I'm pretty sure that Britian, Russia and the United States were three of them. What nation was the fourth? Anyone know?:confused:

Nevermind. I found it :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Powers

France, wasn't it?

I'm pretty sure that Britian, Russia and the United States were three of them. What nation was the fourth? Anyone know?:confused:

Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, & United States ...

It's hard to understand why France got to be involved. They were defeated & then liberated. The other powers were the victors. Why not include Poland, Finland, Holland etc too if you are going to include France?

France got in on its' past "glory".

It's hard to understand why France got to be involved. They were defeated & then liberated. The other powers were the victors. Why not include Poland, Finland, Holland etc too if you are going to include France?


The same way France got to be one of the deciders of the peace treaty ending WWI. Had France not been included in that treaty with her unreasonable demands on Germany there probably would not have been a Second World War.

France always loses the war and dictates the peace.

Tho it's fashionable to bash France, I will always consider them our friend.

They helped us during the Revolution at great cost to their own country when they didn't have to, and thus bankrupted themselves and triggered their own revolution a few years later. (true, they were next to bankrupt anyway but still...)

They gave us the Statue of Liberty too as a birthday gift. Not too many other countries have given us much, especially a beautiful work of art like that....one of the all time great quotes was said when the American Expeditionary Force landed there during the last months of WW I....."Lafayette, we are here."

This is attributed to Black Jack Pershing but was actually said by his aide. Pershing later said, "I WISH I had said that."

Without help from the French underground Normandy wouldn't have been possible. That might be one reason. France always seems to have serious problems with their government. Their revoloution basically failed, the government surrendered in WW2, and now it seems like corruption runs amuckity-muck-muck.

Without help from the French underground Normandy wouldn't have been possible.

Without the collaborationist Vichy government Normandy wouldn't have been necessary.

Without the collaborationist Vichy government Normandy wouldn't have been necessary.

Why on earth would you think that? It wouldn't change the fact that France needed to be invaded. The germans would still be there, regardless of the puppet Vichy government.

Without the collaborationist Vichy government Normandy wouldn't have been necessary. Without American business men Normandy wouldn't have been necessary. The US government should have seized GM and Ford for treason but lo we can't step on the toes of business now can we? Instead GM and Ford sued the US for bombing their Nazi factories.

Without the collaborationist Vichy government Normandy wouldn't have been necessary.

Just out of curiosity, what would you have done with all those German soldiers sitting in France?

Had the French not folded so easily there would not have been German soldiers sitting there.

The French put too much faith in the Maginot Line.

This would have protected them---in the previous war.

In all fairness, France was not the only country who was conquered quickly. Belgium was overrun within weeks, Holland was so desperate they actually opened their dykes. England had their very backs to the wall and if they hadn't been an island, would have met the same fate and were still all but finished with nonstop bombing, despite Lend-Lease.

This was a new type of warfare that no one was expecting or prepared for. Even the USSR, fully aware of what was going on in the West, and despite their treaty with Hitler, was still caught napping and if the winter hadn't set in, would have toppled as easily as the European countries. The Germans got within forty miles of Moscow before the weather halted thier advance.

Had the French not folded so easily there would not have been German soldiers sitting there.

As Rendova points out, no one was exactly stopping the Germans in their tracks. The U.S. Army in 1940 wasn't exactly an unstoppable fighting machine either - had we been in France at the time we would've had a hell of a time.

Howcome many americans dislike the French anyways? Do you consider them cowards?

My take--many here are of English stock.
As you know, the 2 countries have never liked each other. This goes back to the 100 Years War.

Had the French not surrendered so quickly their entire army on the Maginot Line would have been slaughtered. The French, just like everybody else except for the Germans had no armoured division to speak of at that time, and as such couldn't stop the Panzers that just rolled over foot soldiers.
As rendova said, it was an entirely different kind of war, one nobody was ready for. And extending on what lionel said, if the US had been in France at that time as well, I have a strong feeling that our forces would have been demolished as well. This was the brand new trained Germany army, not the tired undersupplied one that we fought when we finally joined the war.

Had the French not surrendered so quickly their entire army on the Maginot Line would have been slaughtered. The French, just like everybody else except for the Germans had no armoured division to speak of at that time, and as such couldn't stop the Panzers that just rolled over foot soldiers.
As rendova said, it was an entirely different kind of war, one nobody was ready for. And extending on what lionel said, if the US had been in France at that time as well, I have a strong feeling that our forces would have been demolished as well. This was the brand new trained Germany army, not the tired undersupplied one that we fought when we finally joined the war.

actually, the allies, especially the french, had BETTER tanks then the germans at the time. What they didnt have was better tactics. And WW2 could have been avoided altogether had the french enforced their own treaty and crushed the germans when they rolled into the DMZ with a couple batallions of infantry. Once they did that and saw no one do anythiing it was a green light to Hitler to start full blown rearmament without hiding it anymore. Had the french attacked and crushed the handful of germans in the DMZ because they broke the treaty, Hitler would have lost face and had to back out probably would have lost power. This is one of the reasons I hae the UN so much, like the french, they make resolutions but fail to back them up, so, like hitler to the French, the thugs of the world know the UN is a bunch of hot air. anyway, back on topic, France and the allies blew it, and paid the price. next time germany trys something, lets bomb that ass
here is a little snippet from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Forces_and_dispositions


Military factors:
imbalances. In most ways the Allied and German armies were comparably equipped. Both had roughly the same number of tanks and motorized divisions. In armor protection and penetrating power of main armament many of the French and British tanks were actually superior to their German counterparts. While German small arms may have been somewhat superior to Allied equipment, the Allies had a significant advantage in artillery. The German advantages did not lie in having an overall better equipped army, but rather, in superior operational and tactical combat performances.
Defensive attitude: French overreliance on the Maginot Line, a chain of forts built along most of the Franco-German border. It is undisputed that the French left the strategic initiative to the Germans; however, the purpose of the Maginot Line was not to serve as a cover-all defense, but to force the Germans to engage French mechanized forces in the Low Countries. In this regard it was successful and served its purpose.
Poor strategy: General Gamelin's decision to send his best-trained and equipped forces north to defend against invasion through the Low Countries, combined with Hitler's decision, against the advice of the German General Staff, to adopt the Manstein plan after an aircraft that was carrying a copy of the original invasion plan crashed in Belgium due to a navigational error.
The totally mistaken belief by the French military that the Ardennes forest formed a barrier to a modern, mechanized army which would so slow its progress that an effective defense could be organized before a serious threat could develop. As a result the Maginot Line defenses were not extended to that region, and only second-line forces were put there.
Outdated tactics. It is often assumed that there was a neglect of tank warfare by the French, exemplified by the rejection of Colonel Charles de Gaulle's tank warfare tactics by the French high command. The French had built a larger number of modern tanks than the Germans and these were on average better armed and armoured. Also it is untrue that they were divided among the infantry in "penny-packets" or even individually assigned to infantry units as support vehicles; even the independent tank battalions were combined in Groupements and allocated at army level. However, the French suffered from an inflexible division in infantry tanks and cavalry tanks: ironically the former were insufficiently trained to cooperate with the infantry and so couldn't execute modern combined arms tactics. In theory the operational doctrine of both armies was based on partly mechanized maneuver warfare; in practice the French shied away from it, while the best German field commanders were so bold as to let it develop into pure Blitzkrieg if the situation allowed.
Communication difficulties. The French communication system relied almost entirely on the public telephone network rather than two-way mobile radio used by the Germans. The telephone lines were often cut by military action (at the time sabotage was assumed) and often the only way of sending messages to the front was by dispatch rider. Allied commanders complained that they often had no information for days and when it did arrive, it was hopelessly out of date. Gamelin was criticized for making Château de Vincennes his HQ, despite the fact it lacked either radio or telephone communications and relied upon motorcycle courier. However the German High Command had poor control of the battle also — although in their case it worked to their benefit.
Command. The German Army relied on mission-type tactics, which allowed small-unit commanders to exercise a great deal of initiative in accordance with the objectives of higher headquarters. In contrast, French officers were trained to await guidance from higher headquarters before acting. This explains why the communications difficulties experienced by both sides worked to the benefit of the German Army. The German command structure passed information in both directions much faster than the French system. Combined with the high degree of initiative expected of German commanders, the result was a much faster decision cycle on the German side. French commanders repeatedly issued out-of-date orders.
Quality and guidance of German troops in combat. The French population was much smaller and more aged: they were forced to draft a lot of elder men to form so-called "B" (reserve) divisions, which they then could not train or staff properly as most professional instructors and officers were needed to man the "A"-divisions. These divisions were placed at positions where enemy attacks appeared unlikely, such as the Ardennes (the 55th Infantry was a "B"-division).To compensate for the lack of capability, French infantry doctrine stressed the importance of methodical procedure, leading to inflexibility. The Germans too had many insufficiently trained reserve divisions; but those infantry units used for the breakthrough all consisted of young and well-trained men. Their officers on the tactical and operational level were considered the best in the world.

The french.

"oh my gosh, their tanks were superior to the Germans, but their tactics were just flawed. please, let's all stop picking on the french"

Don't make me vomit.
The french resistance and the admirable battles at Bitche notwithstanding, as a nation those weaklings have laid back and spread their legs for the Germans at nearly every turn.

I'm astounded that the simple sons of bitches even still speak French. German is a much easier language to learn after all.
And so much less nauseating.

And fine wine?
*pfft*
I've had better red wines from freaking Australia.
At half the price, thank you.

And don't even get me started on the current state of the french domestic automobile market.
:hitout:

Sparq

PS Kudos to Israel for finally putting a spanking onto hezbollah. It's long overdue.

The French.
"oh my gosh, their tanks were superior to the Germans, but their tactics were just flawed. please, let's all stop picking on the French"
Don't make me vomit.
The French resistance and the admirable battles at Bitche notwithstanding, as a nation those weaklings have laid back and spread their legs for the Germans at nearly every turn.
I'm astounded that the simple sons of bitches even still speak French. German is a much easier language to learn after all.
And so much less nauseating.
And fine wine?
*pfft*
I've had better red wines from freaking Australia.
At half the price, thank you.
And don't even get me started on the current state of the French domestic automobile market.
Sparq
PS Kudos to Israel for finally putting a spanking onto Hezbollah. It's long overdue.

Damn!, another right winger mumbling out of his ass!!!

By the way French or any of the Romance languages are far better and evolved than any Germanic and or Anglo languages ...

I'm neither a right-winger nor a liberal, cromagnon.
Just a free-thinking world traveler.
I lived in Germany for many years, and visited France (and her doormat sister, Belgium) on numerous occasions.

My posting may have struck you as more of an opinionated rant than a calm and measured counterpoint (perhaps I shouldn't have resorted to using the words 'freaking' and 'vomit'), but the facts speak for themselves.
France is a third-rate western nation with a decaying homogenous culture, overrated food and wine, and a demonstrated history of impotence and complicity with regard to her more stalwart and decisive neighbors.

But let's forget about the French demurring to the Deutchlanders and having to learn to speak German for a moment; The current reality is that the French will likely have to demur to their Islamic immigrant protesters and learn to speak Arabic, Persian, Kurdish, Luri, Azerbaijani, or Baluchi. (Whatever the Iranian leadership decides is appropriate, I imagine.)

In 2000, the French Ministry of the Interior estimated the total number of Islam immigrants as 4.1 million (though other claims range from 5-6 million), and French converts as about 40,000.

I do agree with you on one point. As a language, French is very pleasing to the ear, compared to the more guttural German dialects (Mannheimer sprach, Berliner, or Bayern in particular).

Pleasing like hearing your grandma in the nursing home, suffering from Alzheimer’s, singing a sweet and sentimental song from her long-lost childhood. Yeah, French is kinda like that.
:rolleyes:

I am sorry, and please accept my apologies for insulting you when I called you a "right winger".

No apologies necessary, sir.

Free to be you and me, isn't that what Phil Donahue's husband once said?
:rolleyes:

The french.

The french resistance and the admirable battles at Bitche notwithstanding, as a nation those weaklings have laid back and spread their legs for the Germans at nearly every turn.


Yeah, that Napoleon guy sure was a pussy.

Speaking of Napoleon, who I find one of the most fascinating personages in world history, he was voted second-best military commander of all time in a poll by military historians.

First was Alexander, with nearly 30% of the vote, followed closely by Bonaparte with something like 28%.

Ghenghis Khan received 3%.

Howcome many americans dislike the French anyways? Do you consider them cowards?

While I don't dislike individual French men and women I do dislike the French as a nation. I dislike the French because of their overbearing haughtiness. I dislike the French because of their duplicity. I dislike the French because of their anti-Americanism. I dislike the French because of many little reasons. Suffice it to say, I DISLIKE THE FRENCH.

Don't mince words, Frogger--
say how you REALLY feel!

Sorry, rendova. I didn't realize I was mincing words. Is this better?

I THOROUGHLY DISLIKE THE FRENCH.

While I don't dislike individual French men and women I do dislike the French as a nation. I dislike the French because of their overbearing haughtiness. I dislike the French because of their duplicity. I dislike the French because of their anti-Americanism. I dislike the French because of many little reasons. Suffice it to say, I DISLIKE THE FRENCH.

Probably the same reasons why the French and several other European countries dislike the North Americans from US, and don't forget they all agree that "arrogance" they hate the most.

"I'd rather be feared and respected than liked."
Joseph Stalin

“It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed”
Vladimir Lenin

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."
P.J. O'Rourke

"I like little boys in sailor suits."
Socialist
:rolleyes:

Sorry, rendova. I didn't realize I was mincing words. Is this better?

I THOROUGHLY DISLIKE THE FRENCH.

How enlightened of you. How anyone as educated as you can brag about their bigotry is beyond me.

Yeah, that Napoleon guy sure was a pussy.

Nope, and he really wasn't very French either. As a Corsican he would have been more Italian than French.

Vilepagan, I could be like some others and hide my true feelings. I choose to not do so. I have disliked the French ever since the time I visited their country. In the intervening years I have seen nothing in the French as a people and as a nation to make me change my mind.

Nope, and he really wasn't very French either. As a Corsican he would have been more Italian than French.

You're correct, he was born a Corsican, which at the time of his birth was under Italian control. However, since the island was turned over to the control of France when he was a year old, and Napoleon went on to become the Emperor of France, leading the French armies to numerous victories throughout Europe, I supppose you're really correct when you say he was more Italian than French. :rolleyes:


Vilepagan, I could be like some others and hide my true feelings. I choose to not do so. I have disliked the French ever since the time I visited their country. In the intervening years I have seen nothing in the French as a people and as a nation to make me change my mind.

I'm not sure if you're admitting your bigotry or trying to justify it, or both. Either way, it's nothing to be proud of.

Nor is disliking the French anything to be ashamed of.

The French have tried to undermine and thwart U.S. interests at every opportunity. You can love them if you wish. As individuals they may be fine but as a nation, I have very little use for them.

Nor is disliking the French anything to be ashamed of.
The French, I have very little "use" for them.

Thats exactly what the government loves to do to foreign countries, can they be "used"? If so lets "use" them, if not, lets find a way (corrupting officials) so we can "use" them anyway...

I don't have a problem with the French, and the dislike US people feel for them is just because they didn't do as uncle Sam wanted them to, to comply to the US wishes. The government can bully around little countries, but not the ones who already have "nuclear weapons", guess that is why Iran may want its own arsenal.

Let's get back to Napoleon, or maybe I'll start a new thread--what's the main reason his empire floundered?

I say it's because he put his inept and incompetent family members in positions of power.

Because he began to believe his own publicity agents.

And attacking Russia--bad, bad move.
I guess he actually thought he could defeat them--forget who it was who gave the Tsar the idea to burn Moscow--Duke of Wellington?

That's partly what I mean by believing his own public relations people. They told the world he was invincible in an effort to cow nations into surrender and he began to believe he actually was invincible.

True--but there's no doubt the man had charisma.

They call his age "The Age of Napoleon"--everyone on 2 continents was basically just reacting to what one man was doing.

When Loius the XVI's stupid and incompetent brother returned from exile to take the throne of France after Nap had been sent to Elba, he ordered Marshall Ney to get a regiment and arrest him after hearing that Napoleon had escaped and was gathering more men with every step.

Ney met up with Boney's ragtag army of farmers and little kids on the road to Paris. Ney, formerly one of Nap's best friends, and one of his best field commanders, ordered him to surrender and pointed a gun (?) at him.

Napoleon said, "Are you really going to shoot me, Ney?
I need you, FRANCE needs you!"

Ney dropped his weapon and said, "Vive la France...vive Le'Empereur" and gave him a salute--his entire regiment went over to his side.

Now that's charisma.

And attacking Russia--bad, bad move.
I guess he actually thought he could defeat them--forget who it was who gave the Tzar the idea to burn Moscow--Duke of Wellington?

The attack on Russia was as bad strategy from Napoleon as it was for Hitler, for both, their previous conquests had not been fully consolidated before any attempts to extend the Empire. I Personally admire Napoleon, but unfortunately when someone wants to conquer the World, it is just a too big of a pie to eat alone, one chokes and dies. And I still think that there should be more than one power to keep things at ease.

actually, the allies, especially the french, had BETTER tanks then the germans at the time. What they didnt have was better tactics. And WW2 could have been avoided altogether had the french enforced their own treaty and crushed the germans when they rolled into the DMZ with a couple batallions of infantry. Once they did that and saw no one do anythiing it was a green light to Hitler to start full blown rearmament without hiding it anymore. Had the french attacked and crushed the handful of germans in the DMZ because they broke the treaty, Hitler would have lost face and had to back out probably would have lost power.
Very interesting, Trav I will admit.