The Suez Crisis in 1956, being a British and French initiative and ultimately a magnificent **** up for Britain and France for their own purposes, was a significant contributor to post-war American animosity towards / distrust of France, and Britain.
Yes… I think Suez was the bullet in the back of the head for the British and French attempts at trying to be superpowers…
As an aside, and in relation to the Arnhem thread, Brian Urquhart, the officer who tried in vain to persuade Browning of the danger to the operation from german armour, was the UN man on the ground during the Suez Crisis and organised the UN peacekeeping force to stop the Israelis and Egyptians from fighting. It was he who suggested that the civilian idea of a blue beret may be better replaced by a blue painted helmet in a combat zone… Instead of waiting for six weeks for some blue berets to be delivered, he got all the helmets painted overnight.
I suppose the French cluster**** in Indochina that ultimately became an American one didn’t help either…
Going to your second to last post, I’m seeing it from the perspective of student*/internet troll, where as a student you only learn that France fell, and the Americans helped them back up(no major mention of the Commonwealth…), and as an internet troll, where France fell as soon as Hitler looked at it.
Currently studenting* in Texas.
**Yes, I did just create a new verb. XD
I’m assuming you’re referring to me…
I’m not really sure what you’re specifically referring too and am wondering if your studenting’ in Texas involves prodigious amounts of tequila and bad American beer. 
France fell in a shockingly small time frame, but only after a spasm of intense, bloody fighting. I’m one of the last ones here to imply it happened as “soon as Hitler looked at it.” Actually, if Germany had attacked France when Hitler wanted (as early as October of 1939), he’d have been defeated most likely and, speculatively, a German Heer coup would have killed him. Had they enacted the initial Fall Gelb plan in Oct.-Nov. of 1939 going into France through Belgium --as the French always believed they would, ultimately sealing the French doom when the plan was revised radically and the emphasis of Schwerpunkt (main focus) was shifted to the large Franco-Belgian weak-point in the ‘impenetrable’ Ardennes area-- the best case scenario is that Germany would have been caught in a strategic stalemate in Belgium, or on the River Somme in France playing into the hands of the Allied long war/blockade strategy and would have suffered a projected half-a-million casualties. It was his senior officers that delayed the attack until it was too late in the year, and then came up with one of the greatest, riskiest war plans ever devised out of sheer desperation: the Sickle Cut component of Fall Gelb, or Case (operation) Yellow…
" bad American beer." That is a redundant statement, I had no idea there was a good American beer (as American beer is presently defined.) I think American beer was the least known casualty of WW II. (We now return you to the regular scheduled topic.):mrgreen:
Avoid the ‘big four’ mass brew swill and try one of these, good sir:
I’m saying that when you are taught history in Texas, at least where I am, you are taught that Hitler conquered Poland, then waited until spring, where he turned his attention to France, which almost as soon as the command was given to go, capitulated.
You aren’t taught the reasons behind the fall of France, just that it fell quickly and easily.
I’m sorry for that. I think you probably need some bad beer and don’t ever rely on your instructors for the answers…
At the risk of pissing off Texans, and possibly receiving approval from other Americans, you have to remember that things need to be kept simple for Texans, for they are a simple people. I can think of no better example than Bush the Younger, even if he was a faux Texan. 
I dont think Dubya is typical of Texans… But then Im not sure he is a typical specimen of the human race.
Maybe some form of primate, but Im not sure which.
I think all nations teach history, especially at junior levels, in a manner that best serves their country.
So in the USA, they saved the World. In Japan, their schools teach about the US attacks and poor old Japan suffering… No mention of Japanese Imperial tendencies of the 1930’s onwards.
At least they teach about the war.
The UK has practically removed it, probably out of fear of offending someone! In Ireland its not mentioned at all.
Luckily a fair few UK universitys concentrate on it in both History and War Studies courses. In those instances I have found the teaching to be robust and relatively unbiased. Though all history is tainted with the bias of its writer.
Perhaps this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXVIJB7AMLU&feature=related
Which seems like a very good idea. The last thing the Irish need is anything that reminds them to fight, whether among themselves or anyone else they can find.
That’s the problem, and distinction, between primary and secondary sources. And between primary sources and a full record of the past.
Everyone on this site, and more widely on this planet, has done a vast array of things today, but almost none of them will be recorded for the future nor referred to by historians trawling through the past.
Meanwhile the doings and sayings of people of sufficient interest to what is (strictly, are, as it’s plural) now called the news media will be recorded, as has been the custom in the past to record the sayings and doings of those prominent in societies.
So history is invariably skewed by the preponderance of coverage of the sayings and doings of the big end of town, because they leave the most records.
Yet the further back one goes and the less literate the bulk of the population was, the less we know about what people really thought and did. And the less we know about ‘history’ as a full picture of past periods and those who lived in them.
For example, did Hogarth or Johnson best describe London of their time, or did both give an inaccurate version?
Hmm… must have “dumbed” down the History textbooks since my years in school. And it’s probably not only the textbooks here in Texas. 
Yep… we’re a bunch of bible thumping, redneck, hayseeds down here…;):mrgreen:
As for a French Military Forum, I wouldn’t mind it. Or, having a combined Italian/French Forum. I’ve enjoyed reading Panzerknackers threads on French armor and weaponry. It would be interesting to know more about French war plans and tactics and such that you don’t find information about.
I only said you were simple.
The bible thumping, redneck, hayseed stuff isn’t limited to Texas. :mrgreen:
I’m actually a transplanted Yankee. I used to never hear the end of it if I told people where I was from. Not so much nowadays with so much migration coming to TX. Both from the North and South.
^I know, about keeping all of that in mind RS and Nick. XD
I was just bringing up the point that education in Texas about France and its role in WWII is quite shoddy, and terrible at best.
Dubya was born into New England blueblood family and spent much of his life on the East Coast along with assorted “liberals” whom he probably had more in common with than the average Texas kid. Some would go so far as to say his homespun Texas drawl was acquired more by practice than habit. I was going to say that Bush is more like John Kerry than he is John Wayne. But then Kerry actually saw combat in Vietnam while Bush took the typical rich kid avoidance serving in the Nat’l Guard…
Do you have to take anti-rejection drugs daily?
Or do the Texans, as the host body, have to take them?