Normandy Monument and the French

[freedomdowntime]

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/dacha/000185.html
Turns out that the French have taken down all traces of the US flag at a D-Day monument

Well, I didn't agree with French bashing but finding this out hurts. Compleate disrespect for our troops who gave their lives on D-Day. I thought freedom fries were stupid but come on. Many people are going to get on this Thread and insult the French and for that I appologize. Some others are going to say we owe them because of our revolution. However, I say WW1 and WW2 are twice where we helped them and our revolution was 1. Just my thoughts. Read the article.


I was just thinking, I wonder if this STILL all steems from not fighting in their revolution. To me if that is the cause of all this I find this issue completely retarded.

[KillerYoda]

That is pretty damn lame. We have been bashing them alot, but there's no need to disrespect World War 1 and 2 veterans who liberated them for it. Hopefully everyone will forgive and forget soon enough and it'll be back up.

A historic fun fact: The guy who founded and built the D-Day museum on Utah beach was shot in the back by an American paratrooper when he was mistakenly thought to be a German. He later became very friendly with American troops, despite the incident, since he was so appreciative of the liberation. That's classy. I wish France and the US were more like that again.

[Nyenrodian]

If this is true, which I doubt, it seems very tactless to me. But if it is true, probably it is related to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq.

The French were VERY much against that. It could simply be a protest against that. Otherwise I won't know what the reason could be.

[Lebell]

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AND THE LINKED DISCLAIMER

It is explained in depth.

[Nyenrodian]

Originally posted by Lebell
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AND THE LINKED DISCLAIMER

It is explained in depth.

Ok, i must admit i did not read the disclaimer.


From the site:

Next, I read here and there, people stating that I wrote or declared the Museum, its staff or the even Town council "decided to remove all American flags" from the museum or that "all symbols representing America have been removed from the Memorial Museum of the Battle of Normandy in Bayeux, France".

That is SIMPLY NOT TRUE and can be easily verified in my article. I have other photos to prove it as well and it's worth mentioning that half of the museum is dedicated to the American Sector of the aforementioned battle.

........


Get back to the source, read my article again and extract its basic meaning:
- I went to Bayeux and visited the Memorial Museum of the Battle of Normandy.
- I noticed three - and only three - troubling omissions.
- I have no information on the reasons why their was obviously something missing.

In that case, what is his problem? It seems to me that it is blown out of proportion.

[KillerYoda]

Originally posted by KillerYoda
A historic fun fact: The guy who founded and built the D-Day museum on Utah beach was shot in the back by an American paratrooper when he was mistakenly thought to be a German. He later became very friendly with American troops, despite the incident, since he was so appreciative of the liberation. That's classy. I wish France and the US were more like that again.

I forgot to mention (cause I'm a moron) I got the above mentioned "fun fact" from <i>Band of Brothers</i> which is a great book everyone should read.

And no, I'm not trying to fake sounding patriotic due to the 4th of July "cease-fire," I just happen to be a fan of veterans, as well as World War 2 history.

[Sparhawk]

Americans are still *very* popular in Normandy. I'm told it's one of the best places to visit if you're touring that country, just for the friendly attitude of the people there towards americans.

[Liquor Dealer]

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/dacha/000185.html


I think this pretty well say all that needs to be said of the French!

"To France:
From: America

You are welcome. And by the way, thanks for the reminder. Knowing one's enemies is especially important in these troubled times. How sad to see just how small the once great nation of France has become. You are more to be pitied than hated.

Like most Americans, I have a relatives who gave their lives to liberate your country. It is my fervent hope and prayer that not one more drop of American blood (or dollar) will ever again be expended on such an unworthy people.

John McCrarey"

.................

[Macheath]

Well it turns out that American flag was never taken down because it was never up that pole to begin with - ever. The Americans did not liberate Bayeux, the British did. The empty flag is the flag of British troops, the Sherwood rangers and goes up once a year.

<a href="http://battlefieldsww2.50megs.com/sherwoodrangers01.JPG">Here is a more complete photo of those photos posted at the Dissident Frogman, with plaque at base of empty flagpole.</a>

<a href="http://battlefieldsww2.50megs.com/sherwoodrangers02.JPG">Here is the detail of the plaque at the base.</a>

I can't take credit for this knowledge, as usual the powerful Fark.com radar has picked up the latest post of a contrite blogger. The photos were found courtesy of Google.

http://www.rachellucas.com/archives/000688.html#000688

The only thing I can say is that this was a very sad (lamentable, not pathetic) thing for the blogger community to pick up on in the days leading up to the 4th of July.

[Opti]

Well, I can't blame people who jumped the gun on this matter. It was only a couple of months ago that WWI graves of British soldiers were defaced in France. You can read about it here.

Luckily this was a sad mistake, but given that a couple months earlier the French had written "Dig up your rubbish, it is contaminating our soil" on the graves of fallen British soldiers in France, it was easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.

[Lebell]

Opti,

Correction,

The "French" didn't write that, but rather a few punks who you will find everywhere.

Even my own anger at the French has abated somewhat as I realize that the French government and the French people are two different entities.

[rogue49]

People's memories only go so far.
We are always doomed to repeat history.

Many these days have the tendencies to say,
"What have you done for me lately?"

It's ashame the world & it's citizens don't learn from it's lessons.
And honor those who have done something for them,
including ourselves...

[rodimus]

Screw the French. Everyone else in the world knows that without us the French would be speaking German..... Twice!!!

[sportsrule101]

amen rodimus,
/wishs he could say it in german

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally posted by Lebell
Opti,

Correction,

The "French" didn't write that, but rather a few punks who you will find everywhere.

Even my own anger at the French has abated somewhat as I realize that the French government and the French people are two different entities.

HOT DAMN!! Someone finally gets it!!

[james t kirk]

Paris is still the city of light.

I know that the USA is pretty pissed off with france right now, but you have to ask yourself why.

So they didn't support you in iraq. Well, it was only a 4 week war anyway.

Well, neither did anyone else other than the british and the australians really.

Get over it.

It would be interesting to go to france right now and learn what the french think of the usa.

If bush were smart, he would pressure the french and the germans, and the russians, and the canadians into helping out in Iraq more now. Get them to help donate some money to rebuild iraq and mend some fences rather than acting like a bunch of girls right now.

[james t kirk]

Originally posted by rodimus
Screw the French. Everyone else in the world knows that without us the French would be speaking German..... Twice!!!

ummm, no.

The usa entered world war 1 in 1918, five months before it ended and was at a stalemate. The bulk of the losses were french, british and Canadians who fought since 1914.

WW2 is different yes, but if the americans and british and canadians hadn't run the germans out of france starting on June 6, 1944, the russian would have.

So technically, the french may have ended up speaking russian, but never german.

It was after all the russians who ultimately defeated Germany.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by james t kirk


It was after all the russians who ultimately defeated Germany.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect.

Hitler made several mistakes that ultimately cost him victory in Europe with the breaking of his treaty with Stalin being high on the list.

But it was America's industrial might that kept England afloat which in turn served as the base for D-Day. Without D-Day and the liberation of France, Hitler would have been able to stablize his hold on the west and fight a one front war.

German equipment was superior to Russian equipment and the only thing that kept Hitler of from taking Moscow was lack of resouces combined with the Russian winter. If D-Day hadn't happened in '44, then Russia probably would have sued for peace by '45.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Lebell
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect.

Hitler made several mistakes that ultimately cost him victory in Europe with the breaking of his treaty with Stalin being high on the list.

But it was America's industrial might that kept England afloat which in turn served as the base for D-Day. Without D-Day and the liberation of France, Hitler would have been able to stablize his hold on the west and fight a one front war.

German equipment was superior to Russian equipment and the only thing that kept Hitler of from taking Moscow was lack of resouces combined with the Russian winter. If D-Day hadn't happened in '44, then Russia probably would have sued for peace by '45.

It's a very legitimate theory, Lebell. You're right about German equipment vs. Russian equipment, but this didn't help them very much after the winter of '41/42.

It was really a catch-22 for the germans. Wait a year and rebuild your air power and navy to take out the english, or hold off invading russia, letting the red-hot army cool off and giving valuable time to the russians to frantically rebuild.

I agree about suing for peace in '45, but I believe it would have been Germany suing for peace, not the Soviets.

Regardless, it's a good thing the Nazis never had a present-day historian's hindsight working for them

[The Bolshevist]

One thing that no one seems to have remembered: in all of this hoo-hah, there was a large contingent of Poles that took part in the invasion, and suffered rather large losses. Since they were fighting Jerry before ANYBODY, I think that they should be mentioned at least once in this line. (Source - Six Armies in Normandy)

Again, thank heaven we aren't discussing this in German, or at least doing a post mortem on a failure of the invasion.

[splck]

I get tired of hearing bickering over who saved France, who saved Holland, who saved the Brits, who saved Europe. The fact is a lot of countries helped in the collective cause to rid the Nazi's. Our generation gets so caught up in who did what, where and when. The fact is that many young men from many different countries gave their lives for the cause and I feel arguing or boasting who gave or did the most belittles the sacrifice by those poor souls.

[james t kirk]

Originally posted by The Bolshevist
One thing that no one seems to have remembered: in all of this hoo-hah, there was a large contingent of Poles that took part in the invasion, and suffered rather large losses. Since they were fighting Jerry before ANYBODY, I think that they should be mentioned at least once in this line. (Source - Six Armies in Normandy)

Absolutely true.

The poles fought very very hard.

And even after Poland fell, the free polish fighter squadrons in Britain continued to fight, in fact, of all the WW2 squadrons, they had the highest kill ratios, and were known to be incredibly vicious fighters.

Unlike the Brits, the Poles who even try to shoot the German pilots who had bailed out. Take no prisoners as it were.

[james t kirk]

Originally posted by Lebell
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect.

Hitler made several mistakes that ultimately cost him victory in Europe with the breaking of his treaty with Stalin being high on the list.

But it was America's industrial might that kept England afloat which in turn served as the base for D-Day. Without D-Day and the liberation of France, Hitler would have been able to stablize his hold on the west and fight a one front war.

German equipment was superior to Russian equipment and the only thing that kept Hitler of from taking Moscow was lack of resouces combined with the Russian winter. If D-Day hadn't happened in '44, then Russia probably would have sued for peace by '45.

As usual, i disagree...

You are reading too many american written history books there friend lebell. America's "industrial might" helped in some regards but it certainly did not keep Britain in the war, nor did it have much if anything to do with the Battle of Britain. I think you would get a very strong debate on that one from some RAF and RCAF pilots who were there.

Sir Reginald Mitchell, the designer of the Supermarine Spitfire might disagree with that notion, as might Sir Roy Chadwick, the famous designer of the Avro Lancaster which could carry over 5 times the payload of the average B-17. Sir Sydney Camm, the designer of the Hawker Huricanne, the plane that won the Battle of Britain would also disagree.

You see, the Battle of Britain was truly a turning point in WW2. Hitler outgunned the RAF in every way, but his luftwaffe was no match for the determination of the RAF and the planes that they flew.

Please note, that of the three famous planes, the Spitfire, the Huricane (over 15,000 of them were manufactured) and the Lanc (over 8,000 manufactured), not one of them was designed or manufactured in the United States. Though Packard did produce the famous Rolls Royce Merlin engine under license in the USA and those engines did go into some of the aircraft (mainly the Canadian manufactured Huricanes and Lancasters). (Nice of Rolls to GIVE their technology to Packard wasn't it. And in doing so give the P-51 Mustang the power it needed to fly. The P-51 was a remarkable aircraft, but its american built engines sucked quite frankly. Then someone had the bright idea of shoving a British Rolls Royce Merlin in that cowling, and the rest is aviation history.)

I had the pleasure once of meeting a German gentleman who makes Kingston Ontario his home now, but used to fly in the Luftwaffe in a BF-109 during the war. He once told me a story that he knew that Germany was going to loose the war when one sunny afternoon over the channel, his squadron engaged in an aerial battle with a British squadron of Huricanes. One British pilot's plane was massively shot up, but rather than bail out to safety, the Brit turned his wounded plane back to hurl his last fight at the Germans. The wounded Brit was no match for the German 109's, and was promptly killed, but his actions left an indelible mark with my German friend.

With regard to the Russians...

The fact of the matter was that the Russians conquored Germany, and ultimatly Berlin itself. The Americans, British, and Canadians managed to barely enter Germany before it was over.

Stalin had been screaming for years for a second front, but only got one when he had things well in hand and the allies feared that Stalin would eventually take over the entire damn continent.

With all due respect to those who fought D day, and i mean that most sincerely, the Battle of Kursk made D Day look like a tea party. Stalingrad was even more fun.

The Russian winter definitely hampered the Germans, but to say that it somehow defeated the Germans is an insult. The Russians fought longer and harder than any other country. They suffered over 20 million killed in battle. When the couldn't hold a position, they destroyed it and moved back. At Stalingrad, the combat was the fiercest of the entire war. If Russian soldiers retreated, they were shot by Russians behind them. There was no surrender.

You can't help but admire that.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

With regard to the Russians...

The fact of the matter was that the Russians conquored Germany, and ultimatly Berlin itself. The Americans, British, and Canadians managed to barely enter Germany before it was over.

Stalin had been screaming for years for a second front, but only got one when he had things well in hand and the allies feared that Stalin would eventually take over the entire damn continent.

With all due respect to those who fought D day, and i mean that most sincerely, the Battle of Kursk made D Day look like a tea party. Stalingrad was even more fun.

The Russian winter definitely hampered the Germans, but to say that it somehow defeated the Germans is an insult. The Russians fought longer and harder than any other country. They suffered over 20 million killed in battle. When the couldn't hold a position, they destroyed it and moved back. At Stalingrad, the combat was the fiercest of the entire war. If Russian soldiers retreated, they were shot by Russians behind them. There was no surrender.

You can't help but admire that.

I don't admire that idiocy. The only reason Stalin was able to break through on the Eastern Front was because he painfully and foolishly wore out the Germans. At the same point Hitler had to regroup and focus on the Western Front after D-Day. Losing 12 million soldiers is nothing to be proud off. In short Stalin choked the nazi's with his dead. The foolish Russians were so under equipped they would march 6 deep in a line, the front man was the only one with a weapon, once he died the next guy in line picked up the gun.

[debaser]

Originally posted by james t kirk
As usual, i disagree...

You are reading too many american written history books there friend lebell. America's "industrial might" helped in some regards but it certainly did not keep Britain in the war, nor did it have much if anything to do with the Battle of Britain. I think you would get a very strong debate on that one from some RAF and RCAF pilots who were there.

Not only our industrial might, but our raw materials as well. Without the US, Britain would have starved to death.

You see, the Battle of Britain was truly a turning point in WW2. Hitler outgunned the RAF in every way, but his luftwaffe was no match for the determination of the RAF and the planes that they flew.

The Battle of Britain was not the decisive battle you make it out to be. Even if the Germans had destroyed British air power and radar rather than focusing instead on bombing cities (which ultimately lost them that fight), they could not have carried Sea Lion off. They lacked the logistical resources and tactical doctrine to attack a defended coastline. The true turning point of the war in Western Europe was the Battle of the Atlantic.

With regard to the Russians...

The fact of the matter was that the Russians conquored Germany, and ultimatly Berlin itself. The Americans, British, and Canadians managed to barely enter Germany before it was over.

And if the Russians had not had US trucks and US boots, they would not have been able to project force beyond their own border. Nevermind the food, ammunition, and fuel.

As for the the belated entry of the Western allies, you may remember a small campaign in the Ardennes...

Stalin had been screaming for years for a second front, but only got one when he had things well in hand and the allies feared that Stalin would eventually take over the entire damn continent.

No, he had one in Africa while he was still getting stomped. Operation Citadel occured in July of 1943, the fate of Russia was still up in the air until that point.

With all due respect to those who fought D day, and i mean that most sincerely, the Battle of Kursk made D Day look like a tea party. Stalingrad was even more fun.

There are three decisive battles in WW2. Midway, Atlantic, and Kursk. Kursk, however, could never have happened had we not defeated the German blockade of Europe and funneled aid to the Russians through Arkhangelsk.

The Russian winter definitely hampered the Germans, but to say that it somehow defeated the Germans is an insult. The Russians fought longer and harder than any other country. They suffered over 20 million killed in battle. When the couldn't hold a position, they destroyed it and moved back. At Stalingrad, the combat was the fiercest of the entire war. If Russian soldiers retreated, they were shot by Russians behind them. There was no surrender.

The winter did not defeat Germany, the spring Rasputitsa combined with idiotic strategy did. The idiocy was in the form of spliting German forces three ways rather than driving on and wintering in Moscow. The Rasputitsa did them in the next spring by halting their forward momentum and supply lines, and giiving the Russians just enough of a toe hold to hang on until US aid and organic manufacturing allowed them to take the offensive. It also helped that the Russians had the second best tank commander and the best tanks of the war.

[james t kirk]

Imagine what it would have been like if the Russians fought like the French and merely surrendered without a fight.

The Battle of Britain was decisive because Britain stood alone against the Germans on the Western Front. At the time the Battle of Britain was being fought (July through October 1940) you may be suprised that companies like General Motors, Ford, standard oil and many more fine American companies were still doing business with Hitler's Germany.

If the Russians were driving american trucks, or wearing american boots, it was only because they bought and paid for them.

[debaser]

Originally posted by james t kirk
Imagine what it would have been like if the Russians fought like the French and merely surrendered without a fight.

It would not have been pretty, but useing the French as a basis of comparison is hardly fair, is it?

The Battle of Britain was decisive because Britain stood alone against the Germans on the Western Front. At the time the Battle of Britain was being fought (July through October 1940) you may be suprised that companies like General Motors, Ford, standard oil and many more fine American companies were still doing business with Hitler's Germany.

It does not suprise me at all, it is historical fact. Disney and Ford were known to be Nazi supporters. As I said before, the Battle of Britain was not decisive because Germany lacked the ability to exploit the situation if they had defeated Britain in the air. It was a heroic and epic struggle, but it did not decide the outcome of the war as did the three battles mentioned above.

If the Russians were driving american trucks, or wearing american boots, it was only because they bought and paid for them.

Nope, Lend Lease to the rescue again! The Russians didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of once Barbarossa caught them with their drawers around their ankles...

[Nyenrodian]

Originally posted by sportsrule101
amen rodimus,
/wishs he could say it in german

Schrauben Sie die Franzosen. Jede Person in der Welt weiß, daß die Franzosen Deutsches gesprochen haben würden, wenn es nicht für die USA war. Zweimal!!!

Which is bullshit of course, it was a combined effort of the Russians, Canadians, Europeans and the Americans. If one or two of these armies would not have been their there would have been a good chance that Hitler might have won WW2.

[Nyenrodian]

Originally posted by debaser
It does not suprise me at all, it is historical fact. Disney and Ford were known to be Nazi supporters.

Walt Disney too? I knew about Henry Ford, he was even awarded a medal by Hitler I believe.

But i have seen so many Disney propaganda films it is hard to believe that Walt Disney was pro nazi Germany.

[Lebell]

No need for me to go over other points made above, but America DID keep England afloat inspite of the German wolfpacks in the North Atlantic by a combination increasing air coverage, better sub hunting techniques and by simply overwhelming them with Liberty ships that could be built faster than the Germans could sink them.

[james t kirk]

We will agree to disagree Lebell.

cheers

And looking at it from the other side, you can't help but admire the Germans for taking on Britain, France, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, Poland, Czekoslovakia, AND the United States and giving them all a run for their money.

[james t kirk]

An interesting read on which fine american companies were supporting Nazi Germany by still doing business with them.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fa..._excerpts.html

[Sty]

Originally posted by rodimus
Screw the French. Everyone else in the world knows that without us the French would be speaking German..... Twice!!!

and without French you would still be speaking British english and driving on the left side of the road.

[sportsrule101]

number of wars won by france < number lost