Is Rafale dead?

[Charles Talleyrand]

I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with an option of
20 more. However, I have read on the web that Dassault is to deliver 1 Rafale
this year, and only 4 next year. I have also read that there are only 13
operational Rafales with the French Military.

The slow speed of deliveries is not a start up effect. The contract for the
initial 13 aircraft was signed in 1997 (six years ago).

Will the Rafale ever become the mainstay of the French military?
What's the status of the Rafale?
Can anyone add more data.

http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/topstor02.htm

-Thanks

P.S. Anti-French jokes stopped being funny after the first few hundred.

[Ragnar]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with an option
of
> 20 more. However, I have read on the web that Dassault is to deliver 1
Rafale
> this year, and only 4 next year. I have also read that there are only 13
> operational Rafales with the French Military.
>
> The slow speed of deliveries is not a start up effect. The contract for
the
> initial 13 aircraft was signed in 1997 (six years ago).
>
> Will the Rafale ever become the mainstay of the French military?
> What's the status of the Rafale?
> Can anyone add more data.

The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get other
people to do the work.

[tscottme]

Ragnar > wrote in message
...

>
> The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get
other
> people to do the work.
>

....or just practice speaking German while on one of their two 6th month
vacations each year. Did they ever retaliate for the Limburg attack?

--

Scott
--------
Monitor the latest efforts of "peaceful Muslims" at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[Skysurfer]

Ragnar wrote :

> The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get
> other people to do the work.

Our helicopters were welcomed to do *your job* to save American
citizens from Liberia while you were preparing war to find those very
dangerous weapons of mass destruction in Irak.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-09-liberia-evac_x.htm
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/6045007.htm

[Ragnar]

"Skysurfer" > wrote in message
. 0.32...
> Ragnar wrote :
>
> > The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get
> > other people to do the work.
>
> Our helicopters were welcomed to do *your job* to save American
> citizens from Liberia while you were preparing war to find those very
> dangerous weapons of mass destruction in Irak.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-09-liberia-evac_x.htm
> http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/6045007.htm

Congratulations. You could do a perfectly safe op - airlifting passengers
in total safety - while your betters were doing the heavy lifting uner fire
in Iraq. Seems to me that you do the jobs you were qualified for.

[Skysurfer]

Ragnar wrote :

> Congratulations. You could do a perfectly safe op - airlifting
> passengers in total safety - while your betters were doing the
> heavy lifting uner fire in Iraq. Seems to me that you do the jobs
> you were qualified for.

Why should have we gone to Irak ? Oh yes I know, help to find those
WMD that Collin Powell showed us at the UN and you cannot find 8
months later ...

--
http://www.topos.org/rumsfeld.html

[Thomas Schoene]

Skysurfer wrote:
> Charles Talleyrand wrote :
>
>> I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with
>> an option of 20 more. However, I have read on the web that
>> Dassault is to deliver 1 Rafale this year, and only 4 next year.
>> I have also read that there are only 13 operational Rafales with
>> the French Military.
>
> I think the french govt has ordered about 300 Rafale.

Well, it has announced plans to order this many. However, actual orders are
120 thus far, plus 76 fairly firm projected orders in the 2003-08 budget
plan, for a total of about 200. The additional 100 will come after 2008,
and are obviously rather speculative.

http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/topstor02.htm


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[nemo]

>
> The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get other
> people to do the work.
>
> YEah, they just hire stupid enough guy toi fight fot ****...

[J]

If your not french, no one cares.

[pcg]

> The 13 already operationnal Rafales are all in the French Navy.

Not exactly : 10 Rafale M, 2 B and 1 C have been delivered to the Navy and
the Air Force, but 9 M are operationnal in the Navy, the others are used by
Dassault for development.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:15:15 +0100, Skysurfer > wrote:

>Ragnar wrote :
>
>> Congratulations. You could do a perfectly safe op - airlifting
>> passengers in total safety - while your betters were doing the
>> heavy lifting uner fire in Iraq. Seems to me that you do the jobs
>> you were qualified for.
>
>Why should have we gone to Irak ? Oh yes I know, help to find those
>WMD that Collin Powell showed us at the UN and you cannot find 8
>months later ...

Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
able to defend.

Al Minyard

[Skysurfer]

Alan Minyard wrote :

> Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
> able to defend.
>
> Al Minyard

Intelligence, brain, etc. Those things that Al Minyard has never been
able to have.

[Tony Volk]

I'll probably regret getting dragged into this, but it smacks me as very
hypocritical for a U.S. citizens to question an ally for not jumping into
any war they wanted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. dragged their
feet for a relatively long time to officially defend "peace, freedom, etc."
when they were threatened as never before or since (W.W.II). It wasn't
until their own country was attacked that they officially entered the war.
I am aware of their other efforts before that, but no real commitment of
troops was provided. Heck, the whole western world pretty much stood by and
did nothing as Czechoslovakia was annexed. I'm not anti-American, but I
think that before you throw stones, you might want to look around to see how
much glass is in your house. Regards,

Tony

> Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
> able to defend.
>
> Al Minyard

[Jim Herring]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> P.S. Anti-French jokes stopped being funny after the first few hundred.

Just what made you think they were jokes?

--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[nemo]

Your stuborness...

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:52:23 +0100, Skysurfer > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote :
>
>> Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
>> able to defend.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Intelligence, brain, etc. Those things that Al Minyard has never been
>able to have.

My, what a compelling argument!!

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:09:36 -0500, "Tony Volk" > wrote:

> I'll probably regret getting dragged into this, but it smacks me as very
>hypocritical for a U.S. citizens to question an ally for not jumping into
>any war they wanted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. dragged their
>feet for a relatively long time to officially defend "peace, freedom, etc."
>when they were threatened as never before or since (W.W.II). It wasn't
>until their own country was attacked that they officially entered the war.
>I am aware of their other efforts before that, but no real commitment of
>troops was provided. Heck, the whole western world pretty much stood by and
>did nothing as Czechoslovakia was annexed. I'm not anti-American, but I
>think that before you throw stones, you might want to look around to see how
>much glass is in your house. Regards,
>
>Tony
>
>> Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
>> able to defend.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
The US was a neutral, you know, like the Swedes, the Swiss, etc. We had
just recently completed the clean up of a euro mess (WW1). The fact that
the French screwed up the Armistice was getting them into another mess.
We, quite reasonably, decided that, since Europe had evidently decided
that a war every few years was a good thing, we would decline to
participate.

Al Minyard

[Tony Volk]

> The US was a neutral, you know, like the Swedes, the Swiss, etc. We had
> just recently completed the clean up of a euro mess (WW1). The fact that
> the French screwed up the Armistice was getting them into another mess.
> We, quite reasonably, decided that, since Europe had evidently decided
> that a war every few years was a good thing, we would decline to
> participate.

You didn't answer the question. The U.S. ignored the need to defend
"peace, freedom, etc." as the Germans and Japanese began the war. They only
got involved when they themselves were attacked. So why would you blame
France for not wanting to join a U.S. fight when France wasn't attacked (no
one was actually, but assuming you're going with the Bush 9/11 line of
garbage). Why is it "quite reasonable" for the U.S. to back out of a war
they're not involved in, and cowardice/betrayal for France to do the same
thing? France just fought in GW 1, US starts GW 2, and sits out. That's as
close to an exact parallel to your WW1 and WW2 comments as you could get!
Your answers strike me as deeply hypocritical.
For the record, I think the U.N. should have gone in as a whole and
taken out Saddam for breach of GW 1 agreements, and for his atrocities
against his people. I'm glad that a monster was removed (I think that they
needn't have, and shouldn't have lied about removing WOMD). But to accuse
France of being cowards in not joining this relatively minor war makes me
wonder what you think of the actions of the U.S. in early WWII when the
stakes were much higher, the need much direr, and the evil much worse. How
was the U.S. reasonable while the French were not?

Tony

p.s.- to any veterans of WWII, I am in no way questioning the incredible
valor and sacrifice of the Americans during WWII, only trying to illustrate
that any country can be or has been selfish and complacent in the face of a
common danger so it's ignorant or hypocritical to single out any one country
as such; I apologize in advance for any implied insult (none was intended)
and can only offer that I'm trying to make a complex point in a brief
fashion

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message .net...
> Skysurfer wrote:
> > Charles Talleyrand wrote :
> >
> >> I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with
> >> an option of 20 more. However, I have read on the web that
> >> Dassault is to deliver 1 Rafale this year, and only 4 next year.
> >> I have also read that there are only 13 operational Rafales with
> >> the French Military.
> >
> Well, it has announced plans to order this many. However, actual orders are
> 120 thus far, plus 76 fairly firm projected orders in the 2003-08 budget
> plan, for a total of about 200. The additional 100 will come after 2008,
> and are obviously rather speculative.

Yes, but the verty slow rate of delivery makes me wonder about the
program. They will have delivered 18 Rafales in the eight years between
1997 and 2005. That's only 2.25 aircraft per year.

Sure, they plan to ramp up production. But their original plans never said
18 aircraft in 8 years, so I have doubts about the current plans to. Can
anyone comment on this?
>
> http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/topstor02.htm
>
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[Mike]

Minyard never answers any question in a clever way!
US are right,always.You disagree?You are wrong!
That's all.


"Tony Volk" > a écrit dans le message
de news: ...
> > The US was a neutral, you know, like the Swedes, the Swiss, etc. We had
> > just recently completed the clean up of a euro mess (WW1). The fact that
> > the French screwed up the Armistice was getting them into another mess.
> > We, quite reasonably, decided that, since Europe had evidently decided
> > that a war every few years was a good thing, we would decline to
> > participate.
>
> You didn't answer the question. The U.S. ignored the need to defend
> "peace, freedom, etc." as the Germans and Japanese began the war. They
only
> got involved when they themselves were attacked. So why would you blame
> France for not wanting to join a U.S. fight when France wasn't attacked
(no
> one was actually, but assuming you're going with the Bush 9/11 line of
> garbage). Why is it "quite reasonable" for the U.S. to back out of a war
> they're not involved in, and cowardice/betrayal for France to do the same
> thing? France just fought in GW 1, US starts GW 2, and sits out. That's
as
> close to an exact parallel to your WW1 and WW2 comments as you could get!
> Your answers strike me as deeply hypocritical.
> For the record, I think the U.N. should have gone in as a whole and
> taken out Saddam for breach of GW 1 agreements, and for his atrocities
> against his people. I'm glad that a monster was removed (I think that
they
> needn't have, and shouldn't have lied about removing WOMD). But to accuse
> France of being cowards in not joining this relatively minor war makes me
> wonder what you think of the actions of the U.S. in early WWII when the
> stakes were much higher, the need much direr, and the evil much worse.
How
> was the U.S. reasonable while the French were not?
>
> Tony
>
> p.s.- to any veterans of WWII, I am in no way questioning the incredible
> valor and sacrifice of the Americans during WWII, only trying to
illustrate
> that any country can be or has been selfish and complacent in the face of
a
> common danger so it's ignorant or hypocritical to single out any one
country
> as such; I apologize in advance for any implied insult (none was intended)
> and can only offer that I'm trying to make a complex point in a brief
> fashion
>
>

[Mike]

Those aditionnal 100 are not so speculative.


"Thomas Schoene" > a écrit dans le message de
news: . ..
> Skysurfer wrote:
> > Charles Talleyrand wrote :
> >
> >> I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with
> >> an option of 20 more. However, I have read on the web that
> >> Dassault is to deliver 1 Rafale this year, and only 4 next year.
> >> I have also read that there are only 13 operational Rafales with
> >> the French Military.
> >
> > I think the french govt has ordered about 300 Rafale.
>
> Well, it has announced plans to order this many. However, actual orders
are
> 120 thus far, plus 76 fairly firm projected orders in the 2003-08 budget
> plan, for a total of about 200. The additional 100 will come after 2008,
> and are obviously rather speculative.
>
> http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/topstor02.htm
>
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[Mike]

Is F.22 dead?If you're not american,no one cares...
Is "Dreamliner" (pfff!what a name!) dead?If you'are not american,no one
cares...
Is LCA dead?If you're not indian,no one cares....
Is Su.35 dead,if you're not russian,no one cares...

With such a logic,why not to make a newsgroup for each country,where one can
speak about planes from its own country,and only about those...




"J" > a écrit dans le message de news:
. ..
> If your not french, no one cares.
>
>

[Lyle]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:09:36 -0500, "Tony Volk"
> wrote:

> I'll probably regret getting dragged into this, but it smacks me as very
>hypocritical for a U.S. citizens to question an ally for not jumping into
>any war they wanted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. dragged their
>feet for a relatively long time to officially defend "peace, freedom, etc."
>when they were threatened as never before or since (W.W.II). It wasn't
>until their own country was attacked that they officially entered the war.
>I am aware of their other efforts before that, but no real commitment of
>troops was provided. Heck, the whole western world pretty much stood by and
>did nothing as Czechoslovakia was annexed. I'm not anti-American, but I
>think that before you throw stones, you might want to look around to see how
>much glass is in your house. Regards,

Remember the Monroe Doctorine. its for this reason that the US didnt
get involved. If Germany would have invaded a country in the western
hemisphere that would have been a differnet matter. Let Europe worry
about Europe was the motto of the day, for it was a foreign war.
But when we were attacked it no longer became a foreign war.
P.S. there was no western world or eastern world, only western
hemisphere(new world) and eastern hemisphere(old world). West and east
didnt come into play until the cold war. And the US wanted to keep the
war, and Europe out of the New World, therefore we didnt step in
theirs.
P.P.S Britian and France combined had a bigger military then Germany
all the way to the start of WW2. They could have stopped Hitler in
'36. But they suffered from the Peace at all Cost sickness.
>
>Tony
>
>> Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
>> able to defend.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>

[Tony Volk]

> Remember the Monroe Doctorine. its for this reason that the US didnt
> get involved. If Germany would have invaded a country in the western
> hemisphere that would have been a differnet matter. Let Europe worry
> about Europe was the motto of the day, for it was a foreign war.
> But when we were attacked it no longer became a foreign war.
> P.S. there was no western world or eastern world, only western
> hemisphere(new world) and eastern hemisphere(old world). West and east
> didnt come into play until the cold war. And the US wanted to keep the
> war, and Europe out of the New World, therefore we didnt step in
> theirs.

I'm not sure if this is an argument, or an agreement that France (now)
acted very much like the U.S. (then). It sure seems to back up what I said
before. Thanks for the details. Cheers,

Tony

[pcg]

> Sure, they plan to ramp up production. But their original plans never
said
> 18 aircraft in 8 years, so I have doubts about the current plans to. Can
> anyone comment on this?

Production line is ready to assemble about 10 aircrafts a year, but Dassault
respects the gov plan by staging costs (hence the higher costs per
aircraft... : a traditional french budget problem....) : it's only a defense
budget issue.

On this page you can see the deliveries calendar to the French Navy :
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/rafale/rafale_fr.htm
("Calendrier des livraisons (1999-2012)")

[WaltBJ]

IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
Walt BJ

[Franck]

great explication Tony

but don't try to explain anythinq to this Al, He can't understand anything.
Just Black & White, good & bad and all US way are good

Best regards

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Bill Kambic]

Most of the "wise cracks" about the U.S. position vis-a-vis the world in the
late '30s demonstrate a remarkable combination of arrogance and ignorance.

For most American opinion makers the experiences of U.S. participation in
WWI were less than satisfactory. The monumental ineptitude of French and
British commanders was memorialized in a series of post-War flicks (such as
"All Quiet on the Western Front"). The writing of men like Hemmingway had
stripped the glory from war. The general attitude was if the foolish
Europeans want to slaughter each other in vast numbers, God bless 'em.

It was clear to the U.S. administration that war in Europe was inevitable
and that U.S. interests would demand U.S. participation. Given the general
population's feelings, any governmental action (particularly during
Depression era times) had to be considered.

Actions there were. In fact, every major U.S. combat aircraft of WWII was
conceived and the prototypes at least on the drawing board by the end of
1940. That year also saw the passage of the first peacetime draft in U.S.
history, the Two Ocean Navy Act, and Lend-Lease. A very late start in the
deveopment of armored vehicles and doctrine was being addressed. The
foundations of the Arsenal of Democracy were being laid.

The Japanese ended American political divisions on "the war question."

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
> BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
> Walt BJ

[Paul F Austin]

"WaltBJ" wrote
> IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
> BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.

It's not dead but it is very ill, for lack of foreign military sales. France
alone can't manage Rafale procurement at a rate that would give them a
viable force in reasonable time, not when she is funding the A400M, a new
carrier, procurement of the fourth Triomphant.. All those things are also in
competition with social security funding as the French population ages.

[Tony Volk]

> True. On the other hand the US Congress actually refused to
> sell weapons to Britain and France at a very critical moment.

With this timely bit of information, I'm going to thank Emmanuel for
reminding us what this thread was about and leave my comments to stand as
they are. This isn't alt.political.historical.contemporary.war.morals, and
I'm certainly not an expert on such. Thanks for the details on the Rafale
Emmanuel,

Tony

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message ...
>
> "WaltBJ" wrote
> > IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
> > BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> > anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
>
> It's not dead but it is very ill, for lack of foreign military sales. France
> alone can't manage Rafale procurement at a rate that would give them a
> viable force in reasonable time, not when she is funding the A400M, a new
> carrier, procurement of the fourth Triomphant.. All those things are also in
> competition with social security funding as the French population ages.

It seems very unlikely that the Rafale will *ever* have a foreign
military sale. The best chance is 25 years from now when France wants
to upgrade, and the planes are both used and cheap. Or maybe politics
can force someone like Taiwan to buy them (but I doubt it).

Seriously, it's hard to imagine the nation that would pick the Rafale
when the Typhoon and the F-16/18 are available.

[Thomas Schoene]

Mike wrote:
> Those aditionnal 100 are not so speculative.

Until they're included in a current budget cycle, I'm inclined to call them
speculative. Plenty of planned systems have not been bought under similar
situations.

Please note that my skepticism has nothing to do with France or Rafale in
particular.* It's just the nature of defense procurement worldwide that
anything in the outyears, especially past five years, is always subject to
change. To assume anything past the current five-year budget cycle for any
military is a certainty is unwarranted optimism, IMO. And even the
five-year plans are never cast in stone.

* Indeed, I'm disgusted by the anti-French bigotry (verging on racism)
displayed by some posters here.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message ...
> "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
>
> Rafale is alive, but the French are more or less skipping
> the first 'series' of Rafales. Only a dozen production aircraft
> (two for the air force, ten for the Navy) were built to 'F1'
> standard, basically air-air capability only. Just enough to
> create a naval 'Flotille' for the 'Charles de Gaulle' and
> support further development.
>
> The main production is now planned to be of upgraded
> versions. Rafales to the 'F2' standard, with air-ground
> capability, will enter service in 2004, with initial operation
> capability in 2006.

This is a pretty horrible procurment strategy. It's basically ...

Research a new design
Build 13 of them
Let the design age for ten years
Update the radar software (and possibly uprate the engines)
Go into series production

Boy, I hope someone in France is regretting not signing onto the
Eurofighter deal. Almost anything would be better than the current
Rafale situation.

The final 198 Rafales for the air force
> and 35 for the Navy are to be to the final multi-role 'F3'
> standard, delivered from 2008 onwards. Then, all older
> Rafales will be upgraded to 'F3' standard.
>
> So the entry in production of Rafale is shifted into the future;
> the Mirage 2000 will serve longer. Some of the delay can be
> caused by requested modifications (significantly, after the 1991
> Gulf War, the French decided that the majority of the Rafales
> will have a seat for a WSO) but the main motive is probably
> purely financial, the French budgettary situation isn't very
> healthy at the moment.
>
> But I suspect that this is a pattern we will see more and more
> in combat aircraft development. The time when an air force
> could afford to buy models with limited capability and put
> them in stock or upgrade them afterwards, is past.
>
> > BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> > anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
>
> True. On the other hand the US Congress actually refused to
> sell weapons to Britain and France at a very critical moment.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>

[AL]

I don't think it is just in defense procurement. In nearly all aspects
of corporate life. Though with a shorter horizon.

Thomas Schoene wrote:

>Please note that my skepticism has nothing to do with France or Rafale in
>particular.* It's just the nature of defense procurement worldwide that
>anything in the outyears, especially past five years, is always subject to
>change. To assume anything past the current five-year budget cycle for any
>military is a certainty is unwarranted optimism, IMO. And even the
>five-year plans are never cast in stone.
>
>* Indeed, I'm disgusted by the anti-French bigotry (verging on racism)
>displayed by some posters here.
>
>--
>Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
>"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
>special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
AL
New anti-terrorism tool, "Fly naked"
http://www.alfredivy.per.sg

[Kevin Brooks]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "WaltBJ" wrote
> > > IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
> > > BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> > > anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
> >
> > It's not dead but it is very ill, for lack of foreign military sales.
France
> > alone can't manage Rafale procurement at a rate that would give them a
> > viable force in reasonable time, not when she is funding the A400M, a
new
> > carrier, procurement of the fourth Triomphant.. All those things are
also in
> > competition with social security funding as the French population ages.
>
> It seems very unlikely that the Rafale will *ever* have a foreign
> military sale. The best chance is 25 years from now when France wants
> to upgrade, and the planes are both used and cheap. Or maybe politics
> can force someone like Taiwan to buy them (but I doubt it).

In the case of Taiwan, politics are what would prevent any possible sale of
Rafale. IIRC the French said "uncle" after their last sale of Mirage 2000's
to Taiwan (back when the US was reluctant to provide the F-16) provoked the
ire of the PRC. ISTR France decided then to promise not to sell further
advanced weapons to Taiwan lest they lose out on (potentially) more
lucrative sales of goods to the PRC.

>
> Seriously, it's hard to imagine the nation that would pick the Rafale
> when the Typhoon and the F-16/18 are available.

I suspect that part of Rafale's problem is the perception (mostly
unjustified) of lukewarm interest in it from the French forces themselves,
which is really more of a budgeting problem. It is not a bad airplane, but
the sluggish pace of development, coupled with past overly-optimistic and
premature pronouncements regarding its capabilities (i.e., trying to sell it
as a first-rate multi-role platform when it was still just emerging as a
single role performer) during sales attempts to various nations, have
repeatedly left it in the "also ran" category. Add to that the fact that a
couple of the nations where it has been marketed were more interested in
acheiving/maintaining interoperability with US forces than they were with
French forces. I'd guess that Brazil was their best hope for an export sale,
but last I heard that competition has again been delayed due to money
concerns.

There has been some high-level talk in the recent past of India entering
into a coproduction deal with Dassault on the Mirage 2000-9. If you take the
recent reports of Indian dissatisfaction with the Su-30 into account, and
the potential impact upon plans to coproduce those aircraft in India, the
possibility of the Indians changing horses midstream and maybe looking at
Rafale as its premier future platform is a bit intriguing--rather unlikely
as of yet, but still...

Brooks
>
>

[Jim Herring]

nemo wrote:

> Your stuborness...

Let's see. You call yourself "nemo". That must be from a brightly
colored fish that flaunts itself and then yells help and retreats from
danger to the arms of a sea anemone for protection. Um, that sounds
french. It sure isn't a fictional submarine captain with some ethics.
As, that wouldn't be french.

--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mike]

Okay with you,it often happens like that...
But in this particular case,I don't think it will be.
Relations between the govt and Dassault are very special in France.Most of
the time (everytime),
the initial number of fighters ordered have been purchased to the last
one;Mirage 2000,F.1,III,and even more in some cases.
It is not rare that the budget changes everything as years go by,in France
like anywhere else.But very rare for Dassault.
The reduction from +/-320 to +/-285 has already been made.Dassault refused
to reduce it more because of the unit cost,
threatning to abandon the program...What I think S.Dassault could have
done.He has received all the guarantees that the number
won't be lowered.And it won't be unless a very strong economic crisis.
Still,the Armée de l'Air needs them,and the Marine seems to need even more
of them if its new carrier is larger than the CDG,and it
could be.

(Thank you for the precisions about "France bashing",it is useful here...
and sorry for my english...!)



"Thomas Schoene" > a écrit dans le message de
news: et...
> Mike wrote:
> > Those aditionnal 100 are not so speculative.
>
> Until they're included in a current budget cycle, I'm inclined to call
them
> speculative. Plenty of planned systems have not been bought under similar
> situations.
>
> Please note that my skepticism has nothing to do with France or Rafale in
> particular.* It's just the nature of defense procurement worldwide that
> anything in the outyears, especially past five years, is always subject to
> change. To assume anything past the current five-year budget cycle for
any
> military is a certainty is unwarranted optimism, IMO. And even the
> five-year plans are never cast in stone.
>
> * Indeed, I'm disgusted by the anti-French bigotry (verging on racism)
> displayed by some posters here.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[Mike]

Bla bla bla...


"Jim Herring" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> nemo wrote:
>
> > Your stuborness...
>
> Let's see. You call yourself "nemo". That must be from a brightly
> colored fish that flaunts itself and then yells help and retreats from
> danger to the arms of a sea anemone for protection. Um, that sounds
> french. It sure isn't a fictional submarine captain with some ethics.
> As, that wouldn't be french.
>
> --
> Jim
>
> carry on
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Jim Herring" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> nemo wrote:
>
> > Your stuborness...
>
> Let's see. You call yourself "nemo". That must be from a brightly
> colored fish that flaunts itself and then yells help and retreats from
> danger to the arms of a sea anemone for protection.

No, that must from the latin "nemo" for "nobody".

> Um, that sounds french. It sure isn't a fictional submarine captain with
some ethics.
> As, that wouldn't be french.

A smartass devoid of any cultural knowledge which has to retreat to cartoon
movies to find arguments. Um, that sounds american.

Don't worry Jim, I'm sure some day Disney will make a movie which will
enable you to learn a few latin words.

Cheers from Paris,
--
Pierre-Henri Baras
___________________________
French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net

Encyclopédie de l'Aviation
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:03:31 -0600, Jim Herring
> allegedly uttered:

>nemo wrote:
>
>> Your stuborness...
>
>Let's see. You call yourself "nemo". That must be from a brightly
>colored fish that flaunts itself and then yells help and retreats from
>danger to the arms of a sea anemone for protection. Um, that sounds
>french.

Uhh no. Nemo is a US written and produced picture.

> It sure isn't a fictional submarine captain with some ethics.
>As, that wouldn't be french.

And again you're of the mark - you may not be aware, but the author of
20k leagues under the sea was, in fact, French. And one of the most
successful author of his time.

But don't let that get in the way of your blind hatred of the French,
not your ad homeneim attacks based on a posters posting name.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[nemo]

Go and learn latin language...and you will perhaps, if you get more than
a neurone, what's mean Nemo

[tscottme]

Tony Volk > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> For the record, I think the U.N. should have gone in as a whole
and
> taken out Saddam for breach of GW 1 agreements, and for his atrocities
> against his people.
<snip>

That's very funny or your car has a very bad exhaust leak. I suppose
the UN would ride in on their purple dinosaurs and fling time-traveling
arrows while wearing anti-gravity boots. 12 years to enforce sanctions,
try 12 more years to agree on the date of the planning conference and
the menu for the welcome banquet for the pre-plenary session to discuss
the military action.

--

Scott
--------
Monitor the latest efforts of "peaceful Muslims" at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[tscottme]

Tony Volk > wrote in message
...
> > Remember the Monroe Doctorine. its for this reason that the US didnt
> > get involved. If Germany would have invaded a country in the western
> > hemisphere that would have been a differnet matter. Let Europe worry
> > about Europe was the motto of the day, for it was a foreign war.
> > But when we were attacked it no longer became a foreign war.
> > P.S. there was no western world or eastern world, only western
> > hemisphere(new world) and eastern hemisphere(old world). West and
east
> > didnt come into play until the cold war. And the US wanted to keep
the
> > war, and Europe out of the New World, therefore we didnt step in
> > theirs.
>
> I'm not sure if this is an argument, or an agreement that France
(now)
> acted very much like the U.S. (then). It sure seems to back up what I
said
> before. Thanks for the details. Cheers,
>
> Tony
>

Yet the US seems to have learned the lesson while France seems to have
adopted appeasement and isolationism as a religion.

--

Scott
--------
Monitor the latest efforts of "peaceful Muslims" at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:29 -0500, "Tony Volk" > wrote:

>> The US was a neutral, you know, like the Swedes, the Swiss, etc. We had
>> just recently completed the clean up of a euro mess (WW1). The fact that
>> the French screwed up the Armistice was getting them into another mess.
>> We, quite reasonably, decided that, since Europe had evidently decided
>> that a war every few years was a good thing, we would decline to
>> participate.
>
> You didn't answer the question. The U.S. ignored the need to defend
>"peace, freedom, etc." as the Germans and Japanese began the war. They only
>got involved when they themselves were attacked. So why would you blame
>France for not wanting to join a U.S. fight when France wasn't attacked (no
>one was actually, but assuming you're going with the Bush 9/11 line of
>garbage). Why is it "quite reasonable" for the U.S. to back out of a war
>they're not involved in, and cowardice/betrayal for France to do the same
>thing? France just fought in GW 1, US starts GW 2, and sits out. That's as
>close to an exact parallel to your WW1 and WW2 comments as you could get!
>Your answers strike me as deeply hypocritical.
> For the record, I think the U.N. should have gone in as a whole and
>taken out Saddam for breach of GW 1 agreements, and for his atrocities
>against his people. I'm glad that a monster was removed (I think that they
>needn't have, and shouldn't have lied about removing WOMD). But to accuse
>France of being cowards in not joining this relatively minor war makes me
>wonder what you think of the actions of the U.S. in early WWII when the
>stakes were much higher, the need much direr, and the evil much worse. How
>was the U.S. reasonable while the French were not?

Well, for one thing there was about a 60 year difference. The UN will never
be an effective organization, its Charter ensures that. You will also note
that in WWI the French army mutinied, and in WWII they rolled over and
played dead.
>
>Tony
>
>p.s.- to any veterans of WWII, I am in no way questioning the incredible
>valor and sacrifice of the Americans during WWII, only trying to illustrate
>that any country can be or has been selfish and complacent in the face of a
>common danger so it's ignorant or hypocritical to single out any one country
>as such; I apologize in advance for any implied insult (none was intended)
>and can only offer that I'm trying to make a complex point in a brief
>fashion
>
There was very little "common danger" involved. In WWI we were not attacked
at all, and in WWII the "danger" to the US was the Japanese.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:09:51 -0500, "Tony Volk" > wrote:

>> Remember the Monroe Doctorine. its for this reason that the US didnt
>> get involved. If Germany would have invaded a country in the western
>> hemisphere that would have been a differnet matter. Let Europe worry
>> about Europe was the motto of the day, for it was a foreign war.
>> But when we were attacked it no longer became a foreign war.
>> P.S. there was no western world or eastern world, only western
>> hemisphere(new world) and eastern hemisphere(old world). West and east
>> didnt come into play until the cold war. And the US wanted to keep the
>> war, and Europe out of the New World, therefore we didnt step in
>> theirs.
>
> I'm not sure if this is an argument, or an agreement that France (now)
>acted very much like the U.S. (then). It sure seems to back up what I said
>before. Thanks for the details. Cheers,
>
>Tony
>
You do not seem to be able to realize that the world was a vastly different
place in 1911 and 1941. At that time there were very few countries
capable of world wide destruction. Today, even a dump like Iraq
could, and did, attack many countries. The French were, as their
recent comments show, only interested in the money that Elf, etc
were making in Iraq. The French refused us overflight permission
in the attack on Libya, and hoped (as they did before WWII) that
"making nice" with the enemy would prevent them from being
attacked. They were wrong.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:19:46 -0500, "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:

>
>"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "WaltBJ" wrote
>> > IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
>> > BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
>> > anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
>>
>> It's not dead but it is very ill, for lack of foreign military sales. France
>> alone can't manage Rafale procurement at a rate that would give them a
>> viable force in reasonable time, not when she is funding the A400M, a new
>> carrier, procurement of the fourth Triomphant.. All those things are also in
>> competition with social security funding as the French population ages.
>
>It seems very unlikely that the Rafale will *ever* have a foreign
>military sale. The best chance is 25 years from now when France wants
>to upgrade, and the planes are both used and cheap. Or maybe politics
>can force someone like Taiwan to buy them (but I doubt it).
>
>Seriously, it's hard to imagine the nation that would pick the Rafale
>when the Typhoon and the F-16/18 are available.
>
Not to mention the F-35. Stealth, VSTOL if desired, CTOL and runway
options available, and quite affordable. About 30 countries are involved
in the project, and will most likely purchase it.

Al Minyard

[nemo]

Mike wrote:
> Bla bla bla...
>
Yeap, BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA

[J]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> Is F.22 dead?If you're not american,no one cares...
> Is "Dreamliner" (pfff!what a name!) dead?If you'are not american,no one
> cares...
> Is LCA dead?If you're not indian,no one cares....
> Is Su.35 dead,if you're not russian,no one cares...
>
> With such a logic,why not to make a newsgroup for each country,where one
can
> speak about planes from its own country,and only about those...
>
>
>
>
> "J" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> . ..
> > If your not french, no one cares.
> >
> >
>
Very good suggestion! Maybe we can get rid of all you top-posters.

[tadaa]

> > You didn't answer the question. The U.S. ignored the need to defend
> > "peace, freedom, etc." as the Germans and Japanese began the war. They
only
> > got involved when they themselves were attacked.
>
> I thought Europeans were against "preventive wars". I thought Europeans
> were against wars not fought for one's own defense. That seems to be
> what you have been telling us since September 11, 2001.
>
> Before the US officially entered the war in 1941 America was providing
> massive amounts of aid to Britain and Russia and Army Air Corp pilots
> were fighting the Japanese in China under the transparent cover of being
> "mercenaries". We were doing a great deal to keep you Germans from
> destroying the world long before December 8, 1941.

Would you want do describe this massive aid from USA to Soviet Union before
december 8 1941?

[Keith Willshaw]

"tadaa" > wrote in message ...

>
> Would you want do describe this massive aid from USA to Soviet Union
before
> december 8 1941?
>
>


Hell yes

The Lend Lease act was amended to include the USSR following
the invasion of Germany and between October 1941 and June 42
the US supplied 1285 aircraft , 2249 tanks, 81,000 machine guns,
37,000 trucks, 56,000 file telephones and 30,000 tons of
explosives.

Keith

[Tony Volk]

To clear the record, I'm Canadian, not European. So *you* shouldn't say
"you" without knowing who *you* are talking about. And as I mentioned
before, I'll leave my comments regarding France's behavior vs. U.S.'s
behavior to stand. I'll just throw in a very self-serving quote I came
across recently ;-) :

"Canada- lynchpin of the English speaking world, whose relations of friendly
intimacy with the United States on the one hand and her unswerving fidelity
to the British Commonwealth and the motherland on the other. Canada - the
link which joins together these great branches of the human family"-Winston
Churchill

Please remember that my posts have not been meant to attack the U.S.
Rather, they are an effort to promote an understanding of the similarity of
the behaviors of two different countries, in an effort to reduce the
baseless France-bashing some folks appear to be engaging in. Regards,

Tony

> I thought Europeans were against "preventive wars". I thought Europeans
> were against wars not fought for one's own defense. That seems to be
> what you have been telling us since September 11, 2001.
>
> Before the US officially entered the war in 1941 America was providing
> massive amounts of aid to Britain and Russia and Army Air Corp pilots
> were fighting the Japanese in China under the transparent cover of being
> "mercenaries". We were doing a great deal to keep you Germans from
> destroying the world long before December 8, 1941.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tony Volk" > wrote in message
...
> To clear the record, I'm Canadian, not European. So *you* shouldn't
say
> "you" without knowing who *you* are talking about. And as I mentioned
> before, I'll leave my comments regarding France's behavior vs. U.S.'s
> behavior to stand. I'll just throw in a very self-serving quote I came
> across recently ;-) :
>
> "Canada- lynchpin of the English speaking world, whose relations of
friendly
> intimacy with the United States on the one hand and her unswerving
fidelity
> to the British Commonwealth and the motherland on the other. Canada - the
> link which joins together these great branches of the human
family"-Winston
> Churchill
>
> Please remember that my posts have not been meant to attack the U.S.
> Rather, they are an effort to promote an understanding of the similarity
of
> the behaviors of two different countries, in an effort to reduce the
> baseless France-bashing some folks appear to be engaging in. Regards,

Baseless? Have you been hiding under a rock for the past year or so? A lot
of us consider the recent French governmental prouncements to be a quite
nice "base" upon which to embark on a nice bashing or three.

Brooks

>
> Tony
>
> > I thought Europeans were against "preventive wars". I thought Europeans
> > were against wars not fought for one's own defense. That seems to be
> > what you have been telling us since September 11, 2001.
> >
> > Before the US officially entered the war in 1941 America was providing
> > massive amounts of aid to Britain and Russia and Army Air Corp pilots
> > were fighting the Japanese in China under the transparent cover of being
> > "mercenaries". We were doing a great deal to keep you Germans from
> > destroying the world long before December 8, 1941.
>
>

[tadaa]

>>> Before the US officially entered the war in 1941 America was providing
>>> massive amounts of aid to Britain and Russia and Army Air Corp pilots
>>> were fighting the Japanese in China under the transparent cover of being
>>> "mercenaries". We were doing a great deal to keep you Germans from
>>> destroying the world long before December 8, 1941.

>> Would you want do describe this massive aid from USA to Soviet Union
>> before december 8 1941?

> Hell yes
>
> The Lend Lease act was amended to include the USSR following
> the invasion of Germany and between October 1941 and June 42
> the US supplied 1285 aircraft , 2249 tanks, 81,000 machine guns,
> 37,000 trucks, 56,000 file telephones and 30,000 tons of
> explosives.

This is of course a great shock to you, but june 1942 comes after december
1941.

[Kevin Brooks]

"tadaa" > wrote in message ...
> >>> Before the US officially entered the war in 1941 America was providing
> >>> massive amounts of aid to Britain and Russia and Army Air Corp pilots
> >>> were fighting the Japanese in China under the transparent cover of
being
> >>> "mercenaries". We were doing a great deal to keep you Germans from
> >>> destroying the world long before December 8, 1941.
>
> >> Would you want do describe this massive aid from USA to Soviet Union
> >> before december 8 1941?
>
> > Hell yes
> >
> > The Lend Lease act was amended to include the USSR following
> > the invasion of Germany and between October 1941 and June 42
> > the US supplied 1285 aircraft , 2249 tanks, 81,000 machine guns,
> > 37,000 trucks, 56,000 file telephones and 30,000 tons of
> > explosives.
>
> This is of course a great shock to you, but june 1942 comes after december
> 1941.

Gee, then you must have been floored to realize that October 1941 is prior
to December 1941, huh Genius?

Brooks
>
>

[tadaa]

> Gee, then you must have been floored to realize that October 1941 is prior
> to December 1941, huh Genius?

And in that time the amount of material sent was ... what?

the orginal claim was :

"Before the US officially entered the war in 1941 America was providing
massive amounts of aid to Britain and Russia"

And I'm claiming that US aid to SU wasn't that massive at the beginning.

" Congress appropriated 13 billion dollars for the lend-lease program by
October 28, 1941, but the movement of goods overseas got under way slowly.
Our munitions industry was still largely in the tooling up state. "
" The first convoy of American and British cargo ships steamed into the
harbor of Murmansk while the German armies were hammering at the gates of
Moscow. Our aid to the U.S.S.R. was relatively insignificant in 1941, but it
bore the promise of much more to come. "

LL became important to SU in later of the war, because it allowed SU to
commit it's own resources to war, but to call it massive even before US
joined in war is false.

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:08:20 -0500, "Tony Volk" > wrote:

> To clear the record, I'm Canadian, not European. So *you* shouldn't say
>"you" without knowing who *you* are talking about. And as I mentioned
>before, I'll leave my comments regarding France's behavior vs. U.S.'s
>behavior to stand. I'll just throw in a very self-serving quote I came
>across recently ;-) :
>
>"Canada- lynchpin of the English speaking world, whose relations of friendly
>intimacy with the United States on the one hand and her unswerving fidelity
>to the British Commonwealth and the motherland on the other. Canada - the
>link which joins together these great branches of the human family"-Winston
>Churchill
>
> Please remember that my posts have not been meant to attack the U.S.
>Rather, they are an effort to promote an understanding of the similarity of
>the behaviors of two different countries, in an effort to reduce the
>baseless France-bashing some folks appear to be engaging in. Regards,
>
>Tony
>
The French are enemies of the US, if you choose to live with your head in
the sand, so be it.

Al Minyard

[Keith Willshaw]

"tadaa" > wrote in message ...
> >>> Before the US officially entered the war in 1941 America was providing
> >>> massive amounts of aid to Britain and Russia and Army Air Corp pilots
> >>> were fighting the Japanese in China under the transparent cover of
being
> >>> "mercenaries". We were doing a great deal to keep you Germans from
> >>> destroying the world long before December 8, 1941.
>
> >> Would you want do describe this massive aid from USA to Soviet Union
> >> before december 8 1941?
>
> > Hell yes
> >
> > The Lend Lease act was amended to include the USSR following
> > the invasion of Germany and between October 1941 and June 42
> > the US supplied 1285 aircraft , 2249 tanks, 81,000 machine guns,
> > 37,000 trucks, 56,000 file telephones and 30,000 tons of
> > explosives.
>
> This is of course a great shock to you, but june 1942 comes after december
> 1941.
>
>

And October 1941 is before it. Any aid that reached the USSR by June 1941
was almost certainly ordered before Dec 8. The shipment alone
took several weeks and the aircraft/tanks etc had to be made first.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"tadaa" > wrote in message ...

>
> And I'm claiming that US aid to SU wasn't that massive at the beginning.
>
> " Congress appropriated 13 billion dollars for the lend-lease program by
> October 28, 1941, but the movement of goods overseas got under way slowly.
> Our munitions industry was still largely in the tooling up state. "


$13 billion 1941 dollars sounds a pretty massive amount to me and
supplies of food and fuel and trucks were every bit as important
as munitions.

As Zhukov himself said after the war

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot
deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had
no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much
sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."


> " The first convoy of American and British cargo ships steamed into the
> harbor of Murmansk while the German armies were hammering at the gates of
> Moscow. Our aid to the U.S.S.R. was relatively insignificant in 1941, but
it
> bore the promise of much more to come. "
>

That convoy arrived before Dec 8 of course, in fact the first convoy to
Northern Russia arrived in August 1941

> LL became important to SU in later of the war, because it allowed SU to
> commit it's own resources to war, but to call it massive even before US
> joined in war is false.
>

No 13 billion 1941 dollars is massive, the fact that getting the aid to
Russia
either via the northern route or through Iran took many weeks doesnt alter
the
fact that massive amounts of aid were approved and dispatched BEFORE
the US entered the war.

Keith

[Mike]

The world by Al Minyard is so simple to understand....
What a lucky guy!



"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:08:20 -0500, "Tony Volk"
> wrote:
>
> > To clear the record, I'm Canadian, not European. So *you* shouldn't
say
> >"you" without knowing who *you* are talking about. And as I mentioned
> >before, I'll leave my comments regarding France's behavior vs. U.S.'s
> >behavior to stand. I'll just throw in a very self-serving quote I came
> >across recently ;-) :
> >
> >"Canada- lynchpin of the English speaking world, whose relations of
friendly
> >intimacy with the United States on the one hand and her unswerving
fidelity
> >to the British Commonwealth and the motherland on the other. Canada - the
> >link which joins together these great branches of the human
family"-Winston
> >Churchill
> >
> > Please remember that my posts have not been meant to attack the U.S.
> >Rather, they are an effort to promote an understanding of the similarity
of
> >the behaviors of two different countries, in an effort to reduce the
> >baseless France-bashing some folks appear to be engaging in. Regards,
> >
> >Tony
> >
> The French are enemies of the US, if you choose to live with your head in
> the sand, so be it.
>
> Al Minyard

[tadaa]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

>>And I'm claiming that US aid to SU wasn't that massive at the beginning.
>>
>>" Congress appropriated 13 billion dollars for the lend-lease program by
>>October 28, 1941, but the movement of goods overseas got under way slowly.
>>Our munitions industry was still largely in the tooling up state. "
>
> $13 billion 1941 dollars sounds a pretty massive amount to me and
> supplies of food and fuel and trucks were every bit as important
> as munitions.

But that $13 billion was the whole LL, UK propably got quite a chunk of
it. And at the beginning largest part of US LL shipments was food.

> "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one
> cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without
> which we could not have formed our reserves and ***could not have
> continued the war***"

I don't doubt that, but was he talking about the aid USSR received
before USA joined in the war?

>>" The first convoy of American and British cargo ships steamed into the
>>harbor of Murmansk while the German armies were hammering at the gates of
>>Moscow. Our aid to the U.S.S.R. was relatively insignificant in 1941, but
>>it bore the promise of much more to come. "
>
> That convoy arrived before Dec 8 of course, in fact the first convoy to
> Northern Russia arrived in August 1941

>>LL became important to SU in later of the war, because it allowed SU to
>>commit it's own resources to war, but to call it massive even before US
>>joined in war is false.
>
> No 13 billion 1941 dollars is massive, the fact that getting the aid to
> Russia either via the northern route or through Iran took many weeks
> doesnt alter the fact that massive amounts of aid were approved and
> dispatched BEFORE the US entered the war.

As I said earlier that 13 billion is the total LL approved by US
congress 28th of october, it wasn't all earmarked for USSR (UK, China,
Greece, Norway (don't know if there were others)).
Is there somewhere a list of good received by USSR on monthly basis or
yearly basis?

[John S. Shinal]

"Tony Volk" wrote:

>> The US was a neutral, you know, like the Swedes, the Swiss, etc. We had
>> just recently completed the clean up of a euro mess (WW1). The fact that
>> the French screwed up the Armistice was getting them into another mess.
>> We, quite reasonably, decided that, since Europe had evidently decided
>> that a war every few years was a good thing, we would decline to
>> participate.
>
> You didn't answer the question. The U.S. ignored the need to defend
>"peace, freedom, etc." as the Germans and Japanese began the war. They only
>got involved when they themselves were attacked.

That was a mistake that we learned from, although we still
were not wont to be speedy and decisive about it.


> So why would you blame
>France for not wanting to join a U.S. fight when France wasn't attacked (no
>one was actually, but assuming you're going with the Bush 9/11 line of
>garbage). Why is it "quite reasonable" for the U.S. to back out of a war
>they're not involved in, and cowardice/betrayal for France to do the same
>thing? France just fought in GW 1, US starts GW 2, and sits out. That's as
>close to an exact parallel to your WW1 and WW2 comments as you could get!

Not a bad parallel, but we must ask why France would offer
assistance of the Foreign Legion and a few jet squadrons for GW1, but
not for GW2 ? I don't think, competent as French intel has been
historically, that they had significantly better info than the US/UK
did. They were going through a bit of an intransigent phase though
both with the USA and many others - I think that had as much to do
with the French refusal to participate as anything else. Not exactly
the noblest of concepts. The USA going into Iraq to clean up a mess we
had contributed to was only marginally better, but it was *somewhat*
better.

>Your answers strike me as deeply hypocritical.

Ditto the concerns about the French. They cetrainly had plenty
of national interest in cleaning up the horrors of Iraq. For all the
noise made about the companies in the USAID group making money in
Iraq, so it goes for the French oil and technology markets.
It's entirely their choice to participate or not - they have
often been rather troublesome as allies - once in, they are highly
motivated fighters, but it can be tricky to get them to commit...


>wonder what you think of the actions of the U.S. in early WWII when the
>stakes were much higher, the need much direr, and the evil much worse.

I think it was less clear at the time. The Jewish deportations
and pogrom were just getting underway, for example. It's not too hard
to understand why there was hesitance to enter another conflict that
was assumed to be like the trench war horrors of WW1. But eventually
we realized that wait was a mistake. I think US attitude to someone
like Hussein is a reflection of that lesson learned in the 1940s.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

John S. Shinal > wrote:

: Not a bad parallel, but we must ask why France would offer
: assistance of the Foreign Legion and a few jet squadrons for GW1, but
: not for GW2 ?

Because GW1 involved the defense of a sovereign (and rich)
nation, Kuwait, against blatant aggression by Iraq -- the
event has been described as the greatest bank robbery of
all time. The political framework for GW1 was quite strong,
as it involved not only the defense of vital interests
but also the enforcement of an international rule banning
unprovoked aggression which it is beneficial to uphold
for all nations.

GW2 on the other hand was an American pre-emptive and
aggressive move against an old enemy whose very survival
was seen by hardliners in Washington as an insult to the
USA's power. The political framework consisted of a set
of dubious claims about Iraqi WMD and vague pipe-dreams
about a rosy-colored middle east formulated by the loonies
who were not only allowed to advise the Pentagon, but also
to appear on TV as the administrattion's talking heads.

With all respect for Colin Powell, US diplomacy failed
dismally on this occassion. James Baker would have been
ashamed to preside over this muddle, but much of the
blame rests on a president who allows his staff to voice
contradicting policies and silly statements in public ---
and senior ministers who are, err, less than tactful.

It would probably have been possible to get French support
for the removal of Saddam Hussein if the US had negotiated
and formulated a clear foreign policy for the middle east.
After all, Saddam was a brutal, murderous dictator, and
his removal from the region has obvious benefits. What was
lacking was, conspicuously, time; the hawks in Washington
wanted to use the momentum created by 9/11 to carry the
policy.

: It's entirely their choice to participate or not - they have
: often been rather troublesome as allies - once in, they are highly
: motivated fighters, but it can be tricky to get them to commit...

Well, the defense of American national interests as a policy
goal does not get a particularly high priority in Paris...

: I think it was less clear at the time. The Jewish deportations
: and pogrom were just getting underway, for example.

Nazi Germany's anti-semitic policies were already perfectly
clear. However, given that anti-semitism prevailed worldwide
in the late 1930s, also in the USA, this would have been
difficult to use (at least in public) as motive for military
intervention; there were have been a public uproar against it.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> John S. Shinal > wrote:
>
> : Not a bad parallel, but we must ask why France would offer
> : assistance of the Foreign Legion and a few jet squadrons for GW1, but
> : not for GW2 ?
>
> Because GW1 involved the defense of a sovereign (and rich)
> nation, Kuwait, against blatant aggression by Iraq -- the
> event has been described as the greatest bank robbery of
> all time. The political framework for GW1 was quite strong,
> as it involved not only the defense of vital interests
> but also the enforcement of an international rule banning
> unprovoked aggression which it is beneficial to uphold
> for all nations.
>
> GW2 on the other hand was an American pre-emptive and
> aggressive move against an old enemy whose very survival
> was seen by hardliners in Washington as an insult to the
> USA's power.

That might be your perception, but that would not make it the correct one.

The political framework consisted of a set
> of dubious claims about Iraqi WMD and vague pipe-dreams
> about a rosy-colored middle east formulated by the loonies
> who were not only allowed to advise the Pentagon, but also
> to appear on TV as the administrattion's talking heads.

Odd, ISTR every major European power, France included, also had concluded
that Saddam had an ongoing WMD program.

>
> With all respect for Colin Powell, US diplomacy failed
> dismally on this occassion. James Baker would have been
> ashamed to preside over this muddle, but much of the
> blame rests on a president who allows his staff to voice
> contradicting policies and silly statements in public ---
> and senior ministers who are, err, less than tactful.
>
> It would probably have been possible to get French support
> for the removal of Saddam Hussein if the US had negotiated
> and formulated a clear foreign policy for the middle east.

And said French support would undoubtedly also have been predicated upon the
self-powered and enabled flight of swine. The recalcitrance of France
towards easing the debt status of the emergent post-Saddam Iraqi government
would tend to indicate that France is more interested in seeing any attempt
to resolve the Iraqi dilemma fail. While France had the right to not support
the coalition's effort to topple Saddam (just as other European nations had
an equal right to support it, something that Chirac, if you recall, found
very distasteful), then why all of the subsequent attempts at obstructing
CURRENT progress, if the French are truly interested in the welfare of the
Iraqi people and the formation of a fair, representative government?

> After all, Saddam was a brutal, murderous dictator, and
> his removal from the region has obvious benefits.

Which the French have been rather slow in recognizing, as their reluctance
to forgive the debts accrued to them by the same "brutal, murderous
dictator" on behalf of the Iraqi people demonstrates. Maybe the fact that
France had just recently concluded a huge oil/gas development contract with
same said "brutal, murderous dictator" (TotalFina?) has something to do with
same said current reluctance. Or maybe it is just unthinkable for the French
to have to suck up the financial loss involved with all of those major
weapons systems to same said "brutal, murderous dictator". Whatever the
reason (and it more than likely has as much to do with that strange visceral
French desire to snipe at things American), the fact that they have
continued to be an obstacle even after the fall of Saddam does not seem to
support the idea that France was very keen upon seeing him fall in the first
place, regardless of the method used.

What was
> lacking was, conspicuously, time; the hawks in Washington
> wanted to use the momentum created by 9/11 to carry the
> policy.

Or was it that 9/11 gave us a sharper focus towards doing what has to be
done as opposed to wringing our hands for another ten years of concurrent
unbacked UN resolutions and French duplicity (hey, making that TotalFina
deal while also claiming to REALLY be anti-Saddam took some panache, huh?)?

>
> : It's entirely their choice to participate or not - they have
> : often been rather troublesome as allies - once in, they are highly
> : motivated fighters, but it can be tricky to get them to commit...
>
> Well, the defense of American national interests as a policy
> goal does not get a particularly high priority in Paris...

Fine. But the oft-repeated French refrain of allegedly supporting the fall
of Saddam but opposing the manner in which the US went about it is so much
poppy-cock. What were those reports of the French providing Saddam with
their analysis of the US intent? What about that sweetheart TotalFina deal
(which I sincerely hope is now in the trash can) concluded so lately with
Saddam?

>
> : I think it was less clear at the time. The Jewish deportations
> : and pogrom were just getting underway, for example.
>
> Nazi Germany's anti-semitic policies were already perfectly
> clear. However, given that anti-semitism prevailed worldwide
> in the late 1930s, also in the USA, this would have been
> difficult to use (at least in public) as motive for military
> intervention; there were have been a public uproar against it.

Anti-semitic policies, yes. Outright genocide? No, we were clueless. Did we
learn from the experience? You bet; we learned a lot. We learned to never
again draw down our military after a victory so far as we did after WWI. We
learned that we can't afford to accept the pronouncements of European
nations that "We can handle our own Euro affairs without your input, thank
you very much" (something we had to relearn when France began making similar
mutterings during the lead-in to Serbia). Finally, we learned a healthy
amount of disrespect for a nation that not only fell in six weeks but then
managed to actively oppose the Allies during the North African campaign.
Lots of lessons.

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
>

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Kevin Brooks > wrote:

:> GW2 on the other hand was an American pre-emptive and
:> aggressive move against an old enemy whose very survival
:> was seen by hardliners in Washington as an insult to the
:> USA's power.

: That might be your perception, but that would not make it the correct one.

Well, perception matters. But as Wolfovitz has stated
clear enough, concern about WMD was certainly not the
only driving factor behind the US invasion of Iraq, and
probably not the most important one. The people who
wanted this operation most were the bunch who had wanted
to occupy Bagdad in 1991; they wanted to remove Saddam
first and foremost because they regarded this as unfinished
bussiness.

: The political framework consisted of a set
:> of dubious claims about Iraqi WMD and vague pipe-dreams
:> about a rosy-colored middle east formulated by the loonies
:> who were not only allowed to advise the Pentagon, but also
:> to appear on TV as the administrattion's talking heads.

: Odd, ISTR every major European power, France included, also
: had concluded that Saddam had an ongoing WMD program.

Your memory is selective. Remember how Powell went to
Berlin, and Joschka Fischer stated clearly and publicly
that he was not convinced by the Secretary's dossier
on Iraqi WMD?

There was a general recognition that, considering that
Saddam had acquired a large arsenal of WMD in the past,
and that in the absence of inspections on site there was
no way to be sure that he was not developing them now,
something had to be done to make sure. However, this is
far from accepting the extravagant claims made by the
USA and UK. Which did not limit themselves to Iraq having
a WMD /program/, nor /the intention to restart a WMD
program/, but included a claim that it had WMD ready
for use at short notice.

: very distasteful), then why all of the subsequent attempts at obstructing
: CURRENT progress, if the French are truly interested in the welfare of the
: Iraqi people and the formation of a fair, representative government?

It seems to me that 'attempts at obstructing current progress'
amount to refusing to forgive all of the debts (for they have
agreed to forgive part of it) of a potentially enormously
rich country that will be very well able to pay them back.
There is no objective reason to simply forgive all Iraq's
debts. That the USA would like to see it otherwise does not
change the perception that debt relief should be given to the
world's poorest countries first.

The other attempt to obstruct progress seem to be mostly
policy suggestions that, after strong initial resistance,
have been adopted by the USA, for the CPA has now accepted
the need to make a fast transfer of power to an Iraqi government.

: Which the French have been rather slow in recognizing, as their reluctance
: to forgive the debts accrued to them by the same "brutal, murderous
: dictator" on behalf of the Iraqi people demonstrates.

Iraq has almost as much debt to the USA as it has to France,
and the recent American-French-German agreement on debt relief
for Iraq states fairly clearly that all these debts will be
treated in the same way, with a 'substantial' part being
forgiven and payment of the rest rescheduled.

: Or was it that 9/11 gave us a sharper focus towards doing what has to be
: done as opposed to wringing our hands for another ten years of concurrent
: unbacked UN resolutions and French duplicity (hey, making that TotalFina
: deal while also claiming to REALLY be anti-Saddam took some panache, huh?)?

France -- and Russia -- had, IMHO, an entirely valid position
when they argued that economic sanctions against Iraq were
backfiring, strengthening Saddam's regime instead of weakening
it, and hurting only the Iraqi people. The USA insisted on
continued sanctions despite evidence of Iraqi disarmament (which
is what the sanctions were intended to enforce) because it wanted
to enforce Regime Change. That was a stupid policy, because there
was no effective internal opposition in Iraq, and an internal
opposition is essential if you want to get regime change through
economic means (look at South Africa for one example, Cuba for
the other.). It is also a policy the occupation authority has
to pay the price for now, for Iraq needs to be almost completely
rebuilt after so many years of economic ruin.

To negotiate a deal before sanctions were lifted, as the Total Fina
is rumoured to have done (I have yet to encounter the story in
a reliable news source) would be cynical, but not inconsistent or
illegal.

: We
: learned that we can't afford to accept the pronouncements of European
: nations that "We can handle our own Euro affairs without your input, thank
: you very much"

You could not have learned that in 1940, for the basic reason
that this did not happen. Between WW1 and WW2 European nations
repeatedly asked the USA to remain involved in European affairs,
it ws the USA that collapsed in a voluntary isolationism.

: Finally, we learned a healthy
: amount of disrespect for a nation that not only fell in six weeks

The USA does not have a border with Germany. If it had had
one in 1940, I doubt that the USA could have resisted the
German attack for as long as six weeks.

: but then managed to actively oppose the Allies during the
: North African campaign.

To call that "active opposition" is an exaggeration. The
French army defended neutral, sovereign territory against
as foreign invasion, as it was their clear duty to do; the
resistance ended when the political authorities ordered an
end to the fighting, as was their responsibility. That there
was any fighting at all was in part due to the concerns about
secrecy, which caused American negotiators to inform their
French counterparts only at the very last moment, deliberate
exaggerations of the strength of the invasion force, and
American illusions about the importance of general Giraud,
who turned out to be perfectly useless.

: Lots of lessons.

To learn from history, you first have to know it. I suggest
you make an attempt to be guided by facts instead of prejudice;
I admit it is more work and can be a nuisance.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Alan Minyard]

On 23 Dec 2003 12:01:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:
Massive anti-American rant snipped

The French opposed Iraqi Freedom because of
the lucrative contracts and kick backs through ELF, etc.

And also because Cirac did not want his secret dealing with
Saddam discovered. We are just begriming to discover
the depths of French perfidy.


>To learn from history, you first have to know it. I suggest
>you make an attempt to be guided by facts instead of prejudice;
>I admit it is more work and can be a nuisance.

Vichy French forces in WWII attacked and resisted US troops, who
were fighting for, among other things, to liberate France. Their
behavior was despicable.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On 23 Dec 2003 12:01:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:
>>To learn from history, you first have to know it. I suggest
>>you make an attempt to be guided by facts instead of prejudice;
>>I admit it is more work and can be a nuisance.
>
>Vichy French forces in WWII attacked and resisted US troops, who
>were fighting for, among other things, to liberate France. Their
>behavior was despicable.

The French lost as many troops in a few months of 1940 as the US lost in
the rest of the war, fighting Germany while the US sanctimoniuosly sat
aside saying it wasn't a US problem.

Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
nothing to earn their confidence.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:23:08 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On 23 Dec 2003 12:01:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:
>>>To learn from history, you first have to know it. I suggest
>>>you make an attempt to be guided by facts instead of prejudice;
>>>I admit it is more work and can be a nuisance.
>>
>>Vichy French forces in WWII attacked and resisted US troops, who
>>were fighting for, among other things, to liberate France. Their
>>behavior was despicable.
>
>The French lost as many troops in a few months of 1940 as the US lost in
>the rest of the war, fighting Germany while the US sanctimoniuosly sat
>aside saying it wasn't a US problem.
>
>Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
>troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
>disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
>nothing to earn their confidence.

And their German friends had? The US had seen the europeans
fight WWI, and we then realized that it was NOT a US problem.

And where do you get your fantasy about the number of French
vs US military casualties?


http://www.abmc.gov/abmc45.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html


Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:23:08 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwly
>nch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
>>troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
>>disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
>>nothing to earn their confidence.
>
>And their German friends had?

Oddly enough, the German occupation of most of Vichy France wasn't
hideously onerous or oppressive as long as you weren't blatantly Jewish,
gypsy, gay or retarded.

Why should young Frenchmen believe that the US was going to bring
anything better?

>The US had seen the europeans
>fight WWI, and we then realized that it was NOT a US problem.

Then why did the US fight?

>And where do you get your fantasy about the number of French
>vs US military casualties?

John Keegan, "The Second World War".

I was slightly off in one regard: the French lost 600,000 dead of whom
only 200,000 were military, as compared to 292,000 total US fatalities.
In terms of total deaths the French didn't shy from fighting: in terms
of relative casualties they put up far more of a fight than the US.
Trouble is, they didn't have any oceans to hide behind.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul F Austin]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote
>Alan Minyard writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> >>Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
> >>troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
> >>disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
> >>nothing to earn their confidence.
> >
> >And their German friends had?
>
> Oddly enough, the German occupation of most of Vichy France wasn't
> hideously onerous or oppressive as long as you weren't blatantly Jewish,
> gypsy, gay or retarded.
>
> Why should young Frenchmen believe that the US was going to bring
> anything better?
>
> >The US had seen the europeans
> >fight WWI, and we then realized that it was NOT a US problem.
>
> Then why did the US fight?
>
> >And where do you get your fantasy about the number of French
> >vs US military casualties?
>
> John Keegan, "The Second World War".
>
> I was slightly off in one regard: the French lost 600,000 dead of whom
> only 200,000 were military, as compared to 292,000 total US fatalities.
> In terms of total deaths the French didn't shy from fighting: in terms
> of relative casualties they put up far more of a fight than the US.
> Trouble is, they didn't have any oceans to hide behind.

A lot of Americans are under the impression that we Won The War (with a
little help from the Brits) and everybody else got a free ride. While the US
produced amazing amounts of material, in many catagories, the USSR produced
as much and in terms of mobilization, according to Keegan (from memory), the
USSR raised 600 division equivalents, the Brits 300, the US 100.

Richard Overy's invaluable "Why the Allies Won" has the data: in artillery,
the USSR outproduced the US every single year of the war, by close to 2:1.
In tanks, the US outproduced the USSR only in 1943 and the aggregate
production of the USSR is much larger than the US. The US outproduced the
USSR in aircraft, logistics support and in major naval vessels.

Overy's book points out that defeat of Germany (never mind Japan, that was
never in doubt) was not a forgone conclusion. In fact if the Germans had
done any of the following: pinched off the Dunkirk perimeter prior to the
evaculation, mobilized the industrial production of occcupied Western
Europe, fully mobilized Germany in 1940, not attacked the USSR in 1941, not
driven the Ukrainians back into Stalin's arms... They likely would have won.

The French fought bravely but badly in 1940. The French have lost wars but
not because of lack of valor. _No_one at all familiar with the French
experience in WWI can call them a nation of cowards. They are misguided, as
many Europeans are, that the price of peace is perpetual negotiations and
that fighting is likely to be disastrous but that's a product of a century
of warfare. Remember the effect of minimal casualties had on the US in the
thirties or for that matter the much greater butcher's bill effect on the
British at that time. I may think the French and Germans are wrong for many
reasons regarding the present danger (I do) but I won't make them out to be
fools and cowards.

[B2431]

>Date: 12/25/2003 11:35 PM Central Standard Time

>The Germans claim that they only lost 60,000 men while taking France,
>and the French claim that they lost 300,000 men to the Germans.
>Something about those numbers seems suspicious. If that many Frenchman
>really died it must have been from incompetance.
>

They had incompetent senior staff. The fighting men were able and felt betrayed
by their own officers.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Hobo
>
>My point is that the Russians were willing to give Nazi Germany all the
>help they asked for. Nothing the Russians did was to help anyone else.
>Everything the US did was of no direct benefit to the US and was only
>done to help the world. The French and Russians can't say that and the
>French can't even say that they fought very hard.
>
Stalin was buying time. As screwy as he was he knew war was inevitable yet was
surprised when the invasion started.

The U.S. may have helped but there is no way you can say it had no direct
benefit to the U.S. since war with Germany was also inevitable once the Germans
declared war on the U.S. 11 December 1941. The French soldiers fought extremely
hard but failed due to poor leadership.

I have no love for most things French. Unlike you I have bothered to learn what
actually happened. The French and British had a plan of action based on no
attack through the Ardennes. They stuck to it ridgidly until it was too late.

If you think the U.S. planning was near perfect how come the Germans managed to
attack through the same place the Brits and French thought they couldn't 3
years before? Remember the battle of the bulge? The Germans went through the
Ardennes. They pushed right through American forces there as easily as they
had done the French earlier. Are you going to tell us the U.S. forces didn't
fight very hard?

Your conclusions aren't based on ground combat experience, are they?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Paul F Austin]

"Hobo" wrote
> "Paul F Austin" wrote:
>
> > Richard Overy's invaluable "Why the Allies Won" has the data: in
artillery,
> > the USSR outproduced the US every single year of the war, by close to
2:1.
> > In tanks, the US outproduced the USSR only in 1943 and the aggregate
> > production of the USSR is much larger than the US. The US outproduced
the
> > USSR in aircraft, logistics support and in major naval vessels.
>
> Everything the Russians made they used themselves. US production was
> distributed to the Brits and Russians. The Russians helped the Germans
> to rearm during the '30s. It was this cooperation which allowed the
> Germans to plant false documents implicating Russia's best generals in
> an imaginary plot against Stalin, leading to their assasination.
> Germany's invasion of Russia was delayed for a week in order to recieve
> a shipment of Japanese rubber through the Soviet rail network. The
> Russians agreed to carve up Poland with the Germans.
>
> My point is that the Russians were willing to give Nazi Germany all the
> help they asked for. Nothing the Russians did was to help anyone else.
> Everything the US did was of no direct benefit to the US and was only
> done to help the world. The French and Russians can't say that and the
> French can't even say that they fought very hard.

That's pretty much true: "Arsenal of Democracy" is a real description of the
US effort. But understand what that means. In the part you snipped, I
compared the number of division sets raised by the US, Britain (and Empire)
and the USSR. We built a great deal of hardware but we didn't (thankfully)
have to fight and bleed on the scale that the Brits did and much much less
than did the Sovs.

Stalin was a paranoid fool and I use both terms precisely. The USSR
didn't_deserve_to survive the catastrophes in 1941-1942. That said,
Churchill and Roosevelt didn't bend over backwards to keep Stalin in the war
because they loved him. Churchill in particular hated and feared the
Bolsheviki. If he could have let Hitler and Stalin consume each other, he
cheerfully would have done so. Churchill and Roosevelt didn't do so because
they_needed_Stalin in the war. For all our war production, it was the Sovs
who broke the teeth of the Wehrmacht. It's also a false description of our
war effort as altruism. We manufactured and supplied tremendous amounts of
hardware to the Brits and the Sovs not out of altruism but in the knowledge
that_our_troops would be dying on a smaller scale than if we had manned all
that production ourselves.

If we had sat out the defeat of Britain and the USSR because Germany wasn't
a direct and current threat to the US, we would likely have had to fight
Germany alone, later. It would be the Germans who had been building
beachheads into the Americas rather than us building them into Europe.

[Paul F Austin]

"B2431" wrote
> >From: Hobo
> >
> >My point is that the Russians were willing to give Nazi Germany all the
> >help they asked for. Nothing the Russians did was to help anyone else.
> >Everything the US did was of no direct benefit to the US and was only
> >done to help the world. The French and Russians can't say that and the
> >French can't even say that they fought very hard.
> >
> Stalin was buying time. As screwy as he was he knew war was inevitable yet
was
> surprised when the invasion started.

If he was buying time, he had an odd way of showing it. The historical
record is clear: he had anyone who said that the Reich was preparing to
invade the USSR recalled and shot. I think that Stalin was barking mad.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:59:00 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

>

>Richard Overy's invaluable "Why the Allies Won" has the data: in artillery,
>the USSR outproduced the US every single year of the war, by close to 2:1.
>In tanks, the US outproduced the USSR only in 1943 and the aggregate
>production of the USSR is much larger than the US.


Not without US supplied machine tools and key strategic raw materials they
wouldnt.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[B2431]

>From: "Paul F Austin"
>Date: 12/26/2003 8:43 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" wrote
>> >From: Hobo
>> >
>> >My point is that the Russians were willing to give Nazi Germany all the
>> >help they asked for. Nothing the Russians did was to help anyone else.
>> >Everything the US did was of no direct benefit to the US and was only
>> >done to help the world. The French and Russians can't say that and the
>> >French can't even say that they fought very hard.
>> >
>> Stalin was buying time. As screwy as he was he knew war was inevitable yet
>was
>> surprised when the invasion started.
>
>If he was buying time, he had an odd way of showing it. The historical
>record is clear: he had anyone who said that the Reich was preparing to
>invade the USSR recalled and shot. I think that Stalin was barking mad.
>
Agreed. I never said Stalin was playing with a full deck, but he was aware
there would ultimately be war with Germany. On the other hand he seems to have
genuinely respected and trusted Hitler. The guy was cracked.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:22:31 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:23:08 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwly
>>nch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
>>>troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
>>>disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
>>>nothing to earn their confidence.
>>
>>And their German friends had?
>
>Oddly enough, the German occupation of most of Vichy France wasn't
>hideously onerous or oppressive as long as you weren't blatantly Jewish,
>gypsy, gay or retarded.

That was Vichy, what about the rest of France? Or did the folks in
Vichy simply write off their countrymen? Incidentally, what if your best
friend were a Jew?
>
>Why should young Frenchmen believe that the US was going to bring
>anything better?
>
>>The US had seen the europeans
>>fight WWI, and we then realized that it was NOT a US problem.
>
>Then why did the US fight?

Ever heard of Pearl Harbor? Or the Battle of the Atlantic?
>
>>And where do you get your fantasy about the number of French
>>vs US military casualties?
>
>John Keegan, "The Second World War".
>
>I was slightly off in one regard: the French lost 600,000 dead of whom
>only 200,000 were military, as compared to 292,000 total US fatalities.
>In terms of total deaths the French didn't shy from fighting: in terms
>of relative casualties they put up far more of a fight than the US.
>Trouble is, they didn't have any oceans to hide behind.

In terms of "total casualties" they hardly fought at all. Not that the above
figures are for the total war, hardly "before the US entered".

If not for the US, they would have ended up under either Hitler of
Stalin, yet they attacked the US. And they are still doing it.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:59:00 -0500, "Paul F Austin" > wrote:

>
>"Paul J. Adam" wrote
>>Alan Minyard writes
>> >"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>> >>Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
>> >>troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
>> >>disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
>> >>nothing to earn their confidence.
>> >
>> >And their German friends had?
>>
>> Oddly enough, the German occupation of most of Vichy France wasn't
>> hideously onerous or oppressive as long as you weren't blatantly Jewish,
>> gypsy, gay or retarded.
>>
>> Why should young Frenchmen believe that the US was going to bring
>> anything better?
>>
>> >The US had seen the europeans
>> >fight WWI, and we then realized that it was NOT a US problem.
>>
>> Then why did the US fight?
>>
>> >And where do you get your fantasy about the number of French
>> >vs US military casualties?
>>
>> John Keegan, "The Second World War".
>>
>> I was slightly off in one regard: the French lost 600,000 dead of whom
>> only 200,000 were military, as compared to 292,000 total US fatalities.
>> In terms of total deaths the French didn't shy from fighting: in terms
>> of relative casualties they put up far more of a fight than the US.
>> Trouble is, they didn't have any oceans to hide behind.
>
>A lot of Americans are under the impression that we Won The War (with a
>little help from the Brits) and everybody else got a free ride. While the US
>produced amazing amounts of material, in many catagories, the USSR produced
>as much and in terms of mobilization, according to Keegan (from memory), the
>USSR raised 600 division equivalents, the Brits 300, the US 100.
>
>Richard Overy's invaluable "Why the Allies Won" has the data: in artillery,
>the USSR outproduced the US every single year of the war, by close to 2:1.
>In tanks, the US outproduced the USSR only in 1943 and the aggregate
>production of the USSR is much larger than the US. The US outproduced the
>USSR in aircraft, logistics support and in major naval vessels.
>
>Overy's book points out that defeat of Germany (never mind Japan, that was
>never in doubt) was not a forgone conclusion. In fact if the Germans had
>done any of the following: pinched off the Dunkirk perimeter prior to the
>evaculation, mobilized the industrial production of occcupied Western
>Europe, fully mobilized Germany in 1940, not attacked the USSR in 1941, not
>driven the Ukrainians back into Stalin's arms... They likely would have won.
>
>The French fought bravely but badly in 1940. The French have lost wars but
>not because of lack of valor. _No_one at all familiar with the French
>experience in WWI can call them a nation of cowards.

Of course the troop mutinies, desertions, etc help that adjectives use.

> They are misguided, as
>many Europeans are, that the price of peace is perpetual negotiations and
>that fighting is likely to be disastrous but that's a product of a century
>of warfare. Remember the effect of minimal casualties had on the US in the
>thirties or for that matter the much greater butcher's bill effect on the
>British at that time. I may think the French and Germans are wrong for many
>reasons regarding the present danger (I do) but I won't make them out to be
>fools and cowards.
>
I fully agree that Stalin was able to mobilize the Soviet Union completely (of course,
being an absolute despot helped). Many individual Frenchmen undoubtedly
fought with great valor. Their government was, unfortunately, made up
of both fools and cowards.

And don't forget the "Uncle Joe" had another agenda, he wanted to rule
all of Europe (ala Finland).

Al Minyard

[B2431]

>From: Hobo

>> If you think the U.S. planning was near perfect how come the Germans
>managed to attack through the same place the Brits and French thought they
couldn't 3 years before? Remember the battle of the bulge? The Germans went
through the Ardennes. They pushed right through American forces there as
easily as they had done the French earlier.
>
>That's a lie. The Americans stopped the Germans during the Battle of the
>Bulge. We didn't just crap our pants and quit because the Germans came
>from an unexpected direction.
>
>The 101st Airborne held Bastogne against the Germans even though they
>were a lightly equiped paratrooper unit fighting against tanks, so the
>difference between the American response and that of the French can't
>just be about equipment, etc. Even when out-equiped the Americans were
>willing to hold ground in a way that French soldiers never did.
>

>> Are you going to tell us the U.S. forces didn't
>> fight very hard?
>
>No, I leave that to people like you.
>
>> Your conclusions aren't based on ground combat experience, are they?
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>I did not fight in WW2 or any other war. Which war did you fight in?
>
Bastogne is not near the Ardennes. The American forces in the Ardennes failed
to hold for several reasons. The fact that the Nazi troops even got to Bastogne
proves this. The men in the Ardennes fought to the best of their abilities. It
just wasn't enough.

It is evident to me you have not the skills for a civil debate. Further you
have no understanding of what bravery in combat is. Your implication you make
that the French soldiers were cowards proves this.

As for my combat experience I was in Viet Nam when I was in the Army. We lost
that war. Are you now going to call those of us who served there cowards?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John Cook]

>Did the USA quit when the Brits burned down the White House? Not every
>country in the world jumps down on their back as quickly as the French
>did in WW2.

Hmmmm..... how about something a little more historically relevent

Corregidor

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[nemo]

tadaa wrote:

>>France was obligated by treaty to attack Germany two weeks after a
>>German attack on Poland. The French did nothing.
>>

Eh, *******, where were you at that time? At least we had the ball to
start war with Nazi Germany, while US companies were taking profit on
it, even on Nazis companies....
And don't say we did nothing. THose who losed thier life at that time
died in company with a lot of Brits, Poles...
And at the time Nazis entered PAris, may I remind you that Soviets
entered Baltic States.
SO, WHERE WERE YOU, STUPID CHICKENS?
>

[Nick Pedley]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> nemo > wrote:
>
> > Eh, *******, where were you at that time? At least we had the ball to
> > start war with Nazi Germany, while US companies were taking profit on
> > it, even on Nazis companies....
> > And don't say we did nothing. THose who losed thier life at that time
> > died in company with a lot of Brits, Poles...
> > And at the time Nazis entered PAris, may I remind you that Soviets
> > entered Baltic States.
> > SO, WHERE WERE YOU, STUPID CHICKENS?
>
> The French were obligated by treaty to attack Germany two weeks after a
> German attack on Poland. You never attacked Germany at all and simply
> waited for them to attack you and then fought poorly and briefly.
>
You could include Britain in that sentence as well, I think. Or are you just
on an anti-French rant?

Nick

[nemo l'ancien]

And I must underline that in 1918 the US came in the front line with no
more than 6 divisions... when France was having more than 240...
So the support ...

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:13:55 +0100, nemo l'ancien > wrote:

>And I must underline that in 1918 the US came in the front line with no
>more than 6 divisions... when France was having more than 240...
>So the support ...

Of course the French troops were in the midst of a mutiny, and
desertion rates were extremely high.

Al Minyard

[Mike]

Still haven't bought a brain,Minyard?



"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:13:55 +0100, nemo l'ancien >
wrote:
>
> >And I must underline that in 1918 the US came in the front line with no
> >more than 6 divisions... when France was having more than 240...
> >So the support ...
>
> Of course the French troops were in the midst of a mutiny, and
> desertion rates were extremely high.
>
> Al Minyard

[Skysurfer]

Alan Minyard wrote :

>>And I must underline that in 1918 the US came in the front line
>>with no more than 6 divisions... when France was having more than
>>240... So the support ...
>
> Of course the French troops were in the midst of a mutiny, and
> desertion rates were extremely high.

Mega LOL !!!

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:52:31 +0100, Skysurfer > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote :
>
>>>And I must underline that in 1918 the US came in the front line
>>>with no more than 6 divisions... when France was having more than
>>>240... So the support ...
>>
>> Of course the French troops were in the midst of a mutiny, and
>> desertion rates were extremely high.
>
>Mega LOL !!!

You can laugh, but those are the facts.

Al Minyard

[nemo l'ancien]

Alan Minyard wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:52:31 +0100, Skysurfer > wrote:
>
>
>>Alan Minyard wrote :
>>
>>
>>>>And I must underline that in 1918 the US came in the front line
>>>>with no more than 6 divisions... when France was having more than
>>>>240... So the support ...
>>>
>>>Of course the French troops were in the midst of a mutiny, and
>>>desertion rates were extremely high.
>>
>>Mega LOL !!!
>
>
> You can laugh, but those are the facts.
>
> Al Minyard
After four years of combat
How US deserted in a shorter time?

And mutinies as you are saying were finished more than a year before
So, go back to your book
You have no history and no brain...

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:21:05 +0100, nemo l'ancien > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:52:31 +0100, Skysurfer > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alan Minyard wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And I must underline that in 1918 the US came in the front line
>>>>>with no more than 6 divisions... when France was having more than
>>>>>240... So the support ...
>>>>
>>>>Of course the French troops were in the midst of a mutiny, and
>>>>desertion rates were extremely high.
>>>
>>>Mega LOL !!!
>>
>>
>> You can laugh, but those are the facts.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>After four years of combat
>How US deserted in a shorter time?
>
>And mutinies as you are saying were finished more than a year before
>So, go back to your book
>You have no history and no brain...

Idiot

PLONK

Al Minyard