<p>Um, what? That’s not an even remotely similar question. The time scale is different by an order of magnitude.</p>
<p>OP - People are bothered not because of your opinions (which, largely, have been debunked), but mostly because your idea of a productive discussion is making assertions followed by repeatedly telling other people to back up their own (but providing none yourself).</p>
<p>Take, for example, this one:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is there ANY basis for this statement? Not to mention it’s mathematically impossible for all groups of American soldiers to be serving alongside larger platoons of British soldiers. The whole premise behind your argument is fallacious anyway - if you compared the military might available to the UK against Germany, they could never have prosecuted a ground assault on the continent.</p>
<p>This is simply a fact of numbers, and of physics. Like an expanding balloon, you need an exponentially increasing number of soldiers to occupy every extra square mile of territory. And the UK did not have it. Additionally, when you’re in enemy territory, you have a much more tenuous and less efficient supply line. In essence, the UK would have been fighting a superior ground force with all the disadvantages of attacking but none of the advantages (since Germany was not forced to defend French cities or regions - they were not its people).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was my understanding that there would be no math on this thread.</p>
<p>I quit reading after half the pages of posts. We’re humoring an ignorant bigoted youth in this thread. Another good reason so many, including one of my own ancestors (the rest were from other parts of Europe), left Britain- the culture left behind with all of its arrogance/misinformation etc. No better nor worse than anywhere else. Avoid generalizations, OP- you have so much more to learn.</p>
<p>In the interest of fairness, can we please have a post articulating the French viewpoint and how their performance in WW I & II saved the Brits and the US?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although I am an American of Chinese descent, I’ll give an attempted sketch. </p>
<p>First WWI: French Army…especially the Artillery and Air Service* gave a great account of themselves. While there were some soldier mutinies, they were mainly due to suffering horrendous casualties due to callous generals who didn’t think twice about sending thousands of men to their deaths each day/half-day for little/no point. Bravery wasn’t the issue…the presence of many callous commanders who saw soldiers and junior officers as cannon fodder to be expended cavalierly was. </p>
<p>A mentality not too far removed from that of many Imperial Japanese military commanders during WWII with their suicidal banzai charges/Kamikaze/other suicide missions against strongly manned Allied positions. </p>
<ul>
<li>The French Air Service trained and equipped pilots of the US Army’s Air Service when the US entered the war in 1917. While the US did have aircraft/pilots prior to 1917, they lacked the experience of dogfighting enemy fighters and modern fighter aircraft needed to survive against the Central Powers’ air services. Without French help, they would have been mincemeat for any Central Powers’ fighter pilot…especially aces like the Red Baron.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>WWII: French Army was defeated due to poor strategic thinking(i.e. Overreliance on the Maginot Line for deterrent/defense against German invasion), slow reaction time, lack of modern fighters in their air force, lack of practice/imagination in employing armored units, and lack of coordination/concentration of forces at key points to defeat the Nazi Blitzkrieg. </p>
<p>All issues due to poor higher-level leadership and generals…not the French troops or field officers. The French Army suffered horrendous casualties in the invasion/defeat of France up to 1940. </p>
<p>Even after the French government surrendered, many French soldiers and civilians managed to continue fighting whether as part of the Free French Forces or the underground resistance. Unfortunately, a substantial number of French soldiers/civilians…mostly those with extreme right-wing monarchist/Fascist political sympathies** chose to collaborate with their Nazi occupiers or the collaborationist Vichy Regime…which was led by Philippe Petain, a former WWI General who was a hero in part because he was one of the few Generals who wasn’t cavalier about throwing the lives of his soldiers away and even tried to discourage the practice among other generals. </p>
<p>Even the British Army of 1940 were not only forced to retreat, but abandon most of their heavy weapons/motor vehicles during their retreat at Dunkirk. A reason why in 1940, the RAF and to some extent…the depleted Royal Navy were the only forces standing between the then victorious Nazi forces and their planned invasion of Britain.</p>
<p>** A factor which effectively discredited Fascists, Monarchists, conservative Catholic movements, and other extreme right-wingers in France after the war.</p>
<p>We may be humoring youth, but what a great ride.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wasn’t the IJA treatment of enlisted soldiers rather abusive and neglectful even under normal circumstances (even allowing for supplies and reinforcements often being sunk in transit by the USN)?</p>
<p>The USSR also had quite a reputation of treating soldiers like ammunition. Retreating, or being a POW who is subsequently liberated, could mean assignment to a penal battalion tasked with clearing minefields by walking through them ahead of regular troops, or other similarly dangerous jobs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even with some losses, the RAF and RN were still strong enough to easily sink whatever invasion force that Germany could have come up with, due to Germany’s relatively weak naval capabilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In what sense am I ignorant and bigoted? Before you expose yourself to any more of my contempt, I advise you not to pretend to know anything about British culture when you plainly do not.</p>
<p>You people have made a lot assumptions about me, first you all assumed I was British (no doubt to satisfy your belief of my bias), and now you’re referring to me as a youth because I said I was a student. I am not going to confirm or deny these assumptions, my personal details are not in anyway relevant - if you choose to treat them as such then you are not worth my attention. Focusing on the age and nationality of users in these types of debates merely encourages the type of bigoted and ridiculous behaviour which wis75 has already displayed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is rather galling for you place the burden of proof with me, why should I have to prove the most basic of schoolboy facts? I have read countless American diary entries where soldiers refer to serving alongside their British comrades, often referring to their divisions as being attached to larger British divisions.</p>
<p>^ There you go again with your “countless”.</p>
<p>^^^
Oh, I rather expected the “you People”.
:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Would you prefer forums users? Or maybe people of the Parent’s Cafe or in the spirit of international discourse, les gens qui utilisent mon fil? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If your goal here is to educate the people who don’t have your mastery of the subject, you do kind of owe it to them to provide the sources for your statements. We apparently don’t have the same set of basic schoolboy facts as you, so pointing us to information that can help us properly educate ourselves would be very helpful.</p>
<p>As follow-up questions:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Why do Brits regard Dunkirk as a great victory when they, well, fled in chaos?</p></li>
<li><p>Why do Brits have such bad teeth, don’t they know how to train or use proper dentists?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Cobrat, let’s not forget about the admiration and eagerness of the French for the American Harlem Hellfighters of the 369th. To this day the French are quite grateful for the help of those courageous and tenacious American soldiers who fought with them in ‘the Big One,’ or ‘The Great War’ as it was once called.</p>
<p>As said above, because your idea of a productive discussion is making assertions followed by repeatedly telling other people to back up their own (but providing none yourself).</p>
<p>We’re telling you to follow the instructions you set for us. It’s sophomoric, no matter what your age or nationality, to use continued jabs or even just inserting questions, rather than provide some of the info on which you base your assumptions. </p>
<p>Past a certain point, others begin to doubt there is substance behind your assertions.</p>
<p>My nominee for best post on this thread: #203 by collegealum314. Still laughing.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I think the Free French helped Chuck Yeager escape back to England when he was shot down during WW II. Without the Free French, how could we have had the movie Casablanca? “Was you ever stung by a dead bee?”</p>
<p>Dionysus-</p>
<p>I assumed you were British or at least living in GB for two reasons. You list your location as London and you use British spellings, such as “practise” in some of your posts.</p>
<p>I assumed you were young because of your callow and condescending attitude. Most adults here recognize that they have much to learn from each other, and even when engaged in strenuous debate try to avoid insulting each other with ad hominem attacks.</p>
<p>Neither of these facts is particularly relevant. I welcome a well reasoned and supported argument from any poster, no matter what their age or nationality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A foolish presumption considering a third of London’s population is foreign-born, and British schools (which use British spellings) exist in more than 120 countries. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t think what I have said which can be interpreted as callow and condescending, nor do I recall insulting anybody. In fact my posts have been rather measured considering the provocation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was not my goal. The purpose of this thread was twofold, firstly to understand whether the mistakes I have so often encountered (both on and off this forum) were indicative to all American schools. Secondly, to list some of the most common myths and mistakes in one place so to as save me time when replying to SAT essay threads in future. Those who disagreed with me refused to regard or credit my evidence without offering any of their own. </p>
<p>With regard to the Second World War, I simply corrected a forum user when they said the US saved Britain, because this is a downright lie. Again, I gave evidence and again most people chose to ignore it, instead relying on their own warped interpretation of history.</p>
<p>
</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t know about victory, but it was certainly a triumph because Britain managed to save her army without significant loss of life, something which no other allied army was able to do before then.</p></li>
<li><p>Presumably for the same reason why so many Americans have need of a dietitian.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. </p>
<p>However, unlike the French, American soldiers in general have rarely been dogged as much by mostly Anglo-American stereotypes of being cowardly or surrendering at the drop of the hat in the face of the enemy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I recalled one friend during college who attended a British influenced international school in Ghana saying Dunkirk was taught to him as “A testimony to the great unflappable British spirit” or something like that. </p>
<p>The above is plausible spin based on historical record. However, the retreat from Dunkirk forced those very British troops to abandon most of their heavy weapons, vehicles, and equipment. </p>
<p>A factor which meant they wouldn’t have been of much use had the Nazis gotten around to invading in force immediately or within a matter of months and overcame the Royal Navy and RAF as that wouldn’t have given the overtaxed British defense industries time to make good on those losses.</p>