NationStates Jolt Archive


France

Opal Isle
29-08-2004, 05:34
I'm beginning to wonder if the fanning of the flames unto France will ever end.
Can someone please explain this whole hating France thing to me?
Monkeypimp
29-08-2004, 05:43
The english and french have had a long standing rivalry, but as of last century were on the same side. They kept their friendly hatred going on. I'm not sure why Americans decided to do it, possibly because they thought they were cleaning up after the french in Vietnam (although learning from where the french failed might have helped) but the recent 'hatred' seems to be over their lack of support for the Iraq war. I don't know why other countries like Germany haven't been targeted similarly.

As far as I can tell anyway.
Lunatic Goofballs
29-08-2004, 05:45
We were making fun of the French long before Iraq. It's nothing new except in intensity. *shrug* It's like polish jokes. It just is.

BTW, Why are polish noses so beautiful?
Dealoleo
29-08-2004, 05:48
France? Seriously, France? Is Franmce of any concern to anyone outside the French and those in West Africa they covertly control? France, what's the point of discussing France?
Monkeypimp
29-08-2004, 05:48
We were making fun of the French long before Iraq. It's nothing new except in intensity. *shrug* It's like polish jokes. It just is.

BTW, Why are polish noses so beautiful?

ohoh why?
Lunatic Goofballs
29-08-2004, 05:49
They're hand-picked. :)
Opal Isle
29-08-2004, 05:54
Well, apparantly then, there is no good reason, but stubborn Americans will continue to blame France anyway.
Johnistan
29-08-2004, 05:56
Because we saved France's pussy ass in WWII and surprise surprise...still pussies.

I don't actually believe that. It's just fun to make fun of France.
Pelleon
29-08-2004, 05:56
Some of it I think comes from contempt for the French, specifically their military.
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

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

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

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

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

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

The Dutch War - Tied

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 Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

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

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."

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

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

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I - Tied and pissing their pants on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. 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, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

:D

(That and the typical French cliches (arrogant Parisians who like cheese with their whine ;) )
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 06:21
Some of it I think comes from contempt for the French, specifically their military.

How I loathe wading through this

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Those were not what you would call modern-day French, and besides the barbarian Germanic tribes, who else stood up to Rome?

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

They held on for a Hundred Year's before Joan of Arc, and what about her being a girl makes it any less of an accomplishment in retaking all of Continental France.


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 Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

They were the dominant power in Europe at the time, and they had a lot of notable successes in this war, along with notable failures, but so did every other contry.

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

You mean Marlborough, not that lazy Marlboro

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."

80% of the powder used by the Continental Armies was supplied, very cheaply, from France, at great expense to France. The main Continental musket was the French Charleville, supplied by France, and it was the French Navy who ensured Cornwallis was stuck at Yorktown, and made up half of the beseiging Army.

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

They fought a lot more than just other French during their Revolutionary Wars, they also fought the British, Austrians, Spanish, Savoy, and Prussians.

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

Napoleon was trained in France, led French troops, and all of his Marshals were French, who were just as brilliant as he was (Well.... most of them), it takes almost every power in Europe to stop France (And several tries), hardly a minor acheivement caused by delusion.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

You conveniently forgot about their war against Austria in helping the Peimontese.

World War I - Tied and pissing their pants on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. 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, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

Ha! The Great War, perhaps the worst example of American hype in history, the US did almost nothing militarily in that war, the French did a hell of a lot more. Foch was the Supreme Allied Commander, not Pershing, and odds are France and GB would have won even without the AEF.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

I'm sure the people at Vercour's agree with you.... oh wait.

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

Remind you of anyone?

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

Becuase we all know how accepted Empires (well, non-American ones anyway) are in the post-WW2 world.
Chuang-Han China
29-08-2004, 06:35
The hate of France comes from envy. Europe hated France for the last 1100 years because since Charles Martel they've been either the most powerful, or one of the most powerful nations in Europe, and although they have not faired too well in several wars, they always meddled in all of Europe's Diplomatic dealings.

The American hate of France stems from the Monroe Doctrine. It declared that America would not tolerate any further colonization of the America's. But France in the 1850s invaded Mexico, and trained the pro-French armies during a Brazilian Civil War. The Americans HATED this to no end, but were not able to stop it because America was being torn apart by it's Slave problems. Ever since then Americans have had an underlying hatred towards the French, and once it starts to dissipate something happens to reinforce it:

Spanish-American War, the French secretly supported Spanish Victory.
WWI, France was unable to win it on it's own and Americans believed they 'saved' the 'pathetic' French.
WWII, same as before, except France was obliterated.
Vietnam, nothing that happened there to Americans was France's fault, but France was an easy scape goat.
Iraq, the latest reason to blame France for something.

But the true reason everyone hated the French at one time in history: They don't stop sticking their noses where they don't belong in things! They have always felt like they should be this omnipresent force World-Wide, and thus meddle in a place they didn't belong, bringing great hatred to them. Any hatred a nation feels for the French is entirely the French's fault, period.
Jebustan
29-08-2004, 06:37
We were making fun of the French long before Iraq. It's nothing new except in intensity. *shrug* It's like polish jokes. It just is.

BTW, Why are polish noses so beautiful?

People think that that the French hate Americans (which they do, but they hate everyone, so it shouldn't matter.)
Americans are stupid and gullible(sp), so they automatically think that any negative criticism against American actions are wrong, and they retaliate accordingly. Americans also tend to forget that, had it not been for French naval assistance in the Revolutionary War, we would not be a nation. The rebellion would have been crushed by the British.
Also, who gave us the Statue of Liberty? Oh yeah! France.


Speaking of noses, why do Arabs, Jews, and blacks have such big noses?
Chuang-Han China
29-08-2004, 06:40
Americans also tend to forget that, had it not been for French naval assistance in the Revolutionary War, we would not be a nation. The rebellion would have been crushed by the British.
Also, who gave us the Statue of Liberty? Oh yeah! France.

After 200 years, do nations really owe each other gratitude? May I remind you the French did so entirely to spite the British, not to actually help Americans.
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 06:42
After 200 years, do nations really owe each other gratitude? May I remind you the French did so entirely to spite the British, not to actually help Americans.

Some French genuinely wanted to help the Americans, Lafayette comes to mind, and there was obviously some kind of democratic leanings in France, it exploded in the country barely a decade later.

But I tend to think, that these two countries have been allies for almost two centuries (well, except for the undeclared naval war, and a cooling of relations during the Second Empire), and as allies they really shouldn't feel the need to owe the other anything for any services rendered.
Clan HunHill
29-08-2004, 06:43
"The Sword and Shield" I like you. Your knowledge has impressed me greatly.

France may not be a military powerhouse now, but people tend to forget about Charlemagne. But he was just an insignificant military leader. Oh wait, my mistake. He kicked pretty much everyones' arse.

As for Napoleon, he lost the ending, and most decisive, battle due to weather more so than simply to the English army.


At least France will admit when they've lost a war.
Metslandia
29-08-2004, 06:47
And after we liberated the French in WWII, couldn't they help us in Iraq? I mean, rule #2 is France only wins when the U.S. does most of the fighting.
Clan HunHill
29-08-2004, 06:48
But the true reason everyone hated the French at one time in history: They don't stop sticking their noses where they don't belong in things! They have always felt like they should be this omnipresent force World-Wide, and thus meddle in a place they didn't belong, bringing great hatred to them. Any hatred a nation feels for the French is entirely the French's fault, period.



The exact same thing can be said about Americans. Not to mention, I find it astonishing that even though the USA was founded not too long ago in 1776 (by comparison of other nations) they've been in more wars than any nation in History.
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 06:49
rule #2 is France only wins when the U.S. does most of the fighting.

And that explains the Great War...... how? Or the Austrian Wars, or the Napoleonic Wars (until Russia and Waterloo).
Terra Matsu
29-08-2004, 06:53
And after we liberated the French in WWII, couldn't they help us in Iraq?
France doesn't owe us anything, you bastard. They're not our bitch, you know, and they don't have to support our international policy. Besides, they'd only make themselves look bad by fighting a pathetic thing of a war anyway. They're better off letting the US and the UK make themselves look like the fools.
Chuang-Han China
29-08-2004, 07:12
I find it astonishing that even though the USA was founded not too long ago in 1776 (by comparison of other nations) they've been in more wars than any nation in History.


Um, France has been in 50+ wars in 1000 years... The United States has been in 8 wars since 1776. That is an actual "war". Not one of those little conflicts where we have removed a Despot, or acted in a joint mission (Like Korea, that was a UN Mission. Or Kosovo, which was a NATO Mission)

And I repeat Terra Matsu: France doesn't owe us anything.


PS: France since 1776 has been in 11 wars (Wars as I described above).
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 07:15
Ignore this post
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 07:18
Hmm....disregard my previous post, I mistook it in context, and withdraw it.
Phalanxium
29-08-2004, 07:40
"At least France will admit when they've lost a war.

Very true, Vietnam wasn't won, though not entierly lost, but still claimed as a win by Americans, and what of the War of 1812? the Americans invaded the British colonies in Canada, the british fought south until Washington DC, and managed to burn the capital buildings there, before the US fought back to the original borders. while no land was won by either side, the fact that the americans attacked, and had their capital burnt says something. Now how often do you read about it in history class? never.

As for the page giving the "Rules of French Warfare" it was meant as a spoof, not all truth was incorperated, and not all is lies. there's a disclaimer at the top that says "Please note that the Web designer is not American and blaming the Web designer for America's history is illogical. Though you may critisize this oversimplified French history all you wish, blaming or threatening the Web designer is not nice" he/she says that this is oversimplified himself/herself. if you want to find the page yourself, type "french military victories" into the Google.com search engine, and click on the button marked "I'm feeling lucky" It's a joke, not meant as fact. though continue to discuss it that way, I get a good laugh when other people get hyped up at nothing
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 07:44
Very true, Vietnam wasn't won, though not entierly lost, but still claimed as a win by Americans, and what of the War of 1812? the Americans invaded the British colonies in Canada, the british fought south until Washington DC

....they made an amphibious landing in the Chesepeake Bay, they didn't fight South.

and managed to burn the capital buildings there, before the US fought back to the original borders.

Besides the expelling of the American Invasion of Canada, no borders changed, the Amphibious invasion was defeated on the approaches to Baltimore (Both the land and Naval forces).

while no land was won by either side, the fact that the americans attacked, and had their capital burnt says something. Now how often do you read about it in history class? never.

I certainly know not of a history class that does not mention it
The Force Majeure
29-08-2004, 08:57
Er...we would not have been involved in Vietnam if not for the French...holy crap, it's called a book...read one...
Reltaran
29-08-2004, 09:55
...Vietnam wasn't won, though not entierly lost, but still claimed as a win by Americans... Now how often do you read about [the War of 1812] in history class? never.

In both of these instances, you are either misinformed or lying.
Nazi Deutschland Axis
29-08-2004, 10:19
The French have given us a very recent example of why everyone hates them.

They had their 60th anniversary celebrations of the liberation of France, but as far as the French are concerned, they rose up in 1944 to drive out the Germans by themselves, with no mention of the fact that without Britain or the US the French would now be speaking German. This myth was established by De Gaulle, and has been perpetuated by the French population ever since, to the extent that this is the version of events that they teach in school!
Connersonia
29-08-2004, 10:20
Very true, Vietnam wasn't won, though not entierly lost, but still claimed as a win by Americans, and what of the War of 1812? the Americans invaded the British colonies in Canada, the british fought south until Washington DC, and managed to burn the capital buildings there, before the US fought back to the original borders. while no land was won by either side, the fact that the americans attacked, and had their capital burnt says something. Now how often do you read about it in history class? never.


If vietnam was not entirely lost by the USA, please explain why it is now a Communist country. The USA did not go to war there to "clear up after the French"- they went there to enforce the Truman Doctrine- this has nothing to do with France, and everything to do with American Paranoia. The fact that the American forces left vietnam without defeating the North, shows that they did in fact retreat from the battlefield (they left without victory)- hence losing. What else do you call it when you run away without defeating your enemy? YOU LOST IN VIETNAM OK!?

Also- the French produced the greatest general of all history, which is something that about 95% of historians would agree upon, and the British produced the greatest soldier of all time, as he has been called by pretty much everyone. When they met in 1815, with a Prussian army led by the brilliant Blucher not too far away, the conclusion was fairly inevitable. The only reason Napoleon lost in Russia is because the Grande Armee was too big (read "1812- the Year of Napoleon'e fatal March" by Adam Zamorzky (sp.)), and he only lost at waterloo because he was ill (he had several respiratory diseases), tired, and arrogant (as he had every right to be).

Also- if you watched the news recently, you will have seen the French celebrating the liberation of Paris. Paris was liberated before any Allied soldiers reached there, and so stupid American people who gorge themselves on Hollywood rubbish who say "we saved your ass in WW2" should really get some knowledge. You didnt even join until 8th December 1941, 2 years 3 months and 5 days after the European powers had joined. The only reason Britain didnt fall to the Nazis is because of the English Channel (and the RAF). If Britain had been physically linked to the continent, then it would have taken less than 6 weeks for us to fall!

America being several thousand miles away helped them to stay safe as well- not because you are in any way naturally superior. And if you are- don't forget, most of you are British anyway!
Connersonia
29-08-2004, 10:22
The French have given us a very recent example of why everyone hates them.

They had their 60th anniversary celebrations of the liberation of France, but as far as the French are concerned, they rose up in 1944 to drive out the Germans by themselves, with no mention of the fact that without Britain or the US the French would now be speaking German. This myth was established by De Gaulle, and has been perpetuated by the French population ever since, to the extent that this is the version of events that they teach in school!

with a name like Nazi Deutschland Axis, I hope no-one gives your views any credence.
Nazi Deutschland Axis
29-08-2004, 12:34
with a name like Nazi Deutschland Axis, I hope no-one gives your views any credence.


What I said was the basis of a report by the BBC!
Kroblexskij
29-08-2004, 12:41
i believe it was the french who helped you in the civil war, americans would still be british without them

Comence national anthems of russia france and britain
Siljhouettes
29-08-2004, 12:42
The French have given us a very recent example of why everyone hates them.

They had their 60th anniversary celebrations of the liberation of France, but as far as the French are concerned, they rose up in 1944 to drive out the Germans by themselves, with no mention of the fact that without Britain or the US the French would now be speaking German. This myth was established by De Gaulle, and has been perpetuated by the French population ever since, to the extent that this is the version of events that they teach in school!
I agree that this massively exaggerated patriotism that the French have is unattractive. But they're not the only ones. Maybe you remember that on the 60th anniversary of D-Day, American TV, such as CBS, made Operation Overlord look like an exclusively American operation. They showed hardly anyone except President Bush's speech.
Klopstokia
29-08-2004, 13:21
Well, history is a lot more complicated than Americans are used to think.

In the first place there is the language problem.
French mostly speak only French.
If you know them, they are a cool people.
It helps if you learn French, and French habits.
A Brit acts as a gentleman, a Frenchman is a gentleman.

The Dutch (me) have a long history, where we fought against the French, together with the Brits. The British campaigns were financed with Dutch money, so this year its 300 years ago that we both occupied Gibraltar.

And then the Brits stuck a knife in our back.

That's why the Dutch and the French supported the American independence. Your first admiral John Paul Jones was a well known person in Holland.
The first American Navy ships were financed with Dutch money.
Read The First Salute of Barbara Tuchman
So The Dutch and the French both were hostile towards British imperialism.

Brittain tried to drive a wedge between European nations in the Napoleontic era, and they succeeded. So, in fact, if there is trouble somewhere in the world.. Find the Brit!
And those SOB's now work together with the Yankees.
The France-bashing of Bush is a continuation of the same old Anglo-American policy of -devide and rule-.
But they will loose momentum.
Spain kicked the conservative government out.
Europe is on a path toward more unity. England is losing face.

Key point is, that Great Brittain and America should have not interfered in WWI. World War One!!!
But it was the purpose of Brittain to hurt both France and Germany as much as possible. And we know that.

Only dark sided institutions like Bilderberg and Nato have always been busy with evil freemasonlike scenarios to destabilize Europe.
Nazi Deutschland Axis
29-08-2004, 14:11
Key point is, that Great Brittain and America should have not interfered in WWI.



When Germany invaded Belgium on August 4 1914, Britain declared war the same day as they had guaranteed to uphold Belgian independence in the Treaty of London in 1839.
Rogue Builders
29-08-2004, 14:31
World War I - Tied and pissing their pants on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States.

er...the US turned up 3 YEARS LATE!!! It was the Brits who saved their backsides. The Yanks had one good 'campaign' near Amiens, the rest was won by the Brits (and yes, with some help from the French). Mostly the US contribution to the First World War was psychological. i.e. "Gott in Himmel! There is another huge army preparing to attack us! Best surrender now...oh wait, we've already lost"
Luckdonia
29-08-2004, 14:54
They're just so....so...FRENCH!
you know?they insist on living in france and speaking french,and smoking Gitanes and eating cheese & bread and drinking wine.
Zervok
29-08-2004, 14:55
The fact is that Americans inherited the English attitude towards the French. Today, we are still getting over it. Although there are plenty of other stupid conflicts. Now what I dont get is why we dont hate Italy. They switched sides in WW1 and against us in WW2, at least the French were on our side. Of course its all whats stylish.
NeLi II
29-08-2004, 14:56
They're either stupid or ignorant for "hating" the french.

How the holy fuck do you hate a whole nations people anyway?
Monkey republics
29-08-2004, 15:02
there is nothing wrong with the french its just a lot of them hate us
Keruvalia
29-08-2004, 15:06
I've been to France ...

I ran into a lot of Americans in Paris who seemed to feel that French people could understand English better if it were loud ... that's why I hate Paris.

Cannes was nice, but a bit humid.

I do hate the way Canadians (read: Quebec) have butchered the French language ... they make it sound slimey. I wanted to slit throats.

Anyway, I don't hate the French ... but the Occitan Rap has to go.
Tweedy The Hat
29-08-2004, 15:19
"The Sword and Shield" I like you. Your knowledge has impressed me greatly.

France may not be a military powerhouse now, but people tend to forget about Charlemagne. But he was just an insignificant military leader. Oh wait, my mistake. He kicked pretty much everyones' arse.

As for Napoleon, he lost the ending, and most decisive, battle due to weather more so than simply to the English army.


At least France will admit when they've lost a war.

British army .... more ignorance!
West - Europa
29-08-2004, 15:35
I have no real prejudice against the French people.

Except against the Parisians with their arrogant attitude, and against Marseille with the crime.
Reltaran
29-08-2004, 15:37
The only reason Britain didnt fall to the Nazis is because of the English Channel (and the RAF). If Britain had been physically linked to the continent, then it would have taken less than 6 weeks for us to fall!

It had a lot more to do with the fact that Hitler(or, more specifically, the Nazis' leaders) was initially reluctant to attack Britons.
Monkey republics
29-08-2004, 15:44
we still saved the french from the nanzis
Mr Basil Fawlty
29-08-2004, 15:45
we still saved the french from the nanzis

Who are the nanzis?
The New Aryan State
29-08-2004, 15:47
Waterloo was won more due to British tactics than weather. It's a simple case of the column versus the line. A column (Large square) of say, 500 men (22 men on each side), marches towards a line of 300 men in two ranks. a grand total of 44 men (66 at best) in the column can fire their muskets, and must reload whilst marching. Say one shot every forty seconds. The line. Every man of the 300 can fire his musket. British troops were well drilled with live ammunition, firing 3-4 rounds a minute. They would fire by half-companies, 20 men shooting, then the next, then the next, and so on. By the time half of them have fired the first half-company will have reloaded, creating a machinegun effect. The line can fire a minimum of 900 rounds a minute. It is physically impossible to walk into that. The sheer volume of fire stops the larger French column in it's tracks. For every man that dies, another steps forward to take his place, but will die before taking a step.
It was not weather that defeated the French at Waterloo, but drill, discipline and the Brown Bess musket.
True, the French had more cannon, but artillery never won battles and it is a credit to the British troops that they endured their unending rain in the earlier part of the battle.
We must not forget, however, that the Prussians under General Blucher were also present, and though they were deliberately delayed by the actions of a staff officer named Gneisenenau (Who believed the battle to be already lost), the duke of Wellington could not have survived another French attack without them.
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 16:13
Also- if you watched the news recently, you will have seen the French celebrating the liberation of Paris. Paris was liberated before any Allied soldiers reached there, and so stupid American people who gorge themselves on Hollywood rubbish who say "we saved your ass in WW2" should really get some knowledge.

Actually, Paris was not liberated when the first Allied Armies reached it, there was still street fighting going on. And they did save their ass, had the Army of the Liberation not landed, than every peice of evidence shows that France would have remained under Nazi occupation (until those nice Soviet people shwed up anyway).

You didnt even join until 8th December 1941, 2 years 3 months and 5 days after the European powers had joined.

Who in turn, did not join the war against Japan until the same time as the US, and that had been going on since at least 1937, way to go.

The only reason Britain didnt fall to the Nazis is because of the English Channel (and the RAF).

The RN has just as much credit for that.

America being several thousand miles away helped them to stay safe as well- not because you are in any way naturally superior. And if you are- don't forget, most of you are British anyway!

Actually, I'm pretty sure most of us aren't British, but anyway, the US was not "naturally" superior, but it was superior to every other country in the world during WW2 (Industrial capacity wise), it's GDP totalled 49% of the entire world's GDP combined. It was the only contry to outproduce Germany and Japan (combined) in every single field, and threw around resources even the Soviet Union could only dream of.
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 16:19
we still saved the french from the nanzis

....the Nanzi's?

So I guess those Soviets, who destroyed 80% of the Whermacht, they didn't help that much did they? (Sure we gave them a lot of their critical equipment and supplies, but it was still their men bleeding) Or the British, who were so kind to provide a base for Overlord, and with the Commonwealth, provide 50% of the Army of the Liberation (Until September 1944, when the US finally acheived a majority). The Poles, like their 1st Armoured Division, which along with Patton's Army closed the Falaise Gap at Trun and Chambois, or the Czechs, who flew during the BoB (not as impressively as the Poles though), or any of the other country's that dragged Nazi Germany to it's death.
Trimley
29-08-2004, 16:21
I think there is only one truth when it comes to France and the military. The French fight well only when well lead. Unlike the British who tend to fight well regardless of generalship.

America would most likly have lost the Revolutionry War without France. I think that might be the underlying problem America has with France. Though it is true France will never forgive America for liberating her in WWII. The same could be said for America and the Revolutionry War, without French assistence and strategy the Colonial Army would most liklly of been slaughtered by the British and their Indian and German [sic] allies.

As far as Iraq goes, why the hell should France join? Ether America and Britian lied about WMDs to justify the war, in which case France was wise to stay out of it. Or America and Britain went to war for economic reasons, think of all those rebuilding contracts. Again in which case France was right to stay out of it, since it is doubtful Bush would be willing to share the loot. Or maybe it was to scare Arab nations into compilence on the 'War on Terrorism' well that has worked a treat.

The problem with the French is they have an attitude problem, but then again so does America and the UK.
Opal Isle
29-08-2004, 16:21
Wow...this thread took off overnight...I'm not going to read through all of that, so could someone please post the highlights of the discussion?
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 16:24
Wow...this thread took off overnight...I'm not going to read through all of that, so could someone please post the highlights of the discussion?

Umm..... a lot of see-sawing between people who have posted things like France owes us, or we saved France's ass, than the counter arguments of they don't owe us, we weren't the only ones, a few spinoff arguments over whether or not France was responsible for the US in Vietnam (and did the US lose).
Rannyboy
29-08-2004, 16:31
Actually, Paris was not liberated when the first Allied Armies reached it, there was still street fighting going on.
A majority of the regular allied elements entering in Paris on the 24th/25th/26th of august 1944 were apart of the French 2nd armoured division led by the General Leclerc.
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 16:34
A majority of the regular allied elements entering in Paris on the 24th/25th/26th of august 1944 were apart of the French 2nd armoured division led by the General Leclerc.

Yes, Leclercs 2nd Armoured was the first Allied Regular Units to enter the city, but it still stands that when the Army of the Liberation reached Paris, it was not "Liberated".
Sather
29-08-2004, 16:34
Here's why we hate France. They lie to us and they don't support us. Oh and it kind of bothers me that there is proof that they had deals with Iraq that were not allowed under UN resolutions. They didn't care about that, why should be care about them.
Featherless Biped
29-08-2004, 16:37
I think that France just seems to like doing whatever the hell it wants, regardless of any other state's opinions. Did I hear shortly after the Iraq war that it was complaining because it wasn't getting any rebuilding contracts getting thrown its way? I think a team of french politicians must have thought that up in a meeting entitled, "How can we piss off the foreign bastards a bit more?"

So, I don't hate France at all. I find its foreign policy hilarious and the people very friendly
Opal Isle
29-08-2004, 16:37
Well, eh...

I still stand with my see-sawing world powers argument. Do we owe Italy? I mean, without the Roman Empire, the Moslem empire may very well have taken over all of Europe and America might not even exist at all.
The fact of the matter is, world powers rise and fall and rise and fall. France was on its way downhill as we were on our way up and as far as military power goes, France hasn't begun to climb back up yet really. France has been an extremely powerful nation in the past though.
Rannyboy
29-08-2004, 16:40
Yes, Leclercs 2nd Armoured was the first Allied Regular Units to enter the city, but it still stands that when the Army of the Liberation reached Paris, it was not "Liberated".
Yes, I agree, yet it is French elements which assaulted the Meurice Hotel, the Gross Paris HQ.

The Paris insurgency has been triggered mainly by the Communists who started the show dangerously early.

One can't negate the role of the French resistance especially in the South-West where neither the armies landed Normandy or Provence could reach them under short delays, they're also the ones slowing down and even cutting the retreat or redeployment of the German units from the larger South to Normandy.
Rannyboy
29-08-2004, 16:43
as far as military power goes, France hasn't begun to climb back up yet really.
Are you emitting some kind of quality judgement of the French military ? is so you could do the same for all the other former military powers.
France in this domain does well enough to suit its needs
Opal Isle
29-08-2004, 16:45
Are you emitting some kind of quality judgement of the French military ? is so you could do the same for all the other former military powers.
France in this domain does well enough to suit its needs
They're not a military power, please don't deny that. Besides, you missed my point.
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 16:47
One can't negate the role of the French resistance especially in the South-West where neither the armies landed Normandy or Provence could reach them under short delays, they're also the ones slowing down and even cutting the retreat or redeployment of the German units from the larger South to Normandy.

You are speaking of Vercours, yes? In which case, it did not prevent the re-deployment of units from the South to the North, that was accomplished by the USAAF and RAF, the partisan attacks against the railway infrastructure was inconsequential in comparison. The regular units that surrounded Vercours and slaughtered the Resistance there was about brigade size.

At any rate, I don't put quite so much stock in the Resistance as probably your local history book, but this is not becuase the Resistance didn't try, France simply does not have the type of terrain and distance to support an irregular movement (in fact, only Yugoslavia did this). The Nazi's never had more than 6,000 soldiers dedicated to keeping down the Resistance, and was remarkably successful (the soldiers of the Regular Divisions did not participate in police actions, since they were usually too far away anyway, or had more important things to do, this rule was bent a little in the East, but held true in the West). For a more comprehensive analysis of the faults of Resistance movements, read the chapter Resistance and Espionage, of John Keegan's The Second World War
Rannyboy
29-08-2004, 16:48
They're not a military power, please don't deny that. Besides, you missed my point.
France is apart of the atom club and is one of the great arms exportators.
It has projection abilities (limited I admit) and is in operations on several continents and is one of the rare nations other than the USA to possess a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
It is not a huge military power but still has a say in world politics.

The size of France doesn't allow it to have a military of a might comparable to what is seen on the other side of the Atlantic with the US armed frces.
Trimley
29-08-2004, 16:48
Here's why we hate France. They lie to us and they don't support us. Oh and it kind of bothers me that there is proof that they had deals with Iraq that were not allowed under UN resolutions. They didn't care about that, why should be care about them.

And that is diiferent to America maintaing an illegial blockage of Cuba, or selling arms to Iran, or even giving Iraq WMDs in the first place?
Opal Isle
29-08-2004, 16:49
France is apart of the atom club and is one of the great arms exportators.
It has projection abilities (limited I admit) and is in operations on several continents and is one of the rare nations other than the USA to possess a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
It is not a huge military power but still has a say in world politics.

The size of France doesn't allow it to have a military of a might comparable to what is seen on the other side of the Atlantic with the US armed frces.
You don't see the point I'm making so I'm not going to continue with this. You're arguing with the wrong person anyway.
Responsability
29-08-2004, 16:53
everybody is talking about the war lost by the french...hmmm....it's history
what about the wars the americans are losing right now?
and without the help of some frenchmen, americans would still be waving the union jack.
It is also funny that for a country americans supossedly hate, they feel the need to call many thing that are nice and luxurious "french"...which by the way are not generally french.
Responsability
29-08-2004, 16:55
wha has deal with Iraq? i believe the vice president of the US has had ties there for a while, so stop the one-sided blindness
Reltaran
29-08-2004, 16:55
What, like French fries?
Klopstokia
29-08-2004, 16:58
When Germany invaded Belgium on August 4 1914, Britain declared war the same day as they had guaranteed to uphold Belgian independence in the Treaty of London in 1839.

Yeah... right...
It was British opportunism to use that as a pretext for a war against Germany!!!
Klopstokia
29-08-2004, 16:59
What, like French fries?

They are from Belgium ;)
The New Aryan State
29-08-2004, 17:01
Think what you want, but the treaty was made seventy years prior to the war and for good reason. You don't break a promise like that.
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 17:01
Yeah... right...
It was British opportunism to use that as a pretext for a war against Germany!!!

Do you have any idea how many British did not want to go to war with Germany over France, they had not done so in 1870, and they weren't going to in 1914. It's was Germany's flagrant violation of the international treaties with Belgium that brought Great Britain into the war, and even then kicking and screaming.
Rannyboy
29-08-2004, 17:03
You are speaking of Vercours, yes? In which case, it did not prevent the re-deployment of units from the South to the North, that was accomplished by the USAAF and RAF, the partisan attacks against the railway infrastructure was inconsequential in comparison. The regular units that surrounded Vercours and slaughtered the Resistance there was about brigade size.

At any rate, I don't put quite so much stock in the Resistance as probably your local history book, but this is not becuase the Resistance didn't try, France simply does not have the type of terrain and distance to support an irregular movement (in fact, only Yugoslavia did this). The Nazi's never had more than 6,000 soldiers dedicated to keeping down the Resistance, and was remarkably successful (the soldiers of the Regular Divisions did not participate in police actions, since they were usually too far away anyway, or had more important things to do, this rule was bent a little in the East, but held true in the West). For a more comprehensive analysis of the faults of Resistance movements, read the chapter Resistance and Espionage, of John Keegan's The Second World War

It's spelled Vercors, and I'm not only talking about this Maquis which was, I have to admit not so successful in that it has been mercilessly annihilated.
There were a lot more different Maquis of various sizes.
In the period between June and August 1944, the Resistance had an important role in slowing down the flow of german units going to the north/north-west naturally helped by Allied assets (air support mainly). There are a lot of well documented ambushes against german columns of various lengths and strengths.
It is also this kind of actions which apparently led to the Oradour slaughter as elements of the SS Pz. Div. Das Reich got really pissed after several successful ambushes against elements of their unit and decided to mae an exemple. You can follow the bloody path of this unit up to Normandy if you look carefully through the records of represail acts committed by German troops on redeployment.
Most of the Resistance actions were small scale local actions sometimes bordering onto psychological warfare against the once-occupying forces.
Reltaran
29-08-2004, 17:05
They[french fries] are from Belgium
No shit? The point is this false claim made by Responsability: "It is also funny that for a country americans supossedly hate, they feel the need to call many thing that are nice and luxurious "french"..." I would not call French fries "luxurious." We DO tend to refer to haute couture and the uppermost echelons of artistry and society as being "European," but not particularly "French."
Responsability
29-08-2004, 17:07
haute couture is a french word, and invention. that proves my point
Reltaran
29-08-2004, 17:09
No, it doesn't -it only shows that we use French terminology, which is actually nothing new to the English language at all.
New Anthrus
29-08-2004, 17:15
Well, apparantly then, there is no good reason, but stubborn Americans will continue to blame France anyway.
They've taken the place of the British 100 years ago. Then the British started a campaign that the US and UK were "the same race", and judging from WWI, it worked. The French can't play that card, but even if they could, would anyone care nowadays?
Southern Hamiltonia
29-08-2004, 17:15
Do you have any idea how many British did not want to go to war with Germany over France, they had not done so in 1870, and they weren't going to in 1914. It's was Germany's flagrant violation of the international treaties with Belgium that brought Great Britain into the war, and even then kicking and screaming.

Indeed - specifically, the Locarno and Kellogg-Briand Pacts, which all the parties involved signed in the 1920s. Britain also acted to honour a promise to Poland of support given in March of 1939 to provide support in case of Nazi Aggression. In reality, of course, both parties must have known that Britain stood no chance of getting meaningful assistance to Poland in time to make a difference.
West - Europa
29-08-2004, 17:16
Fact of the day: At the 1958 World Expo in Brussels the Belgians built the Atomium, a huge model of an iron molecule (plated with aluminium...).

Before the molecule proposition, some wanted to build an upside down Eiffel Tower. But that would insult the French.

I'd have rooted for the tower idea anyway.

Who are the nanzis?
Damn nanzi bastards.
No shit?
I second that French fries are actually Belgian.
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 17:18
It's spelled Vercors, and I'm not only talking about this Maquis which was, I have to admit not so successful in that it has been mercilessly annihilated.

Thanks for the correction, my mistake.


In the period between June and August 1944, the Resistance had an important role in slowing down the flow of german units going to the north/north-west naturally helped by Allied assets (air support mainly). There are a lot of well documented ambushes against german columns of various lengths and strengths.

I didn't say the Resistance did nothing, but compared to what popular lore would lead some to believe, they did not do much, the destruction of the French railway system was largely due to the US 9th and 8th Air Forces and RAF Bomber Command and 2nd Tactical Air Force.

It is also this kind of actions which apparently led to the Oradour slaughter as elements of the SS Pz. Div. Das Reich got really pissed after several successful ambushes against elements of their unit and decided to mae an exemple. You can follow the bloody path of this unit up to Normandy if you look carefully through the records of represail acts committed by German troops on redeployment.

The Battle of Tulle comes to mind, and Oradour was for the abduction of a Das Reich officer, not entirely sure what he commanded in the division, but was the highest ranking German Officer abducted by the Resistance.

Most of the Resistance actions were small scale local actions sometimes bordering onto psychological warfare against the once-occupying forces.

However, given what hopes Churchill had, when he told the creator of the SOE, Hugh Dalton, "Now set Europe ablaze", the Resistance did not live up to it's legend. Prior to the Allied landings, the Resistance was held down with remarkable success (again, becuase France itself, not it's people, does not favor irregular operations), and during the landings, they certainly played a part, but not one that without, the Army of the Liberation would have lost.
The Sword and Sheild
29-08-2004, 17:19
Indeed - specifically, the Locarno and Kellogg-Briand Pacts, which all the parties involved signed in the 1920s.

Wrong war, but same idea.

Britain also acted to honour a promise to Poland of support given in March of 1939 to provide support in case of Nazi Aggression. In reality, of course, both parties must have known that Britain stood no chance of getting meaningful assistance to Poland in time to make a difference.

Poland was pinning it's hopes on an offensive by the Franco-British Armies into the Rhineland (which could not happen, given the rapid collapse of Poland), and that this sign of strength might persuade Germany to leave Poland alone.
Rannyboy
29-08-2004, 17:40
Thanks for the correction, my mistake.




I didn't say the Resistance did nothing, but compared to what popular lore would lead some to believe, they did not do much, the destruction of the French railway system was largely due to the US 9th and 8th Air Forces and RAF Bomber Command and 2nd Tactical Air Force.



The Battle of Tulle comes to mind, and Oradour was for the abduction of a Das Reich officer, not entirely sure what he commanded in the division, but was the highest ranking German Officer abducted by the Resistance.



However, given what hopes Churchill had, when he told the creator of the SOE, Hugh Dalton, "Now set Europe ablaze", the Resistance did not live up to it's legend. Prior to the Allied landings, the Resistance was held down with remarkable success (again, becuase France itself, not it's people, does not favor irregular operations), and during the landings, they certainly played a part, but not one that without, the Army of the Liberation would have lost.

Yes, you're right. Not long ago, I remember reading an article with an oversimplified figure which was : 100,000 resistants and 100,000 collaborators with Vichy and the Germans.
I have to admit that the role of the Resistance has often been amplified for political and ideological reasons as the post-war Gaulist France couldn't have existed without the image of a France standing up and Fighting led by De Gaulle.

And don't limit the Resistance actions to railway sabotage ;)

Concerning the bombings operated by the allied Air Forces, I know what you're talking about as several trainstations and rail bridges in my region have been destroyed by allied bombs which did a good job but often occasioned collateral damages then used by Vichy for propaganda meens.

But yet Resistance did play a role that one shouldn't neglect along with the regular Free French Troops as even if their contributions have been relatively limited, they did contribute to the Allies' war effort.
Clan HunHill
29-08-2004, 19:46
I've been to France ...

I ran into a lot of Americans in Paris who seemed to feel that French people could understand English better if it were loud ... that's why I hate Paris.

Cannes was nice, but a bit humid.

I do hate the way Canadians (read: Quebec) have butchered the French language ... they make it sound slimey. I wanted to slit throats.

Anyway, I don't hate the French ... but the Occitan Rap has to go.


This I can understand. I speak Quebecois (the Quebec French dialect) myself. It is somewhat harsh, and hard to comprehend, but that would be due to the extended time of English and French living together. The languages, eventually, started to intermingle. However, the further North in Quebec that you go, the older the dialect. So there is still some pure French left in Quebec.


British army .... more ignorance!


That was more of a miswording, than ignorance. Thank you for the correction.
Clan HunHill
29-08-2004, 19:51
Waterloo was won more due to British tactics than weather

I would disagree with that, to a certain extent (and so would the BBC). Mind you, yes, the British had better ranking systems than the French, Napoleons' Artillery was unmatched by any in the world, at the time. His explosive shells did nothing during the first bombardment because the cannonballs simply sank into the dirt and did nothing. In dry weather this would have been quite different. Due to the weather, Napoleon had a *severe* decrease in chance of succes due to that factor. The reason why Napoleon had been winning majority of the time wasn't due to having an outstanding army, but rather due to his outstanding artillery divisions. Without artillery, he was fubar'd.
Chuang-Han China
30-08-2004, 01:08
The reason France did poorly in several wars was bad leadership.

In the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the French were pushed into declaring war. Their army was outnumbered drastically, but because they had defeated the Austrians in the Piedmontese War of 1859 (Austria was already a dilapidated Empire on it's last legs anyway, not a great victory, but the French thought they were the ultimate power by so easily defeating the once proud Austrians) and they believed their own propaganda and thought they did well in the Crimean War (No one did well in that, and the French had a casualty rate second only to Russia). And because of these misleading in the French Commander's minds, they charged headlong into a superior force which advanced quickly enough to surround the French at Sedan, and cause unbelievable confusion in the French lines. If the French Generals had tried to fight a defensive war, this wouldn't have happened, and the war wouldn't have been such a terrible defeat.

In World War I, the French were so obsessed with recapturing Alsace and Lorraine that when war broke out, they executed an offensive to take it back. They stationed over half of their army to advance into Alsace & Lorraine. Problem was, the Germans went behind them and invaded Belgium, threatening to advance south, surround the French army, and capture Paris. Again, if the French Generals had fought a defensive war rather then being obsessed with Alsace Lorraine, they would not have faced that organizational problem. If not for the Battle of the Marne, Paris would have fallen and we would have seen a reoccurrence of 1870.

In World War II, the French wanted to protect Belgium, they thought if they kept the Germans in Belgium and dug in, the Germans wouldn't ever get to France. They had the Maginot Line on one side, and put the majority of their army in Belgium to keep the Germans out of France in May 1940. Problem was, they left a gap in the Ardennes. If the French had had the chance to dig in and not left a gap, we would have seen a slow WWI type war in France, rather then the humiliating Blitz that occurred.

All these problems were because of the FRENCH GENERALS, not the French Army or the French People. The French have often had very incompetent people in charge, and that's what lost them wars.

And whoever said that European Powers didn't enter the Asian war the same day as America - You're an idiot. The day after Pearl Harbor, two British Battleships in Singapore were sunk by Japanese bombers. The British the day of Pearl Harbor informed America that they were to go to war with America against Japan.
Von Witzleben
30-08-2004, 02:21
But the true reason everyone hated the French at one time in history: They don't stop sticking their noses where they don't belong in things! They have always felt like they should be this omnipresent force World-Wide, and thus meddle in a place they didn't belong, bringing great hatred to them. Any hatred a nation feels for the French is entirely the French's fault, period.
Thats why the Americans are so "popular" as well.
Von Witzleben
30-08-2004, 02:25
I second that French fries are actually Belgian.
No. Belgian, or rather Flamish fries, are bigger.
Mr Basil Fawlty
30-08-2004, 02:35
No. Belgian, or rather Flamish fries, are bigger.

Yes, but that is a (wrong) Dutch impression. When you ask for "Vlaamse friet" (this thing even does not exist in Flanders, since Friet = Friet) in Holland, they give you something that is absolutely not Flemish: bigger and more fat. A problem there :confused:

Actually, I heared that the Spanish invented it (of course, the famous "frietkot" wich are very rare now apeared in the 19th century in Flanders).

Groeten, mijn favoriet kot was vroeger bij "Wilfriet " , stond echt zo op zn kraam, njamie.
Von Witzleben
30-08-2004, 02:35
Do you have any idea how many British did not want to go to war with Germany over France, they had not done so in 1870, and they weren't going to in 1914.
Actually it was because of an idea of Napoleon III. He ones had the plan to annex Belgium. Prussia would get Luxemburg. The Prussians didn't go for it. Bismarck leaked this info to the British that way insuring their neutrality.

It's was Germany's flagrant violation of the international treaties with Belgium that brought Great Britain into the war, and even then kicking and screaming.
Britain did a good job of breaking international treaties in and prior to WW1 as well.
Von Witzleben
30-08-2004, 02:38
Yes, but that is a (wrong) Dutch impression. When you ask for "Vlaamse friet" (this thing even does not exist in Flanders, since Friet = Friet) in Holland, they give you something that is absolutely not Flemish: bigger and more fat. A problem there :confused:

Actually, I heared that the Spanish invented it (of course, the famous "frietkot" wich are very rare now apeared in the 19th century in Flanders).

Groeten, mijn favoriet kot was vroeger bij "Wilfriet " , stond echt zo op zn kraam, njamie.
Ah ok.
I prefer the fries how they make them in Germany. Together with a nice Curry-Wurst or Krakauer.
Mr Basil Fawlty
30-08-2004, 02:39
Ah ok.
I prefer the fries how they make them in Germany. Together with a nice Curry-Wurst or Krakauer.

You're making me hungry, when this goes on, I will be forced to jump in my car and get some. Or better, take some potatoes and make them myself here, with my own mayonaise. slurp.
Von Witzleben
30-08-2004, 02:42
You're making me hungry, when this goes on, I will be forced to jump in my car and get some. Or better, take some potatoes and make them myself here, with my own mayonaise. slurp.
They still sell them at this late hour?
Mr Basil Fawlty
30-08-2004, 02:46
They still sell them at this late hour?

Yep, they close in my hometown (but not in the country now) at about 4 Am.at sunday, at friday/saturday until morning. But at some places,in Belgium ( like Gent, Antwerp, Bxl aso you can buy them everyday still at 8 Am and have a good beer with it.
Pelleon
30-08-2004, 02:47
-snip-

S&S, you do know what a joke is, right? :D

Next time I'll add more :D :D :D so that people get the hint ;)
Von Witzleben
30-08-2004, 02:51
beer
Mmm...beer... :cool:
Reltaran
30-08-2004, 03:00
"...They don't stop sticking their noses where they don't belong in things! They have always felt like they should be this omnipresent force World-Wide, and thus meddle in a place they didn't belong...

Thats why the Americans are so "popular" as well.


The difference is that France is no longer a leading world power, whereas the USA is nearly undeterred in its power. There's always been imperialism, and there always will be. But it's just amusing to see a former empire attempting to act authoritatively. Well, amusing for me -many other Americans find it annoying or despicable.

In regards to the imperialism of the USA, it is not nearly as widel-hated as it would have been if it had followed the brands of imperialism practiced by previous empires. The USA's imperial conquests are more commercial than military, a strategy which has proven highly successful -it tempts others to join instead of [always] demanding that they do so.
Von Witzleben
30-08-2004, 03:03
The difference is that France is no longer a leading world power, whereas the USA is nearly undeterred in its power.
So what? Is that supposed to be an argument to make the US meddeling policy more acceptable and Americans more popular?
Jebustan
30-08-2004, 03:10
After 200 years, do nations really owe each other gratitude? May I remind you the French did so entirely to spite the British, not to actually help Americans.

Doesn't matter. They still helped us.
The Sword and Sheild
30-08-2004, 03:21
S&S, you do know what a joke is, right? :D

Next time I'll add more :D :D :D so that people get the hint ;)

Yes, I am perfectly aware, but some jokes are inappropriate in certain context, and deserve to be torn apart like that, since someone else is not going to see it as a joke and see it as a legitimate tear on French Military History.
Reltaran
30-08-2004, 03:35
So what? Is that supposed to be an argument to make the US meddeling policy more acceptable and Americans more popular?

You conveniently make no mention of the actual explanation for the statement of mine you quoted. Either address the actual conclusion, or go annoy somebody else.
Purly Euclid
30-08-2004, 03:42
Yes, I am perfectly aware, but some jokes are inappropriate in certain context, and deserve to be torn apart like that, since someone else is not going to see it as a joke and see it as a legitimate tear on French Military History.
The French have the most pathetic military history I've ever seen, especially in the modern era. Sure, Napoleon was great, but did he win? No, because Napoleon didn't understand that he wasn't the only guy with an army that existed. There's a list of defeats after that, including:
-The Franco-Prussian war
-WWI (stalemate for the French)
-WWII (invasion and occupation of France)
-Vietnam (Diet Biet Phu, anyone?)
-Algeria (and it nearly destroyed the government in the process)
-Lebanese Civil War
The last one needs explaining, I know. As you know, France had Syria and its tiny sattelite state, Lebannon, by League of Nations mandate. The French made a mess of Syria, but helped to craft the modern Lebanese government. It's really a work of art. Anyhow, like the British, the French had a moral obligation to the area. Indeed, they did try to maintain a dialogue with their former colonies. The British had security, and even financial arrangements with their former colonies in the Middle East, until they could stand on their own two feet. It seemed, however, that France didn't.
Instead, it abandoned Lebanon. During their civil war, the Syrians came in, and so did Hizb'Allah, attacking Israel, forcing the Israelis to invade, and then they destroyed half the country. As a person of Lebanese decent, I've met several people who live in Lebanon say they have no problem with Israel, as it was defending its borders. Not the Syrians. They have no reason to be there but to prop a puppet government up come every election, and please their Iranian masters anyway they can. If France started to care about that country now, they'd send troops in, and liberate Lebanon. But I doubt they will. If Syria uses one chemical weapon on French troops, they either run home to France, or get trapped in the mountains somewhere until US or Israeli special forces could bail them out. But in short, the French have betrayed Lebannon.
The Sword and Sheild
30-08-2004, 05:44
-The Franco-Prussian war

Definitely a humiliating defeat, but the French Army did admirable during it, ever heard of Belfort? It withstood seige (it was right on the Franco-German border) throughout the entire war, and only surrendered upon hearing of the Armistice at Versailles (The one that ended the Franco-Prussian War). It was the only fortress to do so, but many other French forts withstood seige for far longer than the Prussians thought they would, hence the reason the Army was not so ashamed of it's performance. It was the blunder of it's leadrs in the crucial first major battles (which they almost won), and the encirclement of Sedan that did the French in.

-WWI (stalemate for the French)

Once they had defeated Kaiserschlacht, the French had won, the Americans just meant a few less French and British had to die until Germany finally gave up, the Europeans won this one by themselves (and who made up the largest force on the Western Front? Ze French)

-WWII (invasion and occupation of France)

Had Germany been in Canada's position, the US would have collapsed just as quickly, there was nothing that could have prepared them for Sickle Stroke, and even after Sickle Stroke, they made a determined stand, but for lack of troops lost. The French were the first to use tactics needed to combat blitzkrieg (instead of a continous front, concentrate AT weapons in "nests", usually towns, with supporting infantry that will fight on even after surrounded, until relief arrives).

-Vietnam (Diet Biet Phu, anyone?)

It's Dien Bien Phu, and the French lost that war for much the same reason the US lost there two decades later, lakc of popular support, plus the French also had a serious lack of funding.

-Algeria (and it nearly destroyed the government in the process)

I've already dealt with Algeria, had they kept Algeria I'm sure everyone would rail against thier imperialism, they weren't outright defeated, but pressures both internal (it didn't nearly destroy, it did, the Fourth Republic fell) and external defeated them.

-Lebanese Civil War
The last one needs explaining, I know. As you know, France had Syria and its tiny sattelite state, Lebannon, by League of Nations mandate. The French made a mess of Syria, but helped to craft the modern Lebanese government. It's really a work of art. Anyhow, like the British, the French had a moral obligation to the area. Indeed, they did try to maintain a dialogue with their former colonies. The British had security, and even financial arrangements with their former colonies in the Middle East, until they could stand on their own two feet. It seemed, however, that France didn't.
Instead, it abandoned Lebanon. During their civil war, the Syrians came in, and so did Hizb'Allah, attacking Israel, forcing the Israelis to invade, and then they destroyed half the country. As a person of Lebanese decent, I've met several people who live in Lebanon say they have no problem with Israel, as it was defending its borders. Not the Syrians. They have no reason to be there but to prop a puppet government up come every election, and please their Iranian masters anyway they can. If France started to care about that country now, they'd send troops in, and liberate Lebanon. But I doubt they will. If Syria uses one chemical weapon on French troops, they either run home to France, or get trapped in the mountains somewhere until US or Israeli special forces could bail them out. But in short, the French have betrayed Lebannon.

Ok.....but still not a French military defeat.
Clan HunHill
30-08-2004, 08:36
A nation should not be judged on its success, or failures, in military conflicts. Rather, it should be judged on the character of its people and the ideals it stands for.

Everyone seems to be bashing the French for their 'pathetic' military history. So what? They've lost alot. Whoopdeedoo. They've evolved into a nation of peace which, at the very least, is admirable. There are few nations today that can claim that, America is not one of them.

Don't get me wrong, having a well-trained and lead army for your nation is grand, but I'd rather see a modern day peaceful France than the old-style imperialistic powerhouse that it once was. With humility comes modesty, and they're better off for it.
Gholistan
30-08-2004, 08:48
the thing is that the whole "Without france americans would be speaking french" arguement was not motivated by any sort of french love of democracy or patriotism. In reality if you really look at it, who was closer to the liberal ideals of the Sons of Liberty... The British Parliament an elected institution. Or the Authoritarian Monarch of France that ruled a "Despotism, tempered by songs". The supporting of the American colonists was not even a personal decision, but a political one. France wanted to punish England and to weaken them. And what better way but to support the colonies in an insurrection.

Also, there are several reasons why the recent "hatred" of France has emerged.

1. The actions against the war in iraq, and various other american escapades were not political decisions but election decisions made because the Center Right governments of europe have an interest in appeasing the far left masses who are already angry with their governments for carrying out market reform.

2. Were hypocritical as soon after America invaded Iraq, France sent peacekeepers to Ivory Coast due to the "threats to French buisness interests" posed by the civil war.

3. Opposition to Iraq War was based on economic decisions as the Ba'athist regime owed immense amounts of money to French and German creditors and enjoyed the benefits of a robust arms trade.
Goed
30-08-2004, 09:38
the thing is that the whole "Without france americans would be speaking french" arguement was not motivated by any sort of french love of democracy or patriotism. In reality if you really look at it, who was closer to the liberal ideals of the Sons of Liberty... The British Parliament an elected institution. Or the Authoritarian Monarch of France that ruled a "Despotism, tempered by songs". The supporting of the American colonists was not even a personal decision, but a political one. France wanted to punish England and to weaken them. And what better way but to support the colonies in an insurrection.

Also, there are several reasons why the recent "hatred" of France has emerged.

1. The actions against the war in iraq, and various other american escapades were not political decisions but election decisions made because the Center Right governments of europe have an interest in appeasing the far left masses who are already angry with their governments for carrying out market reform.

2. Were hypocritical as soon after America invaded Iraq, France sent peacekeepers to Ivory Coast due to the "threats to French buisness interests" posed by the civil war.

3. Opposition to Iraq War was based on economic decisions as the Ba'athist regime owed immense amounts of money to French and German creditors and enjoyed the benefits of a robust arms trade.


Because America would NEVER make a political decision based on buisness needs. No sir, we've got the moral high ground!

<cough> FULL OF FUCKING BULLSHIT <cough>

Nasty cold, there...
Gholistan
30-08-2004, 09:49
I never said they wouldn't. If fact I am highly critical of American Foreign policy especially when held hostage by domestic pressure groups.

However, when American politicians do it... we lie about it.

The French out and out do it. That is the problem and the reason why most people are less fond of them. Especially in the United States. Also, we get a good amount of the "Pretentious Holier than thou" frenchman stereotype, and they aggravate us. As I am sure the "Cowboy, ignorant, redneck" american stereotype aggravates you? First one... Chirac much? Second one... Bush much?
Goed
30-08-2004, 09:54
I never said they wouldn't. If fact I am highly critical of American Foreign policy especially when held hostage by domestic pressure groups.

However, when American politicians do it... we lie about it.

The French out and out do it. That is the problem and the reason why most people are less fond of them. Especially in the United States. Also, we get a good amount of the "Pretentious Holier than thou" frenchman stereotype, and they aggravate us. As I am sure the "Cowboy, ignorant, redneck" american stereotype aggravates you? First one... Chirac much? Second one... Bush much?

LOL true.

I just find it...ironic and rather sad. One of my friends went to France for a week, and according to him, he's never met nicer people. He's fairly fluent in french-and made sure to stock up on Grey Goose while he was there :D-but from what he's said they were just generally very hospitible people.

I see the opposite happen quite often over here. If someone says that they so much as support the french, they get blasted on. I'd hate to see what actually happens to people who are french.
Gholistan
30-08-2004, 10:59
Nothing?

Even if they do "blast" them it -is- their freedom to do so. While I don't hate the people of france, I so strongly dissagree with it's government and find it one of the more hypocritical and controlling governments in the world.

I.E:

"America is an evil imperialist military power that uses it's superior economic and military advantage to punish those that oppose them"

later that evening...

"If Poland backs the US invasion we will do all in our power to veto their inclusion into the EU."
Psylos
30-08-2004, 11:09
I think it's becaues the french have an arrogant culture (I'm telling this as a french).
I would think the arrogance in the US is the french part of the US. We always thought we were superior.
Psylos
30-08-2004, 12:43
Actually I think this is what unites the french. We've always been fighting each other since the Gallic. The caesars noticed the gallic were fighting each other. The only thing that unites us is this feeling that we are superior and maybe we are.
Reltaran
30-08-2004, 13:10
Well all kinds of theories have been bandied about, but they all seem to have the same answer to the initial question(Why do Americans often despise the French?): They were both imperial powers. Thus, they have both developed extremely arrogant, supremacist cultural views. And there is no quicker recipe for conflict than for two blowhards to meet...
Kybernetia
30-08-2004, 13:58
There is not just a French-English rivalry which dates back till the 100-year war (1337-1451) but also a German-French rivalry.
In the times of Charlemane France and Germany were ruled by the same king. But in 843 the Kingdom fall apart in three parts: Western Franc Empire (France), the Eastern Franc empire (since 911 ruled by a saxonina dynasty - from 920 called "rex teutonicum" or "rex teutonicorum" - Germany) and the middle part which later was disputed between east and west.
After the 30-year-war (1618-48) France became the dominating power in Europe. And dominating powers are not liked. And under Napoleon they dominated all of Europe - destroying what was left over of the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806), reducing Austria of much of its territory and Prussia of half of its territory. Well: that was certainly the point were it is possible to speak about the arch-enemieship between France and Germany which continued till the 1950s. The national and liberal movements in Germany in the 19 th century who wanted an united and democratic Germany where also partly very anti-french.
Well and the unification of Germany in 1871 happened after a war against France which stood in the way.
The celebrations for the unification by the way took place in Versailles.
France afterward was always looking for an opportunity to take revenge for it. So the arch-enemieship was really from both sides.

Britain and France were actually allied from 1892 till around the 1950s against Germany. The Entente.
In 1956 both actually occupied the Suez channel - but the US and the USSR condemned their action.
Afterwards both countries went different directions.
France went for European integration and an alliance with Germany.
It also had disputes with the US regarding the appointment of positions within Nato.
In the 1960s under de Gaulle France pulled out of the integrated military structure of Nato - but remained a member.
This was the first major dispute between the US and France. And since them there are occasionally other disputes in the relationship. So, France is costing much nerves for the US and that has led to increased anger against it.
It is not an one-time thing, like in the case of Germany.
It is a chronicle rivalry since decades that led to much anger against France in the political class of the US - which of course influences the view of the general public opinion on France.
Psylos
30-08-2004, 14:08
De Gaulle was good at bringing fuel to the fire. There was the breton-woods dispute as well and the Qebec libre.
Talondar
30-08-2004, 15:26
My main beef with France is they're arrogance. I watch the news, and I see France trying to influence the world, be competitive to the US, and I just think, "Dude, your time is past." They have a overblown view of themselves that was once deserving, but no longer.