More France Bashing

[Rvrwind]

They may have been British, I'm a little rusty on my history, but no matter they were fighting for Canada & thats what counts!
Okay just read about it here: http://www.napoleonguide.com/campaign_1812.htm . It was the British with some French Militia & Indians that defended Canada. Too long to post it here so you'll have to read it there, LOL.
Brushing up on my history, wasn't my best subject in school.
IIRC the Whitehouse is white because the evidence of the fire could only be hidden by painting over it. Before that it was concrete grey...I could be wrong however, woudn't be the first time & probably won't be the last.
I actually brought that up in jest, but I can see a few Americans that really don't like knowing or is it admitting we whipped their butts. We must have won, we are still Canada & a separate nation. Had we lost the US & Canada would probably be called North America as country rather than a region or USA, land of 63 States!! .
I also remembered another battle fought by Canadians that was very well known but for some reason not often mentioned. No, it was not a war, just an intense battle inside the war, but we did kick some butt! It was also fought in France against the Germans.
The Battle of Vimy Ridge, 9-12 April 1917
Many historians and writers consider the Canadian victory at Vimy a defining moment for Canada, when the country emerged from under the shadow of Britain and felt capable of greatness. Canadian troops also earned a reputation as formidable, effective troops because of the stunning success. But it was a victory at a terrible cost, with more than 10,000 killed and wounded.

The Canadian Corps was ordered to seize Vimy Ridge in April 1917. Situated in northern France, the heavily-fortified seven-kilometre ridge held a commanding view over the Allied lines. The Canadians would be assaulting over an open graveyard since previous French attacks had failed with over 100,000 casualties.

To capture this difficult position, the Canadians would carefully plan and rehearse their attack. To provide greater flexibility and firepower in battle, the infantry were given specialist roles as machine-gunners, rifle-men and grenade-throwers. These same soldiers underwent weeks of training behind the lines using models to represent the battlefield, and new maps crafted from aerial photographs to guide their way. To bring men forward safely for the assault, engineers dug deep tunnels from the rear to the front. Despite this training and preparation, the key to victory would be a devastating artillery barrage that would not only isolate enemy trenches, but provide a moving wall of high explosives and shrapnel to force the Germans to stay in their deep dugouts and away from their machine-guns. "Chaps, you shall go over exactly like a railroad train, on time, or you shall be annihilated," warned Canadian Corps commander Sir Julian Byng.

In the week leading up to the battle, Canadian and British artillery pounded the enemy positions on the ridge, killing and tormenting defenders. New artillery tactics allowed the gunners to first target, then destroy enemy positions. A nearly limitless supply of artillery shells and the new 106 fuse, which allowed shells to explode on contact, as opposed to burying themselves in ground, facilitated the destruction of hardened defences and barbed wire. The Canadian infantry would be well supported when it went into battle with over 1,000 artillery pieces laying down withering, supportive fire.

Attacking together for the first time, the four Canadian divisions stormed the ridge at 5:30am on 9 April 1917. More than 15,000 Canadian infantry overran the Germans all along the front. Incredible bravery and discipline allowed the infantry to continue moving forward under heavy fire, even when their officers were killed.  There were countless acts of sacrifice, as Canadians single-handedly charged machine-gun nests or forced the surrender of Germans in protective dugouts. Hill 145, the highest and most important feature of the Ridge, and where the Vimy monument now stands, was captured in a frontal bayonet charge against machine-gun positions. Three more days of costly battle delivered final victory. The Canadian operation was an important success, even if the larger British and French offensive, of which it had been a part, had failed. But it was victory at a heavy cost: 3,598 Canadians were killed and another 7,000 wounded.

The capture of Vimy was more than just an important battlefield victory. For the first time all four Canadian divisions attacked together: men from all regions of Canada were present at the battle. Brigadier-General A.E. Ross declared after the war, "in those few minutes I witnessed the birth of a nation."

Vimy became a symbol for the sacrifice of the young Dominion. In 1922, the French government ceded to Canada in perpetuity Vimy Ridge, and the land surrounding it. The gleaming white marble and haunting sculptures of the Vimy Memorial, unveiled in 1936, stand as a terrible and poignant reminder of the more than sixty thousand Canadians who died serving their country during the First World War.

[Mir]

Dan/RIch

I have no doubt that Canadians would be formidable in battle.
Still the point remains that the 1812 war is considered as a war between the British Empire and the US(who was allied with France).Of course the British colonies would side with her.
In almost all colonial wars there have been few British involved, the majority of the troops have been local.
For example when the British forces crushed the Indian mutiny of 1857-58 as much as 80% of the army was local. It was said about Indian solders that they were second to non provided they had British officers.

[LTCOLBIEGARD]

Yes, the british always are in the middle of things. get on the rwguide.com forum. You will quickly see that...

What about that stinky FRENCH ???

[Rvrwind]

I have no doubt that Canadians would be formidable in battle.

Especially when you deprive them of their beer!!!!! 

[I/O]

What about that stinky FRENCH ???

Their only answer seemed to be to try to produce reasonabley good perfumes.

I/O

[DKMM]

France is the only country in the world that was our ally in one way or another in every major war we ever fought. 

[Mir]

France is the only country in the world that was our ally in one way or another in every major war we ever fought. 

Interestingly USA almost entered the war on the Russian side against UK and France during the Crimean mini world war !

[TexasBoar]

Very entertaining thread. 

I do think it's worth saying that the current American fashion for France-bashing gained popularity when they wouldn't go into Iraq with us.  POST-Afghanistan, where we had an actual (still unfinished) job to do.  The current administration was quick to set the "fur us or agin' us" tone, and it hasn't abated.

Thing is . . . who looks more "right" NOW?

~Boar

[BillyB]

Very entertaining thread. 

I do think it's worth saying that the current American fashion for France-bashing gained popularity when they wouldn't go into Iraq with us.  POST-Afghanistan, where we had an actual (still unfinished) job to do.  The current administration was quick to set the "fur us or agin' us" tone, and it hasn't abated.

Thing is . . . who looks more "right" NOW?

~Boar

Actually the experiences I mention upthread from tourists being treated rudely from the French happened long before the war. Maybe the French started to have an attitude against Americans since they didn't need us after the USSR fell apart. But America has taken the high road and is still commited to protecting Europe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18611343/

I just wonder if Europe is man enough to be there for us if we're ever in trouble?

[Mir]

America has taken the high road and is still commited to protecting Europe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18611343/

 It is funny how all Imperial powers right from Athens and her Delian league in 477BC- to this day are able to disguise their intentions as protection for those they want to dominate/control:) Somehow their leaders can convince at least a proportion of their citizens that what they are doing is from the good of their heart, and for protection of weaker nation(s) against a threat 

[BillyB]

It is funny how all Imperial powers right from Athens and her Delian league in 477BC- to this day are able to disguise their intentions as protection for those they want to dominate/control:) Somehow their leaders can convince at least a proportion of their citizens that what they are doing is from the good of their heart, and for protection of weaker nation(s) against a threat 

Mir, can you tell me which European nations object to America's occupation of their land and object to the missile shield that protects their citizens? If this protection is a "disguise" for something worse, when do you figure we'll start WW3 and take over Europe for good? What people fail to understand is that Russia's leadership could change for the worse in a hurry and they still have nuke missles. Also, not many nations are eager to stop Iran's program with force so we need to spend the money on damage control such as building a shield. We know madmen will be in charge of nukes. It's not a question of "if" they will launch them, it's a question of when.

[ScottinCrimea]

It wasn't just that France would not go into Iraq wiyh us, it was that they actively opposed us.  Apparently France in general and Chirac in particular had some pretty sweet deals going on the side with Hussein and didn't want to disturb the cash flow, no matter what his threat might be to his own people or the world.

[I/O]

It wasn't just that France would not go into Iraq wiyh us, it was that they actively opposed us.  Apparently France in general and Chirac in particular had some pretty sweet deals going on the side with Hussein and didn't want to disturb the cash flow, no matter what his threat might be to his own people or the world.

Scott: Ya beat me to it...!!!  The covert under the radar supply of oil against the international sanctions (Which France supported in the UN) was one the primary reasons France opposed the whole thing.

I/O

[TexasBoar]

It wasn't just that France would not go into Iraq wiyh us, it was that they actively opposed us.  Apparently France in general and Chirac in particular had some pretty sweet deals going on the side with Hussein and didn't want to disturb the cash flow, no matter what his threat might be to his own people or the world.

"threat?" 

Question: had their "opposition" succeeded . . . would America be worse off, or better? How about Iraq?  The world?

~Boar

[I/O]

T/B:  I have discussed and seen this question discussed many times and on forums also.  My conclusion FWIW is this.  Are we (The world in general) better off now than before the incursion into Iraq?  I think probably not.  Are we better off now than we would have been now if we had not gone into Iraq, IMO yes.  Subtle but important difference.

One, I suspect should consult with Iraq's, nearest neighbours from prior to the '91 deal to get a real perspective on things.

I/O 

[TexasBoar]

*shrug*

NOTHING made it our business or concern.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, posed no threat to US interests, and while clearly a "despot," Saddam was a stable despot.

Now it's a quagmire and a tarbaby and the entire region is destabilized.

Yay us.  We rock. 

~Boar

[BC]

Mir, can you tell me which European nations object to America's occupation of their land and object to the missile shield that protects their citizens?

France for one..  but they have their own nukes so the 'missile shield' discussion is a no brainer..

Germans were always complaining about airplane noise etc..  now there are very few bases left in Germany.

A few protests about base expansion in Italy quite recently.

Only one base left in Spain..

I think Bush would have been much better off working with RU on a common defense system.. now we probably have RU missiles aimed at US missiles aimed at some theoretically possible missile that has much more chance to fall on RU territory than US.

Probably the current round is tit for tat based on the old Cuban missile crisis which was a reaction to nukes stationed in Turkey.

History tends to repeat...

[WmGO]

I do think it's worth saying that the current American fashion for France-bashing gained popularity when they wouldn't go into Iraq with us.  POST-Afghanistan, where we had an actual (still unfinished) job to do.  The current administration was quick to set the "fur us or agin' us" tone, and it hasn't abated.

Thing is . . . who looks more "right" NOW?

Pravda.

It wasn't just that France would not go into Iraq wiyh us, it was that they actively opposed us.  Apparently France in general and Chirac in particular had some pretty sweet deals going on the side with Hussein and didn't want to disturb the cash flow, no matter what his threat might be to his own people or the world.

Also pravda.

[BillyB]

*shrug*

NOTHING made it our business or concern.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, posed no threat to US interests,

Yes, Saddam in charge of Iraq posed a threat to our interest and that's oil. France and Russia also had an interest in oil and that's why they opposed the war. Pipeline from Iraq going to Syria feeding oil to countries under the table and goods from France and Russia going to Iraq. Iraq had no pressure to abide by the UN resolutions thanks to France, Russia, and the Oil for food scandel. Once the oil is finished in the Middle East, we will treat them like African nations unless their people can be productive in other ways. Let's face it, even at the individual level, we may throw money at a bum to feed him but we will not give him more attention than that unless he is of some value to us.

BC, there's always going to be a few Europeans who protest America's bases on their land. But America didn't force it's way there. We were invited by their governments because those countries want security and/or American dollars. anyhow, It's now cheaper for the US to built bases in the former Soviet countrolled nations and being closer to Russia and Iran, it's better for the security of Europe.

I disagree that we should work with Russia to build a common defense system for two reasons.

1) Once you know how to build the technology, you easily learn how to counter act it.

2) We don't want or trust the latest technology in Russia's hands the same reason most private companies don't want to launch their technologically advanced billion dollar satellites in Russia's cheaper space program. Private companies rather pay more to have Americans or Europeans send their products into space. Russia likes to copy things while letting others do the leg work for inventing it. They even attempted to copy the space shuttle.

[BC]

I disagree that we should work with Russia to build a common defense system for two reasons.

1) Once you know how to build the technology, you easily learn how to counter act it.

2) We don't want or trust the latest technology in Russia's hands the same reason most private companies don't want to launch their technologically advanced billion dollar satellites in Russia's cheaper space program. Private companies rather pay more to have Americans or Europeans send their products into space. Russia likes to copy things while letting others do the leg work for inventing it. They even attempted to copy the space shuttle.

Billy,

When it comes to rocket science I don't think RU ever has been lacking...  They seem to be even turning a buck shuttling tourists and making up for lost Shuttle flights..

At the moment technology has very little to do with shooting things into space.  Capacity and price do.

[WmGO]

I personally think it is high time for Europe to fend for itself re defense.....let them create and pay for their own missile defense if that is what they want....we need to be protecting North America (U.S. and Canada) ( not Mexico

It is ironic that it is the Russkies who are developing the Iranian nuclear threat.....they created it....then some brainiacs in the State Dept. and current Administration suggest to let the Russians join in a common missile defense system for Europe to try to get them to quit bellyaching about it......the whole world is insane..........

[ScottinCrimea]

The thread is about France-bashing.  Whether or not we were right to go into Iraq, only history can decide.  Remember there were many who opposed us joining in on WWII and even in the middle of it, many thought it was a mistake.  It is impossible to know now whether or not it was the right decision to go into Iraq.  Ask again in 50 years and maybe we'll have a better idea.

The big deal with France and the Iraq issue was not so much that they didn't join us, but the lying, underhanded, backstabbing way they went about it was what caused the ill feelings.

[BillyB]

Billy,

When it comes to rocket science I don't think RU ever has been lacking...  They seem to be even turning a buck shuttling tourists and making up for lost Shuttle flights..

At the moment technology has very little to do with shooting things into space.  Capacity and price do.

Russia has good rocket technology and parts of America's space program uses Russian booster rockets since they have better thrust. But if I owned a company and developed technology for TV, Radio, or telephone communications from space, I would not do business with Russia because there's a high probability that my satellite full of the latest technology will be stripped apart, analyzed, and copied before going into space. I'd rather pay a more to launch it into space through a European or American company which I know I can successfully sue if competitors get their hands on my stuff. I know an engineer who works for the Boeing space program and they are doing much better business than Russia is although they are more expensive.

[BC]

Russia has good rocket technology and parts of America's space program uses Russian booster rockets since they have better thrust. But if I owned a company and developed technology for TV, Radio, or telephone communications from space, I would not do business with Russia because there's a high probability that my satellite full of the latest technology will be stripped apart, analyzed, and copied before going into space. I'd rather pay a more to launch it into space through a European or American company which I know I can successfully sue if competitors get their hands on my stuff. I know an engineer who works for the Boeing space program and they are doing much better business than Russia is although they are more expensive.

Think if you deliver a 'payload' to the Russians that they will have a chance to disassemble and copy your technology, then put your humpty dumpty back togehter again in perfect order???

You contradict yourself and your thoughts border on paranoia.

[Mir]

Billy

The question is not that American imperialism is better then Russian or any other.
What is wrong is to assume that America has been/does rush to the defence of helpless nations without a vested interest. The fact is that America will take such steps to further her own imperial goals and not out of any interest for the nations/people it claims to defend.
A detailed answer about US imperialism over the last 50 years will take a long time to post and most likely will be dismissed by the good folks here as socialist/communist propaganda so I will save my breath.