[Closed] A Question for the stw current affairs experts.................

Of 563,000 French deaths in WWII, 350,000 were civillian casualties.

So that's 213,000 military casualties then. Which seems a huge amount for a country's military which allegedly didn't do much fighting. Of course also many of the civilians who died in France during WW2 died whilst fighting the occupation.

To put the military casualties into some sort of context, by the end of the war the French Forces of the Interior was an army 1.2 million strong, so the 213,000 dead represents roughly one fifth of that total.

.

Are you suggesting that the beeb have no political agenda of their own?

Breathtakingly stupid as that comment is, I'm going to take it that you are [i]actually[/i] being serious and not trolling.

So you think the BBC has a "political agenda of their own" in reporting the war in Afghanistan - separate to everyone else's including the government's. And who exactly maps out the BBC's 'own political agenda' - the Afghan warlords ? ffs

I bet you think Princess Diana was murdered.

Any conspiracy theories about 9/11 ?

Much as I often find fascinating what occurs in the cavernous heads of those who make idiotic comments like that, thanks - but no thanks - I really can't be arsed to waste my time.

I'm not entirely certain why you seem to be persisting with the frankly ludicrous idea that the proportion of casualties suffered by a country or army give an indication of how much impact that country/army had. During GW1 the British lost a significently greater proportion of blokes than the US. However the combat power provided by the US was roughly 10x more... Equally the Kuwaitis lost more than the UK but our combat power far outweighed theirs.

If anything higher casualty rates are demonstrative of a lack of combat power - why lose 100 men assaulting a position when you can flatten it from afar and have 30 blokes stroll in afterwards in relative safety?

The French Resistance had very little direct military impact, if anything they were a net loss to the forces landing at Normandy. If they hadn't resisted then a lot of the German troops could have gone to the Eastern Front and been chewed up by the Red Army. Instead they tied down a lot of troops which subsequently opposed the invasion and led directly to UK, US and Canadian casualties. This might have been a price worth paying for French pride etc etc but as far as military value is concerned it was probably a bad deal. None of this is intended to disrespect any of those who fought for their countries etc but is simply a dispassionate assessment of what combat power actually is.

Breathtakingly stupid as that comment is

Political correspondent Andrew Marr said that "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias".[5] These comments were reported in the UK national press a couple of weeks later.

Did you just quote the mail?

<send him to the front line and be quick about it>

MTT, I'm not a reader of the mail just the first google result hence the wiki reference.

It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias

❓ I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. ❓

I'm not entirely certain why you seem to be persisting with the frankly ludicrous idea that ......

And I'm not entirely certain why you seem to be persisting with the frankly ludicrous idea that a country may sustain heavy casualties by simply, in your words, "marching into abandoned positions". The Soviet Union lost 10 million military casualties in WW2, to a certain degree that reflects the level of fighting which the SU was engaged in.

And still you maintain the ludicrous notion that 'shed loads of B52s' is what toppled the Taliban. Despite the fact that much much bigger 'shed loads of B52s' were used in Vietnam. And yet the US failed to topple the North Vietnam government.

I don't know what to say about your comment that on the one hand the 'French Resistance had very little direct military impact', and on the other, that they kept troops occupied which were desperately needed by the Germans on the Eastern Front. How you come to the conclusion that the Germans based their decisions on troop numbers, not on the threat of an eminent Allied seaborne invasion of France which they were clearly expecting, but on Resistance activity, is frankly beyond me.

is frankly beyond me.

Are you seriously telling me that you think that the bbc reporting is balanced and unbiased?

I am seriously telling you that the BBC does not have an agenda which involves acting as some sort of spin doctor for the Afghan Northern Alliance. And I am seriously telling you that anyone who thinks they have, is imo, an idiot.

HTH

Just because a lot of troops died it doesn't automatically follow that they made an impression on the final outcome. The French lost x amount - so what? The impact of French military activity was significently below that of the UK and US. Dead soldiers don't win wars - working tanks, aircraft, ships, logistic chains and troops do. (or if you prefer, dead insurgents don't win wars, working smuggling routes, functioning IEDs, RPGs and insurgents do)

Afghanistan is not Vietnam, let it go. You've already admitted that the NA only won when they got an airforce. You lost that argument last night.

The Russians traded men and space (of which they had lots) for time. Time to re-arm, re-organise and generally sort itself out. Once they had done this then the Germans were screwed. Proper screwed. There was sod all they could do about the massive industrialised war machine heading towards them. Even taking 90% of the occupied countries garrisons and sending them east would not have helped, once the Russians were geared up for war and massively outproducing the Germans then the outcome was inevitable. However if the Germans had moved troops to the Eastern Front early on in the war, before an allied invasion was even remotely possible and when they were garrisoned simply to run the country and keep the resistance under control etc then they may have made it into the industrial heartlands of Russia in time to prevent the reorganisation happening.

Basically - the Germans allowed the situation in the east to go bad because they didn't take enough troops early enough. Once they realised it had gone bad then they had an invasion to worry about...

An invasion where UK/US forces both provided more firepower than the French, and were both responsible for more dead Germans than the French. In the same way the overwhelming amount of firepower in the operation against the taliban post 9/11 was provided by the yanks.

It has not been suggested by anyone that the bbc is the NAs own personal publicity broadcaster. It has been suggested and demonstrated that the beeb has a political agenda.

Afghanistan is not Vietnam, let it go

And yet Afghanistan [b][i]is[/i][/b] WW2.

It all makes perfect sense now.

.

You've already admitted that the NA only won when they got an airforce.

That is correct - the Northern Alliance only won when they had an airforce (ie the US airforce) I have no problem with that. It has always been pretty clear the Northern Alliance could not have toppled the Taliban government without that help.

So then ....... you agree that the Northern Alliance won against the Taliban then ? Cool 8)

It has not been suggested by anyone that the bbc is the NAs own personal publicity broadcaster.

Your response to this link :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1653137.stm

Was this :

backhander - Member

Ernie, the beeb can try to spin it how they like

So you think the BBC has a "political agenda of their own"

Not the same comparison I'm afraid. You're using Vietnam to highlight why air power had no impact in Afghanistan. Which you later reversed your position on. I'm using WW2 to highlight the flaw in your bizarre assertion that the country which has most casualties is somehow bringing the most combat power.

And yes, the NA won and Taliban lost. However the US won and defeated the taliban, which the NA didn't. Remember, that's the important bit - you said the NA defeated the Taliban and not the US. Which is, to be fair, wrong.

Your willingness to continue the argument far outweighs your grasp of modern military conflict but fair play to ya, you keep trying!

i am sat watching a spider climb up a wall in my living room..
8)

Bet it's more interesting than this!

The bits of this thread that ernie's ego-pedantry were asleep for are pretty interesting. 🙄 🙂

I'll hold my hands up to getting a bit "involved" as well!

So I'll bid you all adieu and let him argue on his lonesome...

Which you later reversed your position on.

I suggest that you copy and paste to show where I have 'reversed' my position. No 'reversing' has taken place.

.

I'm using WW2 to highlight the flaw in your bizarre assertion that the country which has most casualties is somehow bringing the most combat power.

Again, copy and paste where I made an assertion that [u]the country which has most casualties brings the most combat power[/u].

Clearly I did not say that, but in a desperate attempt to win an argument, you are now making up things which you claim I have said.

And no mate, you are not 'using WW2 to highlight' anything. I brought WW2 onto this thread when I said, quote :

[i]"Is that why the massive and relentless Allied bombing of Germany didn't topple the Nazi regime either ?[/i]"

You still have not answered the question ^^^

And BTW, the fact that you don't appear to be aware of what has been said on this thread during the last 24 hours, hardly inspires a confidence on your grasp of history.

ernie, big brother, c4..... 😆

Ton, have you read all this to your lad or is be currently de-legging the spider?

DD, he read tootall's official answer 28 hours ago.
it satisfied him..... 😉

Phew, that's a relief. What's his opinion on whether it's justified comparing WW2 to Afghanistan to Vietnam? Also, how does he feel about casualty percentages wrt to involvement in a conflict? 😕

he said something along the lines of ' why don't we come home, and drop a bomb on the place and blow em all to bits'...........kids eh?? 😯

he said something along the lines of ' why don't we come home, and drop a bomb on the place and blow em all to bits'..

I reckon he picked up that idea from your suggestion on how to deal with the G20 protesters, eh ton ?

BTW, you can tell him that his idea is a non-starter as bombing people doesn't win wars - it's the troops on the ground which win the wars.

I [i]think[/i]....... everyone has agreed on that

ernie, bombing the japs won ww2 for us, so your wrong........... 😉

Ah, indeed ton. Dropping nuclear bombs is where my argument falls apart. There is no doubt that nuclear weapons can win a war. Only the nuclear option is not an option.

I think ww2 was pretty much won wasn't it by the time the nukes were dropped wasn't it? It was those pesky Japanese who wouldn't stop fighting.

That's funny cos I'm sure when I said the US plan was to hammer the taliban from the skies and let the NA do most of the donkey work you said "Great plan only it doesn't win wars" and yet later said "The taliban didn't stand a chance once the NA got themselves an airforce"

Sounds to me like you acknowledged that the US airpower was a war winning capability.

Yes you bought up WW2 first, nobody said you didn't. Doesn't change the fact that I was using it to highlight arguments I was making. I said that the US provided more combat power than the French, you replied by arguing that French casualty figures were higher than American. If this wasn't to counter my argument why did you bring it up in reply?

Allied bombing? Didn't realise the question was directed at me to be fair, as I'd not made any such analogies either implicitly or explicitly. FWIW though I'd say the allied bombing helped slow down the growth of the German military-industrial complex through the destruction of factories, attrition of skilled personnel etc with a consequent negative impact on front-line fighting strength. Anybody saying it was going to cause the overnight collapse of the Nazis was clearly misguided. (oh and yes I am aware that for the most part German war production increased throughout the war but it would've been a lot more efficient if it had been left untouched.) Bombing civillian centres was militarily dubious but quite popular with the home fans. Still not sure why you brought it up when comparing it to the goings-on in post 9/11 Afghanistan though.

And what have I missed that was said in the last 24hrs which somehow makes my arguments against your assertions void? Actually, don't tell me - I don't care

And finally whilst I have no doubt you'll continue your argument with some more "you said that i said that he said that I said but what he actually said I said was..." I'm going to attempt to set a good example to tons kid and leave this one alone from now on. So please, feel free to have the last word - it clearly means a lot to you.