Political Crossfire Forums

[mendosan]

Quote: This sacrifice of the French soldiers fighting Hitler is totally forgotten. It seems incredible when the number of French soldiers killed on the
battlefield these few weeks more than equals the number of American soldiers killed on the WW2 battlefields thereafter.

But that's cos the French soldiers achieved little, they were of minimal use during the rest of the war History dosn't tend to remember losers as much as winners.

Quote: battlefield these few weeks more than equals the number of American soldiers killed on the WW2 battlefields thereafter.

See the US achieved more with fewer casualties, which you would remember more that achieving little for lots of casualties.

Quote: Had Belgium told the French what they told the British Hitler would have been stopped, so said Churchill.

Is that right or wishful thinking?

[mendosan]

Quote: This sacrifice of the French soldiers fighting Hitler is totally forgotten. It seems incredible when the number of French soldiers killed on the
battlefield these few weeks more than equals the number of American soldiers killed on the WW2 battlefields thereafter.

By the way US millitary deaths in WW2 were around 407,300, French millitary deaths 212,000. Poland also lost double the French figure.

[Esin]

Eynon81 wrote: Esin wrote: Are you agreeing with what was posted, adding to it, or disagreeing? I am not really sure.

well, it's like this.....Hitler wasn't really a huge threat to liberalism in Britain or North America, he wanted to smash the Soviets. So it's not that the commies saved civilizaton, they saved themselves......

Great Point.

[Lucky Luke]

mendosan wrote: Quote: This sacrifice of the French soldiers fighting Hitler is totally forgotten. It seems incredible when the number of French soldiers killed on the
battlefield these few weeks more than equals the number of American soldiers killed on the WW2 battlefields thereafter.

By the way US millitary deaths in WW2 were around 407,300, French millitary deaths 212,000. Poland also lost double the French figure.

407,300 Americans certainly did not die on the WW2 battlefields Mendosan, check your number again.

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/Casualties.php

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

mendosan wrote: Quote: This sacrifice of the French soldiers fighting Hitler is totally forgotten. It seems incredible when the number of French soldiers killed on the
battlefield these few weeks more than equals the number of American soldiers killed on the WW2 battlefields thereafter.

But that's cos the French soldiers achieved little, they were of minimal use during the rest of the war History dosn't tend to remember losers as much as winners.

Quote: battlefield these few weeks more than equals the number of American soldiers killed on the WW2 battlefields thereafter.

See the US achieved more with fewer casualties, which you would remember more that achieving little for lots of casualties.

Quote: Had Belgium told the French what they told the British Hitler would have been stopped, so said Churchill.

Is that right or wishful thinking?

Churchill could not have been clearer, he felt betrayed but not by the French:

Quote: ........But another blow which might well have proved final was yet to fall upon us. The King of the Belgians had called upon us to come to his aid. Had not this Ruler and his Government severed themselves from the Allies, who rescued their country from extinction in the late war, and had they not sought refuge in what was proved to be a fatal neutrality, the French and British Armies might well at the outset have saved not only Belgium but perhaps even Poland. Yet at the last moment, when Belgium was already invaded, King Leopold called upon us to come to his aid, and even at the last moment we came. He and his brave, efficient Army, nearly half a million strong, guarded our left flank and thus kept open our only line of retreat to the sea. Suddenly, without prior consultation, with the least possible notice, without the advice of his Ministers and upon his own personal act, he sent a plenipotentiary to the German Command, surrendered his Army, and exposed our whole flank and means of retreat.

I asked the House a week ago to suspend its judgment because the facts were not clear, but I do not feel that any reason now exists why we should not form our own opinions upon this pitiful episode. The surrender of the Belgian Army compelled the British at the shortest notice to cover a flank to the sea more than 30 miles in length. Otherwise all would have been cut off, and all would have shared the fate to which King Leopold had condemned the finest Army his country had ever formed. So in doing this and in exposing this flank, as anyone who followed the operations on the map will see, contact was lost between the British and two out of the three corps forming the First French Army, who were still farther from the coast than we were, and it seemed impossible that any large number of Allied troops could reach the coast........
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=393

And let's not forget that Hitler's original plan would have failed and even this last one was successful more by luck than by design.

Quote: Hitler had initially planed to attack French and British forces on 12 November 1939 but bad weather lead to the first of 29 postponements. The original plan was quite unambitious. It only called the occupation the shorelines of Belgium and Holland in order to conduct naval and air operations against France and Great Britain. Perhaps Hitler thought this strategy would lead to a negotiated peace with the Western Allies. Unfortunately for the Germans those plans were discovered when on 10 January 1940 when a German aircraft, carrying the plans, became lost over Belgium territory and was forced to crash land. The two German officers onboard failed in their frantic attempts to destroy the invasion plans and they were soon recovered by the Belgium’s who promptly turned them over to the French and British intelligence services.


This German intelligence blunders led Hitler to change his mind about a limited war against the French and British. He decided instead to adopt the plan authored by General Erich von Manstein, which called for a diversionary attack through Holland and Belgium while the main attack took place further south through the Ardennes Forest. The main German force would then sweep northwards to trap and destroy the British and French Armies that would come to the aid of the Belgiums and the Dutch. Upon the completion of this objective the German Army would then sweep south to capture Paris and force the French to come to terms.
The attack, however, on the Western Allies did not go completely according to plan. On 22-23 May, the Germany Army arrived at the coast of the English Channel. However suffering from fatigue and the loss of up to 50% of their vehicles, they were unable to immediately continue the offensive. Luftwaffe commander Herman Goring convinced Hitler that his air force, which up to this point in the campaign had performed exceptionally, could destroy what remained of the Allied forces on the beaches on Dunkirk. So on 24 May Hitler issued the order for his armies to halt his armies before they reach Dunkirk. Two days later the British and French Navies, assisted by the Royal Air Force, began an evacuate between the Allied armies trapped at Dunkirk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_War_Cabinet_Crisis

It was a close encounter.
:-D
:-D

[AKAMad]

I thought that every knew that Russia won WWII.

As for saving Civilisation, I thought everyone knew that was performed RAF Fighter Command on the 15th September 1940.

"Never in the field of human conflict, has so much been owed by so many to so few" Winston S. Churchill.

Now, if anyone wants to claim that they "saved our ass in WWII" my vote would go to the Poles. In the Battle of Britain 1 in 8 fighter pilots was Polish. We left the final defence of London to the Canadians, so they have a good claim as well.

Or, in mind of todays anniversary, let's thank the ordinary people of London, who took 55,000 dead and didn't give in.

[mendosan]

There does seem to be some diffrences between figures.

Quote: United States of America
Military:
Keegan: 292,000
HarperCollins: 292,100
Britannica: 292,131 (not incl. 115,187 non-battle)
Compton's: 293,986
Urlanis: 300,000
Info. Please: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other causes = 405,399
DoD: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other = 405,399
Ellis: 405,400
Encarta: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other causes = 407,318
Wallechinsky: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other = 407,318
Eckhardt: 408,000
Small & Singer: 408,300

Quote: France
Military:
Ellis: 92,000 (1940), 30,000 (in exile)
Compton's: 166,195
Keegan: 200,000
Eckhardt: 200,000
Info. Please: 201,568
Small & Singer: 210,000 (w/Allies), 2,500 (Vichy, w/Axis)
HarperCollins: 210,671
Britannica: 213,324 (incl. 1,200 Vichy)
Davies: 213,324
Clodfelter: 245,000 incl...
213,324 KIA, which incl. 2,653 Vichy
Encarta: 250,000
Urlanis: 250,000
KIA, 1939-40 War: 92,000
KIA, Free French, 1940-45: 58,000
Resistance: 20,000
Alsatian French conscripts KIA w/German army: 40,000
POW Deaths: 40,000

Not sure wich one is the most accurate.

[Lucky Luke]

AKAMad wrote: I thought that every knew that Russia won WWII.

As for saving Civilisation, I thought everyone knew that was performed RAF Fighter Command on the 15th September 1940.

"Never in the field of human conflict, has so much been owed by so many to so few" Winston S. Churchill.

Now, if anyone wants to claim that they "saved our ass in WWII" my vote would go to the Poles. In the Battle of Britain 1 in 8 fighter pilots was Polish. We left the final defence of London to the Canadians, so they have a good claim as well.

Or, in mind of todays anniversary, let's thank the ordinary people of London, who took 55,000 dead and didn't give in.

The Poles had a great input, their intelligence was the key to win the battle of the atlantic, however some switched side at the end understanding that we were selling them out. Their sacrifice must be one of the highest in WW2.



:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

mendosan wrote: There does seem to be some diffrences between figures.

Quote: United States of America
Military:
Keegan: 292,000
HarperCollins: 292,100
Britannica: 292,131 (not incl. 115,187 non-battle)
Compton's: 293,986
Urlanis: 300,000
Info. Please: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other causes = 405,399
DoD: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other = 405,399
Ellis: 405,400
Encarta: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other causes = 407,318
Wallechinsky: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other = 407,318
Eckhardt: 408,000
Small & Singer: 408,300

Quote: France
Military:
Ellis: 92,000 (1940), 30,000 (in exile)
Compton's: 166,195
Keegan: 200,000
Eckhardt: 200,000
Info. Please: 201,568
Small & Singer: 210,000 (w/Allies), 2,500 (Vichy, w/Axis)
HarperCollins: 210,671
Britannica: 213,324 (incl. 1,200 Vichy)
Davies: 213,324
Clodfelter: 245,000 incl...
213,324 KIA, which incl. 2,653 Vichy
Encarta: 250,000
Urlanis: 250,000
KIA, 1939-40 War: 92,000
KIA, Free French, 1940-45: 58,000
Resistance: 20,000
Alsatian French conscripts KIA w/German army: 40,000
POW Deaths: 40,000

Not sure wich one is the most accurate.

The clue is there :

Quote: ....115,187 other causes.....

:-D
:-D

[mendosan]

Lucky Luke wrote: mendosan wrote: There does seem to be some diffrences between figures.

Quote: United States of America
Military:
Keegan: 292,000
HarperCollins: 292,100
Britannica: 292,131 (not incl. 115,187 non-battle)
Compton's: 293,986
Urlanis: 300,000
Info. Please: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other causes = 405,399
DoD: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other = 405,399
Ellis: 405,400
Encarta: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other causes = 407,318
Wallechinsky: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other = 407,318
Eckhardt: 408,000
Small & Singer: 408,300

Quote: France
Military:
Ellis: 92,000 (1940), 30,000 (in exile)
Compton's: 166,195
Keegan: 200,000
Eckhardt: 200,000
Info. Please: 201,568
Small & Singer: 210,000 (w/Allies), 2,500 (Vichy, w/Axis)
HarperCollins: 210,671
Britannica: 213,324 (incl. 1,200 Vichy)
Davies: 213,324
Clodfelter: 245,000 incl...
213,324 KIA, which incl. 2,653 Vichy
Encarta: 250,000
Urlanis: 250,000
KIA, 1939-40 War: 92,000
KIA, Free French, 1940-45: 58,000
Resistance: 20,000
Alsatian French conscripts KIA w/German army: 40,000
POW Deaths: 40,000

Not sure wich one is the most accurate.

The clue is there :

Quote: ....115,187 other causes.....

:-D
:-D

Yeah but there still Military casualties through disease, accidents and the like much better than having 40,000 dead French fighting for the Nazis.

[Lucky Luke]

mendosan wrote:

Yeah but there still Military casualties through disease, accidents and the like much better than having 40,000 dead French fighting for the Nazis.

Ouch have you got any clue of whom the Alsatian French conscripts were?

:-D
:-D

[eynon]

Lucky Luke wrote: mendosan wrote:

Yeah but there still Military casualties through disease, accidents and the like much better than having 40,000 dead French fighting for the Nazis.

Ouch have you got any clue of whom the Alsatian French conscripts were?

:-D
:-D

Lucky, we've been through this before......as Patton said the key is to make the other poor bastards die for their country........the Americans were far better at this then the French.

[Lucky Luke]

Eynon81 wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: mendosan wrote:

Yeah but there still Military casualties through disease, accidents and the like much better than having 40,000 dead French fighting for the Nazis.

Ouch have you got any clue of whom the Alsatian French conscripts were?

:-D
:-D

Lucky, we've been through this before......as Patton said the key is to make the other poor bastards die for their country........the Americans were far better at this then the French.

Looking at the table Hitler was far better at this than the Americans in WW2, think about it not many Germans died in the western front facing the American troops. What does that tell you about Patton and his key?

:-D
:-D

[DSwain]

Lucky Luke wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: mendosan wrote:

Yeah but there still Military casualties through disease, accidents and the like much better than having 40,000 dead French fighting for the Nazis.

Ouch have you got any clue of whom the Alsatian French conscripts were?

:-D
:-D

Lucky, we've been through this before......as Patton said the key is to make the other poor bastards die for their country........the Americans were far better at this then the French.

Looking at the table Hitler was far better at this than the Americans in WW2, think about it not many Germans died in the western front facing the American troops. What does that tell you about Patton and his key?

:-D
:-D

Blimey - you dislike the Americans that much that you're willing to hold up Hitler as some sort of shining example? It must be terrible to hate a country and its people so much that you're willing to resort to that.

What you're not taking into account, Luke, is the massive numbers of German POW's on the Western Front captured in battle by the Americans and the British from 1944-1945.

[Lucky Luke]

DSwain wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: mendosan wrote:

Yeah but there still Military casualties through disease, accidents and the like much better than having 40,000 dead French fighting for the Nazis.

Ouch have you got any clue of whom the Alsatian French conscripts were?

:-D
:-D

Lucky, we've been through this before......as Patton said the key is to make the other poor bastards die for their country........the Americans were far better at this then the French.

Looking at the table Hitler was far better at this than the Americans in WW2, think about it not many Germans died in the western front facing the American troops. What does that tell you about Patton and his key?

:-D
:-D

Blimey - you dislike the Americans that much that you're willing to hold up Hitler as some sort of shining example? It must be terrible to hate a country and its people so much that you're willing to resort to that.

What you're not taking into account, Luke, is the massive numbers of German POW's on the Western Front captured in battle by the Americans and the British from 1944-1945.

I love America and the people there but sometimes the truth needs to be told.

I did not quote Patton, someone else did DSwain and what Patton said had nothing to do with POW's. Furthermore there is a reason why German soldiers ran to surrender to the allies.

:-D
:-D

[DSwain]

Lucky Luke wrote: DSwain wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: mendosan wrote:

Yeah but there still Military casualties through disease, accidents and the like much better than having 40,000 dead French fighting for the Nazis.

Ouch have you got any clue of whom the Alsatian French conscripts were?

:-D
:-D

Lucky, we've been through this before......as Patton said the key is to make the other poor bastards die for their country........the Americans were far better at this then the French.

Looking at the table Hitler was far better at this than the Americans in WW2, think about it not many Germans died in the western front facing the American troops. What does that tell you about Patton and his key?

:-D
:-D

Blimey - you dislike the Americans that much that you're willing to hold up Hitler as some sort of shining example? It must be terrible to hate a country and its people so much that you're willing to resort to that.

What you're not taking into account, Luke, is the massive numbers of German POW's on the Western Front captured in battle by the Americans and the British from 1944-1945.

I love America and the people there but sometimes the truth needs to be told.

I did not quote Patton, someone else did DSwain and what Patton said had nothing to do with POW's. Furthermore there is a reason why German soldiers ran to surrender to the allies.

:-D
:-D

You should not guage the effectiveness of an army purely on the number of enemy soldiers it kills - but on the total loss to the ration strength of the opposing forces from deaths, injuries and prisoners. In this the Western Allies were very effective. That does not detract from the titanic achievements of the USSR and the Red Army, however.

Would you acknowledge that the Americans did play a role in winning World War 2, Luke?

[Lucky Luke]

DSwain wrote:
You should not guage the effectiveness of an army purely on the number of enemy soldiers it kills - but on the total loss to the ration strength of the opposing forces from deaths, injuries and prisoners. In this the Western Allies were very effective. That does not detract from the titanic achievements of the USSR and the Red Army, however.

Would you acknowledge that the Americans did play a role in winning World War 2, Luke?

There is only one ultimate contribution to a war DSwain.

As you rightly said the achievements of the USSR and the Red Army were truly titanic in the fight against Nazism.

Per capita many countries contributed to the war effort a lot more than America did DSwain and this fact does not reflect in our history books for mere political and propaganda reasons. We should know better now.
:-D
:-D

[DSwain]

Lucky Luke wrote: DSwain wrote:
You should not guage the effectiveness of an army purely on the number of enemy soldiers it kills - but on the total loss to the ration strength of the opposing forces from deaths, injuries and prisoners. In this the Western Allies were very effective. That does not detract from the titanic achievements of the USSR and the Red Army, however.

Would you acknowledge that the Americans did play a role in winning World War 2, Luke?

There is only one ultimate contribution to a war DSwain.

As you rightly said the achievements of the USSR and the Red Army were truly titanic in the fight against Nazism.

Per capita many countries contributed to the war effort a lot more than America did DSwain and this fact does not reflect in our history books for mere political and propaganda reasons. We should know better now.
:-D
:-D

Properly stating the importance of the US in winning WW2 - which you have refused to do - does not mean degrading what other nations did.

[Lucky Luke]

DSwain wrote:

Properly stating the importance of the US in winning WW2 - which you have refused to do - does not mean degrading what other nations did.

This thread is about how the commies saved civilisation and not about how the US financed WW2.

:-D
:-D

[DSwain]

Lucky Luke wrote: DSwain wrote:

Properly stating the importance of the US in winning WW2 - which you have refused to do - does not mean degrading what other nations did.

This thread is about how the commies saved civilisation and not about how the US financed WW2.

:-D
:-D

You were the one to compare Hitler with the Americans not me, I merely questioned you on what you said. But if your personal politics won't allow you to acknowledge the human and material input of the US during WW2, so be it.