Link were

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_France

Link were

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_France

Problem with links!

Problem with links!

Problem with links!

Hey there FS, if you trust and like using information from wikipedia then look up the british armed forces. It will tell you that the UK is second only to the US and goes against everything the french posters have been going on about throughout this thread.

Just thought I would mention it.

"If France has 58 000 KIA (france did not have a lot of air forces) vs US Army ground forces 141,526, it show that french contribution in liberating western Europe was 40% of US one. "

---So FS, if France was so capable, why did she surrender in 1940?  Are you suggesting France could have liberated itself without UK/US - where were the French ships? logistics?  Of course after the hard work was done, French troops could be landed and then start fighting.  But UK and US troops cleared the decks in Normandy.  French troops did distinguish themselves at monte cassino - I grant you that.  But France did not conquer or liberate Austria by herself - and this was while UK and US had troops in France as well. 

And I do not consider Wikipedia - where you could have posted the information yourself - to be a reputable source...try again.

You can try to spin it all you want - but France surrendered to Germany and Italy - Germany TROUNCED France in 1940...and even if British forces retreated, so what?  Britain was capable of making sure Germany did not conquer her - with the largest navy and a superior air force.  France should have had quality ground forces to prevent Germany from invasion.  Defending France was France's responsibility...just like France left Poland and sat by and did nothing while the Poles fought the Germans alone.  France was never alone against Germany.  And once Germany was fully engaged in France.

The kinf of information I provided on wikipedia was objective information: casualties of different nations are well known and those displayed in wikipedia are correct (moreover they provide links).Any other search on official sites of countries would provide the same information.

Nobody would lie on such facts.Who would dare to write in wikipedia that gravitation force do not exist.

Wikipedia is written as a collective encycopedia and some article are not so serious.

Those which say that UK is second (in projection force) is only based on the feeling of the writter who is Anglosaxon biased and quite ignorant of other nations.And it is obvioulsy not serious.Moreover the second in science military spending is France and not UK.Data show clearly that France spend almost 20% more than UK on this matter in PPP.

I guess that reports and links from House of Commons are more serious.

UK has a projection capability slightly better than France on some items.And fall far behind on some.

Overall UK and France would be similar if UK had a decent carrier with aor superiority fighters and air force in numbers, a state of the art and independant C4ISR and a total indepedant deterrent which is not the case as it depend on USA for maintenance.Even some politicians in UK are concerned about dependance of UK on this subject vs US.

But when we speak as nations as powers, it is not only today military it is overall power you can use inpedently and ability to extend this military power and support other allied militaries .On these paramount importance ability UK is clearly behind France.

And the main reason is that UK can not provide alone full equipment to equip an army and is subjected to potential pressure of USA in equipement delivery and use starting by Trident missiles for exemple.

The kinf of information I provided on wikipedia was objective information: casualties of different nations are well known and those displayed in wikipedia are correct (moreover they provide links).Any other search on official sites of countries would provide the same information.

Nobody would lie on such facts.Who would dare to write in wikipedia that gravitation force do not exist.

Wikipedia is written as a collective encycopedia and some article are not so serious.

Those which say that UK is second (in projection force) is only based on the feeling of the writter who is Anglosaxon biased and quite ignorant of other nations.And it is obvioulsy not serious.Moreover the second in science military spending is France and not UK.Data show clearly that France spend almost 20% more than UK on this matter in PPP.

I guess that reports and links from House of Commons are more serious.

UK has a projection capability slightly better than France on some items.And fall far behind on some.

Overall UK and France would be similar if UK had a decent carrier with aor superiority fighters and air force in numbers, a state of the art and independant C4ISR and a total indepedant deterrent which is not the case as it depend on USA for maintenance.Even some politicians in UK are concerned about dependance of UK on this subject vs US.

But when we speak as nations as powers, it is not only today military it is overall power you can use inpedently and ability to extend this military power and support other allied militaries .On these paramount importance ability UK is clearly behind France.

And the main reason is that UK can not provide alone full equipment to equip an army and is subjected to potential pressure of USA in equipement delivery and use starting by Trident missiles for exemple.

The kinf of information I provided on wikipedia was objective information: casualties of different nations are well known and those displayed in wikipedia are correct (moreover they provide links).Any other search on official sites of countries would provide the same information.

Nobody would lie on such facts.Who would dare to write in wikipedia that gravitation force do not exist.

Wikipedia is written as a collective encycopedia and some article are not so serious.

Those which say that UK is second (in projection force) is only based on the feeling of the writter who is Anglosaxon biased and quite ignorant of other nations.And it is obvioulsy not serious.Moreover the second in science military spending is France and not UK.Data show clearly that France spend almost 20% more than UK on this matter in PPP.

I guess that reports and links from House of Commons are more serious.

UK has a projection capability slightly better than France on some items.And fall far behind on some.

Overall UK and France would be similar if UK had a decent carrier with aor superiority fighters and air force in numbers, a state of the art and independant C4ISR and a total indepedant deterrent which is not the case as it depend on USA for maintenance.Even some politicians in UK are concerned about dependance of UK on this subject vs US.

But when we speak as nations as powers, it is not only today military it is overall power you can use inpedently and ability to extend this military power and support other allied militaries .On these paramount importance ability UK is clearly behind France.

And the main reason is that UK can not provide alone full equipment to equip an army and is subjected to potential pressure of USA in equipement delivery and use starting by Trident missiles for exemple.