NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does a vaste minority of US republicans and other extreme right hates France so much? Have they forgotten what they ow France? It is allways easy to bring on the help of WWI or WWI, withouth knowing that there where 100.000's of Free French at their sides. (Allready in Italy allone, near Cassino, 2 US divisions fought during 2 months a German brigade,withouth the slightest succes, once they where replaced because of battle fatigue, by Free French Tunesian Division, those elite soldiers took the German positions in a week.) Between WWI and WWII the US and France took initiatives, TOGETHER for making sure that such a war like WWI would never happen again.

Also, a lot of people are denying the value of the French to create the uS (withouth them, Washington would have lost everything).

There are so much ties that I really don't understand the hate of the extreme right (some republicans in charge). When I speak with French people, I never saw this hate against the US, only a disagreement with teh extreme right republican regime, not towards the people.

Strange thing this world :rolleyes:

I think they're just jealous.

The U.S. has had a love-hate relationship with the French for a long time. Just about 15 years after independence, they fought the Quasi War. That was an all-naval undeclared war that came about when the French interfered with American shipping to Great Britain. The Americans were ticked off that the French demanded bribes to even speak with them and the two countries fought for about two years before they finally ceased hostilities.

During the Civil War, France's Napoleon III took over Mexico while the Union could do little but protest, citing the Monroe Doctrine (which forbade European powers from interfering with the affairs of the Western Hemisphere). Once the Civil War ended, the U.S. ordered France out and they left, and the Mexican puppet emperor was quickly ousted.

So there's been some conflict between the U.S. and France in the past.

Oxtailsoup,

I'm inclined to agree with you. As an American, I've grown tired of hearing people make jokes about French surrenders. Considering that there wouldn't have BEEN a United States without the French forces assisting the revolutionary forces, we should probably joke less and respect more. The common argument is that we did a lot for France too. Well, big deal. Isn't that how friendships are supposed to work? It's socially harder to make friends with the unpopular nation who's already getting picked on by the toughest kid in school (England was a serious superpower when France helped us gain our sovereignty) than it is to befriend an already respected nation. Let's appreciate that France saw fit to stand up for our rights against the toughest kid on the block.

Frankly, it's a crime to me that we value money so much and work so hard while never getting to enjoy the money we make. I have a deep respect for the French way of life. I think they work just as hard as anyone, but they know when to take a break and enjoy the world around them. Vive la France!


--Laurelin

So there's been some conflict between the U.S. and France in the past.

There is, but there is no reason for any education person (about the only ones who would know that bit of history) to actually allow something that happened 200 years ago to influence them.

France is a democracy the same as the US. The French are extremely polite. I think the tensions are really based in ignorance, and I think US leaders should actively try to dispell that ignorance.

There is, but there is no reason for any education person (about the only ones who would know that bit of history) to actually allow something that happened 200 years ago to influence them..
The question is also how far things that happened 60 years ago should influence us today. Are Japan and Germany still seen as enemies although the are allies of the US today?

France is a democracy the same as the US. The French are extremely polite. I think the tensions are really based in ignorance, and I think US leaders should actively try to dispell that ignorance.
Americans and French have a lot in common. A big national pride - some say arrogance. France tried once to rule all of Europe (Napoleon) and was for centuries the dominating power on the continent (17 th - 19 th century). Though Britain was better overseas and more and more put the French on the defensive over there. One reason for France to support the US - aside of the Prussian support for it.

The tensions are due to partly different interests between the countries. Though I think it is highly exagerated for policitical reasons on both sides. But there is more to it than we may see at first side since France and the US have their quarrels within NATO since the 1960s. France doesn´t accept the US leadership. That is the point of dispute mainly since then. However there are not a super power any more. But they still play the Asterix against new Rome. What sense does that make? It is only annoying for the US and causing those tensions.

Although France has historically been friendly towards the US our interests seem to be diverging.

The problem with the French is they have no will to fight. I mean you can use WWII as an example: they had over a million troops, and what do they do when the germans invade? They surrender. This by no means refers to all French people. Another problem with France is who do they think they are, insulting our President??? Yes I support Bush, but even if it was Clinton, it's still disrespectful. (and usually it's smart not to disrespcet the most powerful nation on earth) And the whole thing about the "helping" us when our independance, was just so they could get a blow in against England (who has repeadetly beat France throughout history) This by no means applies to all French people, but it does seem to be the national image that they're potraying.

Although France has historically been friendly towards the US our interests seem to be diverging.
Lets say partly diverging. There were the same in Haiti for example or in Afghanistan or the Balkans, e.g.
But we may leave the historic period of fixed coalitions playing a central role (like Nato, or the Warsaw pact during the Cold War) and are heading into a period of changing alliances (coalition of the willings).
That was historically actually the rule. Fixed alliances are the exception.
But what remains is the special alliance between Britain and the US and a few score alliances and some - insecure - allies.
And changing partners.

Why do people hate the French? because they talk funny.

There is, but there is no reason for any education person (about the only ones who would know that bit of history) to actually allow something that happened 200 years ago to influence them.Do you mean "educated" person? Or do you mean a person in education?

I didn't say I'm allowing the Quasi War to influence my thinking about the French. I was just pointing out that the recent spate of hostility was not the first time the U.S. and France have been at odds.

[QUOTE=Britannia and Kingdoms]The problem with the French is they have no will to fight. And the whole thing about the "helping" us when our independance, was just so they could get a blow in against England (who has repeadetly beat France throughout history) [/ QUOTE]

What a dumbass puppet you are, eat and read this,stop your US fascist republican lies. Here some facts that you can not denie. get the republican flag out of your arse.

FACTS:

Louis XIV, King of Louisiana


April 9, 1682 on the banks of the Mississippi River. Robert Cavelier de La Salle, outfitted in full dress uniform, sword in hand, read a proclamation that gave bis king "the country Louisiana". One bundred and fifty years after Jacques Cartier, Cavelier de La Salle offered France another chance to carve out an empire in the New World.
Born in Rouen, Normandy, in 1643, Robert Cavelier de La Salle was one of the greatest explorers of the North American continent. The son of wealthy parents who settled in Montreal in 1666, he could easily have led the life of a rich colonist. Gripped by the stories told him by the Indians, he swore to be the first to open the passage to the Great Western Ocean towards China. Pushed by the Governor General and supported by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, advisor to the King, and by King Louis XIV himself, Cavelier de La Salle made numerous expeditions to the Great Lakes and into present-day Illinois and Ohio. He left behind him a magnificent network of forts. After several fruitless attempts, the indefatigable traveller left Saint Louis (south of Lake Erie, in the territory of the Miami Indians) with twenty Frenchmen and thirty scouts from the Mohican and Abénaquis tribes to find the Mississippi River. When they reached the river on February 6, 1682, the ice was too thick to break. After a week, the ice began to break up, allowing the expedition to descend the river by canoe. Leaving behind places visited years before by Joliet and Marquette, they entered the territory of the Arkansas Indians, then went on to the Natchez, who gave them a very warm welcome. The two tribes were at war with one another, so the expedition didn't pause for too long. The river became wider. Soon the vegetation grew more exotic, and they sighted alligators. On the fifth of April they noticed that the water was briny. The following day, they reached the fork of the Mississippi Delta, and soon the area where the river swept into the sea. Several days later they erected a cross below which was placed a plaque that read: "In the name of Louis XIV, King of France and of Navarre, April 9, 1682." After they had chanted Vexilla Regis for the king, and a triumphal Te Deum, several shots were fired in salute. Cavelier de La Salle then read, in the presence of a public notary brought on the trip for this purpose, the proclamation giving Louis XIV "the country of Louisiana and all the seas, ports, provinces, all the peoples, nations, cities, villages, and mines of this country, as well as the length of the river Colbert or Mississippi, and all rivers that empty into it from their springs to the Gulf of Mexico." The proclamations were received several months later by Louis XIV. The "Sun King" was so pleased to gain such a vast territory that he named Cavelier de La Salle Governor and gave him gave him four ships and 200 men to begin colonization. The flotilla left in July 1684. While the voyage to the Gulf of Mexico was without incident, the expedition by-passed the Mississippi Delta, and ended up farther West, in Galveston Bay. The region was inhospitable, and the conditions in which the foundation of the future Saint Louis of Texas took place were very bad. Famine and mutiny soon threatened. On March 19, 1687, Cavelier de La Salle was killed by his own troops. Not long afterwards the settlement was overrun by Indians. The dreams of the explorer from Normandy ended in tragedy.






A brotherhood of Arms (1778-1783)

The court of Versailles followed closely the events leading up to the American Revolution. When, in 1776, the Thirteen Colonies proclaimed their independance, Vergennes, the Foreign Affairs Secretary, saw a perfect opportunity to take revenge on Britain, and thus advised the King to support the rebels. Fearing a war with the British, Turgot, the Minister of Finance, was less enthusiastic. King Louis XVI was not inclined to assist a rebellion which undermined another monarch. Despite popular opinion in favor of the Revolutionaries, France's support was far from certain when Benjamin Franklin arrived in Paris on December 27,1776. He joined Silas Deane as American Minister to France. Deane was a wealthy Connecticut businessman, who, chosen in haste, had produced no concrete results. Franklin's reputation as a man of great learning, who lived modestly, greatly pleased the Court. Franklin soon had French support for the Revolutionary cause. Official aid was at first discreet. But the number of volunteers offering to help the Revolutionaries grew rapidly. There was a great deal to draw young Frenchmen to America: the attraction of new ideas, a thirst to fight their hereditary British enemy, a desire for adventure and the chance for exotic travel in the New World. Several months later, Silas Deane wrote, "the rage to sign up to serve with the Americans is continually growing. As a consequence I am inundated with offers, many from persons of consequential rank..." The King himself had to intervene when members of distinguished families wanted to leave for the New World. The count of Noaille and the count of Ségur, two of the most important names in the French kingdom, wanted to leave with the young Marquis de La Fayette. It was feared that these young men would compromise the neutral position of France. Noailles and Ségur bowed to the pressure, but La Fayette stole onto the boat La Victoire which sailed first to Bordeaux, then to Spain, and finally on to Georgetown, where he arrived in June 1777. Many of the volunteers were greatly disappointed in the New World. Most of them did not speak English and they did not understand how the Revolutionary Army, unlike anything in Europe, could function on a battlefield. Furthermore, their social background made it difficult for them to adapt to the democratic style of George Washington's soldiers. Welcomed with great enthusiasm in Philadelphia, La Fayette even offered to serve in the army as a foot soldier, and to pay his own way. Franklin, however, explained to the Continental Congress that it would be politically advantageous to enlist foreign soldiers whose families could influence the court at Versailles. La Fayette was finally appointed to the rank of General. Returning to the front just as the English General Howe marched on Philidelphia, he was injured at the battle of Brandywine. Soon after, he followed Washington to his headquarters at Valley Forge. The winter of 1777-1778 was a particularly tough one. Badly clothed, badly nourished and badly armed, Washington's army was on the verge of collapse. At this point, an attack by the English would almost certainly have changed the course of the war. In Paris, Franklin did his best to convince the court to adopt the American cause officially through a formal alliance with the United States.

The French to the Rescue

The resulting Treaty of Commerce and Friendship was signed on February 6, 1778. The Revolutionaries' situation was such that the French could have made any demand in the treaty, taking advantage of the vulnerable United States. Instead the French policy looked far into the future. Vergennes wrote to his ambassador in London on March 17, 1778: 'We did not want to procure any commercial favors that might make other nations jealous, such that the United States might one day accuse us of taking advantage of them." One week later he stated, "The authorized American deputies were open to giving us any exclusive rights of trade we might have demanded. We were aware of that. But through the recognition of the United States as a member of the family of nations, the King wanted to create a bond that would serve posterity and be as solid and enduring as is possible in human affairs.' The French policy prompted Benjamin Franklin, a great student of human nature, to say, "The truth is that this nation loves glory and loves to protect the oppressed." Back on the battlefields of North America, the British began to realize that time was against them. After taking Philidelphia they prepared themselves to deliver the death blow to the Revolutionaries. They wanted to quickly exploit tensions within the Revolutionary ranks, notably the rivalry between Washington and Gates, the victor of the battle of Saratoga. General Clinton took command of the British troops after Howe's resignation. Fearing a French blockade of the Delaware and an attack on the city by the Continental Army, Clinton moved towards New York.

Washington followed behind and launched an attack at Monmouth - an audacious military manoeuvre that would have been a decisive victory if Charles Lee, the commander of the vanguard, had not inexplicably disobeyed orders and retreated from ground he had captured and held. Court martialled, Lee, accused by some of treason, was finally released. The error had been commited. Washington was forced to stop his offensive, and instead set up headquarters in New Brunswick while Clinton went on to New York. Arriving in July 1778, the French fleet under Admiral d'Estaing came to the aid of the Revolutionaries, for the first time in force. A siege was planned ; Estaing would move in by sea, while the American General Sullivan would arrive by land to take Newport, Rhode Island. Unfortunately a violent storm arose, putting an end to this first attempt at military cooperation between the new allies. Estaing headed south to the West Indies for the winter. This setback did not bode well for the Americans. Paris would not look kindly on a failed military operation; but the Revolutionaries were very much in need of assistance and reinforcements. At the end of 1778, La Fayette obtained permission from the Continental Congress to go to Versailles. He was well received, and knew how to convince Vergennes and Maurepas to throw the weight of France into the battle. Among the plans that had been envisaged was a large-scale landing in Britain. Ships had been prepared for this purpose. The Project never saw the light of day. But the fleet gathered in Saint Malo and Le Havre made it technically possible to send an expeditionary force to the New World as La Fayette requested. Louis XVI was still worried about dissent among the Revolutionaries and feared that Spain's Charles III, although allied with France against England, would dislike to decisive an American victory next door to his overseas empire. Still, France eventually sent to General Washington 5,000 men chosen from their best troops. La Fayette was too young to command the expeditionary force. He was sent back to America to announce the imminent arrival of the long-awaited re-enforcements under the command of Rochambeau.

America, we are here

Leaving Brest, the convoy sighted land at Newport, Rhode Island, on July 11, 1780. Among the officers, were some of the most important names in France : Montmorency, Custine, Chartres, Noailles, Lauzun... The hopes raised by the arrival of the French were short-lived : soon after, a large British fleet was sighted. It was under the command of Admirals Arbuth-not and Rodney. It spoiled the plans for a quick attack on New York. The Hartford meeting, organized by La Fayette between Rochambeau and Washington, resulted in another request for more French reenforcements. Only a full-sized naval force could save the situation. To make matters worse, when Washington returned to his camp at West Point, he learned of Benedict Arnold's treason. One of the Colonels' most brilliant military minds had gone over to the enemy. Becoming chief counsellor to General Clinton, Arnold pushed for quick action to exploit the weakness of the Continental Army. Victims of the naval blockade, the American soldiers were neither paid, nor fed, nor clothed. Rochambeau began to worry, quite legitimately, about the effectiveness of these 11 men pushed to the limits of their resources." Once more Louis XVI and Vergennes responded to the needs of the Revolutionaries. On May 16, 1781, despite the terrible state of French finances, the ship La Concorde brought six million pounds to Washington. The American General wanted to attack New York. Rochambeau, however, thought it more prudent to head South, where the English General Cornwallis had not yet managed to win a decisive victory against the American fighter Greene, who used guerilla tactics. Clinton ordered Cornwallis to keep a minimal force in Yorktown, on the Chesapeake Bay, where they had the support of the Navy ; he would then send the remaining troops to reinforce the garrison in New York, where they thought the major battle would take place. Cornwallis was thus left vulnerable and Washington, knowing that de Grasse's fleet was en-route, was readily convinced to attack Yorktown. Moreover, de Grasse, who was sailing back to the continent after a series of victories in the West Indies, had sent a message to George Washington, telling him that he preferred fighting in the Chesapeake Bay because it was deeper than the Hudson River, and allowed for greater manoeuvrability.

On August 19th, crossing New Jersey, the Franco-American troops headed toward Virginia. On August 30th, Washington and Rochambeau triumphantly entered Philadelphia. From there they marched on Yorktown with an army of 18,000 men. There were 9,000 Americans and 5,000 French to which were added 3,300 more when the Marquis de Saint Simon arrived from Saint-Domingue with de Grasse's fleet. Cornered with a mere 7,000 Redcoats, Cornwallis was in a desperate situation. Hope appeared on September 5th, when 22 ships were sighted on the horizon. The fleet, commanded by Admiral Graves, had left New York two days earlier to rescue Yorktown. The tide seemed to be turning against the Revolutionaries, but de Grasse saved the day. In the Bay, the French ships were sitting ducks. De Grasse manoeuvered brilliantly; he slipped his fleet around Cape Henry and set up in formation around the Ville de Paris, the largest vessel of that period. When the battle began in the open seas, the English had already lost. When the canons stopped, one British ship had sunk and five more were seriously damaged. No French ships were destroyed and only two were damaged. Graves retreated ; the French victory was complete. Cornwallis had counted on the naval re-enforcements to back him up so he hadn't bothered to protect his positions. On September 28th, the Revolutionaries deployed their forces : the French on the left next to the Americans followed by La Fayette's Franco-American corps General Washington's troops ; and finally the troops under the command of Prussian General von Steuben (who had fought with the Revolutionaries since 1777). The fate of the British was sealed. On October 17th, the anniversary of the surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga, the Star Spangled Banner flew over Yorktown. The defeated British garrison marched between two rows of the victors - the French on the left, the Americans on the right. The officer representing Cornwallis, who claimed to be ill, wanted to surrender his sword to Rochambeau. But the French General, gestured toward Washington, who respectfully refused the sword. The fall of Yorktown, which had been their stronghold, forced the British to negociate. The Treaty of Versailles, signed September 3, 1783, ended the American War of Independence. The official birth certificate of a new nation, this treaty was also a symbol of the friendship between France and the United States. It was a friendship for which the two countries would time and again pay for with their lives.

The problem with the French is they have no will to fight. I mean you can use WWII as an example: they had over a million troops, and what do they do when the germans invade? They surrender.

Quite a few countries were surprised by the german blitzkrieg. The french armies were overrun because of their strategy failed. The French government did the sensible thing and spared the french population from bloodshed. Also, they weren't the only one to surrender. Do you call all the nations who surrendered coward?

Another problem with France is who do they think they are, insulting our President??? Yes I support Bush, but even if it was Clinton, it's still disrespectful. (and usually it's smart not to disrespcet the most powerful nation on earth)

Geez, like the US didn't insult the French president. :rolleyes:
Do you think calling the French surrender monkey is respectfull? pot, meet kettle. You're both black.

Some of my family went over to France, and while they were in Paris, on a train, some kids (late teens, early twenties) decided to give them a hard time due to the fact that my family couldn't speak two languages like they could. There were other epithets thrown at them as well, but I'm not going to go into it.

Once my family was off the train, an elderly French gentleman, who only spoke French, BTW, tapped my aunt on the shoulder, and once she turned around (expecting the same kind of treatment that she received on the train), the gent spoke firmly one sentence in English: "God bless America." Seems he remembered the early 1940s.

They're a country just like any other--they'll have a few jerks spoiling it for the rest of the larger population of nicer folk.

Some of my family went over to France, and while they were in Paris, on a train, some kids (late teens, early twenties) decided to give them a hard time due to the fact that my family couldn't speak two languages like they could. There were other epithets thrown at them as well, but I'm not going to go into it.

Once my family was off the train, an elderly French gentleman, who only spoke French, BTW, tapped my aunt on the shoulder, and once she turned around (expecting the same kind of treatment that she received on the train), the gent spoke firmly one sentence in English: "God bless America." Seems he remembered the early 1940s.

They're a country just like any other--they'll have a few jerks spoiling it for the rest of the larger population of nicer folk.

What a kind of propaganda bullshit, this is the way an American would handle, not a fFrench, you better thank them on your knees for what was posted above:

Louis XIV, King of Louisiana


April 9, 1682 on the banks of the Mississippi River. Robert Cavelier de La Salle, outfitted in full dress uniform, sword in hand, read a proclamation that gave bis king "the country Louisiana". One bundred and fifty years after Jacques Cartier, Cavelier de La Salle offered France another chance to carve out an empire in the New World.
Born in Rouen, Normandy, in 1643, Robert Cavelier de La Salle was one of the greatest explorers of the North American continent. The son of wealthy parents who settled in Montreal in 1666, he could easily have led the life of a rich colonist. Gripped by the stories told him by the Indians, he swore to be the first to open the passage to the Great Western Ocean towards China. Pushed by the Governor General and supported by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, advisor to the King, and by King Louis XIV himself, Cavelier de La Salle made numerous expeditions to the Great Lakes and into present-day Illinois and Ohio. He left behind him a magnificent network of forts. After several fruitless attempts, the indefatigable traveller left Saint Louis (south of Lake Erie, in the territory of the Miami Indians) with twenty Frenchmen and thirty scouts from the Mohican and Abénaquis tribes to find the Mississippi River. When they reached the river on February 6, 1682, the ice was too thick to break. After a week, the ice began to break up, allowing the expedition to descend the river by canoe. Leaving behind places visited years before by Joliet and Marquette, they entered the territory of the Arkansas Indians, then went on to the Natchez, who gave them a very warm welcome. The two tribes were at war with one another, so the expedition didn't pause for too long. The river became wider. Soon the vegetation grew more exotic, and they sighted alligators. On the fifth of April they noticed that the water was briny. The following day, they reached the fork of the Mississippi Delta, and soon the area where the river swept into the sea. Several days later they erected a cross below which was placed a plaque that read: "In the name of Louis XIV, King of France and of Navarre, April 9, 1682." After they had chanted Vexilla Regis for the king, and a triumphal Te Deum, several shots were fired in salute. Cavelier de La Salle then read, in the presence of a public notary brought on the trip for this purpose, the proclamation giving Louis XIV "the country of Louisiana and all the seas, ports, provinces, all the peoples, nations, cities, villages, and mines of this country, as well as the length of the river Colbert or Mississippi, and all rivers that empty into it from their springs to the Gulf of Mexico." The proclamations were received several months later by Louis XIV. The "Sun King" was so pleased to gain such a vast territory that he named Cavelier de La Salle Governor and gave him gave him four ships and 200 men to begin colonization. The flotilla left in July 1684. While the voyage to the Gulf of Mexico was without incident, the expedition by-passed the Mississippi Delta, and ended up farther West, in Galveston Bay. The region was inhospitable, and the conditions in which the foundation of the future Saint Louis of Texas took place were very bad. Famine and mutiny soon threatened. On March 19, 1687, Cavelier de La Salle was killed by his own troops. Not long afterwards the settlement was overrun by Indians. The dreams of the explorer from Normandy ended in tragedy.






A brotherhood of Arms (1778-1783)

The court of Versailles followed closely the events leading up to the American Revolution. When, in 1776, the Thirteen Colonies proclaimed their independance, Vergennes, the Foreign Affairs Secretary, saw a perfect opportunity to take revenge on Britain, and thus advised the King to support the rebels. Fearing a war with the British, Turgot, the Minister of Finance, was less enthusiastic. King Louis XVI was not inclined to assist a rebellion which undermined another monarch. Despite popular opinion in favor of the Revolutionaries, France's support was far from certain when Benjamin Franklin arrived in Paris on December 27,1776. He joined Silas Deane as American Minister to France. Deane was a wealthy Connecticut businessman, who, chosen in haste, had produced no concrete results. Franklin's reputation as a man of great learning, who lived modestly, greatly pleased the Court. Franklin soon had French support for the Revolutionary cause. Official aid was at first discreet. But the number of volunteers offering to help the Revolutionaries grew rapidly. There was a great deal to draw young Frenchmen to America: the attraction of new ideas, a thirst to fight their hereditary British enemy, a desire for adventure and the chance for exotic travel in the New World. Several months later, Silas Deane wrote, "the rage to sign up to serve with the Americans is continually growing. As a consequence I am inundated with offers, many from persons of consequential rank..." The King himself had to intervene when members of distinguished families wanted to leave for the New World. The count of Noaille and the count of Ségur, two of the most important names in the French kingdom, wanted to leave with the young Marquis de La Fayette. It was feared that these young men would compromise the neutral position of France. Noailles and Ségur bowed to the pressure, but La Fayette stole onto the boat La Victoire which sailed first to Bordeaux, then to Spain, and finally on to Georgetown, where he arrived in June 1777. Many of the volunteers were greatly disappointed in the New World. Most of them did not speak English and they did not understand how the Revolutionary Army, unlike anything in Europe, could function on a battlefield. Furthermore, their social background made it difficult for them to adapt to the democratic style of George Washington's soldiers. Welcomed with great enthusiasm in Philadelphia, La Fayette even offered to serve in the army as a foot soldier, and to pay his own way. Franklin, however, explained to the Continental Congress that it would be politically advantageous to enlist foreign soldiers whose families could influence the court at Versailles. La Fayette was finally appointed to the rank of General. Returning to the front just as the English General Howe marched on Philidelphia, he was injured at the battle of Brandywine. Soon after, he followed Washington to his headquarters at Valley Forge. The winter of 1777-1778 was a particularly tough one. Badly clothed, badly nourished and badly armed, Washington's army was on the verge of collapse. At this point, an attack by the English would almost certainly have changed the course of the war. In Paris, Franklin did his best to convince the court to adopt the American cause officially through a formal alliance with the United States.

The French to the Rescue

The resulting Treaty of Commerce and Friendship was signed on February 6, 1778. The Revolutionaries' situation was such that the French could have made any demand in the treaty, taking advantage of the vulnerable United States. Instead the French policy looked far into the future. Vergennes wrote to his ambassador in London on March 17, 1778: 'We did not want to procure any commercial favors that might make other nations jealous, such that the United States might one day accuse us of taking advantage of them." One week later he stated, "The authorized American deputies were open to giving us any exclusive rights of trade we might have demanded. We were aware of that. But through the recognition of the United States as a member of the family of nations, the King wanted to create a bond that would serve posterity and be as solid and enduring as is possible in human affairs.' The French policy prompted Benjamin Franklin, a great student of human nature, to say, "The truth is that this nation loves glory and loves to protect the oppressed." Back on the battlefields of North America, the British began to realize that time was against them. After taking Philidelphia they prepared themselves to deliver the death blow to the Revolutionaries. They wanted to quickly exploit tensions within the Revolutionary ranks, notably the rivalry between Washington and Gates, the victor of the battle of Saratoga. General Clinton took command of the British troops after Howe's resignation. Fearing a French blockade of the Delaware and an attack on the city by the Continental Army, Clinton moved towards New York.

Washington followed behind and launched an attack at Monmouth - an audacious military manoeuvre that would have been a decisive victory if Charles Lee, the commander of the vanguard, had not inexplicably disobeyed orders and retreated from ground he had captured and held. Court martialled, Lee, accused by some of treason, was finally released. The error had been commited. Washington was forced to stop his offensive, and instead set up headquarters in New Brunswick while Clinton went on to New York. Arriving in July 1778, the French fleet under Admiral d'Estaing came to the aid of the Revolutionaries, for the first time in force. A siege was planned ; Estaing would move in by sea, while the American General Sullivan would arrive by land to take Newport, Rhode Island. Unfortunately a violent storm arose, putting an end to this first attempt at military cooperation between the new allies. Estaing headed south to the West Indies for the winter. This setback did not bode well for the Americans. Paris would not look kindly on a failed military operation; but the Revolutionaries were very much in need of assistance and reinforcements. At the end of 1778, La Fayette obtained permission from the Continental Congress to go to Versailles. He was well received, and knew how to convince Vergennes and Maurepas to throw the weight of France into the battle. Among the plans that had been envisaged was a large-scale landing in Britain. Ships had been prepared for this purpose. The Project never saw the light of day. But the fleet gathered in Saint Malo and Le Havre made it technically possible to send an expeditionary force to the New World as La Fayette requested. Louis XVI was still worried about dissent among the Revolutionaries and feared that Spain's Charles III, although allied with France against England, would dislike to decisive an American victory next door to his overseas empire. Still, France eventually sent to General Washington 5,000 men chosen from their best troops. La Fayette was too young to command the expeditionary force. He was sent back to America to announce the imminent arrival of the long-awaited re-enforcements under the command of Rochambeau.

America, we are here

Leaving Brest, the convoy sighted land at Newport, Rhode Island, on July 11, 1780. Among the officers, were some of the most important names in France : Montmorency, Custine, Chartres, Noailles, Lauzun... The hopes raised by the arrival of the French were short-lived : soon after, a large British fleet was sighted. It was under the command of Admirals Arbuth-not and Rodney. It spoiled the plans for a quick attack on New York. The Hartford meeting, organized by La Fayette between Rochambeau and Washington, resulted in another request for more French reenforcements. Only a full-sized naval force could save the situation. To make matters worse, when Washington returned to his camp at West Point, he learned of Benedict Arnold's treason. One of the Colonels' most brilliant military minds had gone over to the enemy. Becoming chief counsellor to General Clinton, Arnold pushed for quick action to exploit the weakness of the Continental Army. Victims of the naval blockade, the American soldiers were neither paid, nor fed, nor clothed. Rochambeau began to worry, quite legitimately, about the effectiveness of these 11 men pushed to the limits of their resources." Once more Louis XVI and Vergennes responded to the needs of the Revolutionaries. On May 16, 1781, despite the terrible state of French finances, the ship La Concorde brought six million pounds to Washington. The American General wanted to attack New York. Rochambeau, however, thought it more prudent to head South, where the English General Cornwallis had not yet managed to win a decisive victory against the American fighter Greene, who used guerilla tactics. Clinton ordered Cornwallis to keep a minimal force in Yorktown, on the Chesapeake Bay, where they had the support of the Navy ; he would then send the remaining troops to reinforce the garrison in New York, where they thought the major battle would take place. Cornwallis was thus left vulnerable and Washington, knowing that de Grasse's fleet was en-route, was readily convinced to attack Yorktown. Moreover, de Grasse, who was sailing back to the continent after a series of victories in the West Indies, had sent a message to George Washington, telling him that he preferred fighting in the Chesapeake Bay because it was deeper than the Hudson River, and allowed for greater manoeuvrability.

On August 19th, crossing New Jersey, the Franco-American troops headed toward Virginia. On August 30th, Washington and Rochambeau triumphantly entered Philadelphia. From there they marched on Yorktown with an army of 18,000 men. There were 9,000 Americans and 5,000 French to which were added 3,300 more when the Marquis de Saint Simon arrived from Saint-Domingue with de Grasse's fleet. Cornered with a mere 7,000 Redcoats, Cornwallis was in a desperate situation. Hope appeared on September 5th, when 22 ships were sighted on the horizon. The fleet, commanded by Admiral Graves, had left New York two days earlier to rescue Yorktown. The tide seemed to be turning against the Revolutionaries, but de Grasse saved the day. In the Bay, the French ships were sitting ducks. De Grasse manoeuvered brilliantly; he slipped his fleet around Cape Henry and set up in formation around the Ville de Paris, the largest vessel of that period. When the battle began in the open seas, the English had already lost. When the canons stopped, one British ship had sunk and five more were seriously damaged. No French ships were destroyed and only two were damaged. Graves retreated ; the French victory was complete. Cornwallis had counted on the naval re-enforcements to back him up so he hadn't bothered to protect his positions. On September 28th, the Revolutionaries deployed their forces : the French on the left next to the Americans followed by La Fayette's Franco-American corps General Washington's troops ; and finally the troops under the command of Prussian General von Steuben (who had fought with the Revolutionaries since 1777). The fate of the British was sealed. On October 17th, the anniversary of the surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga, the Star Spangled Banner flew over Yorktown. The defeated British garrison marched between two rows of the victors - the French on the left, the Americans on the right. The officer representing Cornwallis, who claimed to be ill, wanted to surrender his sword to Rochambeau. But the French General, gestured toward Washington, who respectfully refused the sword. The fall of Yorktown, which had been their stronghold, forced the British to negociate. The Treaty of Versailles, signed September 3, 1783, ended the American War of Independence. The official birth certificate of a new nation, this treaty was also a symbol of the friendship between France and the United States. It was a friendship for which the two countries would time and again pay for with their lives.

Geez, like the US didn't insult the French president. :rolleyes:
Do you think calling the French surrender monkey is respectfull? pot, meet kettle. You're both black.
The entire discussion was very often on a very low level. From weasels (Chirac) to poodels (Blair) all zoological creeds were named. So, it is wrong to point the finger just on one side.

Why do people hate the french?

First of all, stereotypes. Flat out. People are stupid and believe them.

Secondly, they disagree with us. That's become a horrible crime.

Thirdly, you have one country that actually has culture, and another that has lots of military strength. They both think they're the best. Bugger if I know which is better.

Bushrepublican liars


what kind of bullshit are you writing. Zaxon made a very balanced statement.
Especially when he points one thing out:
"They're a country just like any other--they'll have a few jerks spoiling it for the rest of the larger population of nicer folk."

Why do people hate the french?
First of all, stereotypes. Flat out. People are stupid and believe them.
Secondly, they disagree with us. That's become a horrible crime.
Thirdly, you have one country that actually has culture, and another that has lots of military strength. They both think they're the best. Bugger if I know which is better.
France is not the only country with culture. Every country has culture, the French only think they are best.
And Britain and France both have big militaries as well. Though compared to the US it is off course small - like everything is. But after Russia it is on place three like Britain. Both countries are spending around 30 billion Dollar (compared to 400 billion of the US).
And they have nukes.
Well - for every country withough nukes they are still more than irrelevant.
And they have - like Britain - some influence in their former colonies.
So, I think you need to be American to declare them irrelevant.
And you correctly pointed out one thing: both think they are best, both have a lot of national pride - or some would say - arrogance.
And France likes Asterix which rebelled towards Rome. So, France likes to rebell against the US - the new Rome.

I'm convinced that the hatred between the US and France :sniper: is mutual. Some might remember the thread where I had the :upyours: to the French. Or not. But it exists. Just put in my screen name under user, Frenchies (what I called them almost every time) under key word, and select Nation States - General in the MBs' search engine and you will find it.

I'm convinced that the hatred between the US and France :sniper: is mutual. Some might remember the thread where I had the :upyours: to the French. Or not. But it exists. Just put in my screen name under user, Frenchies (what I called them almost every time) under key word, and select Nation States - General in the MBs' search engine and you will find it.

Don't you think that you are making a fool of yourself after my post (wich you haven 't read, can you read?) in wich it is very well explained what you ow them. You're stupid and don't know anything about history (wich is normal for you a Texas 12 year old kid) otherwise, youwould respect them instead of hating them.

Your right, its the job of the us English and French to hate each other, not the Americans. After all, you were allies to beat us!

But what remains is the special alliance between Britain and the US and a few score alliances and some - insecure - allies.
And changing partners.

What kind of bullshit are you writing, they denie history.

How Dixieland Got Its Name and Other French Influence Facts in the United States ... (by Pascal Fuselier)

How the southern states got to be known as Dixieland is just another example of the French influence in the United States. If you go back in history from the 16th Century through the 19th, you will see that every major region in our nation was explored and settled by Frenchmen and French Canadians.

Let's look at Dixie first. The name was born and coined before the Civil War. Money was pouring out of the port of New Orleans like crazy. Boats of every description lined the levee on the riverfront waiting for cargoes to be loaded down the Mississippi and up the river to America's heartland or even overseas.

The city was divided at Canal Street. On one side were the French, and on the other were les Americains. Kentucky and Tennessee boatmen, with lots of cash after selling their cargoes, flocked the street. Mais, they had to use de l'argent Francais on the downriver side of the street, and American money on the upriver side.

But the officials of Citizen's Bank of New Orleans met and said 'On vas arranger ca." So to the satisfaction of all, the bank began issuing bilingual $10 bank notes. On the face of the note was the English word "ten" and the French word 'dix', and the boatmen corrupted the word dix (which is French for ten) by saying they were going to New Orleans "to get those old dixies.' So that is how the word dixie became an adjective to describe things of Southern origin, and from there it became a noun to describe the South itself. And I'm just crazy about the Dixie Chicks!

The United States has over 5,000 communities with French names. How did these places acquire French names ? They were named by French refugees settling here and Huguenots, or, even earlier, by French explorers who opened up the central United States. The map of the United States is full of such names, sometimes transformed and Anglicized (the Ozarks were named Aux Arcs).

Other places are named after prominent Frenchmen, such as Hugoton, Kansas, named after Victor Hugo, author of LES Miserables; Louisville, Kentucky, named after King Louis XVI; Talleyrand, Indiana, named for the Talleyrand/Perignard family and the forty two cities named Layayette, named after the Marquis de Lafayette (1757-1834) who, at the age of 19 and a very rich man, came to join General George Washington in 1776 to help win the Revolutionary War. Invited by the U.S. Congress in 1825, he returned on a triumph voyage to where he had helped liberate a people. The grateful new nation bestowed upon him the special title "Citizen of the United States," transmissible to all his direct descendants. The law is still valid today. George Washington said that without Lafayette's help the war could not have been won.

Other municipalities in the U.S. are named after French cities and towns such as Brest, Michigan; Fountainbleu, Montana; Montpelier, capital of Vermont; Abbeville, Louisiana; and Paris, of which there are fifty in the United States. Some names were taken from the natural environment like Caribou, Colorado; L'Anguille (eel), Arkansas; Pomme de terre, Minnesota; Papillon, Arkansas; Terre Haute, Indiana; Ville Platte, Louisiana; and how about L'Anse Aux Pailles; L'Anse Bleu; L'Anse Megre; and La Pointe Aux Pins. And, sorry but Patasa is not a French name; it's a Choctaw Indian name meaning "flat fish."

We learned in history about how the Mayflower arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1604. But we were not taught that one of the pilgrims was a Frenchman. His name was Guillaume Mullins (probably of the French family Molines) and he arrived at Plymouth with his wife, two children, son Joseph and daughter Priscilla, and his two servants, George Saule and Robert-Carte (Cartier). The American poet, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882), a descendant on his mother's side, immortalized his ancestor's story in his novel, The Courtship of Miles Standish. (Longfellow also immortalized our parish namesake in his epic poem Evangeline). And the first white child born in New York is believed to be by most historians Jean Vigne, the son of a French Protestant.

We were taught in high school history about the midnight ride of Paul Revere, but what we were not taught is that Paul Revere's real name was Paul Rivoire, the son of Appolos Rivoire, a gold and silversmith. Paul Rivoire played an important part in the struggle for American independence when he rode his horse from Charleston to Lexington to warn the Americans of an attack by the British. He was immortalized in "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." He worked as a bellmaker and furnished Fulton with copper sheeting for the construction of the first steamship.

You probably remember studying about John C. Fremont (1813-1890) in high school history. Actually his name was Jean-Charles Fremont and he was the son of a Quebecois. Fremont arrived in California in the middle of the 19th century when he was already well known as an explorer. At Sonora de Los Angeles in 1846 he commanded one of the armies which vanquished the Mexicans in the struggle for the country. He was governor of a free California until its annexation to the U.S. in 1850. The electors of the new state chose him as their senator.

Jean-Charles Fremont was the Republican Party's first candidate for president of the United States. Part of his platform was halting the advance of slavery into the free state, bringing Kansas into the Union, changing the policy of President Franklin Pierce, and building the Pacific railroad. He was defeated by James Buchanan. He later served as a Union general in the War Between the States (1861-1865) and after the war he became president of the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific Railroad. He was governor of the territory of Arizona in 1878, and he was a major general in the American army.

William Gilet, count de Foix, a French Huguenot, was the ancestor of the Gillette family in Connecticut. And chew on this a while: one of the best investments in history was made by twenty individuals, who, in 1901 paid $250 each for 500 shares in a new company organized by an erstwhile sidewalk vendor named King C. Gillette - the company manufactured safety razors. Only fifty-three razors were made in the U.S. in 1903. If someone had made the original investment, and held onto his/her stock until 1975, his worth would have been in the neighborhood of 50 million dollars!

Other prominent Americans of French ancestry include the Tiffanys, who came from Champagne, France (Louis Tiffany founded the internationally known company in New York in 1837); John Jay, a French Huguenot, who was the first chief justice of New York and secretary for foreign affairs. He later became the first chief justice of the U.S. and in 1794, signed a treaty with Lord Grenville, which became known as Jay's Treaty, ending the military dispute between the United States and England. He later became governor of New York. John Audubon (1785-1857), American ornithologist, painter and naturalist was of French descent and he painted many of the birds in his classic collection of "Birds of North America" while living in the Felicianas in south Louisiana.





Don't forget DesMoines Iowa, Dubuque Iowa etc.....Terre Haute Indiana......and the Le Compte de Rochambeau who marched across Connecticut and Rhode Island during the Revolution against Great Britain ...

How about the French Eleuthère Irénée du Pont (1771-1834) who was the founder of the gun powder manufacturing firm E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. ?
Eleuthère Irénée du Pont, the son of Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, was born in Paris on June 24, 1771. In 1787, he was accepted as a student in the Régie des Poudres, a government agency for the manufacture of gunpowder which was directed by Antoine Lavoisier. He married Sophie Madeleine Dalmas (1775-1828) in 1791. In 1800 Eleuthère Irénée du Pont emigrated to the United States and began investigating sites for a black powder manufactory. After consulting with Thomas Jefferson he established E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. on the banks of the Brandywine River, just north of Wilmington, Delaware. In the spring of 1803 he settled his family at Eleutherian Mills and wrote to Jefferson seeking government patronage for his new powder factory. During the 1810s, du Pont was active in the Society of the State of Delaware for the Promotion of American Manufacturers, where he lobbied Congress for high tariffs. In 1822 he was named a director of the Bank of the United States. Eleuthère Irénée du Pont died in Philadelphia on October 31, 1834.
Du Pont later evolved into one of the world's largest chemical companies, and in the 20th century led the polymer revolution by developing many highly successful materials such as nylon, teflon and kevlar. Today, DuPont is a multi-national chemicals and health care company with 2002 revenues of $24.5 billion.

The Statue of Liberty, which has welcomed immigrants since 1886, is one of the greatest symbols of the United States. On an island in New York Harbor, Lady Liberty stands as the most enduring emblem of Franco-American friendship.
October 28, 1886. 10,000 official guests, and an enthusiastic nation await the inauguration of the statue "Liberty Lighting the World." The statue, erected on Bedloe's Island at the entrance to New York Harbor, commemorated France's role in the American Revolution. Congress allocated funds for the event provided that "not one dollar be spent on spirits or tobacco." Fortunately, private enterprise easily met that demand, and the crowds were able to smoke or drink as much as they wished. When the statue was unveiled, revealing the unparalleled dimensions of the monument - 46 meters high from its base to its top and weighing 200,000 kilograms, it was the biggest monument of its type ever constructed - the American applause could be heard across the Atlantic. The sculptor, 52 year old Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi, was known in the United States for his statue of La Fayette. Bartholdi had given America this statue ten years before. In France, he was better known for his colossal Belfort Lion a gigantic figure sculpted in red sandstone that symbolized the heroic resistance of Alsace during the 1870 war with Prussia.
Built in France in sections, the Statue of Liberty is made of copper supported by an iron skeleton constructed by Gustave Eiffel, architect of the famous tower. Its 300 separate pieces were molded and shaped in Paris, and then reassembled in New York Harbor. The statue rests on a granite pedestal 25 meters high. Money for the statue itself came from a generous subscription fund in France and its pedestal was financed by the United States.

etc.

I found you guys, French and Americans have many things in common .... to bad that there is so much politics today that seperate your peoples ...., specially the US government is guilty about this.

France is not the only country with culture. Every country has culture, the French only think they are best.
And Britain and France both have big militaries as well. Though compared to the US it is off course small - like everything is. But after Russia it is on place three like Britain. Both countries are spending around 30 billion Dollar (compared to 400 billion of the US).
And they have nukes.
Well - for every country withough nukes they are still more than irrelevant.
And they have - like Britain - some influence in their former colonies.
So, I think you need to be American to declare them irrelevant.
And you correctly pointed out one thing: both think they are best, both have a lot of national pride - or some would say - arrogance.
And France likes Asterix which rebelled towards Rome. So, France likes to rebell against the US - the new Rome.

The problem is, in America, we're the only goddamn army you'd ever hear about. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but while we don't have the biggest (cough China cough) we pretty much do have the most advanced/powerful. As I said, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm working with the information I have :p.

ANd I agree-it all comes down to arrogence in the end. My only problem, is from what I've heard from friends who have gone to France, is that they're a HELL of a lot nicer over there then people are over here. So we really have no moral ground to stand on.

The Growth of Friendly Relations (1783-1911)

December 20, 1803. France sells Louisiana to the United States. The French tricolor flag which had long flown over New Orleans had come down.The Stars and Stripes now flew in its place. Louisiana had been sold to the United States for 80 million francs. In 1763, Louis XV abandoned to Spain, the vast Mississippi territory that Cavelier de La Salle had claimed for Louis XIV a century earlier. The secret treaty of San Ildefonso, signed in 1800, which gave Louisiana and Florida back to the French, worried the newly elected president, Thomas Jefferson : Napoléon Bonaparte's presence on the Mississippi meant the threat of a French colonial empire in North America. But war with France at that point would have required an alliance with the British, which was then unimaginable. Jefferson preferred a diplomatic solution. In March of 1803, James Monroe rushed to Paris to negotiate. In the French capital, he received an unexpected welcome : the Premier Consul knew that France would soon be at war with Britain and he did not want to run the risk of another enemy front. So he authorized Talleyrand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had visited the United States, to sell Florida and Louisiana for 100 million francs. Sensing the urgency of the French negotiators, Monroe tried to reduce the price. On May 2, 1803, they decided on the sum of 80 million francs. Congress ratified this agreement on October 20th, despite Republican opposition. The Republicans were appalled because Congress had not been consulted sooner ; they worried about granting automatic American citizenship to the people of the new territories. The treaty was advantageous to the New Republic because it doubled its size. It was also a boom for Napoléon, who hailed this "ceding of land which will affirm forever the power of the United States [and give] England a naval rival who, sooner or later, will best them." Monsieur de Laussat, the prefect of Louisiana addressed the population: 'Prudence and humanity together with a larger political perspective have given a new direction to France's benevolent intentions for Louisiana : she has given the territory to the United States of America. Dear Louisianans, you have thus become the token of the friendship that cannot fall to grow stronger between the two American Republics." American possession of Louisiana took place on December 20, 1803. The French flag was lowered and the American flag was hoisted amidst great fanfare. There were four toasts during the banquet that followed: with Madeira wine, they toasted the United States and Kentuc Thomas Jefferson; with Malaga wine, they toasted Charles IV of Spain; and with champagne they toasted Labrad the French Republic and Napoleon Bonaparte. The fourth toast called for the eternal happiness for the newly acquired territory of Louisiana.

American Nature Revealed

After the War of Independence, exploration of the vast virgin western territories began in earnest. No one contributed more to the discovery of the New World's wildlife than the naturalist Jean-Jacques (John James) Audubon. Born in Saint-Dominau on April 26, 1785, Jean-Jacques Audubon was the illegitimate son of a wealthy French planter and a Creole woman - a fact he tried to conceal all his life. A former naval officer, who had fought in the battle at Yorktown, Audubon's father took his son to France when he returned. The boy was just four years old when he arrived in Nantes, Brittany. But his artistic ability earned him an apprenticeship with the painter Jacques-Louis David. Audubon went to Pennsylvania in 1803, where his father owned land. There, he discovered the sumptuous flora and fauna of North America. From that moment on, his life was dominated by three passions :
hunting, painting and ornithology. In 1808 he married an American. He would dedicate almost 40 years of his life to exploring, notebook in hand, the vast wilderness of his new country - Kentucky, the valleys of the Mississippi and Ohio, Florida, Louisiana and Texas. In 1833, he visited the Labrador coast, the habitat of numerous water birds. In 1842, he traversed vast areas of Canada. The following year he left Saint Louis to go up the Missouri as far as Montana. Audubon's monumental work, The Birds of America, was published in London in four volumes between 1827-1838. It received a triumphant reception in both the New World and the Old. Audubon was welcomed into the prestigious Academy of Science in Paris. The famous naturalist lost his vision in 1846. He died in New York in 1851, aged 66. In the United States today, the Audubon Society for the protection of Nature, perpetuates the memory of this great artist who was one of the most illustrious Frenchmen from America.

Don't you think that you are making a fool of yourself after my post (wich you haven 't read, can you read?) in wich it is very well explained what you ow them. You're stupid and don't know anything about history (wich is normal for you a Texas 12 year old kid) otherwise, youwould respect them instead of hating them.
You obviously have no clue how much they detest us. Remember this year's Tour de France? Some rude Franch @$$hole decided it would be a good idea to spit on Lance Armstrong. Why? Because the Frenchies obviously hate our guts. History doesn't mean anything compared to the present. Get a clue what you're talking about before you FLAME people. I bet France is waiting for one good reason to declare war on the U.S. as we speak.

I'm American yet I think the French are great - to tell the truth, I've been thinking of spending a semester in France because I loved Quebec (FRENCH Canada) so much

You obviously have no clue how much they detest us. Remember this year's Tour de France? Some rude Franch @$$hole decided it would be a good idea to spit on Lance Armstrong. Why? Because the Frenchies obviously hate our guts. History doesn't mean anything compared to the present. Get a clue what you're talking about before you FLAME people. I bet France is waiting for one good reason to declare war on the U.S. as we speak.


I don't think I appreciate your revisionisme (same level as hollocaust deniers), you are now on the ignore list .

Just a little explanation about your last lie: it were German supporters that spit on Lance (was there saw it at Alpe d'Huez, were Lance did great) About your war theories... :rolleyes: ...that and your lies and specially the denying and rewriting of your history (hollocaust denying level, same thing, same hate) don't make it interesting talking with ya. But I understand that your a young kid.

The french armies were overrun because of their strategy failed. The French government did the sensible thing and spared the french population from bloodshed.

See there's another difference between the French and Brits, the Brits would rather fight to the death than surrender. And I'm glad they passed that on to us Americans. I don't hate the French, I'm just stating what there portraying.

And for all of you that feel the need to start flaming other members, grow up. Can't we just have a discussion, without people flaming?

The way I see, the French were the reason America came to be, and America payed them back by saving them during WW2. We're even. Period. People who say the French are cowards for surrendering are saddly mistaken. What man, save a power hungry fool, would allow his people to live under a burden as invasion. The sensible thing to do was to give up. Look what happened to the Confederacy when they didn't do the smart thing and give up. Georgia, the heart of the south, was raised in to a sheet of fire. People starved, and morals collasped. The South is still recovering.

Really I couldn't care less about the French. As I had said before, we're even, and there's no call for America trying to boss the country around. It's stupid to hate a people, and make sterio types, because of a loud minority group.

That's just my bit.

Why does a vaste minority of US republicans and other extreme right hates France so much? Have they forgotten what they owe France? It is allways easy to bring on the help of WWI or WWI, withouth knowing that there where 100.000's of Free French at their sides. (Allready in Italy allone, near Cassino, 2 US divisions fought during 2 months a German brigade,withouth the slightest succes, once they where replaced because of battle fatigue, by Free French Tunesian Division, those elite soldiers took the German positions in a week.) Between WWI and WWII the US and France took initiatives, TOGETHER for making sure that such a war like WWI would never happen again.

lol I dont think any country that has a change of leadership and generations from either or, Owe anything to another except the basic common decency that both of these sides have, on their respective differing postions. Sure their are people from both sides who were offended by either of our positions on the Iraq war. Not a big deal considering the history we both have with each other. If you remember you guys were in vietnam as a French rule from the mid-19th century to 1954, before you guys found out it was a lost cause. As well as our country was there for some time before we lost our purpose. Its all the same we both are republics, with differing politcal leanings. I doubt our 250+ year relationship will fall apart over this sqaubble.

See there's another difference between the French and Brits, the Brits would rather fight to the death than surrender.

I doubt it. Once the Germans reached London, Britain would have caved in the same way as France.No doubt there would be a resistance, just like there was in France.
The things that saparated our fates were
1, the Channel.
2, Churchill.

lol I dont think any country that has a change of leadership and generations from either or, Owe anything to another except the basic common decency that both of these sides have, on their respective differing postions. Sure their are people from both sides who were offended by either of our positions on the Iraq war. Not a big deal considering the history we both have with each other. If you remember you guys were in vietnam as a French rule from the mid-19th century to 1954, before you guys found out it was a lost cause. As well as our country was there for some time before we lost our purpose. Its all the same we both are republics, with differing politcal leanings. I doubt our 250+ year relationship will fall apart over this sqaubble.

Who is "you" guys"? Problem with a minority group in the uS that if one posts facts about the US and France/other nations, this minority group thinks that you are French/or the other nation involved, they just don't understand it that a person can post about France or the US and being a citizen of another nation, a quite unhealty view and very biased.

Originally Posted by Faithfull-freedom
lol I dont think any country that has a change of leadership and generations from either or, Owe anything to another except the basic common decency that both of these sides have, on their respective differing postions. Sure their are people from both sides who were offended by either of our positions on the Iraq war. Not a big deal considering the history we both have with each other. If you remember you guys were in vietnam as a French rule from the mid-19th century to 1954, before you guys found out it was a lost cause. As well as our country was there for some time before we lost our purpose. Its all the same we both are republics, with differing politcal leanings. I doubt our 250+ year relationship will fall apart over this sqaubble.

Mr. basil wrote:---------------------------------------------------------

Who is "you" guys"? Problem with a minority group in the uS that if one posts facts about the US and France/other nations, this minority group thinks that you are French/or the other nation involved, they just don't understand it that a person can post about France or the US and being a citizen of another nation, a quite unhealty view and very biased.

Yes my post was so biased I know lol. I said we both dont hate each other only the people that are bitter for whatever reason hate each other and they are both the minority group.

Yes my post was so biased I know lol. I said we both dont hate each other only the people that are bitter for whatever reason hate each other and they are both the minority group.

I fully agree, but you did not answer why you think that other people that post about the US or French are French (like you posted). Just don't get that you think that I am French because I gave some evidences of mutual help... :rolleyes: BTW I am not, would not botter eather.

Continuation of the friendship in the next war...

World War I (1914-1918)

Thomas Woodrow Wilson was elected President of the United States on November 5, 1912. Wilson, a minister's son, was an ardent pacifist. He wanted to avoid, at all costs, the United States becoming embroiled in the erupting European conflict. As a child he had witnessed the horrors of the American Civil War ;and he feared a new conflict would mean a return that barbarity.Moreover, he worried about maintaining national unity in acountry where one citizen in four had been born abroad, or whose parents had come from either of the opposing camps now forming inthe Old World. Wilson had to act with extreme prudence : how could he take sides when Americans of German origin supported the Axis powers; when Anglo-Saxon Protestants on the East Coast supported the Allied powers ; when the Irish detested the English, and the Polish were hostile to the Russians? Assigned the task of negotiating a peace between Paris, London and Berlin,American diplomat Colonel House went to Europe in the Spring of 1914. Then Archduke Francis Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarayevo; and all hope for this negotiated peace ended. The much feared conflict began on August 3, 1914. Over the next three years, in his role as a "neutral mediator," Wilson, launched several diplomatic initiatives to end the war. He suggested a plan for "Peace without victory," but none of the belligerents would consider it.
Then in May of 1915, a German U-boat torpedoed and sunk the British passenger ship"Lusitania". This altered the course of events. The United States strongly condemned the act ; there were 128 Americans among he Lusitania's 1 000 victims. These deaths moved public opinion in favor of the war. But a British publication naming American companies who had violated a trade boycott with the Germans, annoyed those who wished to remain out of the conflict. The coming elections of November 1916, meant that the President could not force the issue. But in January of 1917, the Germans decided, despite ongoing negotiations, to order their submarines to fire on American ships. This strengthened American resolve to fight the Axis, Wilson severed diplomatic relations with Berlin.

"The War to End All Wars"

He did not have long to wait for the next 'act of intentional injustice." Soon after, the"Vigilentia" was torpedoed. On April 6, 1917, at 13:18,the United States Congress voted to go to war. The majority supported this decision, in part, because of the publication of the "Zimmerman telegram.' The German Minister of War telegrammed his Mexican ambassador to prepare Mexico to joint heir alliance against the United States. The telegram suggested a similar alliance with Japan which further fueled American public outrage. Though the Americans had chosen defense of law over that of peace," they were not prepared for war, The American Army was very small and its only troops with combat experience had fought the Indians, Filippino Insurgents, theSpanish in Cuba and Pancho Villa's Mexican outlaws . They hardly seemed capable of supporting the massive conflict on the far off battlefields of Europe. This explains the calm assurance with which the Kaiser declared, -If Wilson wants war , let him have it- and so much the worse for him." America, however, rose to the challenge. In very little time, there was concrete evidence of determination and efficacy. Despite what some Democrats called"another form of slavery," Congress approved the Selective Service Act on May 18, 1917.
This Act conscripted all male citizens between ages of 21 and 30 into the Armed Service. Thus the Army increased from 200,000 in February of 1917 four million by November 1918. In the meantime,a committee for public information organized meetings and demonstrations to convince the public that the war was a just cause. The goverment sold War bonds which were promoted by famous film stars Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Picford. The President decreed a "mobilization of every resource in the nation." Created at the end of 1917 the War Industries Bureau, under the direction of Bernard Baruch, took measures to control industrial production : the distribution of raw materials and sources of energy was organized in deference to the war effort; industries were converted; railways were placed under government control ; and the organization of food for Europe was administered by a mining engineer named Herbert Hoover.

The turning point

For the French, the American entry into the war came at the perfect moment : the fall of the Czar meant that the future role of Russia was uncertain ; and there was the bloody failure of the Nivelle offensive in the area of Chemin des Dames;and finally the mutinies at the front gave even those mostoptimistic reason to doubt. The news of the American intervention raised the soldiers' moral, and revived the govemment's hope that in time, "we will win.' In the Spring of 1917, when he took command of the French Army, which had been bled all but white by an extreme and reckless offensive strategy, General Pétain announced that he would wait for the "Americans and the tanks." The arrival en masse of the "Sammies" as the French called them, turned the tide in the Allies' favor. By the summer of 1918, two milion American soldiers would be on French soil. As important as American military ground support,was the financial aid the United States contributed to the cause.The Allies had long before exhausted the funds, and only the United States Federal Treasury could afford to make such loans.When President Wilson announced, 'America goes to war with allher force," it also meant that the Allied nations would obtain financial aid for the war effort ; this amounted to ten billion dollars between April, 1917 and June, 1920. Logistically,the American Navy was vital in the fight against the German U-Boat blockade. The constrution of new ships, the work of the American Merchant Marine and the capture of German ships anchored in the previously neutral ports of Latin America, made marine transport, which had been seriously limited, available to the Allied Forces.

During his visit to the United States in April of 1917, Marshal Joffre explained how desperate the situation remained : three years of bloody combat had weakened the Anglo-French alliance, fresh troops were desperately needed. The French could quickly equip and train these troops in the combat skills required for trench warfare. France thus provided the American Expeditionary Force with: 75 and 155 mm canons; 155 mm shells, all of its tanks; 81% of the airplanes; more than half of its long range canons; 57,000 machine guns; 10 million shells; and more than 200 million bullets.

The Doughboys go "Over There"

One hundred seventy seven Americans of the Expeditionary Force, including the commanding officer General Pershing and Lieutenant Patton, arrived at Boulogne-sur-Mer onJune 13, 1917. They were welcomed by the Allies' highest ranking military representatives and Colonel Jacques Aldebert de Chambrun (who like all direct descendants of the Marquis de La Fayette automatically possessed American citizenship.) Pershing, Pattonand their men went directly to Paris where they met with the Minister of War Paul Painlevé, Marshal Joffre, and General Foch.In Paris, the Americans received an unprecedented reception: the people mobbed the streets of the capital to cheer the soldiers as they marched to the Place de la Concorde. General Pershing had to appear at the balcony of the Hotel Crillon before the crowd agreed to disperse. Two weeks later on June 28,1917, 14,000 American soldiers arrived at the port of Saint-Nazaire : there were 13,000 men in the lst division (the famous "Big RedOne') and a battalion of the 5th Marine regiment -soldiers who their commander had planned to send immediately to camps for several months of training. The French, however Insisted that the"Sammies" celebrate the 141st anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The 16th Infantry regiment was chosen to march in the parade ; the soldiers were covered by flowers thrown by hundreds of thousands of Parisians.

"La Fayette, nous voila!"

On his ceremonial visit to the tomb of La Fayette,Pershing, a better soldier than an orator, asked Captain Stanton to say a few words on his behalf. There were just four: 'LaFayette, nous voila!." Immediately, the crowd at Picpus cemetery unleashed a riotous and joyful cheer which, to this day,echoes throughout the world. Pershing refused an amalgamation of the inexperienced American troops and the battle-toughened Frenchor British soldiers. President Wilson and Pershing agreed that the American Army should retain its own identity ; once preparedand strong enough, the Americans would play their own role in the common effort. At the end of July, the Ist division began training near Langres, in the Haute-Marne region, east of Paris.In September, they were joined by the 26th division, composed mostly of National Guard members from New England. Then a brigade of Marines arrived; they were soon followed by the 2nd division.This division included : an infantry brigade of regulars three artillery regiments ; a civil engineering regiment and a battalion of radio transmission soldiers. In October, the 42nd division arrived. It was known as the "Rainbow Division" because its soldiers, all from the National Guard,came from twenty six different states.

"Sammies" in "Looneyville"

Pershing had very little time to prepare the American Expeditionary Force for battle. By the end of October 1917, the Ist division was given a region near Toul and Lunéville, soon called "Looneyville" by the American troops. At the request of Marshal Foch, who had recently been promoted to commander-in-chief of the Allied forces, the other three divisions were deployed to contain the German's Spring offensive which threatened to break through the Front. The 28th regiment of the Ist Division fought south of Amiens near the village of Cantigny, where they took the territory without much difficulty.Despite seven fierce German counter attacks, which included violent bombardments and canisters of the infamous "mustardgas," the "Sammies" held their ground. In just one battle, they had proven to the Germans that they should not beunder estimated. In June and July, the superb action at Bois-Belleau of the American 2nd division and Marines,re-enforced by French colonial troops, demonstrated their capacity to counter a major German offensive. Through their combined efforts these troops managed, for three long weeks, toblock all enemy movements towards Paris. When the French decided to launch a counter-offensive on July 18, from the Champagne region, 85,000 Americans stood by for combat. Pershing wanted his troops to have a large victory of their own under the Stars and Stripes. This victory came during the major offensive of September, 1918. On September 12, at 05:00 after a long artillery bombardment using 3,000 canons, seven American divisions under Generals Dickmann, Ligget and Cameron, charged the Saint-Mihielbulge assisted by the French 2nd colonial corps.

"A Magnicifent Victory"

At the end of the combat, 16,000 Germans were taken prisoner, and more than 300 canons were confiscated. Foch congratulated Pershing, "The American Ist Army, under your command, has managed a magnificent victory with a plan of action that was as carefully conceived as it was magnificently executed." The next offensive, launched at the end of the month, in the Argonne region, became a mud bath because of the incessant rain. Pershing wrote of this operation : "Under the icy rain in these dark nights, our civil engineers not only have to build new roads over terrain made sponge-like byshelling, but they must also repair the damaged roads and build bridges over flooded rivers. Our artillery, thinking not of sleep, moves hand-pulled carts through deep mud and clay, to bring the equipment necessary to support the infantry."Badly nourished, subjected to constant enemy bombardments,confronted with appalling weather conditions and stuck on difficult terrain, Ligget's troops held their position while threatened from all sides. Fortunately the Germans weakened and the 197 divisions they had on paper, could not resist the 220 Allied divisions. Moreover, the 42 American divisions were now receiving 250,000 re-enforcements each month. Thesere-enforcements added to the two million "Sammies" already deployed by the end of 1918. When the armistice wasfinally signed on November 11, 1918 in the Compiègne forest, it brought to an end the bloodiest conflict in human history-collectively the war cost nearly 8,500,000 lives and 30 million more had been injured - 50,000 Americans had died on French soil.

A Rendez-vous with Death

A Legion since the beginning mong those casualties was the poet Alan Seeger, who had been a volunteer in the french Foreign of the conflict. Several days before he met Death, the centerpieceof his poetry, he wrote, 'We are leaving for another assault tomorrow. This will probably be the toughest I have ever seen. We have been given the honor to be on the front line. No duffel bag,but a backpack, a canvas sheet hanging off one shoulder, lots of cartridges and hand grenades, as well as a bayonet on the end of our rifle. I am happy to be in the first assault wave. If you must go into battle, it is best to be thrown in completely. Thatis the supreme experience." On July 4, 1916, Alan Seeger kept his rendezvous : he was killed in action and became thesymbol of the young Americans who sacrificed their lives in the name of Liberty.

I fully agree, but you did not answer why you think that other people that post about the US or French are French (like you posted). Just don't get that you think that I am French because I gave some evidences of mutual help... BTW I am not, would not botter eather.

You posted under Oxtailsoup and saying that someone owes something is biased. When you know that is not the case, nobody owes anyone anything but the common decency that both sides have not shown.

You posted under Oxtailsoup and saying that someone owes something is biased. .

Oxtailsoup? Who? I prefer lobstersoup... :rolleyes:BTW, you still did not gave a decent answer why you think that other (no US citizens) are automaticly French.(bias?)

Ik spreek Nederlands of Vlaams als je wil :)

A point that many of the right wing would not like to admit is that the French woudl have been effective allies for the Iraq war. they had recent sucesses in Africa (correct me if I am wrong the Ivory Coast)　Also they had many aircraft stationed in the middle east. ( I was working in Saudi Arabia just before the war broke out）So they could actually have been available immediatly for assistace. This is the reason that the White house got so angry. they failed to filter that down just making an oppurtunity for name calling. I was against the Iraq war personally so I support Frances' decision.

I do like some of the things in the French way of life. One of the things that is often seen as arroganceis not. There is a equality of peopel of differnt classes in France. The reason is because of the French revolution. The lower classes　(poorer folk) chopped off th eheads fo those in the upper class. So it is the norm not to view people of less means with contempt like they are viewed in many other countries. If you do view those fo less means that way they will hold you in contempt.

In regards to the constantly triumphed point that France saved America during the American Revolution, or that America "owes" its freedom to France, it's often forgotten that Spain also contributed aid to the colonists' fight against the British. Obviously there's no way to know for sure, but odds are that if France hadn't supported America in the way it did, then Spain likely would have stepped up into their role, and we'd be having these discussions about why America owes Spain its freedom. Neither France nor Spain were helping America out of any love of freedom, they were doing it to strike a blow at Britain, their enemy. So can we stop pretending that France saved America from anything?

And on the other side, America did not "save" France in WWII either. All America did in the European theatre was accelerate the eventual outcome of the war. By the time America entered the war in December 1941, Germany had already invaded the USSR, more or less sealing the fate of the Eastern front. All that America did was speed up the creation of the Western front. To say that America "saved" France would imply that America stopped German aggression against France, which is certainly not the case, for France suffered under German occupation for three years.

I'd just like both sides to get the sticks out of their asses. Neither side saved the other side from anything, and even if they had, they didn't do it for their undying love for the other side, they did it because it served their own nation's interests.

. So can we stop pretending that France saved America from anything?.

No we can not, read above, if you are abble to understand these FACTS.

.
And on the other side, America did not "save" France in WWII either. All America did in the European theatre was accelerate the eventual outcome of the war. By the time America entered the war in December 1941, Germany had already invaded the USSR, more or less sealing the fate of the Eastern front. All that America did was speed up the creation of the Western front. To say that America "saved" France would imply that America stopped German aggression against France, which is certainly not the case, for France suffered under German occupation for three years..

The Russians would have reached the Atlantic and would have occupied Western EU to if there was not the US support for the invasion. See above for some example in battle.

.
I'd just like both sides to get the sticks out of their asses. Neither side saved the other side from anything, and even if they had, they didn't do it for their undying love for the other side, they did it because it served their own nation's interests.

It is not both sides, it is a bunch of Republican history deniers that stick out of their asses.. Anyone that reads the facts above can only see a long tradition of friendship. And yes, France helped Washington when it was in fact not capable to do so because they needed the money and did not ask something back then (again read the part about the Versailles threaty and the indepen,dance war, just facts like it happened).America's ass was saved by the French and the US helped in both WW's.

Oxtailsoup? Who? I prefer lobstersoup... BTW, you still did not gave a decent answer why you think that other (no US citizens) are automaticly French.(bias?)

Hey after seeng you're generalization of saying that only the Americans are at fault. If you did not post the original message then how do you know the person that posted it were not french or american?

Obviously the original posting was putting all the blame on the usa, sorry not the case. :rolleyes:

There is, but there is no reason for any education person (about the only ones who would know that bit of history) to actually allow something that happened 200 years ago to influence them.

France is a democracy the same as the US. The French are extremely polite. I think the tensions are really based in ignorance, and I think US leaders should actively try to dispell that ignorance.


The French? Polite?

hahahahahahaha

Considering their actions since the end of WWII, France is an enemy of America and should be acknowledged as such.

Considering their actions since the end of WWII, France is an enemy of America and should be acknowledged as such.
Right, because they've attacked us and are so likely to do so :rolleyes:

I personally think France is great...

Right, because they've attacked us and are so likely to do so :rolleyes:

I personally think France is great...

How simplistic.

When France pulled out of NATO in the 60's and decided to sit on the fence while living under the nuclear umbrella that we provide, that signalled the end of any meaningful friendship between the US and France. When France decided to pursue Arabist policies while the rest of the Western world suffered from terrorism, that was when France became the enemy.

Their disgusting bullying of Eastern European nations didn't help their image either.

Considering their actions since the end of WWII, France is an enemy of America and should be acknowledged as such.
Yeah! We should have nuked them to ash right after they attacked the uhh... the... thing with the... Well, I'm pretty sure they attacked SOMETHING! DEATH TO FRANCE!

Too bad there isn't a BBC Tag to denote sarcasm.

How simplistic.

When France pulled out of NATO in the 60's and decided to sit on the fence while living under the nuclear umbrella that we provide, that signalled the end of any meaningful friendship between the US and France. When France decided to pursue Arabist policies while the rest of the Western world suffered from terrorism, that was when France became the enemy.

Their disgusting bullying of Eastern European nations didn't help their image either.

Ahh... yes. France, still a NATO country, through the 60's and beyond... De Gaulle just had problems with USA supremacy. Under nuclear umbrella they created for themselves during the 50's, 60's, 70's.... am I really answering to a post that has no contact with reality in a fucking thread that MUST be a product of drunken minds? Yes, I believe I am... fancy that.

Considering their actions since the end of WWII, France is an enemy of America and should be acknowledged as such.

Considering the actions of america since 1954, America is an enemy of France and should be acknowledged as such. Don't offer to nuke Dien Being Phu if you won't really do it.

Also, just as a side note, it was the French right before the seven years war(French and indian) who defeated Washington in battle, and captured him and his remaining troops. And then let him go with honors.

If they had taken him back to France, killed him, or otherwise, the American revolution may not of occured, or if it did, very well may have failed.

We don't owe anything to France and our 18th century alliance went to shit when we fought a war with them from 1798-1800 (it was an undeclared sea war). We gave them an ass beating too with our small navy (especially USS Constitution) racking up 78 ships for losing only a couple boats.

We lost more to save France then those frogs will ever care to remember.

France has always tried to hurt America ever since we liberated their sorry asses.

We don't owe anything to France and our 18th century alliance went to shit when we fought a war with them from 1798-1800 (it was an undeclared sea war). We gave them an ass beating too with our small navy (especially USS Constitution) racking up 78 ships for losing only a couple boats.

We lost more to save France then those frogs will ever care to remember.

France has always tried to hurt America ever since we liberated their sorry asses.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-09-liberia-evac_x.htm

French supplies to america in the first years of the revolution, providing 90% of American gunpowder. Cant fight a war without gunpowder, unless you go bayonet-suicide style.

WW2, every theatre had the French. Africa, West Europe, East europe(Free-french pilots were active there), PTO, Italy, etc. They fought during the whole war. When they were invaded, and taken out, they fought from abroad, from the colonies, with the resistance, etc.

America did not invade through France because it wanted France to be free. It was a second front, italy wasn't going that well. France doesn't own america anything, because they were allies in a war, fighting a common enemy. When a military squad helps out their squad mates, its not saving them. Its just fighting the enemy, and trying to win. Saving your teammates work best.

If anything, America has been anti-France since the end of ww2. They rebuilt France economically, but that was mostly to solidify France as a western ally, instead of them maybe falling to the communists, etc. The americans funded alot of Indochina, and it did help, but they didn't help them in pivotal moments such as Dien Bien Phu, where american bombers could have saved the french from the huge amass of Vietnamese there.

America completely bitch slapped France over the Suez. America didn't want France to have its own nukes, if I remember correctly. America was trying to keep France strong enough to stay alive, but weak enough not to mess with New Rome, like an invalid barely kept alive.

Ahh... yes. France, still a NATO country, through the 60's and beyond... De Gaulle just had problems with USA supremacy. Under nuclear umbrella they created for themselves during the 50's, 60's, 70's.... am I really answering to a post that has no contact with reality in a fucking thread that MUST be a product of drunken minds? Yes, I believe I am... fancy that.

On the contrary, de Gaulle was the last French president that was on relatively friendly terms with the US. France can deny that they lived under NATO protection as long as the Soviet Union existed, but the truth is obvious.

Considering the actions of america since 1954, America is an enemy of France and should be acknowledged as such. Don't offer to nuke Dien Being Phu if you won't really do it.

Also, just as a side note, it was the French right before the seven years war(French and indian) who defeated Washington in battle, and captured him and his remaining troops. And then let him go with honors.

If they had taken him back to France, killed him, or otherwise, the American revolution may not of occured, or if it did, very well may have failed.

The US refused to be involved with the siege of Dien Bien Phu, and France's inability to stop the communist insurgents forced America to practice their containment doctrine with military action.

And your Washington story is totally irrelevant. It only took a decade for France to turn against the US with the XYZ Affair. Besides, I prefer to focus on more recent French treachery.

French supplies to america in the first years of the revolution, providing 90% of American gunpowder. Cant fight a war without gunpowder, unless you go bayonet-suicide style.

That is absurd. That sounds like a quote from Mr. Bellesiles' debunked propaganda on early American gun ownership. Heck, I can make black powder in my basement.

WW2, every theatre had the French. Africa, West Europe, East europe(Free-french pilots were active there), PTO, Italy, etc. They fought during the whole war. When they were invaded, and taken out, they fought from abroad, from the colonies, with the resistance, etc.

In Operation Torch, the allied invasion of North Africa, the French navy were the first to fire on allied ships. The German army fielded several divisions of French volunteers.

Not to disparage the contribution of the Free French troops, but out of all Nazi occupied countries France provided the most collaboration to the Nazi regime.

America did not invade through France because it wanted France to be free. It was a second front, italy wasn't going that well. France doesn't own america anything, because they were allies in a war, fighting a common enemy. When a military squad helps out their squad mates, its not saving them. Its just fighting the enemy, and trying to win. Saving your teammates work best.

The Italian campaign was going just fine, Rome was captured on D-Day. France's contribution to the allies during WWII was minimal at best, and as I said before, the French helped the Nazis plenty.

If anything, America has been anti-France since the end of ww2. They rebuilt France economically, but that was mostly to solidify France as a western ally, instead of them maybe falling to the communists, etc. The americans funded alot of Indochina, and it did help, but they didn't help them in pivotal moments such as Dien Bien Phu, where american bombers could have saved the french from the huge amass of Vietnamese there.

America was anti-French simply because it refused to save some French troops, the ones who promised they would smash the Vietminh in weeks? Gimme a break.

America completely bitch slapped France over the Suez. America didn't want France to have its own nukes, if I remember correctly. America was trying to keep France strong enough to stay alive, but weak enough not to mess with New Rome, like an invalid barely kept alive.

No, we bitch-slapped the Brits as well. Wasn't the Suez incident the beginning of France's arabist policies? How reactionary...

Since the end of WWI France has been irrelevant. America doesn't need to keep France strong; France is killing herself without any outside interference whatsoever.

The US refused to be involved with the siege of Dien Bien Phu, and France's inability to stop the communist insurgents forced America to practice their containment doctrine with military action.

And your Washington story is totally irrelevant. It only took a decade for France to turn against the US with the XYZ Affair. Besides, I prefer to focus on more recent French treachery.

You act like the XYZ affair was because the french hated americans or something. You cant just read that one on face value.

The US didn't refuse to be involved with Dien Bien Phu, they almost were involved.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/Indochine/ops/dbpwilde.html

Had Vulture been carried out, France most likely would have been able to, at the least, hold off until more French reinforcements arrived. America chose popular belief over helping its ally at a moment of desperation, when it could have saved it. If these are the kinds of priorities America takes, all its allies should consider how binding they really are.

You act like the XYZ affair was because the french hated americans or something. You cant just read that one on face value.

The US didn't refuse to be involved with Dien Bien Phu, they almost were involved.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/Indochine/ops/dbpwilde.html

Had Vulture been carried out, France most likely would have been able to, at the least, hold off until more French reinforcements arrived. America chose popular belief over helping its ally at a moment of desperation, when it could have saved it. If these are the kinds of priorities America takes, all its allies should consider how binding they really are.

I mentioned the XYZ affair because it proves that the only reason France provided any help at all to the Americans was to antagonize the British, not because of any real friendship with the Americans.

Even if the US bailed out those French troops, France would never have been able to stop the communist insurgents in their colonial holdings. I don't see the point of US planes entering an area heavily defended by AAA just to stall the Vietminh when reinforcements might never arrive in the first place. There's a big difference between providing material support and military support.

That is absurd. That sounds like a quote from Mr. Bellesiles' debunked propaganda on early American gun ownership. Heck, I can make black powder in my basement.

The facts remain, France supplied America with 90% of its gunpowder in the first two years of the war. As close to loosing as the americans came a few times in the revolution, the loss of that much supply could have turned the tide in one battle, and lost it.

In Operation Torch, the allied invasion of North Africa, the French navy were the first to fire on allied ships. The German army fielded several divisions of French volunteers.

And? They were Vichy-French, who allied with the Germans. If you want to hate Vichy-French, Feel free.

Not to disparage the contribution of the Free French troops, but out of all Nazi occupied countries France provided the most collaboration to the Nazi regime.

And the most trouble. Out of all the nazi occupied countries, none made more of a war contribution than France.

The Italian campaign was going just fine, Rome was captured on D-Day. France's contribution to the allies during WWII was minimal at best, and as I said before, the French helped the Nazis plenty.

The Various lines such as the Guerdian, etc, were very slow going. America diverted troops to France from the italian assault, and so did Germany. Italy is a much easier to defend country than France, so France made more sense to launch the invasion through. As I said before, the French helped the allies alot too, they took the left flank of Italy very well, and they even fought at Cassino.

America was anti-French simply because it refused to save some French troops, the ones who promised they would smash the Vietminh in weeks? Gimme a break.

When america could have saved its ally with a few extra bombers, who weren't exactly on important missions, thats selfish. Putting the belief of a few nations of the international community above the defense of your ally, thats anti-french.

No, we bitch-slapped the Brits as well. Wasn't the Suez incident the beginning of France's arabist policies? How reactionary...

Yes, and the Brits became complacent. France decided not to let America try to force its Ideas on it anymore. Also, France is secularist, not Arabist. But being pro-israel, Im sure you will debate that to good heaven.

Since the end of WWI France has been irrelevant. America doesn't need to keep France strong; France is killing herself without any outside interference whatsoever.

If france has been irrelevant, than in your mind, it seems that only a incredibly small number of nations are relevant. You are obviously biased against France, so its hard to take you seriously.

I mentioned the XYZ affair because it proves that the only reason France provided any help at all to the Americans was to antagonize the British, not because of any real friendship with the Americans.

Even if the US bailed out those French troops, France would never have been able to stop the communist insurgents in their colonial holdings. I don't see the point of US planes entering an area heavily defended by AAA just to stall the Vietminh when reinforcements might never arrive in the first place. There's a big difference between providing material support and military support.

The area wasnt heavily defended by AAA. French air force were very unhindered, they were able to napalm the enemy trenches just fine, though the tactic didn't work, with the ground being very damp, etc.

The French quite likely would have been able to win Indochina, or at least until they decided to give it up later, like its other colonies. The Vietnamese would have been defeated in the war if they had been at DBP, they would have lost too much to continue a full fight.

Stop being so contradicting. You prefer talking about recent stuff, but XYZ, two hundred years ago, shows the french only are our allies to beat the british? Even if so, no more than was america allied to France to beat Germany in ww2.

The area wasnt heavily defended by AAA. French air force were very unhindered, they were able to napalm the enemy trenches just fine, though the tactic didn't work, with the ground being very damp, etc.

The French quite likely would have been able to win Indochina, or at least until they decided to give it up later, like its other colonies. The Vietnamese would have been defeated in the war if they had been at DBP, they would have lost too much to continue a full fight.

Stop being so contradicting. You prefer talking about recent stuff, but XYZ, two hundred years ago, shows the french only are our allies to beat the british? Even if so, no more than was america allied to France to beat Germany in ww2.

That link you provided stated that the area was heavily defended by AAA.

I believe France were never friends with America in the first place; their stance has only grown more hostile in the past half-century. It's gotten to the point where France is obviously a political enemy of the US.

That link you provided stated that the area was heavily defended by AAA.

I believe France were never friends with America in the first place; their stance has only grown more hostile in the past half-century. It's gotten to the point where France is obviously a political enemy of the US.

Or are we THEIR political enemy?

**skips away**

Or are we THEIR political enemy?

**skips away**

France seems to think so. But France was the one who decided to sit on the fence during the Cold War. And France was the one european country to aggressively pursue an arabist policy.

France decided to become a political enemy of the US. We shrugged it off as typical Gaullic insolence. :)

Hey after seeng you're generalization of saying that only the Americans are at fault. :

Generalization, you call such detailed information a "generalization", again you gave proof that you don't consider the historical facts and haven 't read it. Could have learned you something to be a less biased.




Obviously the original posting was putting all the blame on the usa, sorry not the case. :rolleyes:

Explaining the positive role of the USA is anti USA? Please, explain the class.
You don't know shit and you know it, better read the post before you say such stupid things.

In short: for you Bin Laden is Pro US (since he hates them) and I am anti US (since my post about history are pro US) :confused:
Better get some professianal aid... :D

Yes my post was so biased I know lol. I said we both don't hate each other only the people that are bitter for whatever reason hate each other and they are both the minority group.

Proof that you thought that I was French. You are American,so, since the topic is about US/France friendship, the person you are talking to must be French. You are quite weak in logics..


If you did not post the original message then how do you know the person that posted it were not french or american?.

Original poster= Oxtailsoup
Me= Basil
You really are mixing things up, but we are used you do :D (see above and in thread)

How simplistic.

When France pulled out of NATO in the 60's and decided to sit on the fence while living under the nuclear umbrella that we provide, that signalled the end of any meaningful friendship between the US and France. .

They did what they had to do, since they had their own umbrella.


When France decided to pursue Arabist policies while the rest of the Western world suffered from terrorism, that was when France became the enemy..

Since when is the US "the rest of the world"? Indeed, "How simplistic".


Their disgusting bullying of Eastern European nations didn't help their image either.

Any proof for these propaganda accusations?

Or do we have to explain the disgusting bullying of the US when it sold one third of Poland to the USSR at Yalta and Russia gave them one third of Germany as a repair. Now the US republican regime is supporting the demand for retaliation of Poland towards Germany. How short memory is...Or do we have to talk about the bullying of about all European nations by the US administration and the small minority of extremists that you belong to?

We don't owe anything to France and our 18th century alliance went to shit when we fought a war with them from 1798-1800 (it was an undeclared sea war). We gave them an ass beating too with our small navy (especially USS Constitution) racking up 78 ships for losing only a couple boats..

Better get back to school kiddo, there were not even 78 ships involved. How stupid of you.


We lost more to save France then those frogs will ever care to remember.

France has always tried to hurt America ever since we liberated their sorry asses.

Don't agree, get the shit out of your propaganda mouth and learn to read other things then your republican farmer revue on toilet:


A brotherhood of Arms (1778-1783)

The court of Versailles followed closely the events leading up to the American Revolution. When, in 1776, the Thirteen Colonies proclaimed their independance, Vergennes, the Foreign Affairs Secretary, saw a perfect opportunity to take revenge on Britain, and thus advised the King to support the rebels. Fearing a war with the British, Turgot, the Minister of Finance, was less enthusiastic. King Louis XVI was not inclined to assist a rebellion which undermined another monarch. Despite popular opinion in favor of the Revolutionaries, France's support was far from certain when Benjamin Franklin arrived in Paris on December 27,1776. He joined Silas Deane as American Minister to France. Deane was a wealthy Connecticut businessman, who, chosen in haste, had produced no concrete results. Franklin's reputation as a man of great learning, who lived modestly, greatly pleased the Court. Franklin soon had French support for the Revolutionary cause. Official aid was at first discreet. But the number of volunteers offering to help the Revolutionaries grew rapidly. There was a great deal to draw young Frenchmen to America: the attraction of new ideas, a thirst to fight their hereditary British enemy, a desire for adventure and the chance for exotic travel in the New World. Several months later, Silas Deane wrote, "the rage to sign up to serve with the Americans is continually growing. As a consequence I am inundated with offers, many from persons of consequential rank..." The King himself had to intervene when members of distinguished families wanted to leave for the New World. The count of Noaille and the count of Ségur, two of the most important names in the French kingdom, wanted to leave with the young Marquis de La Fayette. It was feared that these young men would compromise the neutral position of France. Noailles and Ségur bowed to the pressure, but La Fayette stole onto the boat La Victoire which sailed first to Bordeaux, then to Spain, and finally on to Georgetown, where he arrived in June 1777. Many of the volunteers were greatly disappointed in the New World. Most of them did not speak English and they did not understand how the Revolutionary Army, unlike anything in Europe, could function on a battlefield. Furthermore, their social background made it difficult for them to adapt to the democratic style of George Washington's soldiers. Welcomed with great enthusiasm in Philadelphia, La Fayette even offered to serve in the army as a foot soldier, and to pay his own way. Franklin, however, explained to the Continental Congress that it would be politically advantageous to enlist foreign soldiers whose families could influence the court at Versailles. La Fayette was finally appointed to the rank of General. Returning to the front just as the English General Howe marched on Philidelphia, he was injured at the battle of Brandywine. Soon after, he followed Washington to his headquarters at Valley Forge. The winter of 1777-1778 was a particularly tough one. Badly clothed, badly nourished and badly armed, Washington's army was on the verge of collapse. At this point, an attack by the English would almost certainly have changed the course of the war. In Paris, Franklin did his best to convince the court to adopt the American cause officially through a formal alliance with the United States.

The French to the Rescue

The resulting Treaty of Commerce and Friendship was signed on February 6, 1778. The Revolutionaries' situation was such that the French could have made any demand in the treaty, taking advantage of the vulnerable United States. Instead the French policy looked far into the future. Vergennes wrote to his ambassador in London on March 17, 1778: 'We did not want to procure any commercial favors that might make other nations jealous, such that the United States might one day accuse us of taking advantage of them." One week later he stated, "The authorized American deputies were open to giving us any exclusive rights of trade we might have demanded. We were aware of that. But through the recognition of the United States as a member of the family of nations, the King wanted to create a bond that would serve posterity and be as solid and enduring as is possible in human affairs.' The French policy prompted Benjamin Franklin, a great student of human nature, to say, "The truth is that this nation loves glory and loves to protect the oppressed." Back on the battlefields of North America, the British began to realize that time was against them. After taking Philidelphia they prepared themselves to deliver the death blow to the Revolutionaries. They wanted to quickly exploit tensions within the Revolutionary ranks, notably the rivalry between Washington and Gates, the victor of the battle of Saratoga. General Clinton took command of the British troops after Howe's resignation. Fearing a French blockade of the Delaware and an attack on the city by the Continental Army, Clinton moved towards New York.

Washington followed behind and launched an attack at Monmouth - an audacious military manoeuvre that would have been a decisive victory if Charles Lee, the commander of the vanguard, had not inexplicably disobeyed orders and retreated from ground he had captured and held. Court martialled, Lee, accused by some of treason, was finally released. The error had been commited. Washington was forced to stop his offensive, and instead set up headquarters in New Brunswick while Clinton went on to New York. Arriving in July 1778, the French fleet under Admiral d'Estaing came to the aid of the Revolutionaries, for the first time in force. A siege was planned ; Estaing would move in by sea, while the American General Sullivan would arrive by land to take Newport, Rhode Island. Unfortunately a violent storm arose, putting an end to this first attempt at military cooperation between the new allies. Estaing headed south to the West Indies for the winter. This setback did not bode well for the Americans. Paris would not look kindly on a failed military operation; but the Revolutionaries were very much in need of assistance and reinforcements. At the end of 1778, La Fayette obtained permission from the Continental Congress to go to Versailles. He was well received, and knew how to convince Vergennes and Maurepas to throw the weight of France into the battle. Among the plans that had been envisaged was a large-scale landing in Britain. Ships had been prepared for this purpose. The Project never saw the light of day. But the fleet gathered in Saint Malo and Le Havre made it technically possible to send an expeditionary force to the New World as La Fayette requested. Louis XVI was still worried about dissent among the Revolutionaries and feared that Spain's Charles III, although allied with France against England, would dislike to decisive an American victory next door to his overseas empire. Still, France eventually sent to General Washington 5,000 men chosen from their best troops. La Fayette was too young to command the expeditionary force. He was sent back to America to announce the imminent arrival of the long-awaited re-enforcements under the command of Rochambeau.

America, we are here

Leaving Brest, the convoy sighted land at Newport, Rhode Island, on July 11, 1780. Among the officers, were some of the most important names in France : Montmorency, Custine, Chartres, Noailles, Lauzun... The hopes raised by the arrival of the French were short-lived : soon after, a large British fleet was sighted. It was under the command of Admirals Arbuth-not and Rodney. It spoiled the plans for a quick attack on New York. The Hartford meeting, organized by La Fayette between Rochambeau and Washington, resulted in another request for more French reenforcements. Only a full-sized naval force could save the situation. To make matters worse, when Washington returned to his camp at West Point, he learned of Benedict Arnold's treason. One of the Colonels' most brilliant military minds had gone over to the enemy. Becoming chief counsellor to General Clinton, Arnold pushed for quick action to exploit the weakness of the Continental Army. Victims of the naval blockade, the American soldiers were neither paid, nor fed, nor clothed. Rochambeau began to worry, quite legitimately, about the effectiveness of these 11 men pushed to the limits of their resources." Once more Louis XVI and Vergennes responded to the needs of the Revolutionaries. On May 16, 1781, despite the terrible state of French finances, the ship La Concorde brought six million pounds to Washington. The American General wanted to attack New York. Rochambeau, however, thought it more prudent to head South, where the English General Cornwallis had not yet managed to win a decisive victory against the American fighter Greene, who used guerilla tactics. Clinton ordered Cornwallis to keep a minimal force in Yorktown, on the Chesapeake Bay, where they had the support of the Navy ; he would then send the remaining troops to reinforce the garrison in New York, where they thought the major battle would take place. Cornwallis was thus left vulnerable and Washington, knowing that de Grasse's fleet was en-route, was readily convinced to attack Yorktown. Moreover, de Grasse, who was sailing back to the continent after a series of victories in the West Indies, had sent a message to George Washington, telling him that he preferred fighting in the Chesapeake Bay because it was deeper than the Hudson River, and allowed for greater manoeuvrability.

On August 19th, crossing New Jersey, the Franco-American troops headed toward Virginia. On August 30th, Washington and Rochambeau triumphantly entered Philadelphia. From there they marched on Yorktown with an army of 18,000 men. There were 9,000 Americans and 5,000 French to which were added 3,300 more when the Marquis de Saint Simon arrived from Saint-Domingue with de Grasse's fleet. Cornered with a mere 7,000 Redcoats, Cornwallis was in a desperate situation. Hope appeared on September 5th, when 22 ships were sighted on the horizon. The fleet, commanded by Admiral Graves, had left New York two days earlier to rescue Yorktown. The tide seemed to be turning against the Revolutionaries, but de Grasse saved the day. In the Bay, the French ships were sitting ducks. De Grasse manoeuvered brilliantly; he slipped his fleet around Cape Henry and set up in formation around the Ville de Paris, the largest vessel of that period. When the battle began in the open seas, the English had already lost. When the canons stopped, one British ship had sunk and five more were seriously damaged. No French ships were destroyed and only two were damaged. Graves retreated ; the French victory was complete. Cornwallis had counted on the naval re-enforcements to back him up so he hadn't bothered to protect his positions. On September 28th, the Revolutionaries deployed their forces : the French on the left next to the Americans followed by La Fayette's Franco-American corps General Washington's troops ; and finally the troops under the command of Prussian General von Steuben (who had fought with the Revolutionaries since 1777). The fate of the British was sealed. On October 17th, the anniversary of the surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga, the Star Spangled Banner flew over Yorktown. The defeated British garrison marched between two rows of the victors - the French on the left, the Americans on the right. The officer representing Cornwallis, who claimed to be ill, wanted to surrender his sword to Rochambeau. But the French General, gestured toward Washington, who respectfully refused the sword. The fall of Yorktown, which had been their stronghold, forced the British to negociate. The Treaty of Versailles, signed September 3, 1783, ended the American War of Independence. The official birth certificate of a new nation, this treaty was also a symbol of the friendship between France and the United States. It was a friendship for which the two countries would time and again pay for with their lives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chellis
French supplies to america in the first years of the revolution, providing 90% of American gunpowder. Cant fight a war without gunpowder, unless you go bayonet-suicide style.



That is absurd. That sounds like a quote from Mr. Bellesiles' debunked propaganda on early American gun ownership. Heck, I can make black powder in my basement.

It is history, the dirty things you do in your basement are not important

Proof that you thought that I was French. You are American,so, since the topic is about US/France friendship, the person you are talking to must be French. You are quite weak in logics..

You are slow. I never spoke to you if you were not the original poster lol :p





Original poster= Oxtailsoup
Me= Basil
You really are mixing things up, but we are used you do (see above and in thread)

Coming from someone that thought I was speaking to them lol Now who is mixed up? :p

Generalization, you call such detailed information a "generalization", again you gave proof that you don't consider the historical facts and haven 't read it. Could have learned you something to be a less biased.

Detailed info now, could of fooled the rest of us lmao. There are more than just a few extreme republicans that are being dips to the french, we have democrats , libertarians and greens that I have spoke to that dislike the french over this lame excuse of differing opinions on the war. :p




Explaining the positive role of the USA is anti USA? Please, explain the class.
You are don't know shit and you know it, better read the post before you say such stupid things.

In short: for you Bin Laden is Pro US (since he hates them) and I am anti US (since my post about history are pro US)

Since my post were neither pro or anti us or french you "Better get some professianal aid... " :p

See there's another difference between the French and Brits, the Brits would rather fight to the death than surrender. And I'm glad they passed that on to us Americans. I don't hate the French, I'm just stating what there portraying.

Hmm, so when did Great Britain or US harbour fighting, hostile forces with a serious chance of defeating the native army? I think you should put your country into that situation before you write something like that...

In Operation Torch, the allied invasion of North Africa, the French navy were the first to fire on allied ships. The German army fielded several divisions of French volunteers..

Euh, ever heared of Vichy France ?:confused:


Not to disparage the contribution of the Free French troops, but out of all Nazi occupied countries France provided the most collaboration to the Nazi regime.

Of course, you don't feel the ballast of a historical insight so it is easy to blablabla on withouth saying something. What a BS.You know shit about WWII. In fact you are very anti American by spreading such lies, better serve your cause wu-ith some unbiased posts instead of your lies and mixt up half thruth.

Best contributers and volunteers for enlistment in the Waffen SS:
Estland: two Divisions (a country with monuments for the SS soldiers and a population highly involved in the killing of the 30.000 jews at Riga, French never did that)
Letland: two Divisions
France: only 1 Division (Charlemagne)
Yugoslavia: 2 Divisions (Skanderberg, wich was Muslim and a second non muslim).
Belgium: 2 divisions (Flandern and Wallonien)
Netherlands: 2 divisions (Nederland and Landstorm Nederland)
aso.

Regarding the smaller numbers of population of most countries here, we can see that the % of collaboration lies in all those higher then for France, again one of your lies corrected.




The Italian campaign was going just fine, Rome was captured on D-Day. France's contribution to the allies during WWII was minimal at best,

Won't go in detail here because that is to dificult for you to understand, regarding that you did not understand anything about what happened at during the independance war and that you neglact the facts of the long support and the ammount of it.

But again a correction of your lies:
At Cassino, to be more precise in the first of the four Cassino battles, the French saved Clarks army corps and performed much better then the US troops that often sat there and waited until the French had done the hard work before getting in action. See for example those attacks of the second US armycorps when they had to cross the rapido while the French had to cross it at their leftflank. TheFrench did what they had to do and Clarks troops failed to flank the French of geberal Juin, one of the reasons why it took so long at Cassino. There where about 200.000 French involved in Italy, mostly troops with 5/10/15/20 years millitary carreer as Tunesian, Algerian,Maroccan mountain soldiers aso, they outperformed together with the Kiwi's every other Allied unit.





Wasn't the Suez incident the beginning of France's arabist policies? How reactionary....

France's Arabist policies? Ever heared of the ones of the US and her friends (Saddam, Bin Laden, Idi Amin, aso) BTW, the Suez was a Franco-UK operation but I believe that you did not mention the UK or had not the guts in this thread. I know people like you, you just drop an easy lie and you think that you'll get away with it.



Since the end of WWI France has been irrelevant. .

Hmmm, I would say WWII and not irrelevant since they are the 3th nuclear power.



America doesn't need to keep France strong;
.
Why should they? Neither vice versa, they are just allies,not more then that. When there will be a return to a non extremist government that respects international law, and is a real elected one in the US, wether it is Republican (but not the anti world Bush clan) or Democrat, you'll see that things will be back to normal.

I can tell you that it allready is in company life, wich was not disturbed by the agressive attacks of Bush neither by the French (and other free nations) defence.

Strange, your blind hate and lies, you must be verry unhappy or jalouse at the French, your oldest allies (read your history, but not your "farmers weekly republican history rewriting" on toilet.

Since my post were neither pro or anti us or french you "Better get some professianal aid... " :p


Sorry boy, i gave you that advise :p (originality is not your strongest :D )

For the rest you really are mixed up in your assumptions :p

Sorry boy, i gave you that advise (originality is not your strongest )and still you mix things up since you say that my post was anti US, Proof please

You seriously are this slow? I never posted to you until you posted to me lmao
I never said anyone but both sides Americans and French are equal to blame for their own faults :rolleyes: Remember you were the one that took offense from every person in this thread that posted a differing opinion than you have. I could care less what either the french or americans say about each other. Grow up wee one. I could care less if you are anti french anti american or anti intelligent. :eek:

I don't think you needed to try and portray him as an idiot. It certainly isn't helping your arguments. Anyway, just to answer some of the things posted in here...

Thirdly, you have one country that actually has culture, and another that has lots of military strength.

That's nonsense. Neither of our countries' societies can be described like that.

I'm convinced that the hatred between the US and France is mutual. [...] Or not. But it exists.

Of course, but I like to think a minority of morons (on both sides) aren't representative of both our countries.

I bet France is waiting for one good reason to declare war on the U.S. as we speak.

Ridiculous. We would be defeated within days.

See there's another difference between the French and Brits, the Brits would rather fight to the death than surrender.

You would rather die than spend some time in slavery, even though that means still having hope of being free again some day? I find that reasoning weird, honestly...

The lower classes　(poorer folk) chopped off th eheads fo those in the upper class. So it is the norm not to view people of less means with contempt like they are viewed in many other countries.

You're wrong, sadly. First, the French Revolution merely replaced an upper class (nobles) by another (the bourgeoisie).
Secondly, the French are just like any other people in this world, you know. Some people may act like you said, but I'm sure quite a few just think the poor are that way bcause they were too lazy, or some such thing.

Considering their actions since the end of WWII, France is an enemy of America and should be acknowledged as such.

An enemy? Please. Our leaders would rather commit suicide than actually oppose the USA.
But, of course, maybe I'm just not realizing how hostile it was to ban the word 'e-mail' in official documents. Truly horrible.

When France pulled out of NATO in the 60's and decided to sit on the fence while living under the nuclear umbrella that we provide, that signalled the end of any meaningful friendship between the US and France.

Not being your friend means being your enemy? Paranoia.

France has always tried to hurt America ever since we liberated their sorry asses.

As demonstrated by our utter lack of support during, say... The Cuba missile crisis. Or after 9/11 (what country actually performed bombing raids on Afghanistan along with the USA, hmm?). And how could I forget the many boycotts of American products by French people?

I believe France were never friends with America in the first place; their stance has only grown more hostile in the past half-century. It's gotten to the point where France is obviously a political enemy of the US.

Indeed. France can veto in the UN Security Council. How dreadful, especially after Gulf War 2.

And the most trouble. Out of all the nazi occupied countries, none made more of a war contribution than France.

No. Poland suffered much more than France during WW2.

Remember you were the one that took offense from every person in this thread that posted a differing opinion than you have. :


Every person, *sees how much nations* =3. BTW it is not about opinions but facts, ask your teacher to explein your own history (if you ever followed those courses).

*facts* like the kid that thought that the French collaborated more then any nation with Germany, i gave a list with the divisions, hell even tiny estonia,Letland, Belgium and Holland had more troops in the German army then France had.

Facts like the ones you easaly forget about your own history.

When their is one person here in this thread that is slow and unable to debate (because you ignore factual history) it must be you kiddo. :rolleyes:

BTW, your posts still did not answer those facts are gave a fact that they did not take place. (Normal, because you're ignorant about your own history thus not capable to see the general picture).

But even you can learn, wen I had your age (must be 12 or so,regarding your level) I did not know who Lafayette was either and I had not heared of Yorktown aso neither. But their is hope, even for the mentaly disabled like you. (Again, like I first stated get some professional help, you need it :p )

Every person, *sees how much nations* =3. BTW it is not about opinions but facts, ask your teacher to explein your own history (if you ever followed those courses).
*facts* like the kid that thought that the French collaborated more then any nation with Germany, i gave a list with the divisions, hell even tiny estonia,Letland, Belgium and Holland had more troops in the German army then France had.
Facts like the ones you easaly forget about your own history.
When their is one person here in this thread that is slow and unable to debate (because you ignore factual history) it must be you kiddo.
BTW, your posts still did not answer those facts are gave a fact that they did not take place. (Normal, because you're ignorant about your own history thus not capable to see the general picture).
But even you can learn, wen I had your age (must be 12 or so,regarding your level) I did not know who Lafayette was either and I had not heared of Yorktown aso neither. But their is hope, even for the mentaly disabled like you. (Again, like I first stated get some professional help, you need it )

lmao are you smoking some wacky tabacky? Here this is what I have posted, you need to lay off the drugs and put you're glasses on ;)

"lol I dont think any country that has a change of leadership and generations from either or, Owe anything to another except the basic common decency that both of these sides have, on their respective differing postions. Sure there are people from both sides who were offended by either of our positions on the Iraq war. Not a big deal considering the history we both have with each other. If you remember "the french" (so you can follow along) were in vietnam as a French rule from the mid-19th century to 1954, before "the french" found out it was a lost cause. As well as our country was there for some time before we lost our purpose. Its all the same we both are republics, with differing politcal leanings. I doubt our 250+ year relationship will fall apart over this sqaubble." ;)

Some people in America hate France, some people in France hate America, and the hating will just be used by both sides to perpetuate their own hatred. :(

lmao are you smoking some wacky tabacky? Here this is what I have posted, you need to lay off the drugs and put you're glasses on ;)

"lol I dont think any country that has a change of leadership and generations from either or, Owe anything to another except the basic common decency that both of these sides have, on their respective differing postions. Sure there are people from both sides who were offended by either of our positions on the Iraq war. Not a big deal considering the history we both have with each other. If you remember "the french" (so you can follow along) were in vietnam as a French rule from the mid-19th century to 1954, before "the french" found out it was a lost cause. As well as our country was there for some time before we lost our purpose. Its all the same we both are republics, with differing politcal leanings. I doubt our 250+ year relationship will fall apart over this sqaubble." ;)


The difference in indochina was the French were definitivly defeated at Dien Bien Phu, after that, they pretty much couldnt continue the fight...

If they had won DBP, they would have destroyed a large portion of the Vietnamese artillery, best trained officers, huge numbers of men, etc. They quite possible would have been able to hold onto it, though they would have had to decide who to hold onto, Indochina or Algeria(or neither, possibly later on). Too bad the americans wouldnt spare a couple B-29's from the phillipines to make a few bombing runs, which could have saved the French, their supposed allies.

Faitfull Unfreedom, you still did not gave the answers and your still stuck in your assumptions.

Never gave an answer to this but assumptions, I know that you're slow, but that is not an excuse:



"I fully agree, but you did not answer why you think that other people that post about the US or French are French (like you posted). Just don't get that you think that I am French because I gave some evidences of mutual help... BTW I am not, would not botter eather. "

Why does a vaste minority of US republicans and other extreme right hates France so much? Have they forgotten what they ow France? It is allways easy to bring on the help of WWI or WWI, withouth knowing that there where 100.000's of Free French at their sides. (Allready in Italy allone, near Cassino, 2 US divisions fought during 2 months a German brigade,withouth the slightest succes, once they where replaced because of battle fatigue, by Free French Tunesian Division, those elite soldiers took the German positions in a week.) Between WWI and WWII the US and France took initiatives, TOGETHER for making sure that such a war like WWI would never happen again.

Also, a lot of people are denying the value of the French to create the uS (withouth them, Washington would have lost everything).

There are so much ties that I really don't understand the hate of the extreme right (some republicans in charge). When I speak with French people, I never saw this hate against the US, only a disagreement with teh extreme right republican regime, not towards the people.

Strange thing this world :rolleyes:

Actually the French that helped us earn independence no longer exist.

Much of the "hatred" is politically motivated. The French are an interesting people.

To label them as all American haters is not right. Now Parisians?.... that's a different answer and probably the main force of this view. But it should be pointed out that Parisians tend to not like anybody.

The French don't hate us. They hate the shrub but the country? nahhh. If they did, they would not treat the D-Day vets with respect. Heck I even read one saying that people in Paris were nice?!?! A Frenchman in our company says that is amazing as the Parisians treat him like crap all the time.

When the shrub is gone, some of the "rifts" will lesson. Especially when we stop doing retarded things like "freedom" fries. :rolleyes:

Too bad the americans wouldnt spare a couple B-29's from the phillipines to make a few bombing runs, which could have saved the French, their supposed allies.

Especially when they "promised" them. Or, so it was claimed....

Good ol' Ike!

Actually the French that helped us earn independence no longer exist.

Ok?

The Americans that fought the independence don't exist either......