Another opinion on France as an Ally

Joao Paulo Figueira

Right! The Germans apparently have developped a complete avoidance for war and, as far as I can tell, they couldn't care less about Portugal. I believe that the French would not fight for Portugal, although the contrary has happened in the past. Remember the La Lys battle of WWI? How many Portuguese were lost fighting in the trenches against Germany?

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: This man/woman is true about the european capacities of strategical transport. Each time european forces have to move they have to lend Antonovs to the russians. That's why several powers of the EU have decided to build a military version of an Airbus, the A400M, which should give to Europe an independant strategical transport force. You completely missed the point my friend, the man was stating that the Portugese people could not depend on France (or Germany) for help. When the chip are down, you can depend on the US as an Ally. THAT was the point not theAirbus A400M. Leave it to the Europeans to look into the money angle. KaЯl wrote: even if they loose their independance in the process Yeah the US has taken over sooooo many countries. I think your mising the mark by more than a little. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

João Paulo Figueira wrote: Reliance on foreign military help seems to be a vital need. You're right, so what about building an european army? We are big enough to protect ourselves, without having to ask to the US to play the big brother! I thought it was the way followed by Portugal, after the buy of 3 A400M. BTW, do you see any threat of invasion? Which country could invade you?

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

KaRl

João Paulo Figueira wrote: The Germans apparently have developped a complete avoidance for war Thanks God. They were pretty good, perhaps the best at this game. João Paulo Figueira wrote: How many Portuguese were lost fighting in the trenches against Germany? Total troops : 56.493 men (3.446 officers) Deads : 2.096 men (79 officers) Wounded : 5.224 men (256 officers) Captured: 6.948 men (270 officers) "Incapazes do serviço" : 7.279 men (439 officers) To be honest, why were these soldiers here, to help France or because of the "special relationship" between Portugal and UK? Weren't the portuguese divisions incorporated in the british lines, between two british divisions? So, I would say Portugal sends troops to help UK, not France, even if it was at this time the same thing. :rose:

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

KaRl

As long as it's not proven by facts, his thought is definitly a supposition. Jason Henderson wrote: In a heartbeat If it lasts as long as the time the US took to help UK after the invasion of Falklands, it must be the heartbeat of a dead man ;P Jason Henderson wrote: Where would France and Germany be Perhaps the invaders? It wouldn't be the first time... But I think we have changed, and won't annoy our neighbourgs anymore.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Jason Henderson

KaЯl wrote: If it lasts as long as the time the US took to help UK after the invasion of Falklands, it must be the heartbeat of a dead man I don't think the UK had any problems with the Falklands. US role in the Falklands[^] KaЯl wrote: But I think we have changed, and won't annoy our neighbourgs anymore. We'll see.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

KaRl

And France, and UK, could depend on the US in the past perhaps? Where were these so-reliable Allies in August 1914 or September 1939? (I can twist history too ;P) Doug Goulden wrote: Yeah the US has taken over sooooo many countries. I think your mising the mark by more than a little. By independance I mean in this context an independant foreign policy. If a country can't protect itself, I don't see how it could face a potential conflict caused by its policy. So it has for only choice to have no independant foreign policy, and follows blindly its protector. For me Independance is not sharable, somebody is independant, or is not.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: And France, and UK, could depend on the US in the past perhaps? Where were these so-reliable Allies in August 1914 or September 1939? (I can twist history too ) I think that if you look at history, especially the US's isolationism before both World Wars, you can see that the US's policy didn't work. Are you suggesting that we should be isolationists now? Seems that Europe only wants us to get involved when it suits their purposes.... We can't isolate ourselves anymore using a couple of oceans. I think you could even argue that GWB has changed policy since 9/11, he did make the comment we shouldn't be the World' policemen, but come to find out we can't depend on anyone else to take care of us. BTW.... Is that Karl Marx?;);P;) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Thanks for the link, it's confirming my previous message :) "America, which angered the Thatcher government with its initially even-handed approach to the conflict, was believed to have provided little more than intelligence once Washington lost patience with the Argentinians." How long did it take to the US to loose patience? A little bit more than a heartbeat, isn't it ? :) It's astonishing to see how UK was so close of a defeat. Just 105 enhanced sidewinders made the difference, according to the adviser to the former prime minister.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Jason Henderson

From your sig: KaЯl wrote: I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons At least we fought. ;)

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: you can see that the US's policy didn't work. Are you suggesting that we should be isolationists now On the contrary, I wish the US would listen a little bit more to what others could say without starting a dogfight. Doug Goulden wrote: Is that Karl Marx Nope, just a desire for originality from my parents :) But definitively a sign of the european integration: Giving a german first name to a child was unthinkable in France before the 60's.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

KaRl

Right. And each time I can I visit the US military cemetaries to commune with myself, as I do for the british and the french (and now the german ones, but WW1 only, I'm not strong enough to pray for a SS). Your quote is wierd too. Do you know Gandhi is the symbol of absolute non-violence :) ?

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

KaRl

He! your voter/fan is back :laugh:

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: On the contrary, I wish the US would listen a little bit more to what others could say without starting a dogfight So the US should follow the French lead ..... BTW where was France before Hitler marched over the Maginot line, like while he was rearming and helping Franco? Maybe you can help remind me about how the French managed to handle that so well ;P Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Jason Henderson

KaЯl wrote: Your quote is wierd too. Do you know Gandhi is the symbol of absolute non-violence ? Yes, I know. I don't necessarily agree that violence is never the answer in political matters. The quote is a statement I agree with. We influence those around us whether we like to admit it or not.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

KaRl

Your choice was good, the quote is excellent.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Doug Goulden

Think it was for asking if you were a Marxist or because of my comment?:-D Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Joao Paulo Figueira

KaЯl wrote: You're right, so what about building an european army? Do you believe that? An European army? Speaking in which language? Esperanto? KaЯl wrote: BTW, do you see any threat of invasion? No, of course not! KaЯl wrote: Which country could invade you? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Spain? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Even they are not that crazy... KaЯl wrote: I thought it was the way followed by Portugal, after the buy of 3 A400M. It seems that the defence minister dropped it. Maybe he'll buy from Lockeed-Martin, I suppose.

KaRl

If you want a course of french history, I would be delighted to explain you how it really happened :) In the 30's France was really torn in two parts: a nationalistic one, with a fascist component, and a socialist one, with a communist component. In 1934, we were pretty close of a fascist coup (6 February 1934), people were killed in the streets of Paris. In 1936, by reaction, a new majority formed for the first time a left government, the "Front Populaire" alliance of the socialists and the communists. A new period of troubles began, with the higher social class fearing a nationalisation of all its properties, and terrified by the communists. And then comes the Spanish War. Both parts of the country identified itself with a spanish opponent. In this context, the socialist prime minister didn't take the risk of a civil war, and preferred not to intervene directly in the conflict. A few planes were sold to the spanish Republic, some weapons too, some french engaged in the International Brigades, but no official military intervention was made. That's for the spanish war. The role of France as European power had greatly declined in the 20's, facing a anglo-american front protecting Germany, and affraid of a French power on the Rhine. The occupation of the Ruhr by the French and Belgian troops in 1923 was a political disaster, and forced France to align itself diplomatically on UK. In fact, France became the "brilliant second", as the UK is now the one of the US. Having no possibility to intervene alone against Germany, a country with a population and an economy twice bigger than the french ones, the succeeding governments were "obliged" to follow the appeasement policy of Lord Chamberlain. That's for the foreign policy of France with Germany. About the disaster of May 1940, IMHO the main responsibles are the military chiefs of this time, the generals. They were not the only ones to fail, no one in Europe resisted to the Blitzkrieg, at least when Germany had all its power. The french strategy and tactics were, as all the other western countries, totally outdated by the new revolutionnary german military doctrin. In August/September 1914, it was a miracle France could resist to the german invasion. But as this time the Germans walked and used horses. With the motorisation, they were much faster, and the miracle didn't happen again. 120 000 french soldiers were killed during these 6 weeks, the same loss rates than during WW1. The sad thing is that all the elements of the Blitzkrieg were predi

KaRl

There's already an http://www.eurocorps.org/site/ec_anim.html Eurocorps, so it must be possible. :) João Paulo Figueira wrote: Even they are not that crazy... I visited once your country and it may be really beautiful. People are pleasant and seem to often speak french, as if everybody has a member of the family who immigrated to France :)

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons