Okay, let’s run through this steaming pile of manure and highlight the most blatantly odoursome bits.
.
I think you are wasting your time. A conspiracy theorist has already decided to abandon the path of reason. They can only come back on their own.
Okay, let’s run through this steaming pile of manure and highlight the most blatantly odoursome bits.
.
I think you are wasting your time. A conspiracy theorist has already decided to abandon the path of reason. They can only come back on their own.
Agree completelyAh but it was such a good demolition I so enjoy reading Cook when he gets going!![]()
Okay, let’s run through this steaming pile of manure and highlight the most blatantly odoursome bits.
Ad hominem and uncalled for. I don’t say your opinion is a pile of crap. I expect the basic level of decorum, if that is too much to ask for then please re-read internet etiquette and arguing on the internet.
This bit:
Is nothing but a pathetic attempt at moral equivalency between the allied powers and the Nazis, followed by a bizarre conspiracy theory. Feel free to come back when you have some documentation to substantiate deliberate allied bombing missions conducted on Switzerland and Sweden. No-one forced Germany to be the symbol of evil; they managed that entirely on their own.
Really?
“Sweden was not directly attacked during World War II. It was, however, subject to British and German Naval blockades and "accidental" bombings from the Soviets on some cities (e.g. Strängnäs),”
Wangel 1982, pp. 444–465.
Look up the location of the city and conclude for yourself how probable it is for bomber crews to stray that far off course, repeatedly, IT is not a minor mistake to fly all the way to Sweden when you’re trying to hit Finland.
And even if that was proper,
“A blockade is defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica as "an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts."
So, the message here is, that the Swedish government as seen as an enemy and an act of war taken upon them, that is to say, a blockade. Even though Sweden itself took no directly hostile actions. But since its an allied action its generally overlooked as being a Casus belli.
and
”
The Swiss, although somewhat skeptical, reacted by treating these violations of their neutrality as "accidents". The United States was warned that single aircraft would be forced down, and their crews would still be allowed to seek refuge, while bomber formations in violation of airspace would be intercepted. While American politicians and diplomats tried to minimise the political damage caused by these incidents, others took a more hostile view. Some senior commanders argued that, as Switzerland was "full of German sympathisers", it deserved to be bombed.[16] General Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, even suggested that it was the Germans themselves who were flying captured Allied planes over Switzerland in an attempt to gain a propaganda victory
“http://books.google.com/books?id=gT...zerland+was+full+of+German+sympathizers&hl=fi
One is an accident, a thousand airmen is far more than an accident. But, as I said, you have your view.
Had it been built in a way that cut off Belgium, Belgium would have ceased being an ally in 1920. It was built the way it was built so as not to drive the lowcountries into the axis camp. Geographics while an important thing are by no means the major thing, in my opinion.It did nothing of the sort, at the time construction of the Maginot Line commenced Belgium was a French ally and had been since 1920. They ceased being an ally in 1935.
Their country invaded, their soldiers killed (800 or more) they selected leader (current king with pro-axis leanings) deposed and replaced by a current prince turned king with pro-allied leanings, and when they left said new pro-allied king is left in power.Another week attempt at moral equivalency. You failed to note that the government of Iran was not interfered with during the Anglo-Iranian occupation and the Soviets and British left at the end of the war, do you imagine the Germans would have left Belgium?
I don’t know about you but to me that is an invasion, occupation and turning into a puppet of a neutral country by any stretch of imagination. Your connection to leaving Belgium is something that is not possible to see, simply because (typo)we cant(typo) definitively say what would have happened had the Axis won. It is possible, in my opinion, that Germany would have left rather quickly and ruled by economic and not military power. And Belgium in an axis victory TL in 1950 is as free of the axis, as Iran was in the 1950 of the allies. For what that is worth.
Oh this is the level of argument? Wonderfully eloquent and skilled wordplay.This bit is just flat out insane:
As for the rest:
That is just the most flat out batshit insane scenario we’ve had in here in a long time. All you’ve done is expound on the old French being 'fromage eating surrender monkeys' theory, and thrown the Belgians and Dutch in for good measure.
This bit in particular:
Where is the particularly serious argument you were promising, thus far you’ve done 4 Ad hominems, and no links, references or arguments other than the “Its batshit insane because I say its batshit insane, nya nya nya!”
So apart from not having a clue as to events in France during the occupation you have the French actually setting themselves up to lose, and planning on surrendering and sitting out the war for four years and being liberated by the Americans and British. So you’ve fantasized that in a French cabinet meeting sometime around 1930 the following conversation took place:
“Well, here we are, having the largest army in Europe, but it is obvious that in ten years’ time the Germans will conquer us, so my plan is to sit back and sell them wine and let all the fighting be done by the English, who have disarmed to such a degree that even in 1939 will have a regular army smaller than Belgium’s, and the American’s who in 1940 will have the 14th largest army in the world, behind Greece’s. Oh, and the American’s as you all know have an Isolationist foreign policy. But don’t worry; I have a plan to overcome all that: I’ll have the Japanese attack them!”
I once again, invite you to actually read what I wrote. No, that is not what I assume that they did.
What I am trying to explain and what you are throwing no arguments and only insults against is this.
The French were bled white, and knew they could not win alone if Germany got back on their feet again.
If you think that 4 years of bloodshed in the same generation has no influence on what they decide to do in the field is insane.
I’m not saying that there was a secret cabinet meeting, that has absolutely nothing to do with Game Theory, if you read economics. It is the theory that states that all actions that all nations do are at all times logical for the situation they are in.
From the French PoV, the situation pre-war was simple, they were demoralized and not looking for a new war. So they acted in a particular way, throw neutrals at Germany, and try to slow them down, failing that hope someone else does the fighting. They did so because they knew they had no choices left.
That is the reason why they didn’t lunge across the Maginot when Germany was tied down in Poland, they knew their armies would probably downright refuse to move against such a meat grinder. And that is why they didn’t enter Belgium and Lux first, even when they knew Germany would come from there. They played their cards as best as the situation presented itself.
France was not acting like a great world power, and it was doing so intentionally. On one level because their armies and people would not allow it, but more than that. They knew that it would probably make little difference except cost lives.
The reason for the Vichy government is simple, many French really believed that France would be better off Allying with Germany and accepting that Germany rules the continent, and French the colonies.
It is not insane to believe that French commanders and politicians planned for the eventuality, considering how many jumped over to the Vichy side, and how quickly they did so.
Isolationist or not, the US was at war with Germany effectively and legally speaking sometime in the 1940’s and its entry on the side of the UK was certain in all but name by then anyway. The Undeclared war between the USN and the U-Boats was already well under way and it was pretty obvious that the US would enter the war.
This, was pretty obvious all the way to the 1920’s, IF Germany goes to war with the UK, Then U-Boats will probably play a part, and using them will eventually get the US into the war, just like last time.
And it did.
Pearl harbor or no Pearl harbor, the US will be at war eventually.
And then there’s the sequal:
Most people prefer to rely on historical documents and records of cabinet meetings as a basis for their ideas concerning why decisions are made. You prefer not to know and instead to bake bizarre guesses based entirely on fantasy and a highly inaccurate hindsight.
Without discounting any of it, and assuming that no one plans 10-20 or 30 years ahead for the future is very much the same. You have still not said anything even remotely resembling a reason why the French leaders and people would not have seen the 2nd world war coming, and how it would play it in general. Considering that, as you probably know, Foch predicted it 20 years before it happening.
If one field marshal can predict it, do you really believe that the war, and its general developments even if lacking the specific details would not be predictable 20 years before they happen?
As I say, your view relies on the French leaders lacking vision, plans, strategies and just plain common sense and knowledge of ww1 and its development.
In my opinion, based on French history and its current geo-political situation, it seems very likely that they both estimated for and predicted the war in fairly accurate terms and as a result came out in the best condition.
Your theory is based on French ignorance, mine is on French foresight. Please attack the theory not the person? Or is that too much to ask for.
And here you lapse back to the surrender monkey theory:
No, I don’t. French fought very well for the resources they had, but looking at the ww1 and its predicted outcome, it was very likely by 1939 after Molotov-Ribbentrop, it is impossible to win would become apparent to any French commanders. Not with their present army moral and populations desires.
So, no, they are not surrender monkies, that is insulting and racist, and what I have expected of you based on your argumenting style.
Put yourself in the shoes of the French military command in 1939.
You know that your military is absolutely demoralized, that their unity and desire to fight is gone, the communists have massive support, as do the facist, and the military is divided, and generally obsolete, and your first plan for the war was to get the SU and Ger fighting, and now that they do not fight, you will face the entire German military machine alone?
Would you fight to the last man, woman and child, lose a great deal of soldiers and MOST LIKELY still not make a dent, based on experiences of the first world war and what has happened since then.
From that view, the French position was clear. They are in no position to make a serious effort, they are beaten before the war has even began. And they know it damn well based on inventory of military, the rapid defeat of Poland, the alliance of Ger and SU, the serious internal disruption they have, the moral issues they have.
Looking at this situation, once it becomes clear that the Germans can NOT be held in Belgium, it is better to surrender en masse and save the industry and the population. Even if the German occupation is harsh, it will be less harsh than reliving ww1. The French were positioning themselves for two eventualities.
If Germany wins, you’ll be the one continental diplomatic superpower with a colonial empire, something Germany lacks the means to gain at this time, and needs French to manage.
IF Germany loses, you can say to the western allies “we at least put up a good fight”
That is what Game theory is about, it is about planning for every conceivable alternative down the path of potential future events. It isn’t a conspiracy theory and you are, frankly, a moron for believing that it is.
It is a economic and political theory where you assign a numeral value for every potential outcome of this choice, and then a numeral value for every potential value for that choice, and so on. And then when you have the numerical values for all potential world lines you take the best actions that lead to the best scores for your nation.
That is the basic concept of Game Theory, and it doesn’t require anyone involved to actually plan in any way. It is a simulation that is used to game out possible scenarios for the future.
And any self respecting nation state plays such scenarios out. And the Maginot line was designed from such a playing out of possible scenarios, it wasn’t a idea that was based on “here we have mountains, lets build a fort!” Politics, dear chap, are a little more complicated than that.
My answer in the original was simple, in my view, French played out their cards perfectly, and landed in a position where they are effectively one of the remaining independent cultural powers in the world.
This bit’s particularly funny:
Historically, British – German relations have been extremely good, the English royal family have mostly German ancestors. It was Franco-English relations that were historically bad.
You appear to enjoy intentionally misreading my statements.
And since you are incapable of correcting that I will state to anyone actually bothering to read what we are saying.
What he says, is exactly the same thing I am saying, with the exception that I believe the French knew this and planned for it accordingly, he does not.
I believed that many in France wanted to align with Germany, and not with UK. The state in France in 1930 was, disruptive to put it mildly. And against that backdrop, the French people and leaders simply realized that getting both French and German soldiers and civilians killed en masse for a war that mainly benefits the UK, a nation which the French don’t particularly like, is foolish. And it is much smarter to defend enough so that they don’t literally roll over, and then proceed to accept their new status in the order of things.
I believe the French leaders knew that the people would not fight the Germans in such strength as had happened before.
You can lay out the possibilities of the war into 4 probability charts.
UK fights hard
Germany fights hard
UK fights soft
Germany fights soft.
Then from these you can see 4 potential possibilities. Each possibility had a distinct goal and a separate strategy. Then you need to plan for each individual strategy appropriately and build the best possible response.
From that insight it is possible to predict the actions that France took. Regardless of the UK or German strategies, it is best to avoid combat in the A-L. And also best to draw in as many allies, so, fortify the A-L by building the maginot and force the Germans either into a strictly French selected field, or force them into either Swiss or Low countries.
After that, it opens into another set of possible timelines, and so on.
That is the core principle of all games of politics. And it doesn’t take a genius to see that the French realized how divided their population is, how spent their resources are and how bloody a new war with Germany that is able to trade with the soviet union would really be.
They wanted nothing to do with it, even if it meant they would have to become subservient to a New Germany.
So, it comes down to 4 possibilities.
Germany fights strongly, in which case we avoid unnecessary bloodshed and surrender
Germany fights weakly, or fights to gain border territory (AL). We force them to spend as much while we spend as little, and then wait for allies.
UK fights strongly, we survive as UK wants to guarantee its empire and trade, and UK historical goal is to avoid unified Europe at all cost. Europe unified under Fascism from Norway to Italy would be bad for the UK, so this is most probable.
UK fights weakly, we become allies of Germany, and a new “German-French-Italian” empire rises in Europe.
All options maximize causalities inflicted on the enemy, and numbers gained by the French.
Then we have this:
Really, was it in 1930-34; when the Maginot Line was actually built? In fact the English relationship with the Germans was quite good and with the French rather questionable. Here’s what The Times had to say in an editorial in July 1934 (When Hitler had become Chancellor of Germany):
‘In the years that are coming, there is more reason to fear for Germany than to fear Germany.’
There is quite a bit of difference between the Time magazine and there is between the man on the street.
The Royal family undoutably had good connections with the Germans, but that’s not exactly my point is it? We are talking about the bloodiest war in history prior to the coming war within half a generation from the present moment, in some cases only 10 years ago (1919 to 1930 or so) Do you really believe that the man on the streets in Paris or in the parliament really looked at Germany the same way as propaganda like Times did?
And you do realize you are only making my point more valid?
The exact reason to build the wall was to force Germany to attack the low countries and should a War erupt, force Germany to go through the low countries, which if nothing else, would guarantee a UK entry into the war.
In 1930 the possibilities were this.
IF new war with Germany, then Germany will advance along the border and seize A-L and stop
OR
They will go for broke, which we cannot stop anyway, at which point we will be guaranteed German dominance, unless, we manage to get Germany to go through the Low Countries.
More monkeys here:
More insults here, but I suppose to say the French planned for the UK to fight the war for them is not the same as all the claims that the UK would plan for Indians to fight the war for them if things got rough enough, after all, we are talking about someone planning to use the Anglo-American world to their own advantage, and succeeding.
You are attacking me not because of what I say, if I turn the situation upside down and put the same exact tone up but say it is about UK using Indian manpower to fight the war for them, you would not insinuate that the UK is a surrender monkey for getting its allies to fight with it/for it. But if it’s the French that is your insinuation, you sir, are not making much of an effort other than name calling.
Prio to Oran the English were expected to capitulate withing a matter of months, but never mind that…
Yes mind that, because the French planned for that too, by getting ready for Vichy, which is why they won, they planned for every alternative regardless of who wins the war. It happened to be the UK, which is why the US thinks it liberated France. If Germany had won, it would believe it liberated France from the evils of communism. Either way, France becomes one of the number 1 countries on the continent.
‘then and there’?Then and there being three years! Aside from the fact that the United States never came to the aid of the United Kingdom, they were attacked by Japan and then Germany declared war on the United States.
Once the US declared war on Germany the jig was up. There is very very little that Germany can do once the US population and industrial might is mobilized. Short of getting SU-Ger-Jap alliance going, which is very unlikely.
And also, I suppose the destroyers for bases, escorting cargo for countries at war in international waters, in clear violation of the rules governing warfare. The loans, the outright support, trade and so on. I suppose that must never have happened.
Please come to the real world already, the US supported UK from almost the day the war started, at least do a cursory research of history and stop with the assenine name calling and cite something http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=7965317 this being a good example of the US policy at that time, which was clearly about helping the UK.
At this point your level of rudeness, insulting behavior and lack of any credible sources or even the most basic understanding of the world in 1940 combined with a “It is this way cus I say its this way, and you’re a idiot for thinking otherwise” is getting to grade school level stupidity.
Honestly, Cook, I expected better of you, you being one of the old time posters here. And I expected much more of the forum in terms of intellectual ability to engage in philosophical conversations about historical trends and their possible explanations.
In closing I’ll just say this, I came here to debate the points, not to call names. If after 2 days the best argument I can get from you is that “You are saying they are surrender monkies ZOMGS!” Then I honestly pity you.
I will no longer respond to this thread, if anyone wants to continue discussing the French motivations, plans and strategies in a thoughtful, researched and cited manner from 1919 to 1950 or so, feel free to start a thread and PM me about it!
*Waves*![]()
You're forgetting, Hitler had Elefants.Cymraeg said:The thought of panzers trying to go through the Swiss Alps gives me lots of warm fuzzy feelings.![]()
No, they indicate fanciful & absurd explanations of historical outcomes. This one amounts to France's Pearl Harbor conspiracy. Spending billions of francs on a defensive structure that will lose France a war?Hkelukka said:It isnt a conspiracy theory, it is political theory. Conspiracies indicate that there is a secret cabal behind all world events
That, at least, makes sense. (I'd say "extend", not "finish", but that's quibbling.)Hkelukka said:...all political actions are at their core rational.
The french decision to not finish the maginot line was entirely rational.
It didn't, actually. Belgium could as easily have joined the Germans as declared neutrality.Hkelukka said:It ensured that either Belgium or Swizz were in the war. It also ensured that said neutral would be on the allied side? Was that not the intent?
This, like the Pearl Harbor conspiracy stupidity, relies on hindsight. There is no conceivable way the French government could know this when the Line was begun.Hkelukka said:[France] had a very strong idea that the UK would not surrender.
...
And from the french POV, the UK was guaranteed to remain in the war, and as long as it remained, the US would eventually come to the aid of the UK and decide the war then and there.
Unwinnable? Not really. It was possible for Germany to crash Britain's economy with U-boats.Hkelukka said:Draw germany into a procracted unwinnable war with the UK
And we're now into "FDR planned the Pearl Harbor attack" territory. How, when the Line was begun, would France know there would be a war?Hkelukka said:Draw US into the war on UK side by ensuring that UK + France cant win without France, and that UK cant win without US or France.
And when the Line is begun, France knows Hitler will attack the SU how?Hkelukka said:eventually cause german-SU conflict
Hkelukka said:they managed to become the number one continental power in europe
Of course it did. It made France want to avoid fighting a protracted campaign on French soil. A defensive line isn't guaranteed to insure that...Hkelukka said:If you think that 4 years of bloodshed in the same generation has no influence on what they decide to do in the field is insane.
That's the panzer myth at work. France had more men & better tanks than Germany. (Worse doctrine, so they might've been shot up pretty good even so.Hkelukka said:...against such a meat grinder
Don't bet on it. If Hitler hadn't had a massive attack of the stupids, there was a pretty good chance Congress would've left Germany alone after Pearl Harbor.Hkelukka said:Isolationist or not, the US was at war with Germany effectively and legally speaking sometime in the 1940’s and its entry on the side of the UK was certain in all but name by then anyway. The Undeclared war between the USN and the U-Boats was already well under way and it was pretty obvious that the US would enter the war.
I'm getting really, really tired of the fiction Lusitania led to the U.S. entry into WW1. That had more to do with Germany offering a deal to Mexico, & a faulty, stupid effort to keep the U.S. out of WW1.Hkelukka said:...U-Boats will probably play a part, and using them will eventually get the US into the war, just like last time.
And nobody listened...Hkelukka said:Foch predicted it 20 years before it happening.
Well, no. They bungled attacks (notably at Sedan, as described here, with thanx to Cook) & generally got their strategic situation FUBAR.Hkelukka said:French fought very well for the resources they had
Because they've been hiding behind the damn Maginot Line for at least 5yr & the world is in the grip of a delusion disarmament will prevent war.Hkelukka said:Put yourself in the shoes of the French military command in 1939.
You know that your military is absolutely demoralized
Hkelukka said:...the military is ...generally obsolete
You do know the first plan of the French & British governments was to not have a damn war in the first place? Don't you?Hkelukka said:...your first plan for the war was to get the SU and Ger fighting
There's some staggering ignorance there. One, the SU & Germany weren't allies. Two, Poland wasn't exactly a major military power in 1939. Three, as alreay noted, France's problems were in part a product of building the Line. Four, most important, none of this had happened when the decision to begin the Line was made, so how does it explain making that decision?Hkelukka said:...they are beaten before the war has even began. And they know it damn well based on inventory of military, the rapid defeat of Poland, the alliance of Ger and SU, the serious internal disruption they have, the moral issues they have.
Your proposition is simply contrary to all history. Countries that are attacked do not surrender unless they see no other option. (Take a look at how reluctant the U.S. was even to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan after 2003.) Game theory may apply in the lab. It does not govern foreign policy, & if you think it does, you're an idiot. It informs decisions, but does not control them. If it did, Hitler would never have declared war on the U.S. & Japan would never have attacked Pearl Harbor. (Which presumes use of game theory was prevalent in government circles in 1939 in the first place...Hkelukka said:Looking at this situation, once it becomes clear that the Germans can NOT be held in Belgium, it is better to surrender en masse and save the industry and the population. Even if the German occupation is harsh, it will be less harsh than reliving ww1. The French were positioning themselves for two eventualities.
Hkelukka said:If Germany wins, you’ll be the one continental diplomatic superpower with a colonial empire, something Germany lacks the means to gain at this time, and needs French to manage.
Hkelukka said:you are, frankly, a moron for believing that it is
A war which would leave her bankrupt?Hkelukka said:a war that mainly benefits the UK
Don't bet on it. National pride supercedes good sense. It always has.Hkelukka said:They wanted nothing to do with it, even if it meant they would have to become subservient to a New Germany.
Why?Hkelukka said:...force Germany to go through the low countries, which if nothing else, would guarantee a UK entry into the war
And when did Britain become a colony of France, exactly?Hkelukka said:I suppose to say the French planned for the UK to fight the war for them is not the same as all the claims that the UK would plan for Indians to fight the war for them
Well, since India was a colony, not really an issue. The Canadians, Australians, & Americans volunteered (or had Germany volunteer themHkelukka said:you would not insinuate that the UK is a surrender monkey for getting its allies to fight with it/for it
This is the same delusional stupidity that leads people to believe FDR arranged Pearl Harbor. It demands astonishing foresight & relies on hindsight to make it work.Hkelukka said:because the French planned for that too
And how did France, in 1930, know Hitler was going to be such an utter maniac?Hkelukka said:Once the US declared war on Germany the jig was up.
And, again, how did France know this would happen when the Line was begun?Hkelukka said:And also, I suppose the destroyers for bases, escorting cargo for countries at war in international waters, in clear violation of the rules governing warfare. The loans, the outright support, trade and so on. I suppose that must never have happened.
Hkelukka said:Please come to the real world
The refuge of the intellectually dishonest.Hkelukka said:I will no longer respond to this thread