" crap, OK? Just try to be on
time for once, if we have to do it again!;) :)

I don't think I ever opened borders with Shaka, may be I did, but once he got rifling, he upgraded every single stinking guy there.

There's one thing that could justify his struggling with lone city. Maybe Shaka - being worst enemy - considered a little DoW on you?:) Surely it's better to have a starting point deep inside enemy territory than being forced to fight for border cities

Originaly posted by Öjevind Lång

Stalin exploited the surge of national feeling, and there is a reason why the German-Russian war of 1941-45 has always been known as "the Great Patriotic War" in Russia, from the time of Stalin to this day.

True, communists even shook hands with church for the time being - after decades of endless repressions. This makes me think why can't we use some similar internal "reconciliation" whed facing a grave danger. Switching to Police state, Nationhood and Teocracy doesn't really feel like such total mobilisation Stalin facilitated/at least helped facilitate - those civics won't give you a penalty when war is over:rolleyes: .

4. What do you claim that America did with regard to Indochina that the French should have been grateful about?

They dragged US in providing them transport, weapons, supply and support needed to retake Indochina from it's people; amazingly, soon it was considered almost "Allies agenda". Roosevelt refused, but after he died De Gaulle was quick to blackmail his successors... As they proudly called it "French mission to civilise", their rule left all those nations in worse state than they were before... But French dream of Empire was sustained for almost 10 years - it's really hard to see this while Vietnam subject is present everywhere in US-context:crazyeye: Maybe because it's easier to operate with contradictions US-France, while level of arrogance and failures is/was/will be kinda similar...

Or in short - they should be grateful for US for being the only one "failed-in-Vietnam" target in most bashing-rolls:dubious:

Originaly posted by Lerxt

The reason why Americans on this board don't like the French and believe this fantasy is because GWB decided that he needed someone to blame

Oh great, this is just as pointless as screaming "France sux". If u accuse anyone of being GWB's internet acolyte, it has nothing to do with argument - it's just guessing someone's motivation. And it doesn't really matter whether it's more or less holy when it comes to proving/disproving any point.

Besides, i don't like company you put me into when i criticise France:lol:

(...) why the US Republican Party and the public resisted entering both wars until a few years has passed while their "allies" struggled. They were more interested in profiteering that helping their friends.

In WWI ? How exactly would you be explaining to the public that "US have to take anyone's side and send men to their deaths"? There was no Hitler back then and despite some obvious atrocities, it's not so easy to point out Big Badass in this war. Especially when every American could simply ask "why do i have to pay/die to help expand UK empire? or those French arogants? Why can't we just watch this divided and crazy Europe finally settle down with someone strong?" And in WWII? It was hard to believe in the level of genocide Germans were commiting on the other side of Atlantic. It always is - and there were pictures and written reports against German propaganda. Besides, imagine this: "We are going to war with those heinous Germans and their Axis of Evil, because they're murdering their own citizens, building WMD and stirring unrest in their region" - now about proofs... uh oh, deja-vu anyone?... You know how hard is to convince the public - doesn't really matter if u lie, tell the truth, or just follow wishful thinking:rolleyes:

You just beat me to it. Read my previous post.
As to your idea the the French blackmailed the U.S into supplying them
in Indochina, try reading a little history. It was the U.S. that bribed the
French to fight the Communists for them. The French lost. Just like the
U.S. lost, 20 years later. Just to prove Marx's saying;

"Yes, history does repeat itself, first as tragedy, second as farce"

And BTW, the next time one of your leaders wants to level some poor
country in pursuit of his paranoid fantasies, we'll tell him,

"Don't call us, we'll call you.";) :p

According to the Franco-Polish military convention(...)

Hmm I'm pretty sure decision to "let it go", taken at 12th September by both HQs was nothing near "according to convention", especially it was way before 17th;)

A French offensive in the Rhine river valley area (Saar Offensive) started on September 7, but at the time France not fully mobilize yet, and intelligence made them believe the Germans had more troups than they really had

Hard to blame everything on bad intelligence, when they got firsthand reports about quantity of German units in Poland. Then it was a matter of simple math and observations - no air presence, no armoured units in the West etc. Besides, it was still powerful French standing army vs second rate German divisions hiding in would-be Siegfred Line - how was waiting for major German force more reasonable than hitting weaker enemy in heavily industrialised area and sending freshly mobilised units to the organised front rather than against panzer spearheads along already broken defense line later? But i guess we're sailing deep into What-Ifs-Ocean right now;)

There's one little point about mobilisation though. Late August, when it was all coming down, French and UK governments pressured Poland into cancelling it's ongoing mobilisation, despite German forces taking their starting positions and even attacking through the borders due to mixed orders. It's another big question, how it was even possible to not only be caught with pants down, but also to make so naive mistakes in the eve of war.

The French army in 1944 is completly different from the French army in 1940. Same for the British. Or the Russian.

Truth is, we don't have possibility to compare, because Germans didn't attack any new country after 1942 in blitzkrieg manner. Therefore it's left to guess how this better organisation and tactics of Allies would have mattered in other cases than "having massive air, land, sea and material leverage":rolleyes:. Though Ardennes'44 might give us some hint:)

In 1940, France send her best troops in Belgium to meet the Germans.

Rather too late though - of course we are left to debate this rather diplomatic than military debacle which allowed Germans to take so many important points in Belgium right in the beginning. Also this love for Maginot really harmed French effort after Dunkirk - it led to haiving vaguely overextended front rather than withdrawal when it actually could've helped for a change.

The problem wasn't Germany going through Belgium, it was Germany going through the Ardennes, an hilly wooded area that was considered (wrongly) impassable by tanks, and thus allowing the Germans to cut the supply lines.

This German attack plan was, to say the least, foolhardy and met with fierce opposition inside HQ. They eventually drove deep with tanks, but they also became vulnerable, when cut off from infantry and supply. Any initiative exploiting this growing gap would have the potential of reversing situation an leaving panzers stranded. There was none when it mattered. I wasn't pointing at mechanics of French defeat - i was asking for initiative of breaking enemy plans instead merely learning about them in isolated HQ. And something more than sending lone armoured divisions without any support. Ha, i was even asking how come so many French troops became so well informed to decide they were outnumbered and there is no point. And i'm talking about every unit outside Belgium.

I can also remind you that the French had 90,000 and 200,000 wounded during the 6 weeks of the battle of France.

1,900,000 captured gives somewhat other perspective. It also shows how mere number can be manipulated:p

USSR (was saved) by the size of the Russian plains

I was hoping this "size matters not" sentence had larger impact;) Vast space helped, climate helped, bad road network helped. Soldiers and determination decided.

Damn, i'm so happy i finished, and after submitting i see another post:lol:

try reading a little history. It was the U.S. that bribed the French to fight the Communists for them. The French lost. Just like the U.S. lost, 20 years later.

Now i'm quoting De Gaulle for you:D

"If you are against us in Indochina" this would cause "terrific disappointment in France". (...) "We do not want to become Communists... but i hope you do not push us into it" - all said to US Ambassador after it became clear White House is not exactly overenthusiastic about restoring colonial order.

Now tell me who's bribing who:goodjob:

On the other hand, all this "communist threat" had little to do concerning Ho in French times. He was even less obedient to Kremlin/China than in sixties. It took quite a lot of De Gaulle & Dulles (and raging McCarthy in the back) time to create all those self-delusions.

My ha'penny's worth.

The men ran at the guns in WWI because they had a naive chivalric confidence in their Generals, ALL of whom were raised and trained on Marching Squares and Cavalry Flanking strategies. NONE of them had any idea what mechanization had done to warfare. They all should've looked at the trenches of the American Civil War, but none of those European generals were competent enough to consider that war as the first "modern" one.

The French capitulated in WWII so quickly because their airforce chiefs and pilots had been wined and dined by the Luftwaffe for 5 years, growing to understand that German air superiority in terms of technology was so advanced they knew they'd lose an air war. The Germans overlooked the British like they did in WWI, with the same consequence. The Nazi's were particularly good at propaganda and they knew a large chunk of the French military just did not want to go through 4 years of hell again. Add a sizable Vichy mentality and a dash of Lightning War, and you have the French Capitulation.

I'm waiting for the British War Records of 1940 to be published. They might shed some light on why the Panzers stopped for 2 days outside of Dunkirk, letting the British (and many French) escape! Not due out til 2040. I wonder why. My personal bet is in the British Armistice negotiations with Hitler, Churchill drew the line at giving India to the Japanese!

What was this thread about again?

I was hoping this "size matters not" sentence had larger impact;) Vast space helped, climate helped, bad road network helped. Soldiers and determination decided.
Yes, but Soldiers and determination decided, once the Russians had enough time to recover.


And i'm talking about every unit outside Belgium.
What do you mean by that? A good part of the army was still figthing when the armistice was signed. In the Alps for instance.

Yes, but Soldiers and determination decided, once the Russians had enough time to recover.

ah, well, hmm... too hard to argue with this one while trying to refrain from using "ifs" :rolleyes::lol:

...on the other hand, i think this one will do: plenty of time you're talking about was bought thanks to extensive guerilla warfare behind moving frontline. Actually not even guerilla - even while millions fled/died/switched sides hoping to fight regime, many of regular, encircled Soviet units refused to surrender even without hope of being relieved. So many and so numerous, it required large part of German infantry to deal with them while panzers were spearheading and then waiting for them and supply, blocked by enemy at the rear. This wouldn't work in Low Countries, but size of France's territory was another matter; last tme i checked, French didn't exactly hate their government back then

What do you mean by that? A good part of the army was still figthing when the armistice was signed. In the Alps for instance.

1,900,000 captured. Those at Dunkirk were evacuated - at least big part of them. As for the Alps i had quite a funny moment when i accidentaly read about it not so long ago...

(quoting Wiki this time instead elaborating)

Italian losses (Alps 1940th):
1,247 dead or missing,
2,631 wounded,
2,151 hospitalized due to frostbite:wow:

Actually German progress from 17th (willingness to negotiate announced) to 25th (signed) is astounding. But then, this one can be at least explained - not every soldier will have the will to fight when HQ is saying something very similar to "aahhh, it's over..."



I'm waiting for the British War Records of 1940 to be published. They might shed some light on why the Panzers stopped for 2 days outside of Dunkirk, letting the British (and many French) escape! Not due out til 2040. I wonder why. My personal bet is in the British Armistice negotiations with Hitler, Churchill drew the line at giving India to the Japanese!

You're not the only one waiting, good thing i might have a chance to live to this moment:shifty:

Right now there's plenty of half-answers explaining Wehrmacht's move like "Hitler wanting to save his panzers for battle in the south" or "need for time to resupply and reorganize before finishing France" or "France desperately needs time - take it from them now, don't waste it at Dunkirk". But then again let us think in Civ terms - enemy offers a deal right before his best forces are crushed. Would any of us trust enemy - especially as mischievous as Brits were in Hitler's eyes - and let them go (only to meet them in later war upgraded) rather than finish them off and then negotiate?:)

What was this thread about again?
beats me, too far to go back:lol:

I wonder too why everybody's supposed to be so "grateful" for America's
help in the world wars.
In WW1, they were 3 years late and only took part after U.S. maritime
shipping was attacked by German U-boats. The material aid was pretty
significant though and helped shorten the war. Except that it wasn't aid.
It had to be paid for! And American troops only took part in the closing months
of the war when the tide had already turned.

In WW2, they waited another 2 years before Germany declared war on them
as part of their defence pact with Japan. Lend-lease, of course, supplied
Britain in its darkest hour, but it wasn't aid either! Britain only finished paying
off it's lend-lease loans a couple of years ago. Of course everybody knows
and appreciates American losses in WW2, but you didn't just do us a favour.
It was your war too, a World War against tyranny, wasn't it?

So, a bit less of this "But they're not grateful" crap, OK? Just try to be on
time for once, if we have to do it again!;) :)

The fact is, without that war material, I don't believe the Allied side would have won in either war. Yes, the material came at some price, but whining because you didn't get free tanks and planes doesn't make much sense to me either.



On the subject of the world wars, one of my old professors said they were won by American factories and by Russian blood. Although that is a great oversimplification, it does highlight those two important factors in each war. Germany, in both wars, had to fight against two fronts, and especially in WW2 the Eastern Front was a very bloody conflict.

On the subject of the world wars, one of my old professors said they were won by American factories and by Russian blood. Although that is a great oversimplification, it does highlight those two important factors in each war. Germany, in both wars, had to fight against two fronts, and especially in WW2 the Eastern Front was a very bloody conflict.
That's probably very true for WWII. The French army after reorganization was almost entirely equipped with American hardware, and the Russians lose a tremendous amount of men to achieve victory.

That's less true in WWI.

Here is the casualties for WWI: Population (million), Death (million), % of population, and then % of population excluding civilian casualties.

France: 39.6 ; 1.7 ; 4.3 % ; 3.5 %
UK : 45.4, 1.0 : 2.2 % ; 1.8 %
Russia: 158.9 ; 3.3 ; 2.1% ; 1.13 %
USA: 92 ; 0.1 ; 0.1 % ; 0.1 %

Germany : 64.6 ; 2.5; 3.7 % ; 3.1 %

France, with almost only 1/4 of Russia population, suffered almost as many military casualties.

So I think WWI was won more with French blood that Russian blood (at least proportionnally, in absolute is in favour of Russia).

I also think it's easy for Americans to criticize France, when
a) They had only 100k casualties, almost all military, during WWI and had no destruction at home
b) France lost 4% of its population, had the North and East severly damaged during 4 yours.

When you had such a slaughter 20 years before, it's not so easy to say "let's start again!"

Now, I'd like some of the expert in American military to explain what the Americans did in the Philippines facing the Japanese.

Didn't you withdrew back to the safety of good olf America? To come back later?

I can see a little parallel between that and France being beaten in 1940, but still there in 1944-45.

Now, I'd like some of the expert in American military to explain what the Americans did in the Philippines facing the Japanese.

Didn't you withdrew back to the safety of good olf America? To come back later?

I thought they fought isolated for almost 5 months and surrendered leaving some guerillas:crazyeye: In more general terms - US switched it's focus to Germany and reaped what they saw in Pacific.

though i admit, after all this writing i might be missing :sarcasm:



Two loose thoughts about "memories of war".

1. After 20 years, most of drafted soldiers wouldn't even remember anything, as they weren't able to fight back then.

2. Let us take those numbers and destruction back to Germans and their will to fight all over again. I admit, not good enough, let us take those to Russia then. Entire country collapsed directly because of WWI, horrors of civil war following, then millions starved to death, then "reformed" to death during The Purge. And only some part of population knew what Germans are preparing for them after conquest, in the eyes of the rest only master would change, why die for any then?

The fact is, without that war material, I don't believe the Allied side would have won in either war. Yes, the material came at some price, but whining because you didn't get free tanks and planes doesn't make much sense to me either.



On the subject of the world wars, one of my old professors said they were won by American factories and by Russian blood. Although that is a great oversimplification, it does highlight those two important factors in each war. Germany, in both wars, had to fight against two fronts, and especially in WW2 the Eastern Front was a very bloody conflict.

I wouldn't dispute the material contribution made by America and largely
agree with your quote about U.S. factories and Russian blood, however
much a generalisation it is. It's a pity more Americans don't view it in that
context. I doubt that it came soon enough in WW1 but was crucial in WW2.

And I wouldn't show anything but respect for the human sacrifice made
by Americans in fighting two enemies far from their own shores. As long
as they show some respect for the human, physical and economic cost
to Europeans who had to endure over 5 years of war and destruction
literally in their own homes.

I think what irks Europeans the most is being required to show "gratitude"
for this important American contribution and sacrifice by being expected to
support U.S. Governments unconditionally in whatever crass and bullying action
they might take. Support for America after 9/11 was unconditional.
Support for dangerous U.S. neo -cons and religious cranks is not.
Respect for America does not mean automatic agreement with everything
she says or does.
Surely any intelligent American will spot the difference, won't they?:)

b) France lost 4% of its population, had the North and East severly damaged during 4 yours.


You know, I'd never thought of it in those terms. This means that probably more than 10% of the population of the entire country lost brothers and sons and friends and continued fighting. Compare this to the chutzpah of today's brave (or so they're so willing to think and constantly boast in the face of relatively inconsequential losses) industrialized nations, which start to quibble and withdraw in the face of a fraction of a percentile of losses that affect them directly.

I can't believe in all this not one person as said anything about the war in the pacific have any of you tried realize that America was fighting two wars at the same time on two separate fronts, I have a relative that fought in the pacific and he told me emphatically that him and most of his friends couldn't care what happened to europe all they wanted was revenge on japan, however wrong that may be, but there is no possible way to compare these two wars in any way.

The truth is that millions of people die, both axis and allied, and the terrible truth is that all nations committed unbelievable atrocities against humanity; the Germans= the holocaust, torcher and abuse against the Russian people, ; Americans= Japanese interment camps, fire bombing major Japanese cities killing millions more than the A-Bombs ever did; France= be-headings and revenge crimes against the German people; and I what personal believe is worse than all other combined Stalin and his treatment of his own people.

All this is why this argument is mute, and will not end till all of you accept that all are wrong to some degree and have made mistakes, I'm an American and proud of it, but even I know that history is written the victors and forgotten by the defeated, remembered by a few.

You know, I'd never thought of it in those terms. This means that probably more than 10% of the population of the entire country lost brothers and sons and friends and continued fighting.
In every French cities and village you have a "Monument aux morts", with the names of all the people who died during WWI, WWII, and also Indochina or Algeria, although WWI is the biggest list.

Just as a comparison... You have to imagine that America lost 4 millions people during WWI, and that all the North East states have been bombarded during 4 years and turned into a big messy and muddy area.

We still find from time to time unexploded bombs from this time period when making some public works.

Yes, the Americans saved us in the end, and we are grateful for that. What I find disturbing is the fact the same Americans do not realize the sacrifice we did in the first place.

Do you realize that, in WWII, during the battle of France in alone, the French army suffered more casualties than the Americans during the whole war?

Ortwhat the French in Vietnam lost 1.5 more people than the Americans did?

I don't want to debate if it means French or Americans are better at war, but I'm angry when people simply ignore the loss of lifes we suffered.

Americans want us to respect their contribution to the war. We do. We have cemeteries full of white crosses in Normandy. For every year since I can remember, every June, "the longest Day" is aired on French television. D-Day anniversary is celebrated every year. But so is the 11th of November.

We respect the sacrifice and blood of the American soldiers who died during the war. But we would respect you even more if instead of making and propagating this stupid French bashing you'd start respecting our own deads.

Your people have my sympathy, and my respect, but I'm not American so I can't help you there.

I think what irks Europeans the most is being required to show "gratitude"
for this important American contribution and sacrifice by being expected to
support U.S. Governments unconditionally in whatever crass and bullying action
they might take. Support for America after 9/11 was unconditional.
Support for dangerous U.S. neo -cons and religious cranks is not.
Respect for America does not mean automatic agreement with everything
she says or does.
Surely any intelligent American will spot the difference, won't they?:)

I never said anything about supporting neocons or "religious cranks"--I hate them probably on a deeper level than many here. I'm just trying to set the picture straight for some of the "bashers" from before.

Wrong. Because of what the American governments make the American people believe is a lack of gratitude.

Many of the people I know who are irritated over this lack of gratitude issue have experienced it during tourism.

The problem with Polish expectations was that the French and British commitments greatly exaggerated their capabilities. Although France promptly declared war, the French mobilization was not complete until early October, by which time Poland had fallen. In Britain where mobilization was more rapid, only 1 in 40 men were mobilized (compared to 1 in 10 in France, and 1 in 20 in Poland), thus providing only a token force against Germany's forces of several million. The presumption that "something could have been done but wasn't" overlooks the basic fact that the West, just like Poland, was ill-equipped to fight Germany even with the majority of German forces engaged in the east.

So the French didn't really default on their obligation, but the mobilization was poorly organized and to slow to make a difference, before it was to late.


Steph,

Thank you for your great reply, it helped me learn a lot and your version seems pretty crisp.

I think where you say "Polish expectations" you are glossing over that it was also a problem with the French (and British) promises.

I did know in general that French forces had entered Germany, but my criticism is about the size of the invasion... if France had genuinely fielded a Stack of Doom in western Germany, the attack through Belgium would be less effective and vulnerable to having its supply lines cut. Even the Maginot would be then serving a useful purpose of a supply depot!

I admit that this Stack of Doom may not have been possible, I am not prepared with any evidence on that subject. However, the cynical side of me believes that no nation would admit "we're defaulting on our treaty" -- wouldn't the official position always be "oh yes, we'll be right there just as soon as we tidy up this pesky mobilization problem we're having"?

I am not saying France should've seen the technique Blitzkrieg coming or anything like that. But Blitzkrieg is an offensive technique, so an invading France would (by luck) avoid the worst of it.

4. The France-bashing only started after France's refusal to give the green light to the invasion of Iraq, so frankly, I think you are mistaken here.

No, that's not true. I've been an American my whole life and I can state that we've always enjoyed needling the smug cheese-eating surrender monkees (at least for my 37 years). :)

No, that's not true. I've been an American my whole life and I can state that we've always enjoyed needling the smug cheese-eating surrender monkees (at least for my 37 years). :)

So your proble