Correct - Stalingrade was a military action and not only were the civilians forced at gunpoint so were the soldiers (alot of conscripts and criminals). They would send men into battle unarmed and told them to "go get a gun".

The Russians had a real reason to fight to the last man. They knew what the Germans would do to them. They treated the French FAR differently than the Russians.

Didnt the Germans show the French how to bath and use toilet paper?? :)

I really beg to differ. The Germans persecuted the French Jews and minorities just as they persecuted any others, and they turned the French women into their whores and mistresses.

This is an utterly insufferable state of affairs.

I'll respond to RPK when time permits. I'll have to check a lot of sites to make sure my recollections are correct before i go posting a rebuttal.

In America, each and every one of us is in the Militia in a time of invasion, so there is no distinction between military and civilian IMO. And who were the Russian military if not the Russian Citizenry? They evacutated those civilians so they could dress them up in uniforms and send them right back in. And in many places Russian Partisans- civilians- did fight ferociously against the Nazis. I really have no problem with the military forcing everyone to fight at gunpoint in a scenario of national survival. If someone is not even willing to fight in that kind of scenario, they are not worth the food and water they will consume.

My suggestion that everyone fight in every city is not new at all, it is millenia old and dates back to the time when cities had walls around them.

I said FAR DIFFERENTLY and that can’t be disputed. I do not say they showed the French love. I agree the Germans did persecute the French just as you stated but they massacred the Russian!! There was also a very real reason why the Germans fought the Russians so hard – they knew what was going to happen to them. Again - FAR DIFFERENTLY!

What is the difference in how a French Jew was treated compared to how a Russian slav was treated?

Was there any real difference? I don't think so.

And preventing your populace's women from being turned into slaves and whores for foriegn invaders is reason enough to fight until the least man.

Let me show you what the difference was - it seems VERY clear!If you need a caculator let me know. :)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1253041798.jpg

I suspect a big part of why so many russian civvies died is because so many russian civvies either fought, or got caught in city sieges and encirclements.

Of course i see your point, but the fact of the matter remains that the subjugation the french faced was also horribly humiliating, and for over a quarter million of them, fatal.

OK I will take that - were cool. Now lets all gang up on RPKESQ - LOL!

beats the hell outta SLEEPING WITH TRAITOR POODLES! or the nazis for that fact.

seems to me from HISTORICAL PHOTOS(documented) that QUITE A FEW OF ZE FRENCHIES TURNED AGAINST THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN along with QUITE A FEW OF THEIR BEEE-ATCHEZ. and if i historically recall (while im masturbating) that upon the liberation of paris by the united states army(yes we allowed ze free french to be the first in), quite a few of the turncoat traitor POS frenchies were SUMMARILY EXECUTED,IMPRISONED, or in the case of the BEE-ATTCHEZ had their heads shaved and stripped of their clothes.


what a fine way to treat your fellow countrymen if they didnt collaborate with the nazis.

how many u.s./allied traitors were executed during WWII? hmmmmmmmmmmm


what a question of national pride to ponder here.


during war, it is common knowledge to join one side or the other. and if you live in a country that is your homeland, you join that side.


so once again the statement............"ze frenchies only sleep with whomever is buttering their croissants!" or packing their fudge! LOL!

Some elements fought, and some well, but most did not, they simply gave up their arms without a fight. The real culprit here is the leadership (military and civilian), who instead of ordering units to try and link up and fortify the cities simply ordered them to surrender. Who instead of ordering the people to resist the enemy and assist the military, ordered them to give up.

Perhaps not in every city, no, but they sure as heck fortified and fought in some of them. The French made no attempt to even try.

Reynauld was an idiot of incomprehensible proportions, and Petain was a complete traitor to his people.

Again, complete leadership failure. Darlan should have ordered the French navy to England and informed the RN Admiralty of their intention to join RN forces in opposition to the Germans. But he didn't. Their entire fleet sat in port where it was destroyed in detail by the British.

On Darlan Churchill quipped: "(He had) but to sail in any one of his ships to any port outside France to become the master of all French interests beyond German control." Darlan could have become "the chief of the French Resistance with a mighty weapon in his hand." Churchill believed the Admiral could have been the "Liberator of France".

Darlan did nothing of the kind, and the British were forced to sink the French navy themselves to keep it out of Nazi hands.

Even after the French fleet was surrounded at Algiers in July they resisted all offers to allow them to join the Allies, or to sail to a nuetral port, and they were therefore destroyed by the RN.

This was perhaps the most disgraceful chapter of France's participation in WWII.

Meanwhile, contrast that with Churchill's actions and comments:

"The day after attacking the French, Churchill went to the House of Commons to explain why he ordered the attack on the former ally. Churchill declared, "However painful, the action we have already taken should be, in itself, sufficient to dispose once and for all of the lies and Fifth Column activities that we have the slightest intention of entering into negations. We shall prosecute the war with the utmost vigour by all the means that are open to us."

For the first time since taking over as Prime Minister, Churchill received a unanimous standing ovation. Churchill had a message for the British, for Hitler, and for the world. The message was heard loud and clear.

England would not make peace with Hitler and the country was in this war for the long haul."

If only the French themselves had shown such commitment, had fought on as a unified force from their territories or the UK, but no.

They chose surrender, they chose dishonor.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/churchillsinkingfrenchfleet.php

True enough.

The defenders of Stalingrad were conscripted and often unarmed civilians. Simply slapping a uniform on a fellow and calling him a soldier does not make him one.

The Iraqi Fedayeen- a civilian militia force, operating loosely in conjunction with the remnants of the Iraqi army in Baghdad, came VERY close to cutting off an entire US Heavy Bde combat team and then simply overrunning it when they ran out of ammo.

The US forces BARELY held at Moe/Larry/Curly. Had even one of them fallen, the entire bde might have been lost...this against opposition infinitely more powerful than themselves, with very little coordination, very poor planning, and almost no tactical communications.

At New Orleans a US citizen volunteer Regiment from Kentucky decimated an entire British invasion army despite being heavily outnumbered and outgunned.

It can be done. It has been done.

Well if it ever comes to that i suppose i'll have to motivate them.

Now you're talking. You could issue your very own Order # 270 . . . Order No. 270.

"The first article directed that any commanders or commissars "tearing away their insignia and deserting or surrendering" should be considered malicious deserters. The order required superiors to shoot these deserters on the spot. Their family members were subjected to arrest.

The second article demanded that encircled soldiers used every possibility to fight, and to demand that their commanders organize fighting; according to the order, anyone attempting to surrender instead of fighting must be killed and their family members deprived of any state welfare and assistance."

Ian

yes BUT the french who did willingly join the nazi's
were not the liberals
they were the extreme rightwing
the french NEO-CONNED joined the nazis
same was true thru out europe
the rightwing anti-RED types
joined the germans to fight the USSR

"This is for you new people. I only have one rule. Everyone fights, no one quits. You don't do your job, i'll shoot you. Do you get me?"

~Lt. Rasczak, Starship Troopers.

The indomitable fighting spirit....

A noble one and it has delivered great victories and some less glorious episodes..

When one looks however beyond that and to the background that generates this then the picutre is murkier.

The notion that the 'French', or perhaps its political and military leadership were incompetent/ cowards etc is an easy one to make with hindsight.
We have seen that on a 'civilian' level WW1 had broken many parts of society and Snipe's postulating about militias etc is theoretical at best and appears to ignore the notion, in the late 1930s that women and children were NOT to be considered combatants in any form whatsoever (so the mind set of using them was simply not present).

We must also consider that the military leadership had all been in WW1 and had seen the effects first hand. Certainly my grandfather, having fought in WW1, was not exactly keen as mustard (yes he was gassed at Verdun) to get stuck back into fighting, due to his age, his now growing family and chose to keep his head down and fight in an irregular fashion...I don't know how many RAF/USAAF/ Free French/ Polish/ Czech airmen, shot down over Occupied Europe were returned to the UK due to his actions all the while supposedly carrying out his real job. Certainly enough for him to be formally recognised after the events. All I do know is that the 'fighting spirit' was there in a different manner to what a US perspective may deem acceptable.

So...'paralysed' is very correct...the 'Its all happening again' is a devastation that its is almost impossible to understand...and sorry Snipe if that means to you its cowardice.. losing millions of people.. something the US has never experienced is not something that one forgets easily.

Yes the Russians fought to the last.. but the savagery displayed by Stalin to his own people ...it is often argued he killed more Russians than the Germans, does not exactly but a great light on that. The price that they paid in manpower loses and devastation served Stalin as much as it did Hitler politically.

And finally we'll get to the issue that few here discuss....Hitler was, to a not insignificant percentage of the European population, not a villain, but an inspirational leader. Certainly in 1939 his actions were not condemed across the Board....in the UK, in France and other nations the 'National Socialists' were supported and viewed as a 'good thing'.. sweeping away the decadent 'liberals'... restoring the old order etc etc... so...creating a militia.. one that may or may not be on your side? Not exactly a great idea.

Oh and Snipe, the Home Guard...yup it was primarily armed with pitch forks, shot guns and WW1 vintage bolt actions. I know its difficult to understand but there were NO GUNS with which to arm them beyond this...The Brtish Army lost so much materiel in France that it was unable, until the UK armaments industry regeared and US imports flowed to supply its UK based elements and Home Guard with current generation weapons as all was supplied to North Africa and the Army there....

I think that the difference in perspective is such that we'll never be able to see each others' view entirely....

That would be the movie, not the book.

Captain Renault was a brave Frenchy fighting with the Free French in Brazzaville after being a prefect captain of police in Morocco.

No one ever speaks ill of a man or woman who fought to their last breath for what they believed was right.

Legendary Russian female warriors of WWII:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...px-Raskova.jpg
Marina Raskova, Combat pilot, regimental commander, Killed in combat, Hero of the Soviet Union, buried in Red Square.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ia_Litvyak.JPG
Lydia Litvyak, Fighter pilot, double ace, Killed in combat, Hero of the Soviet Union

http://01varvara.files.wordpress.com...ht-witches.jpg
Yekaterina Budanova, Combat pilot, double ace, Killed in combat, Order of the Red Star, Hero of Russia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...vlichenko1.jpg
Lyudmila Pavlichenko , Sniper, 309 confirmed kills, Hero of the Soviet Union

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...huk_Uralsk.jpg
Manshuk Mametova, machine gunner of the 3rd Guards Shock Army. Killed in combat, Hero of the Soviet Union.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emyanskaya.JPG
Zoya Anatolyevna Kosmodemyanskaya, Partisan, Combat veteran, captured, tortured and hanged by Nazi forces, Hero of the Soviet Union.

---

Lots of women fought, and fought well in WWII. Some of their names will live forever in Russia.

Lots of women fought and died in the French Resistance and are heroes in France to this day (look them up).

So why reading your first statement, are you ignoring it when speaking about the French? Some French leaders, OK. Some of the French soldiers, OK. Some of the French military leaders, OK.

The French people as a whole, not a fair judgment at all.

Is that so? Perhaps then its the leadership that placed people in this position that are to held accountable..like the Alamo or Custer's Last Stand?
Or does one perspective say glorious, brave..futile and ultimately stupid.

They did indeed.. however I recall that WW2 was 1939 to 1945, not raising and training women to fight in the 1930s; say 1930 to 1939.....
So whilst you make a very valid point its not relevant to the one I was making....
Certainly if one looks at the contribution that women made during the war there is no doubt that they took both an active military role as well as a vastly increased role in society and industry, but in the period before the war the vast majority of these roles were inconceivable.

My 2 cents and then unsubscribe.

The casualties on the Eastern front were the higherst for a number of reasons:

1. The fighting was the fiercest. All the largest battles happened in the east.

2. The environment was the worst. Casualties are not just caused by bullets, but by cold, disease, etc. You could argue that the conditions in the South Pacific/Burma/Malaya were worse, but the "Russian Front "had a reputation that was feared.

3. Neither side gave any quarter. To be a Russian captured by the Germans meant eventual execution. Usually sooner rather than later. There is usually no record of Russians arriving at labor camps like Dachau, because they were liquidated immediately. And the Germans liked to keep records.

Likewise, if you were a German captured by the Soviets you were looking at labor until you dropped dead.

As far as the military techniques, you could say that through the course of the war, the Soviet and German military ideologies did a 180 turn.

1. At the opening of Barbarossa the German Command was comprised of experienced and professional generals and Werhmacht tactics were comprised of fast fluid fighting strategies that gave the generals a fair amount of decision making power.

2. The Soviet generals were political appointees or 2nd tier types, because Stalin had purged the professional men. They were order to stand fast and never give and inch.

This of course, led to large encirclements and mass surrenders. By 1943, things had been reversed:.

1. A lot of the professional German generals were gone. Tired of the politics and top down orders, they were replaced with politically compromised "yes men". If attacked, there would be no retreat and no surrender.

2. Meanwhile, to his credit, Stalin had sprung alot of the veteran Generals from the Gulag and let the cream rise to the top. Zhukov had fairly free reign to do what he wanted...and what he wanted to do was win. In fact, he never lost. Tactics were fluid and mass encirclements of "fight to the last" German positions, like at Stalingrad became the norm.

RE: Soviets forcing Russians to fight at gun-point. In fact Stalin did issue such an order, but it is not clear that this happened very often. After the first few months of the conflict, the Russians knew quite well what the Germans were doing to their countrymen behind the lines and were generally willing to fight.

RE: French surrender: I doubt digging in an fortifying the cities would have worked. Tactics had changed since 1918, and the French, while on paper technically superior to the Wehrmacht, were in no way prepared for the tactics used against them. Within a short time this results in demoralization. In effect, their tactics, not the soldiery were defeated.

In all likelihood "digging in" would have resulted in a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war, with Paris besieged, and ultimately surrendered....and a lot more deaths.

The statement i responded to was that it was incomprehensible to the french(or ostensibly anyone else) that women should fight as combatants in the time frame we are discussing here.

Clearly, that is not the case.

Custer may be viewed as an arrogant fool, certainly, but no one ever disparages the men of the 7th Cavalry who died under his command. And whatever is said of him, if he'd have surrendered it would be far, far worse. At least no one will ever call him a coward.

Likewise, who ever disparages Davy Crockett, or any of the other legends who died defending the Alamo?

Btw, BOTH lost battles served as the inspiration for the men that WON both of those wars.

On Women:
Women served pseudo-combat roles in the American Revolution, and in countless ancient historical nations and battles.

The precedent certainly existed, and neccesity is the mother of innovation, in any case.

All i'm seeing here is a lot of excuses for a piss poor national performance, of how this or that couldn't be done, when in point of fact the Russians did all the things that many are saying the French could not.

As for the Japanese, they were willing to fight until the very last person. We were so sure that the result would be such an utter blood bath that we nuked them instead of initiating Downfall.

How fortunate for the Greeks that the Spartans at Thermopylae did not say, "Oi, there are too damn many of them, we're just going to get surrounded and slaughtered, let's get the hell out of here!"

We all know what they said though, when it was demanded they throw down their weapons and surrender, don't we?

Μολὼν λαβέ

Translation: "Come and get them."

And yes, they died, all but one. But with the death of hundreds came inspiration for millions.

Agreed.. so by the same measure the leadership of the French nation could be viewed as cowards and incompetent.. not its citizens..

So the surrendering is not a reflection on the courage of the citizens, which has been cast into doubt by responses in this thread, including yours.

Shall we use one measure for all?

On Custer I think coward is a very appropriate word.. he was too afraid to admit he had made a massive military mistake and rather than acknowlege that an 'retreat' before the 'Last Stand'... which it would appear he had the opportunity to do so he chose to 'fight heroically to the last'... In short he was too afraid to return and have to admit he had been out thought and out manoevred by the supposedly inferior 'Indians'...a coward indeed.



Its amazing that you are still, apparently, missing the real point that is trying to be made.
There is a massive difference between involving women in combat and combat support roles during a time of combat, which all sides did during WW2 and creating, in the 1930s a Reserve/ Militia force which included them.

Nobody is denying they played a great role 'in extremis' and their actual contribution is easily to quantify. What seems to be missed is that this happened 'in extremis'.. it did not happen prior to that because...it was inconceivable that this should happen 'again'...in some cases. Again it is diffiuclt for the actual 1930s reality in Contiental Europe to be appreciated by the Anglo Saxon community on either side of the Atlantic...

Hell's teeth I find is massively eye opening to speak to family who were there at the time and trying to understand what their life was like...even with the greatest will in the world the stretch of imagination is a challenge...so for those who are reading about several persons removed it must be a greater challenge. So set aside what you as an individual think is great/ noble/ courageous and look to see what another view point may be...and then see if they have a valid point.

As for Thermopylae....'come and get them'.. they came, they got them.. and over dead bodies...glorious indeed, inspirational...questionable.. a lesson learnt.. too damn right. The US used the atom bomb to avoid such waste of its men and materiel. It used intelligence, wisdom and cold rational logic....heroic? Nope but it won the war against the Japanese.

You will find, when you look at recent wars that they have all been 'won' not by the side side that is 'bravest' or most 'heroic'.. but by the side that plays to its advantages best, that pressures the enemy on its weakest areas and then, having achieved the stated objectives leaves the field.....think GW1...a military victory... the dangers of not doing so are illustrated by WW2. Had Hitler stopped offensive operations after the fall of most of Europe the UK/US would have accepted the status quo....as would Russia had it not been attacked.

So to laud the 'heroism' of individuals and set aside the stupidly of the leaders that got them into the position where such heroism was required is I believe to miss the point.

But the citizens largely did surrender. The military largely did surrender. The gov't did largely capitulate.

The surrender is therefore a reflection of the courage and fighting spirit(which you've admitted was broken by WWI) of the nation as a whole, or rather, a lack of it.

Custer was arrogant, brash, a gambler, and sometimes foolish, but he was no coward.

The defeat of the 7th Cavalry, fighting to the last man, was the rallying cry for the rest of the campaign.

He was caught so outgunned at Little Bighorn because he'd ordered his big guns and gatling guns left behind because they would not be able to keep up, because he'd separated his force in a gamble, and because his intelligence was- to him at least- faulty, and did not compellingly indicate that he'd be facing the whole body of his enemies forces. This was a calculated military risk. It was an ambitious gamble, and it was proven to be a foolish one, but it was not dishonorable or cowardly in any way IMO.

I would use Patton's relief of the embattled forces at Bastogne as a somewhat paralell modern example of a similarly audacious plan. The other generals in Allied command scoffed, absolutely scoffed, at Patton when he suggested that his 3rd Army could swing north and relieve the 101st in place before they were overrun. Conventional military convention said it was impossible. Not improbable mind you... but impossible.

Except Patton refused to believe that was true, he managed to win approval for his plan, so desperate was the situation, and he then proceeded to do exactly what was said to be impossible. He relieved the forces at Bastogne, his men saved the day.

What you guys seem to be saying is that things that appear too hard should not even be attempted. I say men like Patton are an example that such a defeatist attitude is defeatist nonsense.

"Provided sufficient audacity, nothing in battle is impossible."
~Gen. George S. Patton

I simply don't agree with the point.

France did neither when it was obvious that war was once more upon them.

This is nonsensical. To anyone objectively viewing the History of France it should be quite reasonable to imagine that enemy invasion onto their soil would again happen. There were certainly enough precedents.

To anyone in 1939 it should have been patently obvious that there was a very real possibility that a home defense force might be required. The US and British both had one...

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Shirley you can't be serious. That Thermopylae both bought the Greeks valuable time to organize and provided them with the inspiration to fight on to eventual victory is a universally accepted historical view.

The US used the atom bomb to avert casualties in the hundreds of thousands that were projected for Operation Downfall.

It was well known to the US that Japan was arming it's citizenry- including it's women and school children- and was going to fight until the very end. That's why they were nuked.

I disagree. Courage plays as big a part in battle today as it did in the 1500's, or in 1500BC, for that matter.

If we look at the Invasion of Iraq it was a handful of very brave young Americans holding 3 intersections into Baghdad against overwhelming odds that paved the way for the collapse of Saddam's regime. This force was a hodgepodge of scouts, engineers, Special forces, a sniper, a convoy of young support personnel and truck drivers that got the ammo through despite withering fire... whoever could be scraped up.

Had those brave young soldiers not gone above and beyond the call of duty to hold those intersections and get the ammo through, the Spartan Brigade would have probably been lost due to simply running out of ammunition.

Likewise, it was the audacious and impromptu plan of a Brigade Commander, David Perkins, who decided all on his own that he was going to end the war NOW, on his timetable, that made it all happen to begin with. A true modern day Custer with regard to his boldness and audacity.

How appropriate that the attacking US force was named the Spartan Bde to begin with, don't you think? How could a unit with such a name ever surrender?

Thousands of years later, and the 300 Spartans are STILL inspiring today's warriors- even from other nations- to greatness.

Or we can look at the Raid in Mogadishu, where a couple hundred American Rangers and Delta Operators with very light air support took on an entire city for hours on end.

None surrendered, none quit, all came home.

Delta Snipers Shugart and Gordon volunteered to be inserted into Durant's crash site and fought off hundreds of Somali locals for hours, completely alone, until finally overrun. Because of their courage, they both won the Congressional Medal of Honor, and their names are spoken in hushed and reverant tones by even the bravest American soldiers. They are held as examples of what is best in men, and what is expected of US soldiers when facing impossible odds. How could any US Sniper or Sniper team ever surrender or not fight to the last after the selfless example that Shugart and Gordon set?

Perhaps, but that is highly debatable, and not proveable in any case.

I disagree.

The 101st Airborne was thrown into Bastogne in desperation, because their leaders overlooked the warning signs of an impending Nazi offensive. They held at Bastogne despite overwhelming odds and firepower with no air support, no armor support and limited artillery support only through sheer tenacity of will.

When it was demanded that the US forces at Bastogne surrender, AC McAullife's response was as short as it is legendary.

"Nuts."

Had he surrendered, no one would even know his name. The 101st Airborne would just be another airborne division, not the legend that it is. And there may very well have been Panzers parading the city streets of Antwerp.

Iron will is what stopped them.

Sniper,
Don't you see that all of your examples are military personnel and not civilians?
Just like American has had military units break and run and surrender en mass all countries have had such episodes.

Many units in France fought to the death, many only retreated to fight again, many civilians fought in France. Poor leadership, poor government, poor choices, but slapping a charge of cowardice on the entire nation is totally unjustified.

The Soviet Union did use some civilians as "cannon fodder", but that was not courage, that was desperation at the point of a gun in their back. Japan did likewise with their Secret Police. Both used every opportunity to brainwash their citizens with propaganda. Is this what you are proposing for other countries?

I repeat, I have not found a single nation or culture that resisted to the last man, woman and child. Or even close to that. That is a complete and total fantasy. It just is not reality.

WWII was the first time total warfare was fought on the European continent and all countries were unprepared. France spent billions on defense before WWII, more so than most countries. Failed strategies (which are so 20/20 hindsight clear now) are not a sign of cowardice. The thinking that Vichy France having won a fairly high level of autonomy (which no other nation the Nazis attack managed), should have immediately sent all of its military forces to the Allies is based on that perfect hindsight, not on the information available, conditions and real possibilities of the time.

The example of Japan is not military personnel. Likewise the defense of Stalingrad was largely composed of recently conscripted and often unarmed civilians.

Likewise in Somalia it was civilians that opposed Task Force Ranger, and who damn near wiped out an entire Elite US Special Operations force were it not for the help of the Pakistanis and all the UN heavy armor that could be scraped up.

In New Orleans it was a citizen Volunteer Regiment from Kentucky that fought and defeated the British regulars.

Civilians can and have fought off superior or fought well against military forces many times throughout history.

The most important ingredients are will and courage, not weapons or training.

I'll respond more in depth to the rest later.

No, they were like I said "The Soviet Union did use some civilians as "cannon fodder", but that was not courage, that was desperation at the point of a gun in their back. Japan did likewise with their Secret Police. Both used every opportunity to brainwash their citizens with propaganda. Is this what you are proposing for other countries?"

Being forced to fight is not the same as courage. These people did not choose freely and go willingly.

And Stalingrad defense was not "largely composed of recently conscripted and often unarmed civilians".

Wrong again, they were irregulars of a armed militia, not unarmed civilians.

Armed with canon, and commanded by the US military. Not self-armed (in heavey weaponry), not just ordinary citizens, but hunters, pirates, smugglers, trappers, etc. (would find a lot of them in any 20th or 21st century Western Culture major city now would we?

Sorry, still have not seen the evidence to support that claim.

Not the best example. While courage and fighting spirit certainly didn't hurt, if I remember correctly the victory at New Orleans had a lot to do with the excellent leadership and solid defensive tactics of Andrew Jackson (not to mention cannons) and generally piss-poor leadership and tactics of the British. Most of the British casualties came from a frontal assault on a prepared defensive position defended by artillery, cut to pieces by grapeshot in the open.

They were at the same time overcautious, allowing time for Jackson to fortify his position, and overconfident, assaulting directly once the fortifications were prepared.

So I guess that would include the 90,000 french soldiers who died in the month and a 1/2 of the invasion of France .

And ironically that would also include the SS troops who fought to the last man defending a regime that believed in the extermination of human beings that were deemed sub human to a certain class of the society.

The Russians had troops behind the lines at Stalingrad machine gunning those who faltered.
They also shot the Russian prisoners who escaped from German captivity.

Sometimes victory is not worth the price.

Churchill was willing to sacrifice the BEF, it was the miracle of Dunkirk that saved them.

Snipe, I have a lot of respect for you as a warrior but am not sure of your humanity.
Maybe that is the way it should be.
But there must be a special place in hell for those who believe they are defending a way of life that is programed in to them as THE WAY even if it means that those who think, look, act in a way not acceptable to a certain class are only good as cannon fodder.

Those who fought have my deepest respect.

The artillerymen were also reservists. As were the riflemen. That is the battle that made the Pennsylvania forever after the Kentucky Longrifle- named after the Kentucky Vol riflemen that wielded them.

And i have stated repeatedly that the leadership terribly failed the French.

Shooting your own escaped prisoners is stupid. Executing deserters (summarily or otherwise) is a time honored military tradition in times of total war.

Victory is always worth the price when your own home soil is what's at stake. When you are defending your own women and children failure is not an option.

If a leader is not prepared to go all in, he should not take his people to war at all.

"If you see the President, tell him from me that whatever happens there will be no turning back."
~Ulysses S. Grant

What kind of Infantryman would i have been if i considered surrender a viable option?

There are hundreds of examples of US forces not surrendering despite being surrounded or over-run. Maybe thousands. US forces have called artillery and airstrikes on their own positions many times because they'd rather fight to the death than surrender.

Should Lt. Col. Hal Moore have surrendered at LZ X-Ray in Vietnam? When the 7th Cavalry was faced with over-run and defeat there, they attacked.

And won.

"In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten, then he who continues the attack wins."
~Ulysses S. Grant


When you're fighting for your own soil and your own people almost anything is justifiable. And no sacrifice is too great....or too small.

When fighting in defense of your own people, and your own soil, your national survival....yes, absolutely.

ESPECIALLY vs. an opponent like the Nazis.

Again, all military examples. Why tar the French people with cowardice, when it was just some of the government leaders and just some of military leaders who let the French down? Why judge the entire nation for the faults of the few?

We could compile a list of US leaders, civilian and military, who have done much the same. Sould we then call all Americans cowards?

They were a bunch of untrained, illiterate, drugged up locals. Thugs, street criminals, you name it.

Which really just illustrates my point. Given the proper motivation, numbers and will even a pack of illiterates with AK's can take on the world's best.

A few cannon. I am sure that had the decision been made to defend Paris and other key cities that some cannons could have been delivered to the city. SOME of the units ordered to fall back into the cities would have made it.

As should have been done in WWII by the French.

Militias are not expected to arm themselves with their own heavy weapons.

You'd certainly find them in America. 1930s france had outdoorsman too. And veterans from the 1st war. And lots of those veterans homes would have memoribilia from WWI...the kind that goes bang. There were probably 10s of thousands of captured Mausers and Lugars from WWI in Veterans homes.

My great grandfather was in the Cavalry in WWI, and he came back with a german helmet, rifle, pistol, trench knife, and bayonet. He used to let me play with them as a boy.

Have i not lambasted the French leadership at length?

And the fedayeen and somali militias were clear examples of poorly trained civilian irregulars taking on first world military forces in defense of their own city or cities.

And i will say this. Those who run with no intention of ever turning back to face the enemy are cowards in my eyes. A tactically or strategically sound retreat is one thing. Surrender is something else entirely.

I am quite certain that every infantryman i have ever met or served with would rather die than surrender.

Jessica Lynch's support unit that got overran was the first US military unit of any kind to have been overrun and surrendered since WWII.

We don't teach that here.

And they don't teach that in France either, so?

Your example, " the fedayeen and somali militias were clear examples of poorly trained civilian irregulars taking on first world military forces in defense of their own city or cities" were in a very limited type of engagement, where total war was not practiced as in WWII. Not a reasonable comparison.

And since WWII when did American soldiers fight where they did not have massive artillery and air support? Again, comparing those actions to France in 1940 is not an apples to apples comparison.

Guerrilla warfare was introduced into Western Europe by the Resistance. But that type of warfare demands a large non directly involved population to hide and resupply in. This is a requirement for success. Which invalidates the "entire population rises up" type of action which you have been proposing that the French civilian population should have done.

Again, I can find no examples of where an entire (or even just a simple majority) of a population actively took up arms to fight an agressor, espescially a fully equiped trained military agressor with total artillary and air supiriority. Why, if no one else has been able to do this, should we condeme the French civilians (or culture) for not doing it?

"GORILLA "WARFARE was introduced to the world by the apaches!

poodle esq...............still pulling my pud over this.............thanks for the laughs.

Again, you have my respect as a soldier.

But your attitude is also the reason it is not always a good thing to have soldiers as leaders.
It takes a special type that can be ruthless and compassionate.
I also love the quote of Grants when in a confrontation with another general who threatened to take the issue before Lincoln and Grant replied that that was fine by him as Lincoln outranked them both.

Your last quote there - put it in the mirror - the Nazis were doing just that - but if you look to what end they were fighting it takes all nobility and due respect for their fighting skill and determination out of the equation.
Not everything is justifiable, even in total war.

Should the British have been machine gunning all their troops who ran ?
If not for luck and Hitler stopping the Panzers the British would have been the French in different uniforms.

It wasn't merely that the Russians shot deserters - they shot their own generals, anyone who didn't blindly follow the doctrines of Red Communism er Stalinism. They did it for very little reason at all. The Poles because they were Poles and the Ukrainians because they were Ukrainian.
Their culture , not a desire to win was behind the way they waged war.
Ditto the Nazis.
And the Japanese.
And the USA
And the Southerners and and and.

It's not what side wins but what they stand for.
The French were greater than their humiliation. They were a [dysfunctional] tolerant democracy.
If the US was in Frances position after WW1 (and geographically) we would have fared no better. Don't kid yourself.
We had no Army in 1939 that could have stood up to the Nazis.
The British were less than their later claims to the laurels (WE won the western theater, not them).
The Russians were no more than animals.
The Nazis simply monsters.

I find myself becoming ever more in agreement with Tolstoy's view of history - it's not from the top down that things happen when and how they happen, but from the bottom up.
From the air we breath and the time in which we live and billions of tiny events that lead to bigger and bigger things which lead to smaller things....

Hmmmmm.............

Try the Scythians 2700 years ago. But it most likely existed before that by a few thousand years.

At least we know, since you are completely ignorant on history: that you have an subject that you are an true expert in as per your own boast: "pulling my pud".

And it shows.

Maybe to those that like to fight?

When I think of France I think of curvier things...

racetracks and women :D

Sure you know lots of facts and you definitely have an opinion, but it doesn't stop you coming across as a bit of a dick. You write like a 16yr old with a chip on your shoulder.

The car in your sig sounds impressive though.

i didnt start the "my kung fu is badder than urine kungfu" crap here. quite the contrary. mon-sewer poodleesq. likes to play pompous know it all here and i like challenges big and small. i especially like wasting my time and energy on an idiot moron who thinks monte was a great general, and that france is a great country and they saved the world from communizm and the nazi's.

i really dont care how you view or anyone views anything i write here. i dont use spell check,punkuation check, very seldom even proof read and dont really give a flying fuch about correct grammar. my entire being here, is to keep my typing skills honed, and watch a franco-phile with a super secret decoder ring, burn in flames as he scrambles to copy history books and wikpedia pages for all of us "rednecks masturbating".

figure it out once and for all . the french were very unique during WWII, they managed to turn against their own people, they mangaged to turn against their liberators, they managed to sink 30 plus top of the line capital ships. and this is something to be proud of????

they completely BOFFOED vietnam. and all of this is historical facts not writtian by myself nor the uber history poodle, who wants to fight a "conventional war" in a "unconventional world".

"excuse 'em wah" let me open page 123 before you blow the hell outta me" with your non geneva compliant weapon. "excuse 'em wah" you wernt supposed to use that weapon because the geneva convention doesnt approve it!" KA-******* BOOM !"


now lets see here.............next war i'm in, am i gonna use a geneva convention approved kinder gentleer 147 grain full metal jacket bullet???? or a 168 grain boat tail hollowpoint match round to VAPORIZE my enemy? what a question to ponder. yes i may be in violation and if caught possibly get in trouble. what are they gonna do? send me to war? take my poodle away? at the least i would take my m-9 bayo and cut marks in the top of each and every FMJ to make them expand better!

there is no "correct " way or method to fight any war. you either live or die. you either have good generals or piss poor generals. you either fight or surrender. end of subject here. no brainer except for morons that want to play armchair general and refight a wars that have already been fought.

it will always be conventional vs. unconventional. unconventional will manage to always inflict heavy casualties because they choose time/method/area of the fight. ie. the apaches.