I have been both publicly & privately criticized for making an alleged anti-France statement on this thread. While I have stated a few historical facts, I do not believe that I have here said anything insulting about either France of any member who has posted herein. I defy anyone to show an anti-France bias in my postings on this thread. Likewise, I defy anyone to show where I personally insulted any member on this thread. Despite whatever biases I may have, I try diligently to take an even-handed approach to my postings on this forum. I state facts as I know them, & I am well aware of my limitations in historical knowledge. I am aware that people sometimes have knee-jerk reactions to what they read, or more correctly, think they read. If anyone should think that I have been insulting to anyone on this thread, please state why you believe this. When I do choose to insult someone, there is no ambiguity about it.
In reference to my stating historical facts about France:
After WWII, the victors were all drooling over the former colonies once held by the vanquished. France was among them, but so was Britain. Unless I am mistaken, neither one cared a whit about the people who lived in these nations, they both were eager to subjugate those people, and extract cheap labor, natural resources, etc from those nations. It was purely accidental that some; perhaps all of these nations had local communist parties, striving against other forces, both foreign & domestic, for control. France had purely greedy intentions in its dealing with Vietnam: It had ruled Vietnam as a colonial master before the Imperial Japanese Army had vanquished its forces, and taken control in their stead. France wanted to restore its glory of the prewar days, its having held other nations as colonies gave it a certain prestige. However, my whole point in my last post was to show that France had no such prestige. I will now make clear why this is so; however, before I do, let me make clear that France was not alone in this, as Britain, too was involved.
France needing millions of Americans to bail it out, when its own rulers chose to ignore the fact that Germany was re-arming itself. Both France and Britain were victors in WWI. Both had certain rights under the provisions of the Versailles Treaty. This Treaty denied Germany of
1. U boats
2. Panzers (tanks)
3. Luftwaffe, other than transport planes, if even these were allowed
4. a woefully small armed forces. The limit was no more than 100,000 men
There were other limitations, but these were sufficient to ensure that Germany could not mount any effective offensives against either France or Britain.
That is, these limitations would ensure a peaceful Germany If, & only if, France or Britain bothered to enforce these restrictions. However, there were other provisions in this treaty that virtually ensured it would fail rapidly if enforcement were lacking. One was the crippling monetary reparations that Germany was to pay France. This was so devastating to the German economy, that a 100,000,000,000 DeutschMark bill was printed. An exchange rate of 10,000,000 DeutschMarks to one US penny exited at one time, during the interwar period. When in 1923 (If I am not mistaken about the date), Germany was late making payments to France, France took military action against Germany, & occupied the Ruhr. Germany made some money by building military aircraft for export to Spain. France, allowed this, but became complacent about it. Germany used this as a way to train combat pilots; after all, the German aircraft manufacturers needed to instruct the Spanish pilots in how to fly their aircraft. This Condor Legion was only one way that Germany circumvented the treaty, & prepared for war, in spite of it.
I presume that both France & Britain held authority to verify German compliance with this treaty, because it simply makes no sense otherwise. How did Germany conceal its re-armament if either France or Britain had been diligent to verify compliance? At what point did Hitler feel sufficiently strong that he openly defied the treaty? How is it that these two victors allowed him to stir up so much discord, that President Von Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor, just to shut him up? Did they simply not care that a rabble-rouser had come to power on a promise to restore German greatness, and throw off the Versailles Treaty? Yes, it was publicly known that Hitler vociferously promised these things.
All the while Germany was rewarding its women for having 5 or more children (7 or more made them especially praiseworthy), France's birthrate was in the toilet. All the while Germany was illegally building tanks (& modern tank tactics), submarines, warships, attack aircraft, & a military with more than 20 times limit of men set by the treaty, France was building static defenses (the Maginot Line) and hoping Hitler was just hot air. Not to mention the first and foremost violation of the treaty: Hitler's usurpation of the presidential power upon Von Hindenburg's death, and his dissolving the German democratic system thereby.
Then after France allowed Hitler to get away with his defiance of the cherished treaty, he sent his war machine into Poland. It just so happens that there was a treaty between Poland, France, & Britain that stipulated if Germany attacked any one of the three; the other two would take action against Germany. But, what action would they take? They merely declared war, and fired not a shot. All the most highly trained men were in Poland, while second and third rate units were left to hold the Franco-German border. Maj. Gen. F.W. Mellenthin, in his book Panzer Battles, wondered at Britains' & especially France's apathy during this Phony War. He was simply baffled by it. He states that this lack of action was more damaging to the French troops' morale than all the German propaganda.
During the few years between the time when Hitler came to power, and the attack on Poland, France and Britain by their negligence allowed Germany to build an armed forces that by sheer numbers of tanks and aircraft alone, was still inferior to either of theirs, but was of course a flagrant violation of the treaty. Moreover, German tanks had thinner armor and smaller guns that French tanks. However, those German tanks were designed for rapid movement; rapid rates of fire (5 man crews, compared to 3 in the French tanks) and massed formations. Moreover, the tactics were different, which more than compensated for the inferiority in numbers and armament. It is ironic that these tactics were borrowed from a British tank officer's own theory, which the British army rejected.
I could go on, but I have just realized how much time I spent writing this. I would not go so far as to say that either Britain or France caused WWII by their apathy toward Germany's violations of the treaty, but I will state that either Britain or France both could have, & should have prevented that war by simply enforcing the treaty. Then, I clearly indicated that France went off on a quest of conquest, only to be defeated. The USA, for a third time in the 20th century, stepped in to bail out France, under the guise of halting communist expansion. But, as I clearly stated, while it seems unfair for France to opt-out of the war against Saddam (seeing that he had openly defied UN resolutions, etc), it also seems unfair to expect gratitude for these three bailouts from a people, many of whom were in either not born or diapers at that time.
Likewise, all the while The Soviet Union was building its military President Carter was downsizing the US military. Likewise, while Saddam was at the very least defying the no-fly zones, and hindering weapons inspectors, President Clinton was downsizing the US military. Oops, I forgot that the threat is now gone because the USSR broke up. BTW, what became of all those nuclear missiles that were once aimed at the USA?
Only a poor 2-lined comment and the war flamed all the rage 
Let's forget a moment about those "important stuff of real life", we are here to share good time and not to project our personal frustrations/anger/hate of real life in this forum.
I am sorry. 
