Italgato wrote:
Shirer suggest that if theFrench had stood up to the Germans( At one time they outnumbered the Nazis significantly) Hitler might have been defeated early.
What do you mean by marked sentence? (The population of Germany vs. the one of France? [68,072,000 vs. 41,960,000 it was in 1938])
May I asked, if you call all Germans 'Nazis', just those living in Germany between 1918 and 1945 or between 1933 and 1945 or the members of the Nazi party or ... ?
Mr. Hinteler- Thank you for your question.. I will explain by quoting from Shirer.
quote from William L. Shirer --"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"
quote- P. 291
...On March 1, 1936, Hitler reached his decision, Somewhat to the consternation of his Generals, most of whom were CONVINCED THAT THE FRENCH WOULD MAKE MINCEMEAT OF THE SMALL GERMAN FORCES WHICH HAD BEEN GATHERED TO MOVE INTO THE RHINELAND. Nevertheless, on the next day, Blomberg, in obedience to Hitler's instructions, issued formal orders for the occupation of the Rhineland.
It was, he told the senior commanders of the armed forces, to be a "surprise move" If it turned out that it was not, if the French would fight--The Commander in Chief had the "right to decide on any military countermeasures" Actually, as I learned six days later and as would be confirmed from the testimony of the generals at Nuremburg, Blomberg already had in mind what those countermeasures would be: A HASTY RETREAT BACK OVER THE RHINE.
But the French, thier nation ALREADY PARALYZED BY INTERNAL STRIFE AND THE PEOPLE SINKING INTO DEFEATISM, did not know this was a small token force of German Troops paraded across the Rhine bridges at dawn....
"General Gamelin advised that a war operation, however limited, entailed unpredictable risks and could not be undertaken without decreeing a general mobilization. Gamelin ...concentrated thirteen divsions near the German frontier."
Blomberg, backed by Jodl and most of the officers at the top, wanted to pull back the three battalions that had crossed the Rhine. As Jodl testified at Nuremberg, "Considering the situation we were in, the French Army could have blown us to pieces"
IT COULD HAVE--AND HAD IT, THAT ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE EJND OF HITLER, AFTER WHICH HISTORY MIGHT HAVE TAKEN A QUITE DIFFERENT AND BRIGHTER TONE THAN IT DID. Hitler himself admitted as much:
"A retreat on our part would have spelled collapse."
end of quote
It is clear that the French were too cowardly to meet Hitler head on. It is clear that the French did not have the guts to meet Hitler headon even though the Nazis were outnumbered.
Chirac is apparently in the French tradition.
Cowardice first. Saving the Iraqi people second.
Not French cowardice, French duplicity. They did not Fight Hitler simply because IMO the believed as he did. That should have been evident by the actions of the Vichy government they were the supreme collaborators.
Quote:That should have been evident by the actions of the Vichy government they were the supreme collaborators.
Rather like the Iraq Ruling Council, non?
How so. they were hand picked (many before the war) by the DOD, and owe their existance to the Americans. They are but a "rubber stamp" for the US policies,and any decision they make can be overruled by Bremer.
Italgato wrote:Mr. Hinteler- Thank you for your question.. I will explain by quoting from Shirer.
Actually, I completely missed, where this quote answered my question(s).
But don't bother.
hobitbob.
The situation in Iraq is quite different from that of france and the Vichy government. Iraq has no government and is made up of divergent factions. If left to it's own devices would would split up into so many armed camps. When a constitution is written and free elections are held they will than be left to choose their direction. Until than, and since the US is paying the freight it must maintain the guiding hand. Notice that the governing body is made up of people from all elements of Iraqi society. What do you think its makeup would be without US involvement.
Walter Hinteler wrote:au1929 wrote:Chirac [..] should just get out of the way and stop being an obstacle in the UN.
Well, the US use the right of 'veto' quite frequently themselves (actiually more often than France did). An obstacle in the UN, yes.
I read today that the US has issued more vetos in the UN Security Council than all the other permanent members together. Sorry, didnt bookmark the article, so no link.
No link necessary it is true. And just who was their opposition the USSR,Communist China and the French republic. I am sure those nations were supporting democracy and freedom.
au1929 wrote:No link necessary it is true. And just who was their opposition the USSR,Communist China and the French republic. I am sure those nations were supporting democracy and freedom.
One
link is here.
When you look at the figures, au, you'll certainly notice that some more than just Russia (or USSR before), China and France were in opposition.
au1929 wrote:And just who was their opposition the USSR,Communist China [..] I am sure those nations were supporting democracy and freedom.
Fair enough. But apart from the Communist two there's also always been the UK - and France, despite your hate of it, has always been a NATO ally, has been a democracy throughout the UN's lifespan, and fought the first revolution for freedom and equal rights in modern history. (Yeh, so OK, that last bit was irrelevant to the example).
Anyway - apparently the US deemed it necessary to veto even in contless times that neither UK nor France did - 'nuff said about "being an obstacle in the UN".
Could be that you consider being an obstacle in the UN a
good thing, of course, but in that case its not much something to accuse France of either. If you mean: "stop being an obstacle to US interests and policies", just say so, dont hide behind an institution you dont seem to believe in, in the first place.
How many of those vetos directly effected Israel? If we took those out, what would the tally be?
Hm, cool link. Doesnt look like that assertion I quoted above, about the US having used its veto more often than the other SC members combined, is true, though.
The point still stands McGentrix. I agree with a fair amount of the US vetoes in the UN but the point that the US was "hindering" stands.
Ultimately people use the US as a scapegoat. The ones who most stridently complain about the UN are almost always complaining about not getting their way.
The UN's resolution is considered valid enough to base an unprovoked invasion on. But at the same time the fact that the UN members disagreed with the interpretation of the resolution is something that made the same people call them irrelevant.
UN resolution that can be used for a casus belli = relevant
UN refusal to agree with our war = irrelevant
People pick and choose. The UN is a body where the world's nations vote. Calling the UN irrelevant is dishonest.
The real qualm is not getting one's resolution. In other words the complain is that they don't agree with you. Not that the body through which the opinions are voiced is inefficient.
The people who claim the UN is a "paper tiger" do not want the UN to have power anyway.
Craven--
I disagree with your statement...
Quote:The people who claim the UN is a "paper tiger" do not want the UN to have power anyway
If the UN proved to be more useful and decisive than they have, I would be glad they existed. Their 'disagreement' re: Iraq
wasn't the deciding factor for most people. It was just more more piece of evidence that the UN talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk... The UN had already established a do-nothing reputation with a lot of people. Bush may have coined the term 'glorified debating society', but that has long defined the UN for some.
Well, as a citizen of the US, and not the world, I look at the UN through the eyes of an American.
We are right. We are the good guys. We are a super power in the world.
I don't care how the world sees us, as long as it agrees with us. If they don't, then they are wrong.
McGentrix wrote:How many of those vetos directly effected Israel? If we took those out, what would the tally be?
This is no scientific research - all I did was copy the webpage into Word, and used "replace all" to have the computer count the number of occurrences of each country's name. Plus a "find" to count "Israel", "occupied" and "application".
USSR 120 vetoes (102 of which before 1962 - and 51 of those on applications of membership)
USA 83 vetoes (all after 1962 - 20 of which on Israel/Occupied Arab Territories)
UK 38
France 21
China 12
Russian Federation 2
