Well, we would, but that French government kind of doesn’t exist anymore. Personally I think its a weak arguement anyway…the US liberated France because we had to…to get the the Germans we needed to go through Europe. The Frence supported us to annoy the British basically, and as part of their wider strategy of opposing the empire. Neither did what they did solely for humanitarian reasons.
My guess though is that in terms of both money and lives lost the US’s contribution was more than Frances during the Revolution…so in absolute terms they would still owe us more. I’ll take my share in red wine if you please…
Here is one way of looking at US’s involvement in WWII: We kind of stood around and watched while Hitler overran France and the low countries, took much of the Northern African Colonies from France and England, then proceeded to attack USSR and fight an air war over the English Channel. We definitely helped the Allies with materiel, but did not want to risk our lives fighting against the Facsists - we remembered the last time we sent our boys over to Europe(WWI). We were drawn into the war by the Japanese, who bombed Pearl Harbor, then after we had war declared on us by Hitler, we fought German troops in North Africa, and made some inroads into Italy, perfectly happy to let the USSR bleed the German Army white on the eastern front. Finally, after much persuasion from our allies (invading France wasnt our brainchild; Stalin had been screaming for relief, and though Churchill liked the fact That the Red Army was being weakened, he knew the Germans would have to be engaged across the channel at some point), we ‘stormed the beach at Normandy’ with numerous Canadian, British, and even French :eek: comrades. If any of these people talking about the big debt owed to us for saving France can explain how we could defeat Hitler without freeing france from the Fascist occupiers in the process, I’m all ears. Look back at the propaganda from that era about why we got involved in the war - I doubt you’ll find much about the US going to war to save our French brothers.
We helped France because it was in our interest. If it is in France’s interest to help us, I have little doubt they would. I can’t see why anyone would expect any country to put another’s country’s interests above theirs.
I’m not saying that WWII was not a shining moment in American history (in my opinion, it was about the only justifiable war we were ever involved in, and we should have been involved earlier), but I am distressed by the fact that many Americans seem to think that we won it single handedly or that the allies were fucked without us, and that the rest of the world owes us some debt because of it.
I don’t mean to insult my american friends, but have to express my surprise that there are americans – Donovan, for one – who actually know WWII history. That’s reassuring. As a uncomfortable side-note: You know that it was Soviet Union who ultimately defeated the Nazis, not the Western countries…? Even though USA:s sacrifice helped alot, and Ike, Patton, Bradley and all those guys are forever heroes in the European history, together with the unknown soldiers from USA, Canada, Australia and elsewhere.
This is the bigges load of BS I’ve ever heard. He KNOWS history? Really?
Lets see: "Here is one way of looking at US’s involvement in WWII: We kind of stood around and watched while Hitler overran France and the low countries, took much of the Northern African Colonies from France and England, then proceeded to attack USSR and fight an air war over the English Channel. " Revisionist history. The US was a NEUTRAL power…declared neutral prior to hostilities. The French and British DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY!! Simply put it wasn’t our fight at all…it was yet another European slaughter fest, another European slide down the slippery slope to war. The EUROPEANS set up the circumstances that allowed for war again. It was France and Britian that put war reparations on Germany so heavy that it made eventual war inevitable. It was the Europeans who appeased Hitler and again backed themselves into a corner for eventual war by allowing him to grab the first time…and keep grabbing until he figured he could do what he wanted.
How do you figure in any way, shape or form that the US was obligated to jump into this thing?? You blow off the help we DID give as if that were nothing…and then call us cowards for not rushing into another European slaughter house?? Unreal.
Ya, you know your history…its the spin and revisions you put on it thats sickening. Didn’t want to risk our lives fighting against the Facsists huh? Had nothing to do with the fact that it WASN’T OUR FUCKING FIGHT, ehe?? :rolleyes:
Horseshit. Do you have a cite for this incredible claim? Afaik it was the British that proposed the strategy you are refering too…mainly because the US military needed some time to spin up to speed. One thing you are neglecting here is the state the US military was in prior to our involvement in WWII.
BTW, Hitler declared war on the US first…THEN Congress declared war on Germany. And while you are revising history about how cowardly we were, how we didn’t want to stick our necks out in Europe think on this…the allies convinced the US to basically put the war in the Pacific on the back burner and concentrate on the Germans, although Japan was the only REAL threat to America. Interesting ehe?
Man, pick up a history book or two. As for Stalin, of COURSE he was screaming for us to open a second front and relieve the pressure. But do you have a cite that either the US or Britian held back from invading to weaken the red army…or that we delayed beyond what we needed to prepare for the invasion of Europe?? You seem to think that men, materials, weapons and supplies just magically materialize ready for us to march on in.
As to the other allies, no one denies they were there for the invasion. Let me ask you a question though, oh history guru…who took the lions share of casualties during the invasion?
Well, had you actually read my post I said that freeing France was incidental to defeating Germany. Doesn’t take away from the glaring fact though that the European war wasn’t OUR war…it was THEIR war. THEY declared war on Germany, and Germany fucked around by invading various nations to provoke it all. WE tried to make the Europeans see sense after WWI and not put crushing reparations on Germany…and they told us where to go basically. Remember the League of Nations?
So, since it wasn’t our war at all, ya…I think that the Western Powers certainly owe the US a debt of at least gratitude for once again intervening in one of their stupid fucking wars at to the US of both lives lost and massive amounts of treasure. After all, the only enemy we REALLY had was Japan…and if we could have concentrated all our efforts there instead of putting it on the back burner the war there would have been over with much faster and at a lower cost to the US btw. And then we could have made our peace with the new German Republic of Europe I suppose. Or if you are of a mind, perhaps the Greater Soviet Republic of Europe.
lol…if you think Donovan knows history you are sadly misinformed…or your own understanding of history is tenuous at best.
As a side note about the Soviets, no one denies they did the lion share of the fighting in Europe. However, its again revision to not understand that the Soviets A) Had no choice as they were fighting for their own national identy and life, and B) Basically managed what they managed because of the massive amount of aid the US was sending them…at both risk to our sailors and expense, and C) it was a team effort…without the British keeping the pressure on the Germans, especially by just staying in the game not to mention their bombing raids, without the US supplies and later the opening of a second front as a direct threat to Germany in Europe, the Russians MAY have still won…but it would have taken a hell of a lot longer and cost a HELL of a lot more. And of course, they might NOT have won too.
I think the idea was that France surrendered relatively quickly comparable to the other Allied powers. True they fought. I think 350,000 French troops died and about half a million French civilians. So I wouldn’t call them “surrender monkeys” by any stretch of the word.
However they were utterly deafeated pretty early. For about 4 years Germany owned that country. They were beat. If the Western Allies, mainly with the US’s help, had not sacrificed so much in removing Hitler from France, and the subsequent aid provided by the US, I highly doubt France would be what it is today.
And all of this happened sixty years ago. That’s really a long time ago, and almost all of the people who were around at that time were either too young to have any responsibility for any of it, or are now dead. I think the statute of limitations for obsequious gratitude and boundless loyalty (as if “friends” demand that of others) has long run out. I mean, why don’t we just sanction Germany, since they were run by genocidal fascists 60 years ago? Or maybe the Germans and the Japanese should decide to declare war on us all over again because they must still be pissed. Would that be justified, or even understandable?
We’re a different country now than we were then, and so is France. We have some traditional ties and treaties, but there is absolutely no reason to expect France to behave any more or less in its best interests than the US, and the facts surrounding WWII (among many others of historical note) are only relevant at this point to explain the happenstance of having these traditional ties in the first place. Maybe individual people don’t change so much, but especially in Europe and the Eastern Block, for instance, nations most certainly do. A lot. We can’t keep looking back to WWII, or even the Cold War, every time we expect somebody in the Old World to behave a certain way. That stuff is past tense. It’s like expecting something obligatory of a child because he grew up in his Father’s house. Holding a grudge against France, of all places, for genuflecting every time we demand it is about as sensible. We can legitimately claim their interests have deviated to some degree from our own, but so what? When doesn’t that happen in international affairs and alliances? When haven’t all alliances eventiallychanged in some way? What is this “mystery” about France and their behavior toward us or anyone else? And why is it less mystifying than our own behavior?
Well, for myself I already said I agree with you on this point Loopydude…I was just disputing a skewed and revisionist view of history that got under my skin a bit. You’ll notice I didn’t mention any of this stuff in the OP. For myself, the main reason I didn’t have much to say in this is because I don’t really think countries HAVE friends…they only have relationships. These change based on the needs of the individual countries and can shift relations from close to distant depending on what each nation feels is in the best national interest.
I just wanted to see what everyone else thought of this.
Xtisme - im not sure why you are hijacking your own thread, but do you think that Hitler would have stopped once he ruled all of Europe and USSR ( had the US not joined the war? He would have been developing V2 rockets which would eventually reach the east coast of the US. It would have taken a few years sure, but when you rule a continent, you get time to play and a lot of free scientists too.
While this was a European war - was it not bound to involve America at some point?
Just asking coz you seem to know a lot about this, i dont.
Meanwhile, back to the OP - what could France have done differently to be a better " friend" to the US during and after the war?
Well, the thread seemed to be dead to me…and I decided to respond to the hijack to vent a bit.
Actually yes I do think that Hitler would have stopped once he ruled all of Europe and the USSR…because in reality IF he could have beaten the Russians eventually it would have been years and great cost to do it. I think Hitler would wanted peace with Britian as well if he could have gotten it.
I have serious doubts that Hitler or Nazi Germany would have been a serious threat to the US, reguardless of whether or not they developed V2 rockets or not. In addition, just because the US hadn’t developed rockets or jets to that point is no reason we wouldn’t have in the future as well…after all, it wasn’t a matter of technical expertese it was more a matter of the US consistently underfunding anything dealing with the military. However, with examples coming in from Europe I think this would have been put aside.
It would have taken decades or more before Germany could even come close to being a threat to the US…just recovering from their war in Russia and consolidating their gains would have taken a long time.
Certainly it would have…but I dont see why it necessarily SHOULD have. The main reason for our involvement was your own country in fact and our relationship to the UK, and while I admire the British and have many friends there I think its a false assumption that the US HAD to involve herself in a European war…which was the point I was trying to make earlier.
Japan attack the US…Japan was our enemy. Germany certainly declared war on the US, but what did that mean to us exactly? The only thing the Germans could do to us was sink our ships…ships being put in harms way to keep the allies supplied btw. The only reason we went to Europes aid was because of the ties many American’s have to Europe and the fact that our president at the time WANTED too…and the fact that the British convinced us that Germany was the true threat (which was true enough…to the European powers fighthing Germany). The British had been pulling out all the stops for sometime to entice us into joining them in fighting Germany…but most American’s were reluctant. Up until the attack by Japan most American’s didn’t want war…we wanted to be neutral. To claim this was cowardice though is truely mind boggling to me…which is why I vented in the other post.
Well, if you are asking me I don’t think countries HAVE friends as I already said. If France wanted a closer relationship with the US, like the British appeared to, and more importantly if they had thought it was in their best national interest either to have that closer relationship or they thought invading Iraq was in their national interest, then they would have supported us either diplomatically or materially in the war in Iraq. Obviously they weighed the equations and found it in their best interest not too. I dont’ really have a problem with that myself.
This is true of course, but to a large degree the other European nations were more worried about the spread of communism than about Hitler - in many circles Hitler was seen as a natural ally against the Reds.
In the later years of the war both the US and the UK were concerned that the Soviets would overrun Europe - thus the need to open the Normandy front. The initial strategy involved bypassing Paris and heading for Berlin - Charles De Gaulle is reputed to have negotiated with Allied command and gotten a green light for Leclerc to enter Paris (some sources say it was more of an orange light).
You might say that the Normandy invasion had more to do with the budding “Cold War” than liberating France.
Some of the current tension (such as it is) may stem from that period, and from Charles De Gaulle’s continuing determination to protect French independence (nuclear weapons, partial withdrawal from NATO etc.) I think all that is fading away now though - the WWII generation of politicians are pretty much gone.
As regards the Iraq debacle, my impression here in France was that Chirac would have been onboard for the invasion, but wanted to approach it more cautiously, and maybe get a little more screen time out of it. What we got instead was a barrage of hostile and arrogant soundbites from GWB on TV every night - my impression was that the US government intentionally alienated France and Germany, leaving no room for face-saving - then again, who knows what was going on backstage.
Beyond that, I guess some of the US vs France animosity is inherited from UK vs France animosity, and hell two peoples as arrogant as the French and the Americans are bound to rub each other the wrong way from time to time.
OTOH I don’t know if you’ve ever visited Normandy, but Americans still get a warm welcome in the coastal villages - people buy you drinks, invite you into their homes etc. There are plenty of US and UK flags in front of houses and public buildings etc.
Oh, point/counterpoint. An off the cuff mark turned into a hijack, but since you announced the original dead, I’ll answer the points you brought up.
Don’t know that I ‘KNOW’ history, but I fulfilled the requirements necessary for a B.A. in History at the university I attended; my area of specialization was western hemisphere, post- WWII. I know that don’t mean squat on this MB, but just thought I’d throw it out there.
Please point out where I used the word ‘coward’. For that matter, please point out where I used the word ‘obligation’. In fact, the point I was trying to make is that we went into Germany for our own interests, and pushing the Germans out of France was strategically necessary to achieve that aim. That is why I don’t get all too upset when the French don’t show the undying loyalty of a lapdog to the US. As to ‘neutral’: The people of the United States had backed a side (Lend-Lease Act) and were willing to send goods, but not their native sons, to assist our ‘friends’ in the war effort. I am not condeming anyone, just laying out what was happening. We were sending large amounts of supplies to England under the lend-lease act but did not have a similar program for Germany, and just before hostilities had broken out, had put an trade embargo on many war related materials against the Japanese. Americans were not anxious to see their boys coming home in wooden caskets or buried in some foreign soldiers’ cemetery. They did not want to deal with another generation of amputees and mentally ill men broken by the horrors of war. They, as you alluded to, had seen it all before in WWI. Their attitude, and not just about WWII, was what your mantra seems to be: ‘It’s not our fucking fight’. We were, in a word, isolationist, which is why FDR had to pull political strings to even supply the Allied war machine with materiel, let alone troops. “Standing Around” is an extremely harsh way to describe that action, but note the beginning of my post “Here is one way of looking at US’s…”. I should have made myself clearer; this is more an excercise in viewing events from different angle than an attempt to ‘set the record straight’ . This is generally my “Devil’s Advocate” position I pull out when I hear some chest thumping American invoke WWII as the reason that France should be eternally grateful to us. It is a direct foil to the standard “Hitler took over Europe, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, US entered world war II, we stormed the beach at Normandy, we freed Europe and rushed through to Berlin after that little ‘bulge’ difficulity, we dropped a bomb on Japan, we rebuilt Europe and Japan, game over, we win. Yay USA.”, when in fact the war was going on for a much longer time if you happened to be Polish (for example), that millions of people all over Europe lived under Fascist oppression and many brave people in small and large ways resisted this occupation for years, and that the tide had already turned (at least from a supply/production/manpower standpoint, in no small part due to the US , as well as Stalin’s disregard for his troops and Hitler’s inability to take good advice and similar attitude RE: his troops.) in Europe when our troops hit the beach. I also don’t hear much about the Austrailian effort in the Pacific in most recieved history of WWII (or that they were one of the few ‘friends’ loyal enough to follow us into the morass that was Vietnam, which is my main beef against the French, but I’m really digressing… what were we talking about? Is France our friend? The answer is NO; countries act out of self interest and can’t be expected to do otherwise. End of debate. That was easy ;)). We learn history from a viewpoint understandably skewed toward Americans and their actions; our history is first and formost OUR HISTORY, and we learn about what WE did. I myself have talked with plenty of WWII veterans, and they have all been Americans! The fact is during WWII, we were members of a coalition unlike any since; IMHO (now after I pissed off all of the Americans, I’m taking a shot at the foreigners :D) any war from the Korean on that the US has been involved in could have been fought by Americans on their own. Some would have been a lot harder, especially Korea and Gulf War I, but doable. WWII would not have been winnable by the US without her Allies. However, I think that the Axis may very well have won if it wasn’t for our assistance BEFORE we entered troops in the form of the supplies we got the Allies, especially on the Russian front.
As far as WWI is concerned, I agree FWIW. We should never have been over there - that was a war being fought over politics, and we helped turn the tide to put the battle lines in a position where the unfair peace was made. Kudos to the US for trying to persuade France and GBR to make a more equitable peace - too bad we had started to sink into isolasionist mode, US congress would not back a League of Nations with teeth and the Foreign policy at that point became a minor interest of the US gov’t after Wilson - in fact, our inability to come to a ‘good peace’ in Europe, could arguably one of the myriad reasons why we started to trend isolationist: “we tried, those loonies over in Europe won’t see the light”. This last is not a slap at the US - we tried - but just a way of pointing out that although ‘this wasn’t our fight’, we were involved in the history behind it. You also seem to be somewhat schizophrenic with your arguments RE: what to do with Hitler - first it’s
which implies, to me, ‘they started it, it’s their mess’., yet a few lines later,
IIRC, there were some diplomatic complaints from numerous countries, US included, later on, leading to the war. I agree that the appeasement strategy was absolutely stupid. At the time, it was not known exactly what Hitler would do/take - you yourself indicated that a lot of the Versailles Treaty was unfair, and many world players loooking on felt that some of the relaxations or the treaty (since dubbed appeasement) were fair relaxations. Many of the allowances over and above ‘fair relaxations’ given were appeasements to avoid a war. Remember, in WWI, as in WWII, we were latecomers (especially in the case of WWI); Europe had seen war too, and their casualties were higher numerically and as a ratio of population than American casualties. So some of the bumbling can be parallelled to our inaction - they understandably hoped to avoid the horrors of war if they could. Some felt that the actions would allow Hitler to flex his muscles to gain more internal political capital, and head off a war that Germany would eventually spoil for to regain some choice lands that were lost at the end of WWI if they couldn’t get them through political means, and be therefore appeased. Most people that understood Naziism and who were watching Germany closely at the time would probably disagree, but I feel it is slightly revisionist (to use a word I have seen bandied about in this thread ;)) to say that Europe’s leaders immediately turned yellow, started trembling and started saying ‘anything you say, Mr Hitler’, and started rolling over because he waved a gun at them. There was intense political debate in the countries involved on the best action to protect said countries interests weighted against the people they were selling up the river by the land cedes to Germany - a fair parallell to our debate on what to do about naked German agression in the 30s and early 40s IMHO. There were diplomatic complaints, threats, and eventually (very late in the game, when Hitler had been given too much to really listen) ultimatum that eventually precipitated the declared world war. France, for her part, figured she was buying time to build an army for the eventual war with Germany she saw on the horizon - the French knew (in retropsect, maybe only thought) that they would get slaughtered at that point if she took a stand and Germany called her bluff. So France bought some time by letting Germany have some land and rights cause France couldn’t mobilize for war just then, and used the time to step up existing programs to shore up her borders and begin to build an army that wouldn’t be an embarassment on the field (too bad none of their planners studied current military strategy :D). Again - I am not apologizing for what turned out to absolute stupidity on the part of European leaders, but I think it’s disingenuous to say simply ‘its’s their mess, its not our fight’ considering that we had a voice in the world, we had economic and diplomatic power (and military for that matter) to bear, and we had a hand in the region’s recent history. I also want to go on record as saying that my first post was NOT intended to be a US bashing post - I have nothing but pride for being from one of the countries counted among ‘all good men’ during one of humanity’s darkest hours; IMHO the war would have been lost before we committed troops if it had not been for the massive amounts of supplies we sent, especially on the Russian front. (on preview, I already sad that, but I’ll let it stay. I think it is an important point to counter any impressions the reader may get that I don’t think the US was relevant in WWII).
End chapter 1 - the text buffer said i was too long winded! imagine that!
Spin and revisions? Please tell me how I spun the fact that we were actively helping the Allied war effort via the Lend-Lease act and intelligence efforts but FDR could not get the support from the populace to send troops over to help until Dec 7 1941. See the above about isolationism. I don’t think it means the US was cowardly or evil; I think it’s perfectly understandable we didn’t want to get involved.
I’m stung that you call this ‘revisionist’ - I tried to say esssentially the same thing; sorry for the atrocious sentence structure :D. Let me rephrase: Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, so we declared war on the Japanese. Hitler then declared war on us (I didn’t mention the part about us declaring war back on Germany, thought it was implied we accepted the offer for war by the next part, sorry.), so we sent troops to fight against the Germans in North Africa then Italy. Throughout this time, the war of attrition between the German and Red Armies on the Eastern front sucked up a large portion of men and supplies of the German Army (neglected to mention the Red Army was beeing bled white too, but I felt that was implied as well). Pertinent to the thread I was addressing, France stood occupied during that time as well. I need to dig up a cite for that ‘incredible claim’? I admit the ‘perfectly happy’ was gratuitious, if anything, the US was more concerned with invading France than Churchill - FDR originally promised Stalin a second front ASAP, but Churchill suspended that offer, citing lack of resources (which was a very valid reason); I think also, that original American invasion plans called for a French landing, but it was British that really pushed Italy as a second front (they had tried some small scale landings with less-than-satisfactory results). Hope that clarifies that part. And yes, it was British Strategy we followed, starting with the Europe First doctrine through the focus on the North African Front, continuing on with a front in Italy before France, what of it? I’m talking about what we did, not who came up with the plan. And yes, I agree with your point on the Pacific, it is interesting that we focused on Europe First, and that was a combination of strategic plotting and the fact that Europe was (and is) the original homeland of a lot of Americans - I’ll admit that is a point for the argument of kinship or friendship between us and Europe. I will also concede that the ‘let Hitler & Stalin Bleed themselves out’ was never an official doctrine, but Churchill was a saavy man, who understood that if they got out of the current mess, thir new enemy would be the USSR. However, Churchill’s points about readiness were on the mark, An invasion of Normandy was something that needed intesne preperation, supplies, and men, and it couldn’t happen next week or next month. An invasion of Italy was more doable - troops from NA can cross the Mediterranian, less heavily defended, Italian vs German troops, etc. There were definite legitimate reasons why we couldn’t make France a priority at that time, so France remained occupied.
funny you should mention - currently reading The Price of Glory and just finished Company K as a kind of historical backdrop. I recommend especially Company K, which is Fiction, but is kind of a precursor to Catch-22; it was written by a WWI Vet, and captures, I think, some the feelings left over in the US from WWI. Price of Glory isn’t really pertinent to this conversation, but I felt that reading WWI history books would be a nice change of pace considering that most of the history books I read since college had to do with WWII or revolutionary/early United States. Is there a specific book or two you’d like me to pick up? To address the non - insulting part of that passage, you make a good point, which I kind of hit on above RE: reasons for delay, and I was extremely over the top describing that part - most of the persuasion was Stalin’s Whining, it was the English that kept us in check.
To address the second, like all good Americans, I learned in grade school that Americans took over half of the casualties at Normandy; in fact, the worst (as in hardest to take) beaches were taken by Americans. I agree that the world should be grateful for the sacrifice those men made. I apologize if you felt I took a belittling tone to the sacrifices made, I truly am grateful and did not mean to mock them or what they did.
Well I guess I understand the reason for your hostile tone, my post, even though it wasn’t really directed at any poster was construed to be a direct reply to yours. It was kind of an off the cuff answer to question ‘do the French owe us for World War II?’ floating out there. I did a bad job and I’m sorry to all of those offended. My point was meant to be along the lines of: France was a stepping stone on the road to our Strategic Goal, and at the point our soldiers landed, our interests coincided. Our interests probably would have coincided more with the French if we would have made France a priority before Hitler moved his troops in and solidified his grasp, but those weren’t our priorities at the time. Later, our priority was winning the war, and we took the strategy best suited to do this, which meant a delayed French invasion, and eventually freeing France. I never said we were obligated to the French, and if we were, I would have hoped we would have done more earlier. I don’t think the US is evil or wrong, I think they act with their own interests foremost. To claim that the French owe us some debt because our interests coincided and they were most definitely the beneficiaries of our help while we achieved our goals doesn’t fly with me, especially if we say that they should take action that puts our interests above theirs. And all of this ‘their war’ rhetoric doesn’t fly with me either - wasn’t it you that lectured me (after quoting me saying essentially the same thing) that Hitler declared war on US? So at what point does it become our war? Because we weren’t sending troops until he did declare war, and sending troops to the battlefields were how wars were fought back then before all these crazy techno-doohickeys. In any case, I can see where my post may be seen as straight up America bashing, and I didn’t intend it as such. It was more an attempt to poke holes in the attitude that we were such great protectors of France back in the day and now they show no gratitude. We didn’t rush over to save France, we rushed over to stop Hitler. I can see that despite the fact that we agree on that point, xtisme, we don’t agree on the current ramifications of that point.
Again, we didn’t get our troops over there until Hitler declared war on us! (see my point above RE: wars and how they were fought in the 1940s - I suppose you could argue that we could sit and wait for his troops to come to us, but that would have drawn it out). I still don’t understand why you made a point about that while everywhere else you keep talking about THEIR war. So we did have two enemies at the time. And I agree, we did not have to ramp up the European front as quickly as we did. There were strategic reasons in play, but I will agree a lot of the reason behind the Europe First policy was a feeling of kinship toward Europe as opposed toward the inhabitants of Japanese controlled territory - after all, most Americans were of European origin. I also feel it is a testament to the Allied leaders capabilities (especially FDR - to sell it to the US, who was crying for blood for pearl harbor). However, I don’t think that if Hitler had just taken over France and not taken any of the other territories, and noone else said or did anything, that you would have seen GIs on the beaches at Normandy. Do you disagree? RE: greater “…Republic of Europe” Good point. How safe do you think the Joe American would feel with that nightmare across the Atlantic? IIRC, part of the Europe First Strategy was to keep a seperate Soviet/German peace from occuring, as well as fears of the longshot possibility that the Russians could push through and take much more of Europe than they ended up with if we didn’t have a front to recapture Europe for democracy. Do you think a greater soviet republic of europe or even a greater (NAZI)german republic of europe would be good for the US’s interests?
Those Darn Jesuits! Think it’s too late to ask for my tuition money back?
I agree. Stalin was a bastard, and he tried to make peace with Germany, even working in cahoots with Hitler on a land grab, IIRC. He joined the fight on the defensive, then used Germany’s retreat as an excuse to ‘liberate’ numerous countries and enslave millions of people under communist rule. My sympathy is for the Russian people, not him. You don’t generally pick your ruler. I will follow your line of argument RE: American supplies and USSR and take an even stronger stance; I don’t think the USSR could have done without US supplies, especially the ones you don’t think of: trucks, food, etc. But especially trucks. Again, I think you broadened the scope of my argument. I wasn’t answering the question ‘Was the US an important contributor in World War II?’; I would’t have bothered answering that one, as although I beleive that at least Hitler could have been stopped without our military assistance (albeit later and with maybe unconditional surrender, which was big) The question I was addressing is ‘why doesn’t France toe our line in light of how we went over and saved their asses in WWII?’, which is generally what I feel is what is meant when people say France should be ‘more grateful’ That said, I’m not a big fan of France as a world player for numerous reasons, I just think it’s chauvanistic to think that ‘they owe us’
I’ll respond to the OP and suggest that nations can have “freinds” in the sense of shared values, ideals and culture. Historically, the nations of “the west” shared many of these things, but that’s less the case now because of signficant differences which have either arisen or become apparent in the last half-century. Europe is economically quasi-socialist and philosophically post-Christian; I’m not making judgements as to which is better; just observing the fact. That’s a large and widening difference. The same forces come into play with England, but there you’ve also got centuries of shared language and culture behind their relationships and that can’t be ignored.
The other element in play is the geostrategic element. By no-ones design (well, perhaps Teddy Roosevelt) we’ve wound up in a unipolar world. Some nations have come to accept, if not exactly approve of, that state of affairs; they may not be comfortable with the 800-pound gorilla. But France was once one of the most important nations on earth, and (quite understandably) they still want to be. They’re not willing to resign themselves to being a quiet medium-sized country, and they have the pluck to seek ways to establish their independance, and, when they can, undermine the gorilla.
They’re not a freind, nor an ally; nor an enemy. A rival, perhaps.
Personally I think its a weak arguement anyway…the US liberated France because we had to…to get the the Germans we needed to go through Europe. The Frence supported us to annoy the British basically, and as part of their wider strategy of opposing the empire. Neither did what they did solely for humanitarian reasons.
I’ll take my share in red wine if you please…