Marcon: "Nationalism is a betrayal of Patriotism"

[T-post Tom]

“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism, nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” Macron said. “In saying ‘our interests first and who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation has that’s most precious, what makes it live, what is most important: its moral values.”

This was clearly a political shot at Trump. So, Mr. Marcon... did the French people elect you to put the interests of Germany, England or Syria before the interests of the French people? Sorry, "nationalism" is a synonym of "patriotism" for most. You can use the most narrow, pejorative sense of the word in your twisted attempt to rebuke & embarrass our President. You have that right. Just be prepared for the consequences.

My take is that Trump's "nationalism" is nothing more than advocating for the sovereignty and well-being of the U.S. It does not erase moral values nor preclude the U.S. from caring and helping others outside the U.S. In fact, keeping the U.S. sovereign and making it stronger only puts the U.S. in a better position to help the list of other countries that the U.S. keeps afloat with our generosity. Can't help but wonder if France just moved down that list a spot or two.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

So what exactly was Germany's goal then?

Again:


Germany didn't bring a 3.9m monster invasion force stretching 1,000 miles westward. They took it to the east and their intentions were clear: subdue the Slavs, take their lands and enslave them.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

It's true. They warned Britain they'd be overrun by the Bolsheviks if Germany ever fell, and couldn't understand why they didn't understand its threat. Either way, Brit internal memos prove that any land invasion would've ended rapidly with a German win.


The Limeys didn't do any ground troops in WWII really. Did a lot of air bombing campaigns (their air superiority was the #1 factor in Germany's loss by the way). But not many boots on the ground, regardless of that 10-min opening scene of Private Ryan.

Wait Limeys as Brits? Or Americans?

[Prison Bitch]

Limeys = Brits

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

The Limeys didn't do any ground troops in WWII really.

Wow. You are either one ignorant **** wit, or you're lying. Which is it, Bitch?

[Pennywise]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

Better weather.

Yep. See North Africa.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Donger

Wow. You are either one ignorant **** wit, or you're lying. Which is it, Bitch?

I mean, they were a big player for sure.......

But, mostly ineffective in decisive combat with Germany. But ya'll sure did kick the shit out of the Italians!

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

I mean, they were a big player for sure.......

But, mostly ineffective in decisive combat with Germany. But ya'll sure did kick the shit out of the Italians!

Yes, the sucked in North Africa...

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Pennywise

Yep. See North Africa.

French Riviera...

Sent from my 9+ using Tapatalk

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes, the sucked in North Africa...

I mean you did............

Rommel beat your asses all over North Africa, it wasn't until Britain had overwhelming force and munitions gathered that you made ANY inroads.

Never mind the fact that the Germans were ill supplied and supported by maybe the shittest ally in WWII.

I'd literally take the Polish on horse back before Italians.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

I mean you did............

Rommel beat your asses all over North Africa, it wasn't until Britain had overwhelming force and munitions gathered that you made ANY inroads.

Never mind the fact that the Germans were ill supplied and supported by maybe the shittest ally in WWII.

I'd literally take the Polish on horse back before Italians.

You stated:

But, mostly ineffective in decisive combat with Germany

That's just wrong. Sorry. If they were mostly ineffective, they wouldn't have defeated Rommel at El Alamein.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Donger

You stated:

But, mostly ineffective in decisive combat with Germany

That's just wrong. Sorry. If they were mostly ineffective, they wouldn't have defeated Rommel at El Alamein.

You defeated him because he was under supplied. But I'll grant you that one.

But I'll raise you Market Garden

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

You defeated him because he was under supplied. But I'll grant you that one.

But I'll raise you Market Garden

That's a key to modern warfare, yes.

And,

[GloryDayz]

France, because of their sissy ways, will fall early in the next war (again).

Sent from my 9+ using Tapatalk

[Over Yonder]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

It would have been harder for sure, but even if England fell the British empire had loads of troops in North Africa and Inidia....

NA would have been the spring board for invasion of Europe, it would have been a more even battle that is for sure.

It's all just opinion and speculation of course, but I just don't think it would have worked. Think of all the details involved in such an invasion. Weather patterns and low tide. Finding a window where those two things alone work in the North Atlantic for the time it would of taken to make the trip would be like finding that golden needle in the haystack.

Then think about soldier moral. Sitting on those ships that long distance and time would have worked against us greatly. Refueling, airstrips for aircraft that would be needed to control the skies over the shipping lanes. Not many land based planes of the day had that kind of range. And back in the day, land based planes had a huge advantage over carrier based types.

I could probably go on all day, but I think you get my point. Thankfully, we will never know if my speculation is correct.

[Over Yonder]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

There's no evidence at all Germany wanted to make Europeans "speak German". In fact, they repeatedly said German culture was theirs and theirs alone - "not for export" as Goebbels wrote often. They rarely discussed the US or England. They didn't imlpoae German language in Vichy France. They didn't anything German on occupied Ukraine.

That's just a figure of speech, Prison. I have no idea of the German intentions as far as German language and culture. I will trust you when you say they didn't want that.

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

You all need to move away from the Anglo-centric view of that War. It's not grounded in any reality. And while I'm sure generals told their US soldiers that Germany wanted to rule the world, just wasn't so.

That's the way the world/history works though. The victors write the history books, not the losers. Look at our own civil war. Ask any random person on the street why the civil war was fought, and I'm guessing 98/100 say slavery. And that's it. They have no idea states rights was as big of a reason if not bigger in the beginning anyway.

That's just how history works