|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 21, 2003 23:46:23 GMT -5
This was posted by Darth Percussion in Hockeys Future. Remember, France is a country in Europe and has nothing to do with Canadians or Quebecers. Just wanted to make that clear to the geographicaly challanged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aah, France.......
"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes."---Mark Twain
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
--- General George S. Patton
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
--Norman Schwarzkopf
"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
---- Marge Simpson
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
---Jacques Chirac, President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
---Rush Limbaugh,
"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
--- Regis Philbin
"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey, I don't know."
--- P.J O'Rourke (1989)
"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."
---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is
French, people."
--Conan O'Brien
"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!" ---Jay Leno
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
--David Letterman
How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb? One. He holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him.
Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.
C'est la Guerre
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~By FlyerGuy
here's some good ones.....
How do you confuse a French Soldier? A: Give him a rifle and ask him to shoot it.
What's the motto of the US Marine Corps? A: Semper Fi (always first)
What's the motto of the French Army? A: Stop, drop, and run!
Why don't Master Card and Visa work well in France A. They do not know how to say "CHARGE!"
The recent tremors felt throughout France have been attributed to the fifty six thousand+ WWI & WWII U.S. soldiers spinning in their graves.
What do you call a french man killed defending his country? ... I don't know either, its never happened!
What Does "Maginot Line" mean in French?
"Speed bump ahead"
What does a French military alliance and a French romance have in common?
Both are brief, sordid, and completely meaningless.
Why did the French send Lady Liberty to America?
A. They had no use for her anyway
B. They didn't want the tired, poor, huddled masses to come to France for God's sake.
C. She wouldn't put out
D. To be a constant reminder of the help they gave to defeat the British. As if WE'RE the ones with the short memory.
E. They wanted to remind future generations that they once had the balls to do what is right.
F. All of the above
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 21, 2003 23:52:54 GMT -5
*sigh*
Ignorant comments can be made about just about any country.
Maybe if the US stopped invading their problems instead of solving them they'd realise it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 21, 2003 23:57:19 GMT -5
After reading them over, I realised most of these reflect American ignorance more than anything about the French.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 22, 2003 5:59:46 GMT -5
Yeah, they're a regular bunch of comedians alright. Where are all the hilarious American witticisms about African-Americans, Hispanics, Poles, Italians and Jews?
Some people just don't handle difference of opinion very well, especially when it hinders them from getting their way. Then like thwarted children in a school playground they point their fingers and the "nyah-nyahs" start.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 22, 2003 13:44:36 GMT -5
I have tried to lift France out of the mud. But she will return to her errors and vomitings. I cannot prevent the French from being French.
- Charles de Gaulle
France has more need of me than I have need of France.
- Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 22, 2003 14:01:02 GMT -5
I have tried to lift France out of the mud. But she will return to her errors and vomitings. I cannot prevent the French from being French.
- Charles de Gaulle
Charles DeGaulle said that? Really? Well, that's just ignorant comments can be made about just about any country by it's President. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 22, 2003 14:02:30 GMT -5
When NASA was preparing for the Apollo project, some of the training of the astronauts took place on a Navajo Indian reservation. One day, a Navajo elder and his son were herding sheep and came across the space crew. The old man, who spoke only Navajo, asked a question that his son translated. "What are these guys in the big suits doing?"
A member of the crew said they were practicing for their trip to the moon. The old man got all excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts.
Recognizing a promotional opportunity, the NASA folks found a tape recorder. After the old man recorded his message, they asked his son to translate it. He refused. The NASA PR people brought the tape to the reservation, where the rest of the tribe listened and laughed, but they refused to translate the elder's message to the moon.
Finally, the NASA crew called in an official government translator. His translation of the old man's message was "Watch out for these guys; they have come to steal your land."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 22, 2003 14:27:42 GMT -5
When some people (notice the word some) pointed to the Jew's when the Germans came to take them away they quickly found out what other knew about the Americans (and Canadiens). They came for my friend in the other town and I did nothing.
They came for my neighbor and I did nothing.
They came for me and non of my friends did anything.
Except for those dumb Americans~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quiz. Where is this? And who is buried there?  What's several hundred thousand dead Americans in two WW mean anyway. It's about oil.  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 22, 2003 15:05:00 GMT -5
When some people (notice the word some) pointed to the Jew's when the Germans came to take them away they quickly found out what other knew about the Americans (and Canadiens). They came for my friend in the other town and I did nothing.
They came for my neighbor and I did nothing.
They came for me and non of my friends did anything.
Except for those dumb Americans~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quiz. Where is this? And who is buried there? What's several hundred thousand dead Americans in two WW mean anyway. It's about oil. Except, of course, Americans did not enter WWII until December 1941, two years after it first started, and AFTER France, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Ethiopia, Korea, Manchuria, Yugoslavia, and of course Greece, had all fallen. It was AFTER Britain was brought to its knees with a devastating German air barrage and it was AFTER Germany's initial romp through Eastern Russia, complete with its roving death squads using Ukranian peasants for target practice. I am quite sure that a lot of people in those countries, especially the Jews deported to concentration camps in that period where Americans hid behind their Isolationism philosophy, would really have liked for their "friends" to come earlier. The first Nazi concentration camp, Dachau, was built in 1933. Eight years before "those dumb Americans" finally decided to come help people. The Americans also did not enter World War I until late 1917. The first American troops did not start arriving in large numbers on European battlefields until 1918, less than a year before the war ended. The US suffered 262,725 casualities in World War I. Canada, with its population 10 times smaller than its southern neighbors, suffered 206,200. France suffered just under 6 million, or over 20 times what the US suffered. Russia, an ally, suffered 6.7 million, England 3 million. How many fewer would that have been, if the US had of entered the war in 1914, three years earlier, at the same time Canada did? The US has always acted in its own interests, all the while portraying itself as the world's good guy. They are trying to act like they are "saving the Iraqi people" but I don't buy it for a second. What are they really trying to do? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 22, 2003 15:54:05 GMT -5
"Do not stab yourself just because you have a golden knife" - Marathi proverb.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 16:26:50 GMT -5
"Do not stab yourself just because you have a golden knife" - Marathi proverb. ROFL. That pretty much sums up the whole situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 22, 2003 23:13:51 GMT -5
Except, of course, Americans did not enter WWII until December 1941, two years after it first started, and AFTER France, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Ethiopia, Korea, Manchuria, Yugoslavia, and of course Greece, had all fallen. It was AFTER Britain was brought to its knees with a devastating German air barrage and it was AFTER Germany's initial romp through Eastern Russia, complete with its roving death squads using Ukranian peasants for target practice. I am quite sure that a lot of people in those countries, especially the Jews deported to concentration camps in that period where Americans hid behind their Isolationism philosophy, would really have liked for their "friends" to come earlier. The first Nazi concentration camp, Dachau, was built in 1933. Eight years before "those dumb Americans" finally decided to come help people. The Americans also did not enter World War I until late 1917. The first American troops did not start arriving in large numbers on European battlefields until 1918, less than a year before the war ended. The US suffered 262,725 casualities in World War I. Canada, with its population 10 times smaller than its southern neighbors, suffered 206,200. France suffered just under 6 million, or over 20 times what the US suffered. Russia, an ally, suffered 6.7 million, England 3 million. How many fewer would that have been, if the US had of entered the war in 1914, three years earlier, at the same time Canada did? The US has always acted in its own interests, all the while portraying itself as the world's good guy. They are trying to act like they are "saving the Iraqi people" but I don't buy it for a second. What are they really trying to do? Your research is excellent, BC. Thanks. Your opinion about historically tardy American involvement in both is also shared by many. As an amateur history buff of sorts, I've discussed this very topic on numerous occasions. The Americans weren't all that well informed entering WW I. That may account for their high casualty totals in such a short period of time. Letters to home by Canadian soldiers accurately detailed just how inexperienced the Americans were during that time. "... there's just too much canned corn beef and bullets on the (allied) side ..." That was taken from All Quiet on the Western Front. However, this war could have been won without them. Don't get me wrong, their support was definitely welcomed, but the German economy was just about, if not totally bankrupt by the end of the war. The German population was entirely fed up with the whole conflict and besides, inflation was enormous and their country was running out of resources. Conversely, the allies couldn't have won WW II without the Americans. The USA, their weapons, their men, and their logistics, were all necessary if the allies were to win the European war. I don't think Russia would have been able to get as far as they did, had not the European theatre of operations seriously turned against the Germans. And it was largely due to the American participation that caused that. Trying to figure out exactly what Bush has in mind is a hard thing to do. As I was saying to PTH, this "oil thing" is nagging at me big time. However, if the USA and Britain were to vacate the country immediately after the conflict ends it might convince me that their motives are sincere. This would allow non participating countries to help rebuild Iraq without hopefully instilling baseball, cricket, hot dogs, fish and chips, yadda, yadda, yadda ... (oops, a little Yeddish there; they definitely don't want that either). However, all of this may be moot once the conflict ends. Iraq will be leaderless for a brief period, probably until the USA and Britain decide who they really want in that office. That lull may be enough time for some old scores between rival Iraqi factions to be settled. It's probably safe to assume that the fighting won't end when the war does. The countries participating in the cleanup and/or restoration of Iraq will have to deal with this mess. Hopefully it won't involve any of the USA-led "me too" coalition. It's just way too much of a conflict of interest. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 22, 2003 23:14:17 GMT -5
When some people (notice the word some) pointed to the Jew's when the Germans came to take them away they quickly found out what other knew about the Americans (and Canadiens). They came for my friend in the other town and I did nothing.
They came for my neighbor and I did nothing.
They came for me and non of my friends did anything.
Except for those dumb Americans~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quiz. Where is this? And who is buried there? What's several hundred thousand dead Americans in two WW mean anyway. It's about oil. Luxembourg American Cemetary Unless other European-based American cemetaries are all the same, the monument in the middle of the picture is of the chapel. If it's the same cemetary I visited in 1990, Gen George S. Patton is buried there. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2003 0:05:17 GMT -5
That's not quite true BC. I mean, yes - the US did not enter the 'war' until they themselves were attacked. They did not send troops to battle (although there were very few troop military battles prior to their entry into the war).
But the situation wasn't quite that simple. Forget the fact that the US was busy slogging through the Great Depression at the time and wasn't exactly running at full steam. Forget the fact that there were large Italien, Austrian and German communinities in the US. Forget that the rest of the world let Austria, Czechoslovakia and Frace (via the acceptance of the remilitarization of the Rhine) fall to the Germans. Forget that prior to 1939, most of the world sympathized with the Nazi government (they saw it as a good stumbling point in case the red machine ever moved towards him). Forget all these things. Even from the outset of war the US knew which side it was on. You say she didn't send anyone to fight. She wasn't the military power she is today in those days. But she did send food, supplies, munitions, and boats to the US (granted, the US gained a naval base in Argentia, NF for thier troubles, but I assure you, the right to build a small military outpost in Newfoundland does not cover the cost of what they supplied the UK with in their time of need.
Oh, and you mention the plight of the Jews in 1933. Which is kind of funny. Because I seem to recall reading in one of my high school history books that there was a large ship that left Germany shortly after the Nazi's came to power and sailed from country to country trying to emmigrate. They were turned down at all borders - including Canada, until finally they managed to sneak into Sweeden.
Everyone was pacifistic at the time. No one wanted a war. Neville Chamberlane essentially handed Adolf the keys to Czechoslovakia. It was called the doctrine of Appeasement. It essentially meant the world was content to let a crazy dictator break the terms of a treaty his country had signed twenty years earlier.
Draw whatever modern day parrellels you like.
Actually, the only reason we actually we able to win WWI in 1919 was because the US entered so late. It is likely had they entered earlier than the war of attrition would have worn down their troops too. Other allies losses probably would've less by 1919, but the length of the war would've been longer.
Also, it's worth noting that there was no "right and wrong" side in WWI like there was in WWII. Certainly, it didn't help that Austria wanted Serbia to themselves and seized the fact that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed, but had it not been for Russians own imperialistic intentions (they too, wanted Serbia to call their own) and Germany's failure to maintain the collection of alliances they had had under Wilhelm I and Bismarck the world probably would not have gone to war (note: this is a simplistic view of the causes of the war. Germany was also threatening Britian as the major naval power and wanted to claim some British colonies. So saying that the US should've joined the allies right away is not terribly true nor fair.
The US was looking after it's own interests in Somalia (92-94). And in Yugoslavia (92-94, 99). And in Bosnia (93-95). And Croatia (95). And Macedonia (2001). Just among other missions that the US has led.
The question is why don't you buy it?
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by jrs on Mar 23, 2003 14:41:07 GMT -5
racism eh? yeah that's some funny stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 23, 2003 20:25:53 GMT -5
racism eh? yeah that's some funny stuff. It's takes the edge off...  Seriously though, I've always preferred the French language to English, loved French wine, mini Babybel cheese, admired Napolean and other French historical figures, and Voltaire is probably my favorite writer and philosopher. But, contemporary France just completely sucks politically and militarily.... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 23, 2003 20:56:47 GMT -5
That's not quite true BC. I mean, yes - the US did not enter the 'war' until they themselves were attacked. They did not send troops to battle (although there were very few troop military battles prior to their entry into the war). But the situation wasn't quite that simple. Forget the fact that the US was busy slogging through the Great Depression at the time and wasn't exactly running at full steam. Forget the fact that there were large Italien, Austrian and German communinities in the US. Forget that the rest of the world let Austria, Czechoslovakia and Frace (via the acceptance of the remilitarization of the Rhine) fall to the Germans. Forget that prior to 1939, most of the world sympathized with the Nazi government (they saw it as a good stumbling point in case the red machine ever moved towards him). Forget all these things. Even from the outset of war the US knew which side it was on. You say she didn't send anyone to fight. She wasn't the military power she is today in those days. But she did send food, supplies, munitions, and boats to the US (granted, the US gained a naval base in Argentia, NF for thier troubles, but I assure you, the right to build a small military outpost in Newfoundland does not cover the cost of what they supplied the UK with in their time of need. Oh, and you mention the plight of the Jews in 1933. Which is kind of funny. Because I seem to recall reading in one of my high school history books that there was a large ship that left Germany shortly after the Nazi's came to power and sailed from country to country trying to emmigrate. They were turned down at all borders - including Canada, until finally they managed to sneak into Sweeden. Everyone was pacifistic at the time. No one wanted a war. Neville Chamberlane essentially handed Adolf the keys to Czechoslovakia. It was called the doctrine of Appeasement. It essentially meant the world was content to let a crazy dictator break the terms of a treaty his country had signed twenty years earlier. Draw whatever modern day parrellels you like. Actually, the only reason we actually we able to win WWI in 1919 was because the US entered so late. It is likely had they entered earlier than the war of attrition would have worn down their troops too. Other allies losses probably would've less by 1919, but the length of the war would've been longer. Also, it's worth noting that there was no "right and wrong" side in WWI like there was in WWII. Certainly, it didn't help that Austria wanted Serbia to themselves and seized the fact that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed, but had it not been for Russians own imperialistic intentions (they too, wanted Serbia to call their own) and Germany's failure to maintain the collection of alliances they had had under Wilhelm I and Bismarck the world probably would not have gone to war (note: this is a simplistic view of the causes of the war. Germany was also threatening Britian as the major naval power and wanted to claim some British colonies. So saying that the US should've joined the allies right away is not terribly true nor fair. The US was looking after it's own interests in Somalia (92-94). And in Yugoslavia (92-94, 99). And in Bosnia (93-95). And Croatia (95). And Macedonia (2001). Just among other missions that the US has led. The question is why don't you buy it? Later HA posted a picture of an American military graveyard in Europe, implying that Americans stood up to fascism then and now, and gladly laid down their lives to do so. The truth, as you pointed out, is not so simple. They had to be poked and prodden into doing so, and only after it became politically acceptable to do so. The first American troops in World War I entered the battlefield 11 months before the end of the war, by which time close to 15 million British, French, Italian and Russian soldiers had died. And Canadian. To suggest, as HA seems to be doing, that they are always first and foremost to the battlefield when it comes to defending freedom and liberty is both wrong and simplistic. As for your list of "American led" missions, its again short on historical fact. America had no desire to go to Somalia, and avoided it for months (indeed years) until such time as the American media, for reasons known only to themselves, decided to make it cause celebre. The famine and factual fighting that plagued Somalia did not start in 1992, nor did it finish in 1994. Were it not for the media splashing images of dying Somalian children on the news everyday, no intervention would have happened. After 18 US soldiers died in an ill-fated raid in Mogadishu, the US hastily retreated, and Somalia today is possible the most god-foresaken place on the planet. I doubt any American is eager to list Somalia as one of their "good" missions. It was a complete and utter failure, and the US was totally unwilling to pay any sort of price to make it work. Literally hundreds of thousands have died since the US pulled out, compared to the 18 it lost. Yugoslavia is even worse. The United States steadfastedly refused to commit ground troops to any peace-keeping mission in the Balkan area, knowing full-well that the "Vietnam bog-down risk" was extremely high. As a result, UN forces were crippled by the inattention and in-fighting that bogs down every UN mission. Had the American committed troops early on, Tjudman, Milosevic and Karadzic would have been much less eager to ignore, fire upon, and kidnap UN troops. Read up on the Medak pocket, in which Canadian troops (yes, Canadian troops) fought with, and killed up to 50 Croatian soldiers in an 18 hour firefight. If US troops had of been involved, no way does Croatia risk open conflict. Similarily, Serbia would be much less inclined to ethnically-cleanse Sbrenicia (or any other town for that matter) were they guarded by US troops. And they probably wouldn't have broadcast images from their concentration camps either. The US could have ended that war - as they later did - in its early stages, by making a forecible, military committment. But they didn't, until the political and media pressure made them. See how quickly they ended the war, once they decided to get involved? Why not do it 5 years earlier, and save hundreds of thousands of lives? We are back to the same question; why here, why now? Why did they wait in Somalia, and then abandon it? Why wait in the Balkans, and then abandon it? Why now? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 21:15:44 GMT -5
HA posted a picture of an American military graveyard in Europe, implying that Americans stood up to fascism then and now, and gladly laid down their lives to do so. The truth, as you pointed out, is not so simple. They had to be poked and prodden into doing so, and only after it became politically acceptable to do so. The first American troops in World War I entered the battlefield 11 months before the end of the war, by which time close to 15 million British, French, Italian and Russian soldiers had died. And Canadian. To suggest, as HA seems to be doing, that they are always first and foremost to the battlefield when it comes to defending freedom and liberty is both wrong and simplistic. Hold you horses there young one. HA is countering the Ugly American rhetoric currently running rampant. HA was told that humans have limited life span so he did not spend hours to elaborate when and why (at least in his opinion) the Americans entered late in both World Wars. The point is that they were there. And then rebuilt Europe to boot. So any time you want to debate history, HA is ready willing and able. Just bring beers. Now, look around for the Easter Egg's and you will also find a "why" article. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 23, 2003 21:27:39 GMT -5
Yes, they were there, and kudos to them. But lots of other countries were there as well, countries that now have a differing opinion on this Iraqi issue. Does that make their sacrifice less valid? How many military graveyards are there for Russian soldiers? Russia disagrees with US policy...
And of course, the continual bashing France takes for its surrender in 1941 is sad and generally historically inaccurate. France's army was ineffective, but it wasn't because it was cowardly. It was because they spent so much time and effort building up their Maginot line, that once it was circumvented, they had nothing left. Their guns all faced the wrong way. There is that famous quote, involving Winston Churchill, who after seeing the Maginot line skirted, asked "Where are the strategic reserves?" and was told "there are none."
Those soldiers that did reach front lines, fought and fought bravely. As did the French resistance, and the Free French Army.
As for rebuilding Europe, I am sure the people of Yugoslavia, Somalia and most recently Afghanistan wish current Americans had the same gumption...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 22:42:09 GMT -5
Yes, they were there, and kudos to them. But lots of other countries were there as well, countries that now have a differing opinion on this Iraqi issue. Does that make their sacrifice less valid? How many military graveyards are there for Russian soldiers? Russia disagrees with US policy... And of course, the continual bashing France takes for its surrender in 1941 is sad and generally historically inaccurate. France's army was ineffective, but it wasn't because it was cowardly. It was because they spent so much time and effort building up their Maginot line, that once it was circumvented, they had nothing left. Their guns all faced the wrong way. There is that famous quote, involving Winston Churchill, who after seeing the Maginot line skirted, asked "Where are the strategic reserves?" and was told "there are none." Those soldiers that did reach front lines, fought and fought bravely. As did the French resistance, and the Free French Army. As for rebuilding Europe, I am sure the people of Yugoslavia, Somalia and most recently Afghanistan wish current Americans had the same gumption... If they stay and help, they are Imperialist Pigs for not leaving. If they leave, they are cowards for not staying. Can they do anything right? The Monroe Doctrine was what? Canada reduces their foreign aid to two Popsicles and what does that make them? Please do not compare the self sacrifice the French made vis a vis the Russians, Jews and the rest of the Allies made. You will cause tens of millions dead souls to spin in their graves. Oops, I must have forgotten who liberated France and the precious Brisebois holiday resort, Paris. It was DeGaulle right? P.S. The Maginot Line? Are you talking about the French speed bump? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 23, 2003 22:57:37 GMT -5
If they stay and help, they are Imperialist Pigs for not leaving. If they leave, they are cowards for not staying. Can they do anything right? The Monroe Doctrine was what? Canada reduces their foreign aid to two Popsicles and what does that make them? Please do not compare the self sacrifice the French made vis a vis the Russians, Jews and the rest of the Allies made. You will cause tens of millions dead souls to spin in their graves. Oops, I must have forgotten who liberated France and the precious Brisebois holiday resort, Paris. It was DeGaulle right? I am not sure what you are saying here. I hope the Americans stay and help, like they did with the Monroe doctrine. The fact that they have not done so since the Monroe doctrine, does not make me optimistic. They did not rebuild Somalia, they did not rebuild Afghanistan, they did not do anything for the Kurds they hung out to dry in 1991 - why should we assume they will do everything to help Iraq? As for Canada, I have always said Canada's foreign policy is a joke. What is your point? As for the sacrifice the French made, I am still not sure what you are saying. The French were beaten in World War II. Badly. So were literally dozens of other countries. The US and its allies help liberate France, that is not in doubt. But you might want to look up the liberation of Paris - it was DeGaulles Free French tanks, led by General Jacques Phillippe Leclerc who first rolled in. www.paris.org/Expos/Liberation/Actors/leclerc.html). Because So uh, yes. It was DeGaulle who liberated Brisebois' holiday resort. With American, British, Polish and Canadian backing. When given the effective means to fight, the French did. Quite well. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 23, 2003 22:58:42 GMT -5
Please do not compare the self sacrifice the French made vis a vis the Russians, Jews and the rest of the Allies made. You will cause tens of millions dead souls to spin in their graves. Oops, I must have forgotten who liberated France and the precious Brisebois holiday resort, Paris. It was DeGaulle right? Actually, it was a Free French division that liberated Paris. But that's beside the point: "French military casualties about 100,000 dead, 200,000 wounded. Worse was to come for the French: about 400,000 civilians would die in bombings and in forced-labour camps under the German occupation, and another 100,000 military would die during and after the liberation. " Another source says: "The real cost to France was incalculable. The Battle of France had cost between 82,000 and 94,000 French lives and about a quarter of a million wounded. Almost 2 million French soldiers were prisoners of war." The French were outmanoeuvered by a more modern, better trained army. Doesn't mean they didn't fight, and fight hard. And die. As to the Russians, their sacrifice is on a completely other scale than any allied losses, and about 80% of the job of defeating Germany was done by the Russians, so they deserve far more credit than anyone, including the US. And no, I didn't make up that 80% figure, if you insist I can waste an hour of my time finding a source for it. And for those who think the US should have been involved at this point, before surrendering the French leadership gave Roosevelt a call.... but there was no US intervention in sight, so France surrenderred. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 23, 2003 23:06:16 GMT -5
P.S. The Maginot Line? Are you talking about the French speed bump? You might want to rethink that. The Maginot line worked, quite well. The Germans never breached it.... unfortunately it was possible for them to go around it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 23:30:39 GMT -5
My point is simply responding to your point that the Americans don't stay and help. What happened in Mogadishou? Where they there to help?
We crossing over two threads on one subject. So I will continue the post Iraq thread elsewhere.
I will not buy the nice little story of how hard the French fought and sacrificed. Do you want to seriously debate how quickly the French raised the white flag? What about DeGaulles trip to New York in July 1944 to PLEAD for the Americans to recognize his resistance movement. Resistance leader? You could not find a resistance fighter in 1940 but by 1944-45 everyone and his little wet poodle was a "resistance fighter". Do you know how many Germans died by the resistance between 1940 and 1943? Why do you think the Germans considered Paris as a REST AREA and REWARD. Only in1944 did they get the cajones to kill a few officers in cafes.
Do you know how pissed off DeGualle the hero was when Americans did not recognize DeGaulle and his post-war presidential aspirations? He went on record thanking only the British for help even though they were getting three to four times more from the Americans.
Neither do I have the energy to write about the French complicity in Nazi atrocities. It was a dirty-little-secret that was not publicly acknowledged by senior French officials, until recently.
1940: The Vichy government of France collaborated with Nazi Germany by freezing about 80,000 Jewish bank accounts. During the following four years, the government deported about 76,000 Jews to Nazi death camps. Only about 2,500 survived.
PTH, look carefully into your numbers. The numbers are that high only if they are counting how many French Jews lost their lives (with winks and nods).
As for the French liberating Paris. Do you really want to stand on that leg?
I feel like the Americans in WW2. I need to separate you in order to fight two fronts. Who is taking the Western Front and the Glorious French Fighters and who is doing the Eastern Front and the Ugly Americans in Iraq?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 23:31:12 GMT -5
You might want to rethink that. The Maginot line worked, quite well. The Germans never breached it.... unfortunately it was possible for them to go around it. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 23, 2003 23:48:45 GMT -5
PTH, look carefully into your numbers. The numbers are that high only if they are counting how many French Jews lost their lives (with winks and nods). Those numbers were the military casualties - I know just in the 6 weeks in 1940 the French took at least 60-65000 casualties. It was a short but bloody battle. Another source: * France : 85 000 morts - 120 000 blessés - 12 000 disparus - 1 9000 000 prisonniers And that is very, very clearly only about the 1940 battles against Germany. I've seen numbers of up to 120 000 just for the dead over those 6 weeks. Like I said before, the French fought hard. They got outmanoeuvered, but that doesn't make them cowards. |
|
