Why France didn't go to Iraq...

Battle of Verdun: 21 February 1916 - July 1916

One of the costliest battles of World War One, Verdun exemplified the 'war of attrition' pursued by both sides and which cost so many lives.

By the winter of 1915-16, German General Erich von Falkenhayn was convinced that the war could only be won in the west. He decided on a massive attack on a French position 'for the retention of which the French Command would be compelled to throw in every man they have'. Once the French army had bled to death, Britain would be fighting alone on the Western Front and could be brought down by Germany's submarine blockade.

Falkenhayn targeted the town of Verdun and its surrounding forts. They threatened German lines of communication and lay within a French salient (a bulge in the line), restricting their defenders. Verdun was a Gallic fortress before Roman times and later a key asset in wars against Prussia, and Falkenhayn knew that the French would throw as many men as necessary into its defence. He realised that this would enable him to inflict the maximum possible casualties.

He massed artillery to the north and east of Verdun to pre-empt the infantry advance with intensive artillery bombardment. Although French intelligence had warned of his plans, these warnings were ignored by the French Command. Consequently, Verdun was utterly unprepared for the initial bombardment on the morning of 21 February 1916. German infantry attacks followed that afternoon and met little resistance for the first four days.

On 25 February the Germans occupied Fort Douaumont. French reinforcements arrived and, under the leadership of General Pétain, they managed to slow the German advance with a series of counter-attacks. Over March and April the hills and ridges north of Verdun exchanged hands, always under heavy bombardment. Meanwhile, Pétain organised repeated counter-attacks to slow the German advance. He also ensured that the Bar-le-Duc road into Verdun - the only one to survive German shelling - remained open. It became known as La Voie Sacrée ('the Sacred Way') because it continued to carry vital supplies and reinforcements into the Verdun front despite constant artillery attack.

German gains continued in June, but slowly. They attacked the heights along the Meuse and took Fort Vaux on 7 June. On 23 June they almost reached the Belleville heights, the last stronghold before Verdun itself. Pétain was preparing to evacuate the east bank of the Meuse when the Allies' offensive on the Somme River was launched on 1 July, partly to relieve the French. The Germans could no longer afford to commit new troops to Verdun and, at a cost of some 400,000 French casualties and a similar number of Germans, the attack was called off. Germany had failed to bleed France to death and from October to the end of the year, French offensives regained the forts and territory they had lost earlier. Falkenhayn was replaced by Hindenburg as Chief of General Staff and Pétain became a hero, eventually replacing General Nivelle as French commander-in-chief.


It still doesn't look like a victory to me.
 
Isolated internet blurbs out of Wikpedia really dont tell the whole story though do they :)

Victory and the extent thereof is frequently nothing more than a context in a larger strategic picture...was the Little Bighorn a "victory" for the Sioux? Was Third Ypre (Passchendaele) a victory for the Germans? Was Chosin a victory for the NK? Is a loss for one side the same as a victory for the other? How do you classify "victory"...is the the "victory" at the Falaise Pocket the same as "victory" at Waterloo or "victory" of the US at Midway vis a vis "victory" of the Japanese at Wake? Can you win a battle and lose a war, or lose a battel and win a war?

:D

Now that you got the bare facts of the battle, get to the books...theres a whole world for you outside the soundbites of the net

Also try The Rite of Spring by Modris Eckstein, Verdun, By georges Blond, Verdun, by Malcom brown, Verdun by David mason and The Great War in Modern memory whose author I cannot recall and which volume is missing from my modest library...

WildthatshouldkeepyoubusyAlaska
 
I am second to no one in my disdain for the French and Germans, I prefer to express my disdain with historical/sociological/politcal facts rather than trite slogans...


Runon sentence. btttthhhht! :p


-blackmind
 
My question is,

Why are there any names given to any country that disagrees with the ways politics are handled here in the USA and are called sissys?
They wanted to remain pacifist or didn't want to be involved, so what?
Aren't them allowed to have that freedom of choice as well?
What's wrong with wanting to remain in their set ways?
Now something unexpected happened but...
Has anyone stop to think that something similar or worse could happen here?
I know many of us have guns and we have a good source of machine power, etc. but nothing should be understimated, specially when we are becoming more and more populated by...right across the border specially illegals (that's only one thing), then we also have the muslim community growing by #s, and many other... and they are here.

Not that the Catalans had ever seen eye to eye with them since they tried taking over Spain unsuccessfully many yrs. ago but we still respect their ways.
Yes, I do have two countries and love them both dearly but I have to agree that what you read in the internet and wikipedia many times is missinformed.

Don't forget that the true Americans were the American Indians taken over by a whole bunch of Europeans and wether many like it or not that European blood is here to stay and it can be prooven with a simple DNA.

I know the question was why they didn't went to Iraq but is all linked.
 
Wild, I think your Verdun example is one I wouldn't have brought up. There is a difference between bravery and sheeplike devotion to a stupid officer corps. Would you call a truckload of steers on the way to the slaughterhouse brave or merely unutterably ignorant?


I do think both Verdun and the Maginot Line (and come to think of it, battles going all the way back to Agincourt) demonstrate beyond the shadow of doubt that French generalship has something lacking. Their lack of intelligent officers is matched only by their common soldiers' blind dumb ignorance.

And don't even think of mentioning Napoleon as a counter example lest I direct you to look at Minard's famous graphic showing N's army size during its defeat. http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters
 
Back on topic...

A huge factor is that the French leaders were neck-deep in the oil-for-food scandal. To go to Iraq would have been, in a real sense, killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

It wouldn't be the first time the French government sold out the best interests of their citizens and country for a few francs.
 
Don't forget that the true Americans were the American Indians taken over by a whole bunch of Europeans and wether many like it or not that European blood is here to stay and it can be prooven with a simple DNA.

I am afraid you are wrong here and this has been repeated just a little too often. The Indians lived here on this contenent before the Europeans but it was not called the United States of America untill after the revolutionary war.

The Indians that lived here were still in the stoneage and could not compete with the European war machine so either they had to assimilate or perish. It is the natural direction that society takes and one the French Muslim population should look at closely.


Being an American isn't about DNA, many people from many lands have taken on the duty to be an American when they live here. America is a heart and soul that believes in freedom and is ready to fight for it.

The French or whoever deserve their right to choose their way of life but don't ask for American blood to defend it if you won't stand with America.

25
 
For facts sake, let's get it right. The Native Americans were the first here--thus American Indians. Later it became the United States of America. The Europeans were some of the first settlers here(first arriving in the Northeast), however in the West the first settlers to arrive were the Spanish.
 
For facts sake, let's get it right. The Native Americans were the first here--thus American Indians. Later it became the United States of America. The Europeans were some of the first settlers here(first arriving in the Northeast), however in the West the first settlers to arrive were the Spanish.

France is suffering from liberal diversity and we see the outcome of it. They divided their country into factions the same way the liberals are dividing America up. The titles like Hispanic or Afro or who knows what next is just divisive and meant to be so.

America fought a bitter struggle in the Civil War that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans just to keep us one nation. The liberals come along and work very hard to divide us all into their America. This is not the freedom our people have died for and we should all strive to be one America in freedom and liberty.

France could have been great but fell victim to the socialist and have been nutered when it comes to freedom.

It makes no difference who was here first, the United States of America has been here over 200 years.

25
 
My goodness I must have been stutering or cofused too since I almost posted the same twice.
I just deleted the whole message comming right down.
 
Thank you MoW, you said it just the right way. It's hard for me sometimes to write things down short, to the point and to where people can understand, at least I admit to that. Don't forget the Spaniards are and were Europeans ;) .

As for the terms Hispanic, Afro, etc. they are not used properly but that would be a whole different dispute.

model25,
I had no idea that the french asked us for help.
This was not the only country who fought a civil war.
Freedom? what freedom?
There should be no blood spilled just to satisfy those who believe their ideals are the right ones, we as people should be able to live our lives together and with the freedom to be whichever party we choose without being criticiced as long as there is no harm involved that's when the term LAW is needed.

There is not any difference to be here in US or many other European countries, we all have a president (some places Kings) and we still have to live by their rules; even if some presidents were a mistake many people still go on living and letting live.

All I'm trying to say is... don't talk about the french (or other countries) as if it was the people in general, the leaders are the ones setting things up and the people just made a mistake to believe the leader would be the right one for them just to see later on it wasn't that way. It happens everywhere in one time or another. Lets not forget that the votes of "the people" are not the ones that brings the final decission on the choice of president.

Please, remember this is a discussion and is not meant for us to be ugly at each other just because we see things different.

I say let France deal with their problem and let us concentrate on our problems because there are plenty in here.

Not everyone who lives here takes the duty to be an American.
Assimilate or perish in their own land? that sounds as a dictatorship to me but it's OK I can take it :D

In my opinion if you decide to go to another country you should adapt to it and not them adapt to you.
 
RosaMariTB said:
I say let France deal with their problem and let us concentrate on our problems because there are plenty in here.

I say that too.

It's pretty sad if they couldn't supress a few riots before they spread out of control. And I'm not being wholly sarcastic, either. It is, in fact, sad.
 
Again, back to the thread’s original topic, although the rest of this is certainly interesting: A MAJOR reason France did not cooperate in the current Iraqi pacification and democratization effort is the deep, long-term political and economic ties between successive French governments and Saddam Hussein’s barbaric and dictatorial regime.
 
We were buddies with Iraq just the same, especially during the Reagan years, because Saddam was fighting the Iranians, which were the Really Bad People at the time. Apparently, we either just realized after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that Saddam's regime was barbaric and dictatorial, or we didn't care about that too much because he was fighting people we liked even less.

Oh, and I do recall the Frogs actually taking part in Desert Storm...the French 6th Light Armored Division was securing the left flank during Stormin' Norman's Hail Mary sweep into Iraq.
 
We were buddies with Iraq just the same, especially during the Reagan years, because Saddam was fighting the Iranians, which were the Really Bad People at the time.
We were never "buddies" with Saddam's Iraq. In fact, it was a Soviet client state.

That we "helped" them during their war with Iran, is an over-simplification. It was in our interest to keep that war running as long as possible, and that neither win it. When the Iraqi's were losing, we'd help them just enough intelligence to get them back into parity, to maintain the stalemate. In this way both our enemies were bled white. An excellent policy, one that Reagan never gets credit for, but should.
 
We didn't just help them with intelligence, but with dual-use technology and weapons, up to and including biological warfare agents as "research material".

Claiming that it was all part of a genius strategy by Reagan is revisionist history, IMHO. We wanted the Iraqis to win the conflict, plain and simple. (Note that we did not offer any such aid to the Mullahs when Iraq pretty much kicked the Iranians' butts for the first two years of the war.)
 
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". True friend or friend of convenience, you decide. For the sake of the world and stabilty in the Middle East, it wasn't in anyones interest for 1 to win out over the other.
 
We wanted the Iraqis to win the conflict, plain and simple.
Why would we want a Soviet client state to win and exert even more influence and force over the ME oil reserves, reserves that were (and are) vital to the West?

No. If Iraq won, it would have been almost as bad as if Iran won. In the end, niether won, or rather, both lost. The perfect outcome as far as America was concerned.
 
Back
Top