Cause, you know....it's still fun to pick on the French...

[Qdrop]

A long time ago, Britain and France were at war. During one battle, the
French captured an English colonel. Taking him to their headquarters, the
French general began to question him.

Finally, as an afterthought, the French general asked, "Why do you
English officers all wear red coats? Don't you know the red material
makes you easier targets for us to shoot at?"

In his bland English way, the officer informed the general that the
reason English officers wear red coats is so that if they are shot, the
blood will not show and the men they are leading will not panic.

That is why, from that day to this, all French Army officers wear brown pants.

[ToucanSpam]

hahahahaha that's an old one but a good one.


You know the French actually have quite the decent military record, they've won more than you'd think. But let's not talk about the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, that one didn't happen....

[ms.peachy]

When I first found out I was 'in the family way', mr.peachy and I were out with a couple of (English) friends and I said "So I'm not supposed to drink wine or eat brie or camembert, right? But French women, they've been having babies for, you know, ever now, and they're all..."

Our mates exchanged looks and the woman put her hand over mine and said "They're all French, dear."

[sam i am]

hahahahaha that's an old one but a good one.


You know the French actually have quite the decent military record, they've won more than you'd think. But let's not talk about the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, that one didn't happen....


Really?

What decent military record? Are you thinking of the Napoleonic Wars, when they were trounced by the British, Russians, and the Spanish irregulars (where we get the term "guerilla" from?)?

Oh, you must be thinking about WWI, when the French lost the greater part of a generation of men and had to have their bacon pulled from the fire by the US in 1917 as the Germans were about to march into Paris? This, after the British and French TOGETHER had fought for three years on the Western front against LESS THAN HALF the German Army (the other half were in Russia and the Balkans)?

Maybe you're referring to the French and Indian Wars in North America prior to the Revolution? When the French lost again and again to the British and American colonialists?

Oh, perhaps you're referring to the 100 years war? When the British conquered and controlled two-thirds of the French country?

Maybe you're going back to the times of Charles Martel, when the French (although they were still called "Gauls" I believe back then) defeated the Muslims at the Battle of Poitiers in 732?

Ok. I'll give them one victory.

And, BTW, the Franco-Prussian War DOES count ;) - Napoleon III was a farce. :)

[DroppinScience]

Really?

What decent military record? Are you thinking of the Napoleonic Wars, when they were trounced by the British, Russians, and the Spanish irregulars (where we get the term "guerilla" from?)?

Oh, you must be thinking about WWI, when the French lost the greater part of a generation of men and had to have their bacon pulled from the fire by the US in 1917 as the Germans were about to march into Paris? This, after the British and French TOGETHER had fought for three years on the Western front against LESS THAN HALF the German Army (the other half were in Russia and the Balkans)?

Maybe you're referring to the French and Indian Wars in North America prior to the Revolution? When the French lost again and again to the British and American colonialists?

Oh, perhaps you're referring to the 100 years war? When the British conquered and controlled two-thirds of the French country?

Maybe you're going back to the times of Charles Martel, when the French (although they were still called "Gauls" I believe back then) defeated the Muslims at the Battle of Poitiers in 732?

Ok. I'll give them one victory.

And, BTW, the Franco-Prussian War DOES count ;) - Napoleon III was a farce. :)


Dude, the Norman Conquest. ;)

[SobaViolence]

because Grenada was a great american conquest worthy of being put into song and sung throughout the ages...

[sam i am]

Dude, the Norman Conquest. ;)


And ace thinks I'm not a history major from a major American University. Tosh! :rolleyes: :p ;)

[sam i am]

because Grenada was a great american conquest worthy of being put into song and sung throughout the ages...

Shhhhh....

we're not talking about the Americans now, we're talking about the French.

Start your own thread..... ;)

[ToucanSpam]

Really?

Yes!

What decent military record? Are you thinking of the Napoleonic Wars, when they were trounced by the British, Russians, and the Spanish irregulars (where we get the term "guerilla" from?)?

Napoleon trounced said armies at Auserlitz, quite possibly the granest military achievement of France. Of course you fail to mention it, likely because you know nothing of it. By the way, the Napoloeonic Wars was not the first instance of 'guerilla' tactics. It is however where the term was finally officially coined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla

Oh, you must be thinking about WWI, when the French lost the greater part of a generation of men and had to have their bacon pulled from the fire by the US in 1917 as the Germans were about to march into Paris? This, after the British and French TOGETHER had fought for three years on the Western front against LESS THAN HALF the German Army (the other half were in Russia and the Balkans)?

Battle of Verdun, 1915-1917, the largest and longest battle in WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun

oh, and here's something cool as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:German_dead_at_Verdun.jpg

"A final French offensive beginning on 11 December drove the Germans back to their starting positions."

If that's not a victory, then this conversation isn't worth having. Granted there were MASSIVE casulties on both sides, the Germans didn't advance. The end. Also, since you brought up the Western Front of the War, I may as well throw in the Battle of the Somme, which was for all purposes, a draw. Here's another link to back me up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme

Maybe you're referring to the French and Indian Wars in North America prior to the Revolution? When the French lost again and again to the British and American colonialists?

Again and again? Oh boy....

Plains of Abraham was indeed a loss for the French. Yep, but both Generals died on the battlefield, so it wasn't a trouncing.

Meanwhile, when the Americans came to Canada, they took Quebec City under Montgomery, but couldn't take Montreal on account of the nasty winter. Montgomery died on New Year's eve of a terrible cold, and when Spring came the British Navy entered the scene and the Americans took off as fast as they could in fear of the British coming to assist the French Candien who they had allied themselves with in 1774 with the Quebec Act. French Canadian victory over the Americans, they couldn't handle the winter.

Oh, perhaps you're referring to the 100 years war? When the British conquered and controlled two-thirds of the French country?

And magically gave it all back over time, imagine that!

Maybe you're going back to the times of Charles Martel, when the French (although they were still called "Gauls" I believe back then) defeated the Muslims at the Battle of Poitiers in 732?

Never heard of it, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Ok. I'll give them one victory.

How about several more?

And, BTW, the Franco-Prussian War DOES count ;) - Napoleon III was a farce. :)

Count it or not, Alcace-Lorraine was given back to the French by the end of WWII. Napoleon III was a tool.

[sam i am]

Napoleon III was a tool.

Truer words were rarely spoken. (y)

[ToucanSpam]

HEY

Don't skip over everything else, there's good things in there.

[sam i am]

Napoleon trounced said armies at Auserlitz, quite possibly the granest military achievement of France. Of course you fail to mention it, likely because you know nothing of it.

I'm actually quite aware of the Battle of Austerlitz. I'm a Napoleon fan. BUT, he did lose the greater war(s) due to overreaching and the inability of his troops to decisively defeat and conquer without the ability of his enemies to rise up and come after him again and again. Especially the Battles of Russia, Waterloo, and various battles in Germany proved Napoleon's character was not up to the demands of continental warfare.

By the way, the Napoloeonic Wars was not the first instance of 'guerilla' tactics. It is however where the term was finally officially coined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla

Agreed. That is why I stated it for the record. As for wikipedia, BTW, anytime I see those links, I am not apt to be impressed. As I have stated numerous times, wikipedia is subject to the whims of whomever was the last to post, thus not being a peer-reviewed nor scholarly site for the discussion of historical facts.

Battle of Verdun, 1915-1917, the largest and longest battle in WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun

OK. So, having the longest and largest battle of WWI makes it that the French are somehow great victors? I think not. The Germans and French were bled dry by that battle, but the French lost MUCH more in the matter of men and material, but, most importantly, in the ABILITY to fight from Verdun. There were riots in the French military, brutallly suppressed, both before and after Verdun, where French soldiers simply refused to fight anymore. Some warriors!

oh, and here's something cool as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:German_dead_at_Verdun.jpg

"A final French offensive beginning on 11 December drove the Germans back to their starting positions."

Ooooohhhh : they beat them back to their starting positions. Some victory. C'mon, you can't really say the French were big victors at Verdun, no matter how far you stretch it....

If that's not a victory, then this conversation isn't worth having. Granted there were MASSIVE casulties on both sides, the Germans didn't advance. The end. Also, since you brought up the Western Front of the War, I may as well throw in the Battle of the Somme, which was for all purposes, a draw. Here's another link to back me up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme

The BRITISH lost 600,000 dead at the Battle of the Somme. The French were not alone. You cannot seriously claim this as a victory....ALL of the objectives of the offensive by the Allies were NOT realized.

Again and again? Oh boy....

Plains of Abraham was indeed a loss for the French. Yep, but both Generals died on the battlefield, so it wasn't a trouncing.

Meanwhile, when the Americans came to Canada, they took Quebec City under Montgomery, but couldn't take Montreal on account of the nasty winter. Montgomery died on New Year's eve of a terrible cold, and when Spring came the British Navy entered the scene and the Americans took off as fast as they could in fear of the British coming to assist the French Candien who they had allied themselves with in 1774 with the Quebec Act. French Canadian victory over the Americans, they couldn't handle the winter.

Again....you cite French CANADIAN and BRITISH valor, but not French valor. You make my point.

Count it or not, Alcace-Lorraine was given back to the French by the end of WWII. Napoleon III was a tool.

Alsace-Lorraine was taken from the French by the Germans during the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. The French had to take it up the ass for 47 years there by the Germans, until the end of WWI (1918). The French demanded Alsace-Lorraine, as well as the Saar, as the price for German capitulation, which was imposed on Germany by the victorious ALLIES (read : Americans and British too - not to mention the Canadians, etc.). The French and British also occupied, then demilitarized the Rhineland, until 1936, when Hitler strode in and re-militarized it, again with nary a whimper from the French. It wasn't until the end of WWII, won again by the Americans and British (along with some pretty pissed-off Russians), that the French were GIVEN Alsace-Lorraine back - mostly to assuage the petulance of DeGaulle, frankly.

So, I ask again....WHAT great French victories?

BTW...here's a list of French DEFEATS through the years :

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html (This one is freaking funny if nothing else)

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/history.asp

Enjoy! Vive Le.....oh., whatever.... :p

[sam i am]

HEY

Don't skip over everything else, there's good things in there.


Don't worry...I won't. See above. Just took a bit to compile.... :cool:

[ToucanSpam]

I'm actually quite aware of the Battle of Austerlitz. I'm a Napoleon fan. BUT, he did lose the greater war(s) due to overreaching and the inability of his troops to decisively defeat and conquer without the ability of his enemies to rise up and come after him again and again. Especially the Battles of Russia, Waterloo, and various battles in Germany proved Napoleon's character was not up to the demands of continental warfare.

If you were aware of it, why didn't you chock it up as a victory for the French? It was a victory, and a right good walloping. Just because they didn't win the war doesn't mean you dismiss the battle victories within the war. If we do that, then the Germans won zero battles in WWI and WWII, and we all know that's not true.



[/QUOTE]Agreed. That is why I stated it for the record. As for wikipedia, BTW, anytime I see those links, I am not apt to be impressed. As I have stated numerous times, wikipedia is subject to the whims of whomever was the last to post, thus not being a peer-reviewed nor scholarly site for the discussion of historical facts.[/QUOTE]

Go grab a history book son, the answers are the same.



OK. So, having the longest and largest battle of WWI makes it that the French are somehow great victors? I think not. The Germans and French were bled dry by that battle, but the French lost MUCH more in the matter of men and material, but, most importantly, in the ABILITY to fight from Verdun. There were riots in the French military, brutallly suppressed, both before and after Verdun, where French soldiers simply refused to fight anymore. Some warriors!

Their mutinies don't take away from the fact that it's a French victory. They lost maybe 30,000 more men than the Germans, but you don't measure victory solely on casualties. The Germans lost their ground at Verdun. The end.



Ooooohhhh : they beat them back to their starting positions. Some victory. C'mon, you can't really say the French were big victors at Verdun, no matter how far you stretch it....

That's your opinion, not mine. We'll have to agree to disagree. You nor I are the ultimate judge on whether it was a victory or not.



The BRITISH lost 600,000 dead at the Battle of the Somme. The French were not alone. You cannot seriously claim this as a victory....ALL of the objectives of the offensive by the Allies were NOT realized.

I didn't call it a victory, I called it a draw. And actually, the Entente forces gained 5 miles. SO part of their goals were achieved. You can quit dealing extremes any time now. I know it's hard, but just give it a shot.



Again....you cite French CANADIAN and BRITISH valor, but not French valor. You make my point.

French Canadiens were French. Their ancestors were from France, Canada didn't exist as we know it, it was NEW FRANCE. France=France=France. I can understand why you couldn't understand that, it's a difficult equation. :p



Alsace-Lorraine was taken from the French by the Germans during the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. The French had to take it up the ass for 47 years there by the Germans, until the end of WWI (1918). The French demanded Alsace-Lorraine, as well as the Saar, as the price for German capitulation, which was imposed on Germany by the victorious ALLIES (read : Americans and British too - not to mention the Canadians, etc.). The French and British also occupied, then demilitarized the Rhineland, until 1936, when Hitler strode in and re-militarized it, again with nary a whimper from the French. It wasn't until the end of WWII, won again by the Americans and British (along with some pretty pissed-off Russians), that the French were GIVEN Alsace-Lorraine back - mostly to assuage the petulance of DeGaulle, frankly.

Sources?

So, I ask again....WHAT great French victories?{/QUOTE]

See my original post, and read it.

[QUOTE]BTW...here's a list of French DEFEATS through the years :

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html (This one is freaking funny if nothing else)

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/history.asp

Enjoy! Vive Le.....oh., whatever.... :p

When using albinoblacksheep.com as a source, I tend to not click on it. So I'll completely dismiss this as anything wothwhile.

Vive le France.

[ToucanSpam]

BY the way 600,000 Brits dead at the Somme battle is inflation of numbers.

Provide a source or tap out.

[Bob]

lol the french are bad at war

[sam i am]

BY the way 600,000 Brits dead at the Somme battle is inflation of numbers.

Provide a source or tap out.

You're correct. I was counting British and French total dead (actually 615,000). Sorry.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/battle_somme.shtml

60,000 British casualties on the FIRST DAY alone.

[ToucanSpam]

You're correct. I was counting British and French total dead (actually 615,000). Sorry.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/battle_somme.shtml

60,000 British casualties on the FIRST DAY alone.
I knew that^ part. I'm still saying a draw because of the 5 mile thing. Massive losses on both sides though.

[sam i am]

Go grab a history book son, the answers are the same.

Bullshit.

Their mutinies don't take away from the fact that it's a French victory. They lost maybe 30,000 more men than the Germans, but you don't measure victory solely on casualties. The Germans lost their ground at Verdun. The end.

Oh, please. It WAS NOT a French victory. As I said before, they were fighting HALF the German army and still got walloped more than they won. The whole of freaking WWI was fought on French (and Belgian) soil on the Western Front. Read All Quiet on the Western Front or see the movie. Read The Battle of Verdun. Read ANY history of WWI and you'll see that serious historians all conclude that the Allies won a Pyrrhic victory at best, and they WOULDN'T have won without American intervention at Chateau-Thierry in 1917.


That's your opinion, not mine. We'll have to agree to disagree. You nor I are the ultimate judge on whether it was a victory or not.

Actually, I AM qualified to make a judgment. I have a Bachelor's of Arts in History, with an emphasis on the History of warfare.

I didn't call it a victory, I called it a draw. And actually, the Entente forces gained 5 miles. SO part of their goals were achieved. You can quit dealing extremes any time now. I know it's hard, but just give it a shot.

So....what you are saying here is that you didn't CALL it a victory, but it was? Again, any capable historian will tell you the Battle of the Somme and the Battle of Verdun were both tactical and strategic losses for the Entente.

French Canadiens were French. Their ancestors were from France, Canada didn't exist as we know it, it was NEW FRANCE. France=France=France. I can understand why you couldn't understand that, it's a difficult equation. :p

You actually quoted the British contribution, which was FAR more of the deciding factor.

Sources?

Ok, here goes :

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Lorraine_History.asp
http://www.swisswuff.ch/alsace-pn.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0856568.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/999717.stm
http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm

Now....these are all just from online. I can also recommend many scholarly historical texts that back my assertions and positions if you'd like.....

When using albinoblacksheep.com as a source, I tend to not click on it. So I'll completely dismiss this as anything wothwhile.

Vive le France.

That's why I put the comment behind it. It was in fun, as this whole thread is supposed to be.

Your revisionist history of the French is a good attempt to resusitate their image as a marshal peoples, but it simply not backed by the weight and brunt of history. The French have, over and over, been defeated far more than they have been successful.

As in any war, there are always small victories, but they have nearly invariably lost the WARS. That was the point.

What did Caesar say when he went to Gaul : Veni Vidi Vici!

[ToucanSpam]

Bullshit.

Then don't and look like a nimrod. It's up to you.



Oh, please. It WAS NOT a French victory. As I said before, they were fighting HALF the German army and still got walloped more than they won. The whole of freaking WWI was fought on French (and Belgian) soil on the Western Front. Read All Quiet on the Western Front or see the movie. Read The Battle of Verdun. Read ANY history of WWI and you'll see that serious historians all conclude that the Allies won a Pyrrhic victory at best, and they WOULDN'T have won without American intervention at Chateau-Thierry in 1917.

I disagree, I think it's a victory. Just because you named off a couple of books doesn't mean they support your side. Movies are propaganda at best...I've read quite a bit on WWI history, not to mention I'm a History major doing a BA. We aren't talking about American intervention either, we're talking about Verdun.



Actually, I AM qualified to make a judgment. I have a Bachelor's of Arts in History, with an emphasis on the History of warfare.

I have nearly completed the same degree and emphasis, so I guess I am too.



So....what you are saying here is that you didn't CALL it a victory, but it was? Again, any capable historian will tell you the Battle of the Somme and the Battle of Verdun were both tactical and strategic losses for the Entente.

No, this is not necessarily true. And you're making wild statements without sourcing ANY historian of any credibility, you're just shooting blanks, and I'm not phased.


You actually quoted the British contribution, which was FAR more of the deciding factor.

Actually the harsh winter was a greater factor than the British. All the french had to do was sit in the American blunder of being ill-preparred for the winter, and watched them freeze to death, including their bumbling leader Montgomery.



Ok, here goes :

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Lorraine_History.asp
http://www.swisswuff.ch/alsace-pn.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0856568.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/999717.stm
http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm

Now....these are all just from online. I can also recommend many scholarly historical texts that back my assertions and positions if you'd like.....


I'll dig into these when I have some time.


That's why I put the comment behind it. It was in fun, as this whole thread is supposed to be.

Your revisionist history of the French is a good attempt to resusitate their image as a marshal peoples, but it simply not backed by the weight and brunt of history. The French have, over and over, been defeated far more than they have been successful.

History obviously shows the French have been beaten many many times over, more losses than wins. You really cannot refute it. They've become a bit of a joke in history classes, I know because I make those jokes all the time. Hell, I went out of my way to insult Clovis, King of Franks! My point is that there were plenty of instances where the French have been 'victorious', obviously some of these battle are open to interpretation. If you have a history background, like me, you'll conceed that not every historian agrees on who won what battle. We'll have to agree to disagree on some matters.

As in any war, there are always small victories, but they have nearly invariably lost the WARS. That was the point.

Kinda like how the States lost the War in 1812, Vietnam, and Iraq, right? They won a few small battles, but still lost the war.

What did Caesar say when he went to Gaul : Veni Vidi Vici!

Caesar was stabbed 33 times in the penis because of his arrogance. Don't ever forget it.

[Jasonik]

A cursory review of French military history reveals the following:

1 - Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2,000
years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

2 - Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: "French armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

3 - Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever
lose two wars when fighting Italians.

4 - Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

5 - Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant but still
manages to get invaded. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other
participants started ignoring her.

6 - War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as
chapeaux.

7 - The Dutch War - Tied. Dutch farmers and tulip growers are tougher
than they look.

8 - War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

9 - War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French
their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

10 - American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to
future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; " France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

11 - French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was
also French.

12 - The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First
Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for the Russian winter, Prussian grenadiers or a British footwear designer.

13 - The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. For the first, but certainly not the
last time, Germany plays the role of drunk frat boy to France 's ugly girl
home alone on a Saturday night.

14 - World War I - Invaded, humiliated and on the way to losing, France is
saved by the United States. Winds up a tie for les francaise. Thousands of
French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but
one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, the American fascination with
personal hygiene (a fascination totally foreign to French women) incites
widespread use of condoms by American soldiers, thus precluding any
improvement in the French bloodline.

15 - World War II - A decisive defeat even by French standards. Hitler and
the German Youth spend Christmas time sleeping soundly through the winter,
then arouse themselves to conquer France in six weeks. Hitler dances in
front of the Eiffel Tower, while the French command staff retreats to
Algeria to institute a crash language program to teach French privates how
to say "I surrender" in German and French generals to say "We surrender" in
German. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as
they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song and some small portion of the
German work ethic. De Gaulle of it all...

16 - First Vietnamese war (in Vietnamese circles, known as "the scrimmage", or "the exhibition game" where the varsity squad is kept on the sideline to see how the second string will play) - Lost. French soldiers, fresh off their four year occupation by the Germans, catch a terminal case of Dien Bien Flu.

17 - Algerian rebellion - Lost. First time an Arab army has beaten a
Western army since the Crusades, and produces the first rule of modern
Islamic warfare: "We can always beat the French." A nice phrase, but it
lacks something in originality, since it is also the first rule of warfare
for the Italians, Russians, Prussians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish,
Vietnamese, Native Americans and capitalists.

18 - War on Terrorism - Lost. Incensed at not being included in the
original "Axis of Evil," France refuses to participate. When it becomes
clear that this is a "no-kidding war," Jacques Chirac looks at his cards and
immediately surrenders to that old warhorse, Gerhard Schroeder. For good measure, he also surrenders to five million illegal immigrants from Algeria.

*edit*
Forgot the French intervention in Mexico 1862-1867 (why the Mexicans celebrate Cinco de Mayo - outnumbered and under equipped Mexicans beat the pants off the French).


(Not mine, so don't get all up in my face, this is a thread about making fun of the French... so.....)

[Ali]

Sam, please use your Bachelors degree to answer the following questions: Who was William the Conqueror and what happened in Hastings in 1066? Which country occupied the whole of Continental Europe, from Moscow to Madrid, at one time. Which European country is still the largest? Who was Charles Martel and which army beat a vastly superior Muslim force in 732, driving them out of Europe? Who was Joan of Arc and who did she defeat in Orleans in 1429? How many colonies and overseas territories does France still have? How many other European countries still have their colonies? Who was General Edward Braddock and who kicked his ass in 1755? Who helped you decisively beat the British at Yorktown and gain your independance? Who gave you the Statue of Liberty? How many French soldiers defeated 90,000 Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz? How many French soldiers were lost to the 29,000 lost by the enemy? Who killed 27,000 Prussian soldiers in Jena in 1806? How many million French soldiers died for absolutely no reason in WW1? For how many years did the French fight the Germans in WW1? Who surrendered to whom in the end? When did the US stop selling steel to the Nazis, to make into weapons, and when did the US actually decide to come and help fight the Germans? Why was it that the US joined the war? Was it to stop the Germans from attacking the French? How many countries had the Germans invaded and occupied before the US joined the war? How was France supposed to fight the Germans when they had an inferior army, an enormous border to protect AND NOBODY TO HELP THEM? What defence, other than the Maginot Line did the French have against the Germans? What would have happened to France if they had not surrendered once this defence was breached? Was the surrender of France to the Wermacht the result of a tactical blunder or cowardice? What happened at Dunkirk? What would have happened to the French if they had tried to fight the same force which gave the Allies such a hiding at Dunkirk? How many Allied airmen did the French People help protect and hide, when discovery by the Germans would have meant certain death? Is this a sign of cowardice? Is waiting and watching the Germans invade European countries a sign of cowardice? Who helped fight in Kosovo, Desert Shield, Afghanistan and is still fighting in Ivory Coast?

I'm looking forward to your replies.

[racer5.0stang]

Sam, please use your Bachelors degree to answer the following questions: Who was William the Conqueror and what happened in Hastings in 1066? Which country occupied the whole of Continental Europe, from Moscow to Madrid, at one time. Which European country is still the largest? Who was Charles Martel and which army beat a vastly superior Muslim force in 732, driving them out of Europe? Who was Joan of Arc and who did she defeat in Orleans in 1429? How many colonies and overseas territories does France still have? How many other European countries still have their colonies? Who was General Edward Braddock and who kicked his ass in 1755? Who helped you decisively beat the British at Yorktown and gain your independance? Who gave you the Statue of Liberty? How many French soldiers defeated 90,000 Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz? How many French soldiers were lost to the 29,000 lost by the enemy? Who killed 27,000 Prussian soldiers in Jena in 1806? How many million French soldiers died for absolutely no reason in WW1? For how many years did the French fight the Germans in WW1? Who surrendered to whom in the end? When did the US stop selling steel to the Nazis, to make into weapons, and when did the US actually decide to come and help fight the Germans? Why was it that the US joined the war? Was it to stop the Germans from attacking the French? How many countries had the Germans invaded and occupied before the US joined the war? How was France supposed to fight the Germans when they had an inferior army, an enormous border to protect AND NOBODY TO HELP THEM? What defence, other than the Maginot Line did the French have against the Germans? What would have happened to France if they had not surrendered once this defence was breached? Was the surrender of France to the Wermacht the result of a tactical blunder or cowardice? What happened at Dunkirk? What would have happened to the French if they had tried to fight the same force which gave the Allies such a hiding at Dunkirk? How many Allied airmen did the French People help protect and hide, when discovery by the Germans would have meant certain death? Is this a sign of cowardice? Is waiting and watching the Germans invade European countries a sign of cowardice? Who helped fight in Kosovo, Desert Shield, Afghanistan and is still fighting in Ivory Coast?

I'm looking forward to your replies.

You could have at least separated the questions for ease of reading.


It is unfortunate that wars are fought but I am not sure how to classify one particular group as a victor when both sides lose so much.

[sam i am]

Sam, please use your Bachelors degree to answer the following questions: Who was William the Conqueror and what happened in Hastings in 1066? Which country occupied the whole of Continental Europe, from Moscow to Madrid, at one time. Which European country is still the largest? Who was Charles Martel and which army beat a vastly superior Muslim force in 732, driving them out of Europe? Who was Joan of Arc and who did she defeat in Orleans in 1429? How many colonies and overseas territories does France still have? How many other European countries still have their colonies? Who was General Edward Braddock and who kicked his ass in 1755? Who helped you decisively beat the British at Yorktown and gain your independance? Who gave you the Statue of Liberty? How many French soldiers defeated 90,000 Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz? How many French soldiers were lost to the 29,000 lost by the enemy? Who killed 27,000 Prussian soldiers in Jena in 1806? How many million French soldiers died for absolutely no reason in WW1? For how many years did the French fight the Germans in WW1? Who surrendered to whom in the end? When did the US stop selling steel to the Nazis, to make into weapons, and when did the US actually decide to come and help fight the Germans? Why was it that the US joined the war? Was it to stop the Germans from attacking the French? How many countries had the Germans invaded and occupied before the US joined the war? How was France supposed to fight the Germans when they had an inferior army, an enormous border to protect AND NOBODY TO HELP THEM? What defence, other than the Maginot Line did the French have against the Germans? What would have happened to France if they had not surrendered once this defence was breached? Was the surrender of France to the Wermacht the result of a tactical blunder or cowardice? What happened at Dunkirk? What would have happened to the French if they had tried to fight the same force which gave the Allies such a hiding at Dunkirk? How many Allied airmen did the French People help protect and hide, when discovery by the Germans would have meant certain death? Is this a sign of cowardice? Is waiting and watching the Germans invade European countries a sign of cowardice? Who helped fight in Kosovo, Desert Shield, Afghanistan and is still fighting in Ivory Coast?

I'm looking forward to your replies.

OK. I'm on it later, I promise....

[Jasonik]

How was France supposed to fight the Germans when they had an inferior army, an enormous border to protect AND NOBODY TO HELP THEM? :rolleyes:

racer5.0stang, your comment reminds me of this:
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." :p

[racer5.0stang]

racer5.0stang, your comment reminds me of this:
:p

Kinda funny coming from the President of France in this particular thread. :D

[sam i am]

Sam, please use your Bachelors degree to answer the following questions:
K. ;) :cool: (lb)
Who was William the Conqueror and what happened in Hastings in 1066?

William the Conqueror was "William, the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy" (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon22.html). "Prepared for battle in August 1066, ill winds throughout August and most of September prohibited him crossing the English Channel. This turned out to be advantageous for William, however, as Harold Godwinson awaited William's pending arrival on England's south shores, Harold Hardrada, the King of Norway, invaded England from the north. Harold Godwinson's forces marched north to defeat the Norse at Stamford Bridge on September 25, 1066. Two days after the battle, William landed unopposed at Pevensey and spent the next two weeks pillaging the area and strengthening his position on the beachhead. The victorious Harold, in an attempt to solidify his kingship, took the fight south to William and the Normans on October 14, 1066 at Hastings. After hours of holding firm against the Normans, the tired English forces finally succumbed to the onslaught. " (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon22.html). From this whole article I have concluded, conclusively, that William the Conqueror was a NORMAN (NOT French) - http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/NORMANS.HTM

Which country occupied the whole of Continental Europe, from Moscow to Madrid, at one time.

I don't know about a "country" occupying the "whole" of "Continental Europe, from Moscow to Madrid," since France never OCCUPIED that entire territory. The Confederation of the Rhine, Austria-Hungary, most of the Balkans (under Ottoman rule), parts of Italy, Scandinavia (albeit, not ALWAYS considered to be part of Continental Europe), all of the Ukraine, etc., et al, remained UNOCCUPIED by the French, not to mention large swaths of Spanish territory and, of course, Britain.

If the premise is true occupation, Hitler came FAR closer to achieving this than Napoleon, who also happened to be CORSICAN, not french, ever did.

Which European country is still the largest?

Are you talking population, geographical size, economic or military size? Different answers for each. Also, how does mean anything when talking about mocking the French and discussing their lack of military victories over the years?

Who was Charles Martel and which army beat a vastly superior Muslim force in 732, driving them out of Europe?

I quoted this achievment above as their SINGULAR great war victory in history. Read the posts before trying to make a point, please.

Who was Joan of Arc and who did she defeat in Orleans in 1429?

http://members.aol.com/hywwebsite/private/joanofarc_short_timeline.html. Although given command of French troops, and pressing for a "French" king to be on the throne in Paris, she was captured and defeated by the Burgundians (ostensibly French now) and turned over to the English, where she was tried and killed. It took HOW many more years for the "French" to kick the English off the Continent? Hmmm...?

How many colonies and overseas territories does France still have?

I'm sure quite a few. One of the few ways the French can "win" is to kick around indigenous native peoples without the ability to defend themselves. :p

How many other European countries still have their colonies?

Let's see......almost all of them : Spain in Africa (Ceuta & Melitta), England (throughout the Pacific, South America - Falkland Islands, Gibraltar), Denmark (Greenland), France (Pacific and South America), Portugal (Azores), the Netherlands (Caribbean islands), Russia (Arctic Islands and Kurile Islands), etc. (lots of info. here : http://worldatlas.com/geoquiz/thelist.htm).

Who was General Edward Braddock and who kicked his ass in 1755?

http://www.publicbookshelf.org/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_I/generalbr_ei.html.

BUT, what happened AFTER this? This "great victory" proved hollow when the French had to divest themselves of ALL of their North American holdings due to their decisive defeats at the hands of the English, American coloists, and SPANISH during the next 50 years.

Who helped you decisively beat the British at Yorktown and gain your independance?

"helped" is the key word there, as it has been since then. The French don't win alone - they ALWAYS need help.

Who gave you the Statue of Liberty?

The French. So? It's cool. We like it. But it doesn't have any bearing on our discussion here.

How many French soldiers defeated 90,000 Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz?

Again, win some battles but LOSE THE WAR. Plus, again, the French could not come up with one of their own to lead them - they had to rely on a diminutive Corsican.

How many French soldiers were lost to the 29,000 lost by the enemy?

Pyrrhic victory, at best.

Who killed 27,000 Prussian soldiers in Jena in 1806?

So they killed some people. My larger point still stands : win some victories but LOSE THE WAR. Sounds like a catchphrase for the French.

How many million French soldiers died for absolutely no reason in WW1?

A lot. Damn stupid, too. IF the French had been smart enough to stage a Miane-like explosion at the outset and blamed it on the Germans, the US would have gotten involved a lot sooner to save the French again.

For how many years did the French fight the Germans in WW1?

Uh....August 1914 to 1918 - with the British and the Canadians and the Belgians and the Italians and the Russians and the Japanese all on their side - then the US in 1917, when all the DECISIVE battles were fought that lead to the Germans' defeat.

Who surrendered to whom in the end?

The Central Powers signed the Treaty of Versailles, at a railcar in Compiegne, in 1919. Hitler later used the same car to have the French surrender to him in 1940. Ironic, eh?

Anyhow, the French and British WOULD have been defeated in 1918 at the Marne without US intervention. The Germans had finished wiping the floor with the Russians (who surrendered with the disastrous Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917) and were driving towards Paris when the US troops showed up and stopped the Germans at the Batlle of Chateau-Thierry (http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/belleau.htm).

When did the US stop selling steel to the Nazis, to make into weapons, and when did the US actually decide to come and help fight the Germans?

When the Germans declared war on the US - December 11, 1941 (http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html). Before that, the US was a non-belligerent in the war with Germany, due to the fact that we had a NON-INTERVENTIONIST policy at the time.

Why was it that the US joined the war?

See above. Pretty clear-cut. Bet you didn't know the Germans and the Italians declared war on the US in Decemebr of 1941, did ya?

Was it to stop the Germans from attacking the French?

Of course not. We had no mutual aid treaties or pacts with the French. The Germans were not attacking us. The French declared war on the Germans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/3/newsid_3493000/3493279.stm). End of story. Except for their great offensive, with the British, to help save the beleagured Poles from invasion and annhiliation - oh, wait....they SAT behind the Maginot Line and thought they'd be SAFE? The ALLOWED the Germans to overrun Poland (with the Soviet Union)? Hmmmm....great marshal spirit there.....NOT!
'
How many countries had the Germans invaded and occupied before the US joined the war?

As many as they wanted until the Germans declared war on the US. To answer your question, though, here's the list : Poland, Denmark, Norway (although they were invited in by Quisling), The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Greece (to aid their Italian allies), the Soviet Union (although they never technically OCCUPIED the whole of the Soviet Union and were greeted as liberators in much of the Western Soviet Union, especially Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Ukraine).

So, your answer is : 10.

How was France supposed to fight the Germans when they had an inferior army, an enormous border to protect AND NOBODY TO HELP THEM?

I guess the English and the Canadians don't count now? Hmmm...also, see above. The Germans had MINIMAL defenses along the Rhine to dfend Western Germany from a concerted effort by the French to move into the Rhineland or the Saar region, depriving the Germans of huge amounts of natural resources to prosecute the war. Instead, fearfully and cowardly, they ALLOWED the Germans to destroy Poland, where the vast majority of German effort was deployed, in order to SAVE THEIR OWN YELLOW NECKS.

The French units VASTLY outnumbered the German units facing them along the Maginot (not inferior), and DID NOT have to defend when the Germans were occupied in Poland. Their border only fronted Germany directly along the Maginot Line, along with a small portion along the Ardennes (the rest running along the border with Luxembourg and Belgium). Easily, French forces could have moved to deprive Germany of the ability to attack decisively in 1940 IF they had moved to the attack when they had the strategic and tactical initiative along a underdefended border.

What defence, other than the Maginot Line did the French have against the Germans?

The aforementioned Ardennes forest (which they foolishly considered "imprgenable to armor") and any kind of offensive. The French had armor, infantry, and planes available to mount a small offensive into the Rhineland and the Saar (Ruhr) that would have crippled the German ability to prosecute offensive actions. Hitler MIGHT have been done before he rightly got started, if the French had any balls at all....

What would have happened to France if they had not surrendered once this defence was breached?

Are you talking about the Maginot Line? Also, how much worse could it have been than what ACTUALLY occurred : i.e., abject humiliation at the hands of the Germans and Italians, ocupation, the rape of France's natural and artistic resources, the Gestapo, French Jews deported to Concentration camps, etc., et al. Wouldn't a brave fight have at least given Hitler hesitation to impose such harsh conditions on France that it became little more than a milking cow for German conquest of much of the rest of Europe?

Was the surrender of France to the Wermacht the result of a tactical blunder or cowardice?

Both. Plus huge strategic errors, as well. As I said above, the French WERE AFRAID of, especially, the German Luftwaffe and, thus, made a huge STRATEGIC error NOT to move into Germany when the opportunity was nigh. Also, the tactical error of incomplete and contrary cooperation with their English allies made defense nearly impossible. Finally, the French lack of a strategic reserve, after the Wehrmact's drive to the sea at Abbeville, doomed the French and English units trapped in Belgium and northeast France, leading to the fiasco at Dunkirk. After the end of that pocket, the French couldn't even mount a defense of Paris - which capture of by the Germans led to the end of the war.

What happened at Dunkirk?

See above. A tactical and strategic RETREAT and EVICTION are NOT victories.

What would have happened to the French if they had tried to fight the same force which gave the Allies such a hiding at Dunkirk?

Again, how could it have been worse? Laval and Petain even COLLABORATED with the Nazis in Vichy France and fought the British! They rounded up Jews for the Nazis and became a subject nation. Yeah, they should have done waht they did....right.

How many Allied airmen did the French People help protect and hide, when discovery by the Germans would have meant certain death?

Is this another French victory? Weighed against the rampant anti-Semitism and the collaborationism that was evidenced by the French, the Resistance was a pitifully small element in the overall war picture.

Is this a sign of cowardice?

Not a sign of cowardice, but certainly not anyu great victory. Tito and the Russian partisans did much more, and much more successfully, than the French ever did. Even the Poles had a better resistance movement, and probably stopped the Nazis, to boot, from finishing development of an Atomic bomb. Heck, the French Resistance wasn't even as successful as the Spanish guerillas were against the French under Napoleon!

Is waiting and watching the Germans invade European countries a sign of cowardice?

No. The French were "man" enough to declare war, but not man enough to DO anything about it. And, how ironic that you are so opposed to the US strategy in Iraq, under similar conditions, when you tout those now to ATTEMPT to make your point about the French. Hypocrite.

Who helped fight in Kosovo, Desert Shield, Afghanistan and is still fighting in Ivory Coast?

Uh....I don't know....the French? Independently or only under the auspices of the UN or NATO? Hmmm...? Guess they're not so INDEPENDENTLY capable, are they?

Oh, BTW, who got theiur asses kicked in Algeria? Dien Bien Phu? Etc., et al...?

Hmmmm.....? :confused:

I'm looking forward to your replies.

There they are. Have at it.....

[Schmeltz]

Wow. If that's the kind of history you get at American universities, thank Christ I don't live there.

[sam i am]

Wow. If that's the kind of history you get at American universities, thank Christ I don't live there.

Dude, it's all online or available in history texts. Do some studying and then counterpoint me, if you'd like.

Otherwise, be quiet, cuz you don't have anything to offer.

[Schmeltz]

Strange, the history texts I own and the studying I've done haven't yielded anything like that superficial, over-generalized, stereotypical garbage. I wonder what's up with that.

[yeahwho]

Strange, the history texts I own and the studying I've done haven't yielded anything like that superficial, over-generalized, stereotypical garbage. I wonder what's up with that.

It's in the big yellow book. French Hating for Dummies.

[franscar]

Andl there was me thinking that Normandy was a duchy under the rule of the King of France. Crap, now I feel stupid.

[Ali]

Andl there was me thinking that Normandy was a duchy under the rule of the King of France. Crap, now I feel stupid.Me too.

Which university did you get your BA from, sam? Is it the same one that Lawrence Di Rita went to? You evade questions by answering questions with questions and your answers, when you give them, are contrived to make your point (eg Braddock). You harp on about France having only one military victory and dismiss everything else as battles. What is it when you win a battle, if not a Military victory? :confused:

The point I was making, sam is that the French are not the cowards you and other redneck Bush supporters try to portray them to be. The French have nothing to be grateful to the Americans for, while the US have a lot of reasons to thank the French. You know damn well that without their help, you might not have gotten rid of the British, or it would have taken far longer than it did. America sat for years and watched the Germans killing people and sold them whatever they wanted until you decided to come and 'save' us. You did the same in WW1. Why the fuck should the French be grateful to you at all? You claim to have 'won' WW2. Bull fucking shit you did. The Allies won it, you came in at the end and mopped up. Also, Hitler fucked it up against the Russians, trying to fight on two fronts and in Winter. If anybody 'won' WW2 it was the fucking Russians and boy did they give you a kicking during the Cold War. You say that the French never won anything without help...
"helped" is the key word there, as it has been since then. The French don't win alone - they ALWAYS need help. Uh....I don't know....the French? Independently or only under the auspices of the UN or NATO? Hmmm...? Guess they're not so INDEPENDENTLY capable, are they?Who "helped" Martel and Napoleon? More to the point, how many wars, battles, skirmishes, etc - MILITARY VICTORIES - has the United Fucking States INDEPENDENTLY had without any help? Far fewer than France, buddy.

I assume you base your hatred for the French on their refusal to join your Texas Rodeo Clown and his puppy dog on their suicide mission in Iraq? Read about Algeria and the kicking the French got at the hands of people who are not afraid to die and then tell me why the French wanted to find a more peaceful way to deal with these people.

Shit, there I was expecting answers to my questions and all I got was more twisted Republican rhetoric. I notice, too that you had to google the answers. I thought you had a degree. :rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

jeesh, guys....

all i was did was tell a goofy little French joke....

i wasn't looking to spawn all of this...



and for the record: the French Foreign Legion kicks ASS!!

[ms.peachy]

i wasn't looking to spawn all of this...

Just your natural talent for stirring up a ruckus in action, bro.

[ToucanSpam]

The French really have had military victories. The proof is here in this thread, it's all over the place, there's just a couple of Americans here who seem to think the French never have been victorious in any battle they've ever participated.

If you are going to say that winning small battles doesn't count towards winning wars, than the Americans have won or assisted in winning three wars collectively: American Revolution, WWI and WWII. That's it.

I sleep well at night knowing the French have a far greater respect from other nations than the Americans.


Plus isn't the international second language French or something? Well, that's pretty cool.

[sam i am]

Strange, the history texts I own and the studying I've done haven't yielded anything like that superficial, over-generalized, stereotypical garbage. I wonder what's up with that.


Do you want to NAME some ACTUAL texts or are you just blowing smoke?

You name your sources and I'll name mine and we'll let anyone who wants to read them make their own independent decisions. Agreed?

Plus, where, FACTUALLY, was I wrong in what I stated in my detailed reply to ali? Point out what you think are inconsistencies or inaccuracies instead of simply offering a blanket statement that offers NOTHING of substance to the discussion.

[sam i am]

It's in the big yellow book. French Hating for Dummies.

I don't "hate" the French. We're just having some fun at their expense in this thread. You can certainly find plenty to make fun of with Americans or Poles or Germans or any other nation you choose to start a thread about.

I guess you missed the title of the thread.... :confused: :cool:

[sam i am]

Andl there was me thinking that Normandy was a duchy under the rule of the King of France. Crap, now I feel stupid.

You shouldn't feel stupid. You should be educated as to the differences :

" Normandy was in name a duchy of France, but the Norman dukes ruled the area as if it were an independent kingdom with little interference from the French king. By the eleventh century, the duchy of Normandy had become one of the most powerful regions in western Europe. There were, however, even more promising times ahead—in 1066, the Norman duke, William the Bastard, conquered the English forces of Harold Godwinson and became king of England. Norman culture and political structure would cross the channel and dramatically change English culture and history." (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/NORMANS.HTM).

Now you should feel less stupid, unless you have some dogmatic attachment to inaccuracy in your array of knowledge on this subject...

[franscar]

You shouldn't feel stupid. You should be educated as to the differences :

" Normandy was in name a duchy of France, but the Norman dukes ruled the area as if it were an independent kingdom with little interference from the French king. By the eleventh century, the duchy of Normandy had become one of the most powerful regions in western Europe. There were, however, even more promising times ahead—in 1066, the Norman duke, William the Bastard, conquered the English forces of Harold Godwinson and became king of England. Norman culture and political structure would cross the channel and dramatically change English culture and history." (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/NORMANS.HTM).

Now you should feel less stupid, unless you have some dogmatic attachment to inaccuracy in your array of knowledge on this subject...

As I suspected, you were going to try and claim that semi-independence meant that anyone from Normandy wasn't French. Nice try, but hair splitting is a pointless waste of time. Normandy is in France. William the Conqueror was born in France. The majority of his army was from France. Argue it from every perceived angle you want, the word France is going to keep on coming up, unless you wilfully wish to ignore it, which you clearly do.

And the last two paragraphs of that link are so incredibly inaccurate I could probably spend all night pointing out flaws in it, but with your background in military history I'm sure you know all about the "ease" with which the Battle of Hastings was won.

[sam i am]

Ok, ali.

It seems we're dangerously close to name calling and not respecting each other again, so I'll ask now that you refrain from such terms as "redneck," etc.

I grew up in Los Angeles and live in Las Vegas. I'm as far removed from a redneck as one can be, thank you very much.

Which university did you get your BA from, sam?

The University of California at Los Angeles 1987-1991. BA, History 3.6 GPA.

Is it the same one that Lawrence Di Rita went to?

Who? Never heard of him.

You evade questions by answering questions with questions and your answers, when you give them, are contrived to make your point (eg Braddock). You harp on about France having only one military victory and dismiss everything else as battles. What is it when you win a battle, if not a Military victory? :confused:

Where did I evade questions by answering questions with questions? I ANSWERED every single one of your questions, and, in return, ASKED a few queries of my own. I'm sorry, are we NOT having a discussion, but rather a "la,la,la....I'm not going to listen to what you say, only what I want to hear" kinda thread here or are you truly afraid of actual historical discussion point by point because you know and/or understand far less than you think you do?

Braddock might have lost a battle, again, as my original point stated, but the WAR and ALL OF FRANCE'S NORTH AMERICAN TERRITORIES were LOST. Period. No dispute.

The point I was making, sam is that the French are not the cowards you and other redneck Bush supporters try to portray them to be.

They were cowards, pure and simple in 1939/1940 during WWII. They sat on their asses behind their cushy Maginot Line and thought they were safe....that they had a great defensive battle plan to stop the Germans and have a reenactment of WWI, where they could bleed the Germans and wait for the rescue of the Americans, again.

Well, the Germans, in the meantime, beat the Poles to smithereens (with the help of the Soviets, treacherously), and ONLY THEN turned against the West. Heck, newspapers across the world called it a Sitzkreig (a "phony war") because NO SHOTS were being fired. The French COULD have gone into western Germany moderately in September, October, November, or December of 1939. They could have gone in January 1940, or even February, before German trains could transport the vast bulk of German armor, artillery, infantry, and planes to the French front.

Shoot, the French didin't even put strong defenses in the Ardennes, figuring the Germans, who had just demonstrated in Poland Blitzkreig ("lightning war"), couldn't POSSIBLY break through there. So, the French hunkered in their bunkers in the Maginot Line, bickered with the English over tactics and strategy, lost any chance at initiative early on in the war, and GOT THEIR ASSES WHUPPED BAD. What, out of all of that, can you refute? NOTHING.

The French have nothing to be grateful to the Americans for, while the US have a lot of reasons to thank the French. You know damn well that without their help, you might not have gotten rid of the British, or it would have taken far longer than it did. America sat for years and watched the Germans killing people and sold them whatever they wanted until you decided to come and 'save' us. You did the same in WW1. Why the fuck should the French be grateful to you at all? You claim to have 'won' WW2. Bull fucking shit you did. The Allies won it, you came in at the end and mopped up. Also, Hitler fucked it up against the Russians, trying to fight on two fronts and in Winter. If anybody 'won' WW2 it was the fucking Russians and boy did they give you a kicking during the Cold War. You say that the French never won anything without help...

Nothing to be grateful to the Americans for, eh? Hmmmm...how about liberating their conquered asses from the Nazis instead of allowing Hitler to keep milking France for all it's worth? How about saving the French from certain defeat at Belleau Wood and the MArne and Chateau-Thierry during WWI? You don't acknowledge nor refute ANY of my FACTUAL points, instead dropping to the lowest common denominator of losing debate - calling names when you have NOTHING to say.

As I stated before, and I'll state again now for your educational edification, the GERMANS declared war on the US. Not the other way around. The US WAS NOT at war with Germany or Italy before December 11, 1941. Heck, we had a trade embargo against the Japanese, but we weren't at war with THEM until December 8, 1941. Read and know your history before ignorantly spouting off, please. Or, at a minimum, acknowledge that you are COMPLETELY FACTUALLY INCORRECT on this point.

As for the contributions of the Soviet Union to the defeat of Germany : agreed, although we have NOT argued nor discussed this point previously. The Soviets did MUCH of the hard labor to defeat Nazi Germany. Whether it was worth the rapaciousness and subjuation of Eastern Europe as the price to pay is a totally different discussion.

Now, you have CONVENIENTLY forgotten that the US was ATTACKED by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The US had a two-front war of enormous geographical proportions to fight. The Japanese overran much of Southeast Asia and the Pacific in the space of 6 months, then we began to turn the tide at Midway. Now, you MIGHT try to argue that it took a while for the US to ramp up to go save the French from their servile subjugation to their Nazi overlords, but we don't HAPPEN to have a land connection to Europe last time I looked. Men and material had to be SHIPPED to England and North Africa and Italy to prosecute the war. Notice the Atlantic is a bit more difficult to get across than the PAcific? Probably not....

Oh, and BTW, WHO won the Cold War? Oh yes, those "Russians" you mentioned (completely ignoring the fact that you probably can't signify nor identify the difference between "Russia" and the "Soviet Union", but I digress)?

NOT.

Who "helped" Martel and Napoleon? More to the point, how many wars, battles, skirmishes, etc - MILITARY VICTORIES - has the United Fucking States INDEPENDENTLY had without any help? Far fewer than France, buddy.

Let's see....Martel was the ONLY one that I truly acknowledged as victorious. WIthout his contribution to stopping the invading Mohammedeans (you couldn't really call them Arabs alone back then, as they were united with North african tribes and other peoples that were not Arabs), Europe MAY very well have had a different history as a satrapy of the Muslim world. Wouldn't you rather be living under THAT?

As for Napoleon, who were his Allies? You tell me, since you seem to think it was solely French soldiers who won all his battles, although again losing the war. And, oh yes, you DIDN'T, as I suspected you wouldn't, even acknowledge that Napoleon was NOT FRENCH - he was Corsican, as his detractors, both then and now, never fail to point out. Embarrassed are you that a little Corsican is ostensibly your greatest French general of all time? Hmmmm?

As to your last point - are we now comparing numbers like we're measuring penises? Please. The US has been, and continues to be, the acknowledged leader in military prowess worldwide. Despite the abstract loss to the Communists in North Vietnam, where we failed to keep supporting a Civil War that we were NOT losing militarily, but rather psychologically, the US has a long and distinguished record of military aptitude that is acknowledged worldwide. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli...." STUDY your history rather than blathering your ignorance here, please. If you'd like to be EDUCATED on the subjects we've discussed, I can reccomend a long and varied reading list from scholarly sources, if you'd like.....

I assume you base your hatred for the French on their refusal to join your Texas Rodeo Clown and his puppy dog on their suicide mission in Iraq? Read about Algeria and the kicking the French got at the hands of people who are not afraid to die and then tell me why the French wanted to find a more peaceful way to deal with these people.

I don't hate the French. I tease them. That's what this thread is all about. Lighten up, man.

Trust me, I know about Algeria - THAT'S your excuse for why the French are afraid to go help in Iraq? Really? Then why ARE they in Afghanistan, fighting "people who are not afraid to die ?" Sounds like a contradiction in your statement to me.

Shit, there I was expecting answers to my questions and all I got was more twisted Republican rhetoric. I notice, too that you had to google the answers. I thought you had a degree. :rolleyes:

You couldn't find most Republicans who would have the vast well of knowledge I have on this subject if you tried.

I didn't "HAVE" to google answers....I did it for your own edification and education.

I KNOW the answers, but MOST people don't. Unlike you, MOST PEOPLE don't enjoy wallowing in ignorance and baseless accusations - they'd PREFER to be educated and give cogent, studied repsonses to points made.

As I said before, and I'll say again, if you want TEXT sources and scholarly, peer-reviewed BOOKS to look at to be EDUCATED on all these points I've made, I'll gladly provide them.

Else, look in the mirror when you are stating such drivel as : "Shit, there I was expecting answers to my questions and all I got was more twisted Euro-centric French bullshit rhetoric.."

Have a nice, OPTIMISTIC day! :) :D

[sam i am]

As I suspected, you were going to try and claim that semi-independence meant that anyone from Normandy wasn't French. Nice try, but hair splitting is a pointless waste of time. Normandy is in France. William the Conqueror was born in France. The majority of his army was from France. Argue it from every perceived angle you want, the word France is going to keep on coming up, unless you wilfully wish to ignore it, which you clearly do.

And the last two paragraphs of that link are so incredibly inaccurate I could probably spend all night pointing out flaws in it, but with your background in military history I'm sure you know all about the "ease" with which the Battle of Hastings was won.

So....you read the link and now KNOW that the Normans were from Scandinavia, yet you persist in your point, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Oh, well.....I guess some people just aren't willling to learn.

And here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[franscar]

So....you read the link and now KNOW that the Normans were from Scandinavia, yet you persist in your point, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Oh, well.....I guess some people just aren't willling to learn.

And here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The Normans moved from Scandinavia well over 100 years before William I was born for the love of God. He was born in France, he lived the majority of his life in France. He died in France. He was buried in France.

By your reasoning I am German because the Anglo-Saxons migrated to Britain from there. And I am sure as fuck not German.

[sam i am]

The Normans moved from Scandinavia well over 100 years before William I was born for the love of God. He was born in France, he lived the majority of his life in France. He died in France. He was buried in France.

By your reasoning I am German because the Anglo-Saxons migrated to Britain from there. And I am sure as fuck not German.

"The feudal system allowed the Norman dukes to control a vast amount of territory independently of the Capetian kings. It gave the dukes large military resources guaranteed through a network of loyalties. From Normandy, the feudal system spread rapidly first to Italy and then France—with Duke William II, the Bastard, this new and powerful form of government would cross the channel to England.

As with the Scandinavian settlers of Iceland, the Normans did not stay put in Normandy. With a growing scarcity of land in the eleventh century, some Norman lords migrated to Italy where they carved out their own independent Norman duchies. Italy had remained a largely non-urbanized and backward country after it had been devestated by Justinian's attempt to retake the western empire at the beginning of the sixth century. The establishment of Norman duchies and the feudal system in Italy was the primary reason for the recovery of Italy in the later middle ages."

Just the facts, ma'am.

The Normans, like many groups of peoples at that time, conquered and ruled areas without FUNDAMENTALLY changing their identities, not unlike what happens to generations of immigrants to this day.

Where the demarcation line of full integration is drawn is certainly open to debate, but the example of the Normans is not. They took on the trappings of the French, but were an independent bloodline and monarchy, in most respects.

One would not call a Norman living in Italy "Italian" at that time either. They kept a separate identity and nationalism, of a sort, until the mid-1100's.

Sorry to make the point so blatantly obvious, but you have persisted in arguing it in the face of facts that do not back you up, despite your attempt to equate it with modern ideas of intermingling.

BTW, ARE you of German descent? Why not be proud of that? If you choose to be British or English or whatever, fine. But there is no loss of honor to recognize one's history, both personal and geoglobal.

[franscar]

"The feudal system allowed the Norman dukes to control a vast amount of territory independently of the Capetian kings. It gave the dukes large military resources guaranteed through a network of loyalties. From Normandy, the feudal system spread rapidly first to Italy and then France—with Duke William II, the Bastard, this new and powerful form of government would cross the channel to England.

I take great issue with William introducing it to England. All legal documentation from the Anglo-Saxon period displays at the very least a rudimentary form of feudal hierarchy.

Just the facts, ma'am.

This all comes from the same article in which someone happily passes off the Battle of Hastings, widely recognised as one of the longest battles in medieval history, as an "easy" victory? Who claims King Rollo forced peace terms from the King of France when vast swathes of evidence claim he was invited to settle in the area in exchange for deterring future Viking raids?

One would not call a Norman living in Italy "Italian" at that time either. They kept a separate identity and nationalism, of a sort, until the mid-1100's.

Italy didn't exist at the time. France clearly did. Completely different. William I accepted his position as the vassal of the King of France.

Sorry to make the point so blatantly obvious

Sorry to have to point out the glaring errors in it.

[sam i am]

I take great issue with William introducing it to England. All legal documentation from the Anglo-Saxon period displays at the very least a rudimentary form of feudal hierarchy.

Fine. But that's not the point of what we are discussing, now is it?

This all comes from the same article in which someone happily passes off the Battle of Hastings, widely recognised as one of the longest battles in medieval history, as an "easy" victory? Who claims King Rollo forced peace terms from the King of France when vast swathes of evidence claim he was invited to settle in the area in exchange for deterring future Viking raids?

"William used this insult as a pretext to invade England. However, Harold had also to deal with a Norwegian claim to the throne and a subsequent invasion. He successfully held back that invasion, but as soon as he was finished, William landed in England. William faced an Anglo-Saxon army that had just fought an invading Norwegian and had been marched south to meet him. This, combined with the incredibly superior military concentration of the Norman forces, allowed William to easily defeat the Anglo-Saxons and kill Harold. The Anglo-Saxon period in England effectively came to an end, but the importation of Norman culture and government would open up a radically new and dynamic tangent in English history."

Ok. Take out that one offending word - easily - and do you still have a point to argue?

"In 911, a group of Scandinavian raiders under the leadership of Rollo sailed up the Seine and forced the French king to cede French territory. The price the king asked was that Rollo become a subject of the king and swear loyalty. This he did, and the Norsemen settled a very small area in the north of France. Rollo, however, considered himself to be an independent ruler and aggressively set about increasing the territory under his control."

This is the quote you are referring to, I presume? If so, this point is certainly debatable. If the Normans were so independent at the time they landed in France, why did they make concessions to the French king at the time? Mutually benefical arrangement?

Anyhow....the point still remains, unrefuted by you, that the Normans were an independent peoples until the mid-1100's.

Italy didn't exist at the time. France clearly did. Completely different. William I accepted his position as the vassal of the King of France.

People who lived in the geographical area we know as modern day Italy called themselves Italians, or Romans, at that time - http://www.roangelo.net/valente/conquest.html. This link gives a cursory history of that area at the time. Interestingly, the "French" are referred to as "Franks." Interchangeable terms?

Finally....being a vassal does not imply nor validate any kind of significant integration into a French system of self-identity. The Normans clearly thought of themselves as a distinct people. Why else would that region be called NORMANdy, even to this day?

Sorry to have to point out the glaring errors in it.

What glaring errors are you referring to? ;)

[guerillaGardner]

Do we judge a country only by how good it is at war?

I've only been to France a couple of times but I liked it and I never saw anything untoward about the people, or anything that made me dislike them.

Lets all stop whining about each other.

[sam i am]

Do we judge a country only by how good it is at war?

I've only been to France a couple of times but I liked it and I never saw anything untoward about the people, or anything that made me dislike them.

Lets all stop whining about each other.

Dude, we're just having some fun here.... :p

[guerillaGardner]

Dude, we're just having some fun here.... :p

Sorry. Just ignore me. I'm in a grumpy mood tonight. :o

[sam i am]

Sorry. Just ignore me. I'm in a grumpy mood tonight. :o


No problem, man. It happens to us all.

I agree with your overall sentiment, BTW, that we should all "just get along," but it sounds awfully Rodney-Kingish, doesn't it ?

Peace, bro. :)

[franscar]

Fine. But that's not the point of what we are discussing, now is it?

It's merely pointing out the vastly amateurish statements made by the link you based your argument on. If I was to hand that in as an assignment, it'd get thrown back in my face as ill-thought out, factually inaccurate rubbish.

Ok. Take out that one offending word - easily - and do you still have a point to argue?

Take out that one word and it completely changes the slant of the paragraph. The way it currently appears makes it sound like the Norman army simply had to turn up and slaughter everything in their path. Highly inaccurate.

This is the quote you are referring to, I presume? If so, this point is certainly debatable. If the Normans were so independent at the time they landed in France, why did they make concessions to the French king at the time? Mutually benefical arrangement?

They chose territorial gain over continued pillage. Hardly what I'd call a concession.

Anyhow....the point still remains, unrefuted by you, that the Normans were an independent peoples until the mid-1100's.

They assimilated into the Christian religion for one. Hardly the actions of a fiercely independent group of pagans.

People who lived in the geographical area we know as modern day Italy called themselves Italians, or Romans, at that time - http://www.roangelo.net/valente/conquest.html. This link gives a cursory history of that area at the time. Interestingly, the "French" are referred to as "Franks." Interchangeable terms?

From your very own link:

"The Franks are a Germanic people living to the west of the Rhine River."

The differing use of the words Franks, French, Francia and France are more an argument about the changing nature of language above anything else. There's also nothing on there pertaining to any sort of coherent system of rule across the Italian peninsula, just the divvied up remnants of the Roman Empire. So I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with any of that.

Finally....being a vassal does not imply nor validate any kind of significant integration into a French system of self-identity.

What does? Evidence of trade links with the rest of France? the rest of Europe? Adoption of the same religious practices? Cultures and fashions? Interbreeding?

You'll have to set some pretty rigid parameters to either prove or disprove it either way. I've yet to see anything that I've read that makes me think that the Normans were anything but a culturally assimilated group, nothing that marks them out from other migratory group of the same period.

[QUOTE=sam i am]The Normans clearly thought of themselves as a distinct people. Why else would that region be called NORMANdy, even to this day?

For the same reason Brittany is known as Brittany, Burgundy as Burgundy, Lombardy as Lombardy. I don't see how the survival of the name implies that the Norman people kept themselves away from French culture and therefore negates the victory in 1066 from being deemed a French military victory.

[sam i am]

For the same reason Brittany is known as Brittany, Burgundy as Burgundy, Lombardy as Lombardy. I don't see how the survival of the name implies that the Norman people kept themselves away from French culture and therefore negates the victory in 1066 from being deemed a French military victory.

OK. Well.....I guess we'll agree to disagree. I have seen, not just through that one link, but from numerous textbooks and other links I could provide, that the Normans, AT THAT TIME, were a distinct group of peoples.

You argue they are not based on, from what I can gather, interbreeding (for which you offer no evidence, but I'll let it slide), adoption of religion (did that make Roman emperors who thought of themselves as Gods actually Gods? Did the Normans, by your reasoning, call themselves "French?" Any evidence?), and adoption of French culture, for which you, again, offer no evidence?

Am I correct? Any way you slice it....all history texts and books that I have seen call it the NORMAN conquest, not the French conquest, of England.

Show me any EVIDENCE to the contrary and we'll debate it, K? ;) :cool:

[yeahwho]

I don't "hate" the French. We're just having some fun at their expense in this thread. You can certainly find plenty to make fun of with Americans or Poles or Germans or any other nation you choose to start a thread about.

I guess you missed the title of the thread.... :confused: :cool:

I'm going to start a "party pooper" thread Tuesday @ 0715 hours. PST.

[sam i am]

I'm going to start a "party pooper" thread Tuesday @ 0715 hours. PST.


Is that thread going to be all about pooping at parties (aka "sharting")?

If so, I'm all over, man.... :p ;) (y)

:cool: (lb)

[yeahwho]

Is that thread going to be all about pooping at parties (aka "sharting")?

If so, I'm all over, man.... :p ;) (y)

:cool: (lb)

Alright, I was afraid of this, I'm starting a "Rain on the Parade" Thread Wednesday @ 0718 hours. PST.

[franscar]

Show me any EVIDENCE to the contrary and we'll debate it, K? ;) :cool:

What language did William I speak? If that isn't the adoption of French culture then I really fail to see what can convince you.

[Ali]

Am I correct? Any way you slice it....all history texts and books that I have seen call it the NORMAN conquest, not the French conquest, of England.And who surrendered to the Germans? The Normans or the French... oh, wait, THEY'RE THE SAME PEOPLE. :rolleyes: And how about the Belgians, Dutch, Danes and all the other Euro countries who surrendered to the Germans without a fight? Are they cowards, too? Not unless they oppose the US, apparently.

I know you think you're having fun, sam, but you are telling a pack of Right-slanted half-truths, not the whole story and I'm worried that people might believe that you actually believe the bullshit you spew.

The French are NOT cowards. Their leaders surrendered to the Germans when they saw another massive bloodbath like WW1 coming. You see their actions as cowardly, they chose not to repeat the carnage of WW1 (for whom the most devastating was France). That's fine, that's your OPINION, but it's not the fucking TRUTH. You only tell a part of the story, to make the French look bad, to punish them for standing up to your Fascist Regime (along with the Germans and Russians) when you wanted to invade Iraq.

You need to tell the truth. The French surrendered because they knew from experience how futile it was to wage war with the Germans, they chose the ignomity of invasion and occupation without a fight over the slaughter of millions of men like what happened in WW1.

All this fucking anti French bullshit is just another part of the Republican propaganda machine, which tries to distract the Moron Majority who voted it in from seeing the TRUTH about what's happening in Iraq.

[sam i am]

And who surrendered to the Germans? The Normans or the French... oh, wait, THEY'RE THE SAME PEOPLE. :rolleyes: And how about the Belgians, Dutch, Danes and all the other Euro countries who surrendered to the Germans without a fight? Are they cowards, too? Not unless they oppose the US, apparently.

I know you think you're having fun, sam, but you are telling a pack of Right-slanted half-truths, not the whole story and I'm worried that people might believe that you actually believe the bullshit you spew.

The French are NOT cowards. Their leaders surrendered to the Germans when they saw another massive bloodbath like WW1 coming. You see their actions as cowardly, they chose not to repeat the carnage of WW1 (for whom the most devastating was France). That's fine, that's your OPINION, but it's not the fucking TRUTH. You only tell a part of the story, to make the French look bad, to punish them for standing up to your Fascist Regime (along with the Germans and Russians) when you wanted to invade Iraq.

You need to tell the truth. The French surrendered because they knew from experience how futile it was to wage war with the Germans, they chose the ignomity of invasion and occupation without a fight over the slaughter of millions of men like what happened in WW1.

All this fucking anti French bullshit is just another part of the Republican propaganda machine, which tries to distract the Moron Majority who voted it in from seeing the TRUTH about what's happening in Iraq.

You have absolutely no EVIDENCE to back your position. I do...including French government documents....minutes from meetings between the French and British high commands during 1939/40.....Vichy collaboration after the German conquest....etc., et al.

You have NOTHING!

[franscar]

Show me any EVIDENCE to the contrary and we'll debate it, K? ;) :cool:

What language did William I speak? If that isn't the adoption of French culture then I really fail to see what can convince you.

Next time change debate to ignore, makes it easier in the long run. But if you do still want to claim a man born in France, to parents born in France, who lived the vast majority of his life in France, died in France, was buried in France, spoke French, wrote in French, read French, worshipped the same religion as the French and was subject to the King of France, was in fact part of this "distinct gruop of peoples" and not French, then it's still amusing me enough to carry on.

[ToucanSpam]

You have absolutely no EVIDENCE to back your position. I do...including French government documents....minutes from meetings between the French and British high commands during 1939/40.....Vichy collaboration after the German conquest....etc., et al.

You have NOTHING!
Why have you yet to post any names of historians who agree, or these 'documents' which support your statements? You posted two or three weblinks, one of which I believe was from www.albinoblacksheep.com, was it? The Kitty Cat Dance is there, but that has nothing to do with the French.

So start posting links to these historians who agree with your claims, along with some quotes that show they do. As well as these Vichy documents, I'm sure a couple people are eager to read some documents you can provide to support your statements.

[Ace42X]

Heh, no use arguing with Sam about historical facts. You see, he has a degree in the subject, so when he talks absolute nonsensical drivel, you can guaratee that it is irrefutable nonsensical bollocks.

Unless he was making it all up, which seems likely given his total lack of knowledge of the subject. That or it was one of those mail-order diplomas that seem to be so popular in the US.

[sam i am]

Why have you yet to post any names of historians who agree, or these 'documents' which support your statements? You posted two or three weblinks, one of which I believe was from www.albinoblacksheep.com, was it? The Kitty Cat Dance is there, but that has nothing to do with the French.

Actually, I posted that link in jest, as I made clear on my original post : go back and read it.

It's like the book below that talks about the Onion - again, purely in jest.

So start posting links to these historians who agree with your claims, along with some quotes that show they do. As well as these Vichy documents, I'm sure a couple people are eager to read some documents you can provide to support your statements.

All right. Fair enough. These are just SOME, but here you go....

Magenheimer, Heinz. Hitler's War. Munich, 1997.

Jablonski, Edward. A Pictorial History of the Wrold War II Years. United States, 1977.

JUST FOR FUN : Krewson, John. Our Dumb Century...Presented by the Onion. New York, 1999.

Mayer, SL. World War II. New York, 1984.

Jones, James. WWII. New York, 1975.

Keegan, John. The Second World War. Middlesex, England, 1989.

Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York, 1960.

Documents Concerning German-Polish Relations and the Outbreak of Hotilities between Great Britain and Germany. London : His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1939. (The British Blue Book.)

Benes, Eduard : Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes. From Munich to New War and New Victory. London, 1954 (Details the perfidy of the British and French in allowing Hitler's deceit at the Sudetenland).

Ellis, Major L.F. : The War in France and Flanders, 1939-1950. London, 1953.

Guderian, General Heinz : Panzer Leader. New York, 1952 (Details the French lack of preparation for German blitzkreig in 1939/40 as I have stated over and over and over).

Langer, William L. : Our Vichy Gamble. New York, 1947. (Details the detup and attempts to undermine or co-opt the Vichy regime during 1940-1942).

Pertinax : The Grave Diggers of France. New York, 1944.

In addition to the above published works, there exist hundreds of other referenced books, periodicals, and written speeches that are bibliographed within those works.

Additionally, millions of words from the German and French archives regarding World War II have been published in various series of volumes, and millions of more have been collected or microfilmed and deposited in libraries - in the United States chiefly in the Library of Congress (which is available online via www.LibraryofCongress.org) and the Hoover Library at Stanford University - and in the National Archives at Washington. In addition, the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, at Washington is in possession of a vast collection of German, French (Vichy), and British militry records.

France DID declare war on Germany, specifically on September 3, 1939 at 5:00pm.

Maj.-Gen. J. F. C. Fuller, The Second World War , p. 55. Quoted from The First Quarter, p. 343 : "...the strongest army in the world [the French] facing no more than twenty-six [German] divisions, sitting still and sheltering behind steel and concrete while a quixotically valiant ally was being exterminated!". This quote is directly in regards to the situation during September of 1939, while the German werhmacht was concentrated on fighting the Poles.

What had France SPECIFICALLY promised to do in case Poland were attacked? It was laid down in the Franco-Polish Military Convention of May 19, 1939. In this it was agreed that the French would "progressively launch offensive operations against LIMITED(emphasis mine) objectives toward the third day after General Mobilization Day," which was September 1, 1939. It was further agreed that "as soon as the principal German effort develops against Poland, France WILL (again, my emphasis) launch an offensive action against Germany with the bulk of her forces, starting on the fifteenth day after the first day of the general French mobilization."

General Gamelin, who was in charge of French forces, stated to the Polish Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Colonel Jaklincz, that the French had about "thirty five to thirty eight divisions" for this offensive.

The British were not much better, not suffering their first casualty on the Western front until December 9, 1939 - THREE MONTHS AFTER the DOW!

The Chief of Operations of the German Armed Forces High Command, General Jodl, stated about this time : "If we did not collapse in 1939, that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held COMPLETELY INACTIVE against the 23 German divisions."

If that doesn't bespeak blatant cowardice, then nothing will convince you French apologizers.....

See page 635 of William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for more on this subject. He was living there (there's your FIRST PERSON account, oh King Ace - idiot!) at the time and PERSONALLY OBSERVED the French cowering behind their fortifications, not moving to attack a MUCH smaller German force for fear of defeat - just as defeat had been heaped upon the French from time immemorial.

Now....I'm sure there's still some of you that will continue to naysay me....cite YOUR sources and we'll debate it out. I am firm and convicted on my side of the argument : whatcha got?


As for previous examples of French inability to win WARS, as I originally stated, where are YOUR sources for all of the wars they have WON?

Asking questions, which I answered in detail, with a simple "no, you're wrong," without the ability to backup your assertions and claims is simply cowardice on your parts as well.

Put up or shut up!

[sam i am]

Heh, no use arguing with Sam about historical facts. You see, he has a degree in the subject, so when he talks absolute nonsensical drivel, you can guaratee that it is irrefutable nonsensical bollocks.

Unless he was making it all up, which seems likely given his total lack of knowledge of the subject. That or it was one of those mail-order diplomas that seem to be so popular in the US.

Suck it...pansy ass. :p

[Schmeltz]

So the French are to be raked over the coals by a generation of American armchair strategists based on a (completely uncontextualized) general failure on the part of the Allied command that left the British equally culpable?

Francophobia is always a telling sign of chest-thumping nationalist idiocy, but to combine it with pseudo-intellectualism really puts the icing on the cake.

FRANCE DOSENT WIN WARS LOL

[Phantom Menace]

FRANCE DOSENT WIN WARS LOL

(y)

Yet as I walk down the streets of Paris it's as if they've won every major battle the Planet has thrown at them.

And the US looks like a cheap strip mall whore.

[Ali]

(y)

Yet as I walk down the streets of Paris it's as if they've won every major battle the Planet has thrown at them.

And the US looks like a cheap strip mall whore.That's 'cos the French are all cowards.

[sam i am]

So the French are to be raked over the coals by a generation of American armchair strategists based on a (completely uncontextualized) general failure on the part of the Allied command that left the British equally culpable?

Francophobia is always a telling sign of chest-thumping nationalist idiocy, but to combine it with pseudo-intellectualism really puts the icing on the cake.

FRANCE DOSENT WIN WARS LOL

Let's see....I quoted British, German, Czechoslovakian, and even French sources, including primary and secondary sources, as any good historian would, and yet I am accused of Francophobia? What about the latent and virulent Francophilia that is permeating your posts?

Please.

You have no sources, so shut up....

[Ali]

What about the latent and virulent Francophilia that is permeating your posts? You say that like it's a bad thing!

You have no sources, so shut up....No source is better than a bad source.

So, tell me. Why is it that you are so rabidly anti-French? Is it because of Iraq?

[sam i am]

You say that like it's a bad thing!

No source is better than a bad source.

So, tell me. Why is it that you are so rabidly anti-French? Is it because of Iraq?

I've said it before and I'll say it again : I am not anti-French.

I AM anti-French POLICIES that I disagree with wholeheartedly. The French have been appeasers since before WWII and have continued to ATTEMPT to steer clear of attacks through the policy of giving in to whatever demands that others have against them rather stand up and fight for principle.

The French government, in the 80's, would not allow the flyover of US planes to bomb Libya in response to the Lockerbie attack, which has subsequently been admitted to by the Libyan government. At the time, the French government gave their reason for not allowing the flyover as the lack of evidence against Libyan culpability in the bombing.

The French government has been in bed with Sadaam since before the US. Chirac has been quoted as calling Sadaam his "friend." Chirac has garnered millions from his cozy relationship with Sadaam prior to the US intervention in 2003. French (and Russian) banks profited mightily from loans that were defaulted after the toppling of Sadaam. The TRUE story behind Iraq is the COWARDICE of the French and Russians to intervene against Sadaam due to the precariousness of their financial positions vis a vis the loans they had out to Sadaam and Iraq prior to the Gulf War and the 2003 intervention by American troops.

Don't believe me? Ok. Ask for the linsk and I'll provide them. Ask for periodical articles that have been written that back my claim and I'll provide them.

Now....it seems that you, ali, and the other French apologists have backed off on attacking my assertions regarding French military history, so I take it that you have no sources to back up your counterclaims? Or, were you just simply whistling in the wind from the very beginning? If not, show your cards or don't participate in the debate any longer.

Finally, BTW, name a "bad source" I listed above. Bet you can't.

[Schmeltz]

What about the latent and virulent Francophilia that is permeating your posts?


What the hell are you talking about? Do you see me constructing lengthy, insubstantial, point-by-point diatribes describing every French achievement and success in recorded history? If you consider my posts "Francophilic," it just goes to show how biased and prejudiced you really are.


The French government has been in bed with Sadaam since before the US.


The irony in this paragraph is so tragically palpable it almost brings tears to my eyes.


the other French apologists have backed off on attacking my assertions regarding French military history


Ths is funny too - everybody who isn't willing to concede some poorly presented cultural generalization is now an "apologist" for a shit list that looks lily-white compared to your nation's own. Have you considered that your assertions aren't worth the time of day to somebody with a less superficial take on history? You might be surprised to know that some people consider the study of history to involve more than simply parroting uncontextualized quotations in order to substantiate one's own biases. Any good historian can cite a wealth of sources to prove his point, but no good historian would attempt to use those sources to prove yours.

[sam i am]

The irony in this paragraph is so tragically palpable it almost brings tears to my eyes.

This is funny too - everybody who isn't willing to concede some poorly presented cultural generalization is now an "apologist" for a shit list that looks lily-white compared to your nation's own. Have you considered that your assertions aren't worth the time of day to somebody with a less superficial take on history? You might be surprised to know that some people consider the study of history to involve more than simply parroting uncontextualized quotations in order to substantiate one's own biases. Any good historian can cite a wealth of sources to prove his point, but no good historian would attempt to use those sources to prove yours.

OK. What's your take, Schmeltz? Can you argue or prove any of your points or are you just a troll?

We're talking about the FRENCH on this thread. Start your own anti-American thread if that's how you get your jollies. I happen to get mine making fun of the French.

My own "biases" are verified by the brunt and weight of history. My sources are impeccable - you've not degradied nor denied any of their efficacies.

I know plenty of historians who agree with me - name SOME that agree with you. Cite and name your sources for your vast cerebral knowledge of all French history and we'll compare and contrast, if that's what it takes for you to rescind the lackadasical stance you have taken.

As for French involvement in Iraq PRIOR to, and during, US involvement...here's a laugh for you :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2757797.stm
http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq.htm
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/37716
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13021
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725732463.html

Ha Ha HA! SO funny! :D

Anyhow.....those are just web links. As for textbooks, if you want to be educated on the subject, I'll give you a list if you desire...

Have a nice day! :)

[franscar]

You still haven't answered my query from two days ago asking how you could consider the Normans a distinct people despite the overwhelming Frenchness eminating from them. It doesn't fit the position you decided to take, but instead of accepting that and revising your opinion, you've ignored it.

Oh well, can't be bothered with this one anymore.

[Ace42X]

Oh well, can't be bothered with this one anymore.

My sentiments exactly.

[Schmeltz]

I happen to get mine making fun of the French.


This is the only significant sentence in your post, and it serves merely to prove my point: in spite of your bombastic claims about the "weight and brunt of history," you are concerned purely with making value judgments and satisfying your own prejudices. That's not history, it's masturbation. My point is not that your sources are flawed or that French civilization is God's gift to humanity, my point is that your grasp and use of history is superficial and ignorant. You completely fail to understand the nature of the discipline.

History amounts to more than a pissing contest between source materials. But I don't expect you to pick up on this any time soon.

[sam i am]

You still haven't answered my query from two days ago asking how you could consider the Normans a distinct people despite the overwhelming Frenchness eminating from them. It doesn't fit the position you decided to take, but instead of accepting that and revising your opinion, you've ignored it.

Oh well, can't be bothered with this one anymore.

I DID answer your question.

You believe you are correct and I believe I am correct.

End of story.

Find one place in all written history where the conquest of England was called the "French Conquest" and I'll back down. Else, you should, as all references are to the "Norman Conquest."

Now, why do think that is? Because they were SOOOO French, but EVERYONE just decides to call them Normans for the hell of it?

C'mon. Try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge again. :rolleyes:

[sam i am]

This is the only significant sentence in your post, and it serves merely to prove my point: in spite of your bombastic claims about the "weight and brunt of history," you are concerned purely with making value judgments and satisfying your own prejudices. That's not history, it's masturbation. My point is not that your sources are flawed or that French civilization is God's gift to humanity, my point is that your grasp and use of history is superficial and ignorant. You completely fail to understand the nature of the discipline.

History amounts to more than a pissing contest between source materials. But I don't expect you to pick up on this any time soon.

"I kid the French....cuz they French" - with apologies to Eddie Murphy.

My value judgments are no less self-important than your own, Schmeltz. Depsite your aptitude for changing the subject constantly rather than debating the actual subject at hand, I'd say your brand of masturbation must be much more self-satisfying. My prejudicies, biases, and worldview have been on display since Day One on these boards and are unlikely to change UNLESS I am convinced that someone else can find a better way.

Now, for example, let's take D_Raay or Toucan Spam....as opposed to yourself and ace and ali. The three of you TEND to predicate your worldview and prejudices and biases on persobal insults, affronts, damnation with faint praise, and an oh-so-superior, mightier than thou attitude that sticks in my craw and pushes my towards wanting to trounce you intellectually. As easy as this is, I AM outnumbered by about 50-1 on these boards, yet all of you who disagree with me keep NOT winning the arguments.

D_Raay, Toucan Spam, and many others like them are at least WILLING to CONCEDE points on occasion and don't ignorantly and stupidly argue every single point as if their lives depend on it. You, Schmeltz, and ace and ali DO aregue each and every single point as if there is absolutely no room for discussion or unction with your platitudinous points of view.

Unfortunately for you, you don't EARN respect through your bromides and homilies on the perceived superiority of your knowledge through the mere convention of self-congratulatory mental self-masturbation (or, I guess in the case of the three of you, group masturbation! :p :eek: ).

D_Raay and Toucan Spam and many others DO earn respect by their ability to admit valid, cogent points and their honesty with their intellectual argumentation. I have received opprobrium due to my ability to do the same. I have yet to see any of the three of you receive kudos or recognition for your overwhelming intellect, merely for your ability to better recite the baseless and conjectured imaginings of a fevered imagination.

How's that for your "superficial and ignorant" analysis of the situation?

As I've said before...put up or shut up with having the actual ABILITY to counterargue my points.

[Schmeltz]

I don't come here looking for respect, nor do I come here to "win all the arguments." I come here to converse. If I've failed to earn your respect, or if you think you "win" every discussion, I don't really care.

I will also concede a point if I find it to be valid; I have done so many times. If, on the other hand, I am not convinced of the validity of a particular line of reasoning, I see no reason to assign it any value. I fail to see how I am different from anybody here, including yourself, so far as this goes.

And lastly, I don't believe I've ever changed the subject of this thread. We're still debating French military history. I'm simply focusing on a different line of reasoning than you are - one which you have proven somewhat unwilling to discuss.

You seem strikingly immature for someone of your purported age.

[sam i am]

I don't come here looking for respect, nor do I come here to "win all the arguments." I come here to converse. If I've failed to earn your respect, or if you think you "win" every discussion, I don't really care.

I will also concede a point if I find it to be valid; I have done so many times. If, on the other hand, I am not convinced of the validity of a particular line of reasoning, I see no reason to assign it any value. I fail to see how I am different from anybody here, including yourself, so far as this goes.

And lastly, I don't believe I've ever changed the subject of this thread. We're still debating French military history. I'm simply focusing on a different line of reasoning than you are - one which you have proven somewhat unwilling to discuss.

You seem strikingly immature for someone of your purported age.

Well.....your point earlier was that my "grasp of history was superficial and ignorant," wasn't it?

Then, you have gone on to not point out even ONCE how that it or to prove yourself with any other than superficial claims about the superiority of your judgement of history, yet you have not put forth any reasoning nor any qualifications for your point of view.

So, I'm left with nothing from you. Only useless sniping. So, I ask AGAIN : Where have I gone wrong? Where, in all my analysis, was I INCORRECT in my grasp of history? Where are my inaccuracies and falsehoods? Point them out and I will be more than willing to recant. Fail to do so, and your febrile attempts to discredit me remain for naught.

As for my maturity, or lack thereof, the whole point of the thread was to have some fun at the expense of the French. Your judgement of such as immature is matched only by the lack of anything meaningful for you to add to the discussion.

[Schmeltz]

Oh, I have nothing against making fun of the French or anyone else for that matter. It's when people take it further and start skewing historical fact in order to suit their own prejudices that I get irked a little. I mean, there's immature, and then there's ignorant.

If you have studied history, then it ought to be obvious to you that no respectable historian would set out to prove what you have - that the French are all cowards and appeasers who have never won a war and always collaborate with the bad guys. Here you've put together a heavily politicized, point-by-point diatribe on how the French keep losing wars, thinking that because you cite a couple of books, it's good history. But real historical enquiry seeks to deepen our understanding of the past, not satisfy somebody's personal discontent with other societies. You grasp only the form of history, and not its spirit.

As such, I see no need to slog through every purported example of why the French are such poor soldiers. Your approach is fundamentally flawed. We wouldn't be having this conversation if you really appreciated what history is meant to teach.

Here, in response to your edit I'll give you an example. What is the real lesson to be drawn from the War of 1812? Choose one:

1. The outcome of the War of 1812 granted an increased measure of confidence to the British colonists in Canada and engendered a distinct brand of nationalism that not only aligned Canadians more closely with the British (and by extension with Europe in general), with profound consequences for the country in later years, but persists as a type of reactionary force against American cultural influence to this day.

2. Ha ha the Americans lost and we Canadians burned down your White House!

The facts of what happened remain unchanged, but which interpretation do you favour? Your treatment of the French makes me think you'd prefer the second.

[franscar]

I DID answer your question.

You believe you are correct and I believe I am correct.

End of story.

Find one place in all written history where the conquest of England was called the "French Conquest" and I'll back down. Else, you should, as all references are to the "Norman Conquest."

Now, why do think that is? Because they were SOOOO French, but EVERYONE just decides to call them Normans for the hell of it?

C'mon. Try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge again. :rolleyes:

Jesus, this is like addressing a large, vacuous brick wall isn't it?

You asked for evidence of the Normans adopting French culture, you evidently believed that none existed.

My question, once again, which you have not uttered a single reply to, is thus:

"What language did William I speak? If that isn't the adoption of French culture then I really fail to see what can convince you."

So we have a man born in France, to parents born in France, who lived the vast majority of his life in France, died in France, was buried in France, spoke French, wrote in French, read French, worshipped the same religion as the French and was subject to the King of France, and, just for fun, had a FRENCH FUCKING NAME.

If you're going to throw up as much condescension as you do in every single rolleyed post, at least have the decency to offer something a hell of a lot more impressive than a historiographical term, the explanation of which is so fundamentally basic it's already been mentioned several times, but if you need a refresher, as you so evidently do, here it goes:

William I, Duke of Normandy, did not conquer England on behalf of the King of France, he conquered England due to his belief that Edward the Confessor had named him as his heir, and that Harold Godwineson had usurped what was rightfully his throne, hence Harold only ever being referred to as "Duke Harold" within any Norman record (all written in French by the way). How this suddenly means William I is no longer French and his people have no ties to the kingdom of France is something you have offered absolutely no explanation for, other than that pitifully weak piece of historiography. Show me what makes the Normans any more a "distinct group of people" than the Bretons or the Burgundians within the structure of medieval France, and maybe you have something resembling a case.

[franscar]

My sentiments exactly.

Sorry, I shouldn't have. :( I promise I won't again.

[sam i am]

Oh, I have nothing against making fun of the French or anyone else for that matter. It's when people take it further and start skewing historical fact in order to suit their own prejudices that I get irked a little. I mean, there's immature, and then there's ignorant.

If you have studied history, then it ought to be obvious to you that no respectable historian would set out to prove what you have - that the French are all cowards and appeasers who have never won a war and always collaborate with the bad guys. Here you've put together a heavily politicized, point-by-point diatribe on how the French keep losing wars, thinking that because you cite a couple of books, it's good history. But real historical enquiry seeks to deepen our understanding of the past, not satisfy somebody's personal discontent with other societies. You grasp only the form of history, and not its spirit.

As such, I see no need to slog through every purported example of why the French are such poor soldiers. Your approach is fundamentally flawed. We wouldn't be having this conversation if you really appreciated what history is meant to teach.

I fundamentally and categorically disagree with you.

Other than calling the French cowards during WWII, I have only stated that they lost wars. Both statements have been true. Much of the French DID collaborate with the Nazis during WWII. Vichy France existed. I only brought that particular point up in response to a query. Please don't stretch your rhetoric to encompass outright lies, especially the following :

"no respectable historian would set out to prove what you have - that the French are all cowards and appeasers who have never won a war and always collaborate with the bad guys."

I never said they are ALL cowards, just the bulk during a specific period of time - i.e., during the Sitzkreig of 1939/40. Nor did I say they were ALL appeasers - only the Vichy during the war and the government right before the war (i.e.- Czechoslovakia, Memel). Finally, I did not say they have NEVER won a war, merely that they have won only ONE of significance - the Battle of Poitiers with Charles Martel leading them to victory over the invading Arabs from Spain, at the time.

Incendiary, overblown rhetoric does not suit you.

As for your point about history teaching lessons, I would beg to differ with you. Although we should follow the ideal of those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, it is quite revisionist to try and rewrite history based on a personal vendetta or a viewpoint that is not supported by sources, archaeological evidence, etc., et al.

I have not "skewed historical fact," merely reported it. If you think I'm wrong, show me where and how, please.

[sam i am]

2. Ha ha the Americans lost and we Canadians burned down your White House!

The facts of what happened remain unchanged, but which interpretation do you favour? Your treatment of the French makes me think you'd prefer the second.

Except the CANADIANS never burned down the White House. It was the British Army. Otherwise, I have no problem with either statement.

[sam i am]

Show me what makes the Normans any more a "distinct group of people" than the Bretons or the Burgundians within the structure of medieval France, and maybe you have something resembling a case.


OK. Just like William I, the Burgundians wanted an INDEPENDENT kingdom, not subject to the "King of France." That is why the Burgundians allied themselves with the ENGLISH, for God's sake.

Answer me this : If William was so "French," why didn't he conquer England in the name of the King of France? Why didn't he retain his oath of fealty and loyalty to said king if he was so "French?" Why didn't he adopt French culture and language to England, turning it into a French vassal state?

Geopolitically, he was NORMAN, not FRENCH. That's why.

End of story.

[Schmeltz]

Alright, I give up. I can't make you think in more than two dimensions, much less grasp a point you refuse to see. Maybe you'll read something someday that will encourage you to think about history in anything except the most superficial fashion displayed here, but I won't count on it.

[sam i am]

Alright, I give up. I can't make you think in more than two dimensions, much less grasp a point you refuse to see. Maybe you'll read something someday that will encourage you to think about history in anything except the most superficial fashion displayed here, but I won't count on it.

I guess your three-dimensional thinking is just so superior that I am mortally incapable of grasping it, eh?

Instead of conceding your incorrectness and my correctness, you can skulk off....

go on......


bye.

[Schmeltz]

No, I think you could probably grasp my point very easily if you were willing to. But look, you just did it again - you have to win, and everyone else has to lose. You really are incapable of doing more than scratching the surface of things.

Well, alright, you win and I lose. Enjoy your victory; I assure you my defeat is not without its consolations.

[DroppinScience]

Except the CANADIANS never burned down the White House. It was the British Army. Otherwise, I have no problem with either statement.

Technically wouldn't it be Canadian militia (then just a colony of Britain) who burned down the White House under British orders?

[franscar]

Answer me this : If William was so "French," why didn't he conquer England in the name of the King of France?

Because the King of France had no claim to the throne of England. Duh. Did you read the little story about Edward the Confessor?

Why didn't he retain his oath of fealty and loyalty to said king if he was so "French?"

He did. Duh. Hence why for the following 800 years or so English and French monarchs were at each others throats. A ruler of an independent kingdom happening to also be the vassal of another ruler of another independent kingdom. It really didn't go down too well. Lots of battles. You may have read about some of them.

Why didn't he adopt French culture and language to England

200,000 migrant ruling class from France, into a population of between 2 and 3 million. That's why. The migrants controlled the government, and all English governmental records were written in French until 1187. Plus the English language adopted numerous words from the French language. Duh.

Have another try though, if you really want to.

[Documad]

I only skimmed the thread, but Sam, you lost the debate the minute you posted your GPA.

Wow! I thought I knew a lot more than the average person about medieval history. But I was all wrong. I thought that most of the kings and queens of England were Dutch, French, Scottish, and German. I thought that some of the early kings preferred living in France to living in England (William I, Richard I). I thought that the Norman conquest was one of the most remarkable things that happened in the history of the world in terms of bringing us as Americans to where we are today (actually, I learned that in law school, so maybe it's a load of crap). I thought that the "French" were descendants of a lot of groups of various backgrounds who moved in from a lot of different places over a long period of time. And maybe the biggest mind fuck of all is that I thought the French won the Hundred Years War.

I feel like this is Mel Gibson's version of history.

[DroppinScience]

I only skimmed the thread, but Sam, you lost the debate the minute you posted your GPA.

Owned! :D

[La vallière]

Sam,

Napoleon was french. You know, it happens that Corsica was, and is still, part of France. You obviously don't know that to be french you just have to be born on french soil. It is one our most ancient laws (by ancient i mean edicted in the 5th century.) Your pathetical attempt at making Napoleon a corsican before a french is ridiculous, this man gave us 80 % of our laws, the baccalauréat, lycées, collèges, engineer schools, great schools, modern administration and so on. He IS the father of modern France, how can he not be french ?

As a whole you overlook whole parts of France history to make your point. It must be said that this is not the mark of an historian, but that of a liar.

Napoleon III did win a war while helping Italy to unite itself. The battke fought is called Solférino and was the starting point for what was to become the red cross organization. You overlooked it.

The french endured around 85.000 deads during the battle of France, they fought hard and valliantly but were not able to repel the ennemy. You overlooked the battle of Arras where the garrison yelded only after firing their last cartridges. The germans were so impressed by their courage that they gave them the honor of a military salute, every single german soldier present and able to stand on its feet did it.
You also forgot to mention the Narvik operations that were successfull but had to be stopped because of the dire situation in France.
You forgot to mention the succesfull defense of the Alps against the italians.
You forgot to mention the desperate counter attack led by the then colonel de Gaulle (a famous coward.)

That's a whole lot of things to forget in order to make your point a valid one. Lying by not telling facts is still lying.

You just held the final result of the battle and claimed "look, cowards!" A real historian would have examined the causes, unfolding, events and results of this defeat. He would have pointed that it was the logical consequences of the ill decisions taken by the UK, France and the USA that led to this situation. He would explain that those 3 states did not react when they should have and this caused the collapse of France that no one, once events were set into motion, could prevent.
Of course, you also overlooked the fact that top officiers of the french army were power hungry traitors that hastily came to an agreement with the invaders and sought its favor by harming their own people. That still does not make the people of France cowards. Generals may surrender, the people never does and ends up beheading the generals as traitors and that's exactly what happened.
You should have mentionned that the french resistance formed up rapidly, men and women with no mean of fighting did fight, sometimes with hunting rifles, saved numerous lives, sheltered refugees, passed information, spied, destroyed railways while being butchered, thrown to dogs (literally) tortured, raped, their families taken as hostages to be killed, deported or sold as prostitutes for soldiers... you did not.
You should have mentionned that the first time the Blitzkrieg was counterd, it was by french troops at Bir Hakeim (After which battle Hitler declared that this confirmed that french oldiers were the best after the germans, and Rommel that with good leaders the french can perform miracles.)
You should have mentionned that the country rose up and took arms when the occasion presented hitself. Again, you did not.
You should have mentionned that 400.000 french soldiers took part in the last phases of the war, you did not.

You do not want the truth, you want to have reason. You are manipulating facts to, as you say, make fun of a folk. The problem is that you are not making fun of anyone, you are offending the memory of 550.000 french people who died during this war among whom 250.000 were soldiers and resistants, and at the same time the memory of every men and women who ever stood fast against tiranny. Including those who freed the USA. Shame on you.

You are no historian but a fool toying with bits of knowledge and failing to use them properly and your comments, course of action and speech make me wonder how you managed to graduate in history. You and your redneck ilk can boast about your martial prowess and make "fun" of something that caused unimaginable pain and torment to millions of people, offending a whole country in the process, "because they are french." It just serves to demonstrate how vain and arrogant you are. I know there are people in the USA that are brilliant minds. Too bad you are not part of them.

[Ali]

Lying by not telling facts is still lying.Exactly.

[La vallière]

Oh, Sam, you also forogot to mention that the decision not to intervene in Polland was taken by both the british and french command. Making thus the brits cowards too... seemed you once again overlooked the course of action that led to this decision in order to jump to ill conclusions. The truth is that they had no mean to intervene in time and in an efficient way

And before you ask my sources, here they are : Churchill's complete memories. You know, the man in head of the Uk at its finest hour. He perfectly know of what he is speaking and, among his words, you can find a line where he just tells that anyone accusing the french of cowardice is just ignorant of what really occured. I urge anyone reading this thread to read his memories, it is highly instructive. At any rate, HE knew far more that you how things happened and if i am to believe someone it's him, not you.

About your lines concerning french policies, i never saw such a load of nonsense. So we were in bed with Saddam and too scared to take up arms against Irak ? what a joke. You say France just lay down before anyone threatening it but overlook the fact that in this affair we just told the first world power "where to stick it deep." The USA tried to humiliate us, to bully us, threatened our commerical interests in order to make the french governement to change its mind and it did not. And, as a nation, we were right to do so. Please explain me where are the weapons of mass destructions found in Irak, i am most interested in having a look at them. Or have your army captured any Irak governement representative involved in terrorist attacks against the US nation ? Neither ? oh, too bad because it was the second thing you (officially) wanted to achieve by invading this nation (without declaring war, by the way.) I guess your soldiers have spilt their blood for naught then, killing thousands of civilians that did not ask for anything in the process. That's not the kind of war France want any responsibilty in.

If you had, once again, any idea of what you are speaking about you'd know that France fought a long and succesfull war against the Algerians only to realize that, if the country was pacified, it was nonetheless impossible for France to remain there and we left. Occupation of a territory where the population is ready to take up arms against your troops is impossible and will end up in continuous riots, losses and instability. We knew this for long and that's the second reason we did not want to take part in this : it is doomed to failure. Hasn't Viet-nam told you anything about holding a country against its people will ?
You have no idea about France economical ressources. We do not need oil as bad as many nations thanks to our nuclear plants and highly efficient railway network (90 % of our trains are electricity powered and allow us to go from Paris to Italy in 4 hours, for example.) Most part of our Oil comes from the North sea and among the rest the near east is a small contribution since our oil companies have interests in western Africa. We have NO need of Irak oil and thus had no interest in waging a war for oil ressources in this country (since this is the real reason why this war was fought.)

I'll add that during the first Irak war in 1991 Advanced elements of the Daguet division (you know, the one that fought best during the conflict) consisting of foreign legion shock infantry and marine commandos were able to penetrate Bagdad and dispose of Saddam Hussein. The US governement asked the french governement not to do so. Being disposed to kill someone is not treating him like a friend, didn't you know ?

About Jacques Chirac calling Hussein friend he certainly did so, before 1991 when Irak was stopping Iran from becoming a superpower in the near east and any western nation was all too happy to sell irak weapons. If he did so after 1991 you'll have to bring serious proof. He has many shortcomings and is not a virtuous man by any standard but chances are that it's highly unlikely that he ever called Saddam friend after he invaded Kuweit. What is likely is a "not so accurate" translation of its words.

For example his quote "Déclarer la guerre est toujours un constat d'échec"
Was translated in "As far as i am concerned, war always mean failure" which in french is "En ce qui me concerne, la guerre est toujours un échec" while the correct translation for the original quote is "declaring a war is a failure in itself." When you know that the quote is from a speech about diplomatic relations and discussion about continuing the inspections it all appears under a different light. His point being that you can't declare war until any other way to solve the conflict hasn't been exhausted. I firmly belive that the speech was deliberately wrongly translated to make it appear cowardly. It's a common way of misinforming people.

[sam i am]

Idiots.

It was all in jest from the very beginning.

The very fact that all of you got yourselves so riled up over a FUCKING JOKE is just utterly pathetic.

Take your francophile, snooty, pieces of crap opinions and ram them where the sun doesn't shine, why don't you?

Obviously, NOTHING ELSE will remove the giant-sized diamond of US-hating from up your asses.

C'est la vie.

[franscar]

Not the sort of thing I'd expect someone with a however high it was GPA to say.

[Schmeltz]

La vallière


Nicely done. Context, commentary, command, and detail - what more could one ask?


It was all in jest from the very beginning.

The very fact that all of you got yourselves so riled up over a FUCKING JOKE is just utterly pathetic.


I find it hard to believe that you would expend such effort in the defense of a mere joke, but the fact that you don't feel it necessary to debate these issues seriously is very telling. I had thought we were considering meaningful and relevant issues; it's really kind of disappointing to find out otherwise.


Obviously, NOTHING ELSE will remove the giant-sized diamond of US-hating


Ah, there it is again. Everyone who doesn't go along with the "joke" is a francophile and a US-hater. What a shallow, superficial, immature attitude to bring to an ostensibly serious discussion, especially when accompanied with pretensions to complete command and control of history.

You just gots to bring something more profound to the table, mang.

[S.P.I.C.]

LOL, good one.

[Ali]

Idiots.

It was all in jest from the very beginning.

The very fact that all of you got yourselves so riled up over a FUCKING JOKE is just utterly pathetic.

Take your francophile, snooty, pieces of crap opinions and ram them where the sun doesn't shine, why don't you?

Obviously, NOTHING ELSE will remove the giant-sized diamond of US-hating from up your asses.

C'est la vie.
Didn't take long for the veneer to peel.

[La vallière]

Obviously, NOTHING ELSE will remove the giant-sized diamond of US-hating from up your asses.

C'est la vie.


US citizens are people like any other, i don't have a reason to hate them. But i DO hate morons, dumbasses, and ignorant and arrogant fools.

By the way, i find it very instructive that when cornered to justify your opinion you end up throwing such comments at my face. Have your historic proofs melted away ? Where are all your sources ? Where is your scholar education ? I am most certain that the readers will just come to the right conclusion when reading this. You've failed to bring anything worth it to your mill, i fear this discussion is over.

"Tout homme qui raille peut avoir de l'esprit ; il veut même en avoir plus que celui qui plaisante. La preuve est en, que si ce dernier répond, il est déconcerté."

Montesquieu.


PS : I fear our friend here has a rather binary way of dealing with people : francophile (evil) and USA-friend (good.) Hopefully, he'll be able to struggle out of it.

PPS : the Beastie Boys are fun.

PPPS : Ali, Schmeltz, Franscar, thanks for your appreciation.

PPPPS : how many P can one put before the S ?

[fucktopgirl]

et un point pour le francais (y)

[Documad]

It must be said that this is not the mark of an historian,
Yeah, I'd also add that studying history in college doesn't make you a historian.

I'm glad you were inspired to join and post. (y)


It was all in jest from the very beginning.
Um hm.

So, does this mean that the French did win the Hundred Years War after all? Normandy is in France?

Were you also kidding when you cited alleged historical sources in other threads?

[sam i am]

So, does this mean that the French did win the Hundred Years War after all? Normandy is in France?

Were you also kidding when you cited alleged historical sources in other threads?

Actually, the continuance of the joke was mostly in jest.

I actually like the French and visited recently. The cheese (or fromage, if you prefer ;) ) was excellent.

The sources I cited were real. I do have a bit of a contention with the French over their (and the British) lack of support of Poland during the winter of '39/'40, but I do understand the historical context that both countries were badly mauled during WWI and didn't want to get stuck in years of trench warfare, etc again.

The Hundred Years War, of course, is much like many other wars out there : its' reasons, outcomes, and conclusions are open to interpretation and reinvention by those who are studying it outside the context of the actual play of times. Good arguments can be made that the Burgundians and the English were successful in stringing out their claims to the French throne, but were eventually compelled and/or lost interest in the subjugation of the French. Joan of Arc was a real winner for the French, as was Napoleon.

As for the Normans, well.....I guess we just disagree. Again, taking a more REAL, complex approach, a historian would likely conclude that whether William the Conqueror was French or Norman is truly moot. He obviously had Norman heritage, though he also had French customs. So, it's rather easy to see both sides.

I actually did a bit more research to see if I could find any substantive deliberations on the subject, and still haven't seen any references to the French Conquest, only the Norman conquest. Oh, well. It's really rather a small bit of history, anyways.

Finally, as for the vaunted French courage under fire, I did delve into a few histories of WWI to renew my memories of the timeframe and battles, etc. My assertions on the importance of the American intervention were spot-on, but I deliberately downplayed the sacrifices of the English and French (not to mention New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians, Indians, etc.) in order to prolong the original joke. The real truth is that the French and British High Commands sucked ass during WWI and that led to the needless slaughter of millions of people to gain small pittances of ground.

Good historians agree that the mindset after WWI was that it was the "Great War" and that no nation would risk subjecting their peoples to such a meat grinder again. Although gains were made throughout the world by the English and French, the losses in generations of men was overwhelming. By the end of WWII, neither country truly retained the stomach nor the manpower to exploit their world-girding empires, and, in conjunction with native movements, they gave up the vast majority of their colonies and empires to leave the world much as it is today.

French valor, especially that of the Foreign Legion and the brave Partisans who fought behind enemy lines against not only the Germans, but also the Vichy collaborators, deserve praise and honor from peoples the world over. Their courage and sacrifices in the face of overwhelming odds deserve our opprobrium.

Finally, as to my above comments that were a BIT :rolleyes: acerbic....

Well, the joke was fun while it lasted. I'll try not to take a joke too far the next time.

Best Regards, all.

[Ali]

Finally, as for the vaunted French courage under fire, I did delve into a few histories of WWI to renew my memories of the timeframe and battles, etc. My assertions on the importance of the American intervention were spot-on, but I deliberately downplayed the sacrifices of the English and French (not to mention New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians, Indians, etc.) in order to prolong the original joke. The real truth is that the French and British High Commands sucked ass during WWI and that led to the needless slaughter of millions of people to gain small pittances of ground.

Good historians agree that the mindset after WWI was that it was the "Great War" and that no nation would risk subjecting their peoples to such a meat grinder again. Although gains were made throughout the world by the English and French, the losses in generations of men was overwhelming. By the end of WWII, neither country truly retained the stomach nor the manpower to exploit their world-girding empires, and, in conjunction with native movements, they gave up the vast majority of their colonies and empires to leave the world much as it is today.

French valor, especially that of the Foreign Legion and the brave Partisans who fought behind enemy lines against not only the Germans, but also the Vichy collaborators, deserve praise and honor from peoples the world over. Their courage and sacrifices in the face of overwhelming odds deserve our opprobrium.Thank you, sam. (y) We know you were joking, but others might not have...

[sam i am]

Thank you, sam. (y) We know you were joking, but others might not have...

No, thank you, ali.

It's much better to have some fun, occasionally, but it's ALMOST as much fun to pull peoples' tails when they react to the original joke SO seriously.

If you go back and read the whole thread, especially the end here, I hope you all realize just how easy it was to pull y'all in and keep the joke going not only on the French, but on those who are SO full of themselves and SO sure that they are right and ANYONE who disagrees with them is wrong. Next time you CHOOSE to denigrate someone's character, maybe you'll remember the little lesson here. :p

[Ali]

those who are SO full of themselves and SO sure that they are right and ANYONE who disagrees with them is wrong. Unlike you :rolleyes:

So, you were joking about the Normans not being French, and all the other half-truths, inaccuracies and lies you told were also in jest.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[sam i am]

Unlike you :rolleyes:

So, you were joking about the Normans not being French, and all the other half-truths, inaccuracies and lies you told were also in jest.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I'll be the first in line to self-flagellate when it is apropos.

I'm often bombastic and full of myself, but I almost have to be to have any chance of being heard above the din of those who oppose my POV.

I'm one of VERY few on this message board who espouses the conservative side of things.

As I cleared up above, most was in jest, but some was real. I think I made it clear by my post on 11/2/05 at 2:54pm.