 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
De Gaulle certainly left his mark on the history book. A big brown streak akin to the ones in some people's underwear.  |
So how many battles, in how many wars have you fought in?
'Commissioned as a second lieutenant, the 6 feet 5 tall de Gaulle joined an infantry regiment commanded by Colonel Henri-Philippe Petain in 1913.
In the First World War de Gaulle was wounded twice in the first few months of the conflict. Promoted to the rank of captain in February, 1915, de Gaulle fought at Verdun where he was wounded again and on 2nd March, 1916 was captured by the German Army. Over the next 32 months he was held in several prisoner of war camps and made five unsuccessful attempts to escape.
After the Armistice de Gaulle was assigned to a Polish division being formed in France where he served under Maxime Weygand. He fought against the Red Army during the Civil War and won Poland's highest military decoration, Virtuti Militari.
De Gaulle lectured at the French War College where he worked closely with Henri-Philippe Petain. Over the next few years the two men recommended a small, mobile, highly mechanized army of professionals.
De Gaulle's military ideas appeared in his book, The Army of the Future (1934). In the book he also criticized the static theories of war exemplified by the Maginot Line. The book was unpopular with the politicians and the military who favoured the idea of a mass army of conscripts during war. In 1936 de Gaulle was punished for his views by having his name taken off the promotion list.
In 1938 de Gaulle published France and Her Army. This book caused a disagreement with Henri-Philippe Petain who accused de Gaulle of taking credit for work done by the staff of the French War College.
On the outbreak of the Second World War de Gaulle took over command of the 5th Army's tank force in Alsace. He soon became frustrated with the military hierarchy who had failed to grasp the importance of using tanks in mass-attacks with air support.
When the German Army broke through at Sedan he was given command of the recently formed 4th Armoured Division. With 200 tanks, de Gaulle attacked the German panzers at Montcornet on 17th May, 1940. Lacking air support, de Gaulle made little impact on halting the German advance.
De Gaulle was more successful at Caumont (28th May) when he became the only French commanding officer to force the Germans to retreat during the German Invasion of France.
On the 5th June, 1940, the French prime minister, Paul Reynaud, sacked Edouard Daladier and appointed de Gaulle as his minister of war. De Gaulle also visited London but when he returned to France on 16th June he discovered the Henri-Philippe Petain had ousted Paul Reynaud as premier and was forming a government that would seek an armistice with Germany. In danger of being arrested by the new French government, de Gaulle returned to England. The following day he made a radio broadcast calling for French people to continue fighting against the German Army.
Whereas as President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the USA recognized Vichy France Winston Churchill refused and backed de Gaulle as leader of the "Free French". Henri-Philippe Petain responded by denouncing de Gaulle. On 4th July, 1940, a court-martial in Toulouse sentenced him in absentia to four years in prison. At a second court-martial on 2nd August, 1940, sentenced him to death.
De Gaulle made attempts to unify the resistance movements in France. In March 1943 Jean Moulin, Charles Delestraint and Andre Dewavrin managed to unite eight major resistance movements under de Gaulle's leadership. However, this good work was undermined when in June, 1943, both Delestraint and Moulin were both arrested by the Gestapo.
On 30th May 1943, de Gaulle moved to Algeria. The following month the French Committee of National Liberation (FCNL) was established with de Gaulle and Henri Giraud as co-presidents. De Gaulle had difficulty working with his co-president and by July, 1943, had limited Giraud's power to command of the armed forces.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were furious when de Gaulle's announced on 26 May, 1944, that the FCNL will now be known as the Provisional Government of the French Republic. Roosevelt and Churchill refused to recognize de Gaulle's action and decided to exclude him from the planning of Operation Overlord.
Despite objections from Britain and the USA, De Gaulle's Provisional Government was recognized by Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia and Norway. On 13th July, 1944, the governments of Britain and the USA also agreed that de Gaulle could help administer the liberated portions of France.
De Gaulle reached France from Algiers on 20th August 1944. De Gaulle and his 2nd Armoured Division was allowed to join the USA Army when it entered Paris on 25th August. At a public speech later that day he announced that the French Forces of the Interior (FFI) would be integrated into the French Army and the militia would be dissolved. He also offered posts in his government to leaders of the resistance. Those who took office included Georges Bidault, Henry Frenay and Charles Tillon.
De Gaulle was upset by not being invited to the Yalta Conference but he was allowed to represent France as one of the four countries to sign the final instrument of surrender with Germany. France was also given one of the four occupation zones in Germany.'
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdegaulle.htm
I think perhaps you should brush up on your French history, before speaking ill of the dead, even in jest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
Again, way too narrow minded. The US needs a cheap, continuous supply of oil from the ME just as much as anyone else, and maybe even more. It's called a commodity market, and it means that it doesn't matter who physically ships oil to who, but rather what the prevailing global price is. |
I don't think that is entirely correct. Yes, the world price effects all supplies, but not all supplies are economic or possible for any given region.
Take Alberta's oil for instance. There is no infrastructure in place to ship it anywhere but to Eastern Canada and the US. The cost of getting that oil to Europe or Japan would be a huge additional cost, and wouldn't even be possible until significant alterations in logistics were made. That takes time. In a crisis, we're talking about access to any oil at all, not just the cost of the oil you can get.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
Woah.....have you been infected by Ned? Seriously, you've always seemed to be quite rational - what's getting into you? As a preface, I'm trying not to make any value judgements as to whether or not the US should police the world or whether Europe (or anyone else) should free ride on the US. I'm just saying that they can because the US will not just stop intervening in areas where it feels its interests are threatened.
No Republican or Democrat in the US is going to stop using the long reach of the US military for matters they deem important. Of course the US public is squeamish of large numbers of casualties - that's kind of why the US makes sure that it picks and chooses it's fights so as to minimize the chance of that. All that could conceivably change is that conflict X gets overlooked in favor of conflict Y. I think it's pretty clear that the US would never (at least in the foreseeable future) extridite itself from all conflicts, especially given the sheer size of it's global interests. |
I am speaking of what could happen, not what will happen next week or what is likely to happen in 2 years. The word 'conceivable' is a dangerous one to use when considering possibilities. Consider...
The US has a strong streak of isolationism in its not too distant past. Of course they picked a few spots where they did get involved, but by and large they treated the world beyond the ponds as not much of their concern, and certainly not something to send their sons off to fight and die for. It is inconceivable that a trait they have demonstrated in the past could not become current again?
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans decide what is going to happen. For all the crap that gets dumped on their system, the American people are the ones who call the shots. FDR did his best, but he could not convince them. It took an attack on them to get them fully involved in world affairs.
Finally, lots of things are possible. The world changes a little bit every day. On some days it changes a lot. How exactly would the US continue to fund the military that projects their power if there were another severe economic shock? If a crisis in the world or the American economy coincided with weariness of overseas adventure and body counts, don't you think it would be conceivable that the American people might decide that they no longer wanted the role of being the worlds cop, even if they could afford it?
You do a good job of describing how the US has operated for close to 60 years. What you are not doing is taking into account that times and people change. I am not saying that they will change, or that when they do that they will change the way I have outlined. I am saying that change is possible if not probable. It's been 60 years since the last major change in US attitudes and behaviour. Historically speaking, we are due for another any time now. Then again, maybe we are already seeing it. Maybe the change is that the US will act the hegemon and get more deeply involved overseas. I can't see that continuing for too long though. Those soldiers are voters, and so are their families.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, thanks for your thoughtful and accurate post. It would be helpful for France to have people like you explain France's position to the US. We then would have a place for dialog. |
Well, I think our diplomats all understood both our countries tried to further their interest, or their greed if you want to put it this way.
The real reason why hatred was so intense is because the governments tried to associate the public opinion with the diplomatic efforts. As such, only the emotional arguments were used ("let's kill the bastard" vs "let's save the peace") in open place, as they tried to gain the moral high ground.
You'll notice both governments tried to avoid too much transatlantic hatred, which was mostly excited by the civil society, including the media.
Had the governments been honest to their people about their real diplomatic intentions, the rift would have been definitely less severe (although I'd expect both populations to be discontent about the choice of the other).
Had the positions not been as polarized, it is very possible France would convince the EU as a whole to say "you are wrong" to the US, yet without impending on the UN endorsement of the war. It would have resulted in no side truly losing the face, and an actual peakeeping cooperation would have been possible.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2004 04:47
. If so, then yes, you'd have a point. 
Life was good.
|