bah, i say it all in good humor. 
these types of stereotypes are all meant in good fun
[quote]Diomede wrote:
bah, i say it all in good humor.
these types of stereotypes are all meant in good fun[/quote]
Yes, but if the muslim world thinks that those stereotypes reflect reality we have no choice but to @&%$6!ā!! them and of course to %&/(=? them and finally to %!!!%?ā&%/(%$! them like there is no tomorrowā¦
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as āde Gaulle Syndromeā, and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; āFrance only wins when America does most of the fighting.ā[/quote]
Gotta disagree there. I think they pretty much saved our asses.
[quote]Magister Ludi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as āde Gaulle Syndromeā, and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; āFrance only wins when America does most of the fighting.ā
Gotta disagree there. I think they pretty much saved our asses.[/quote]
Iāve said it before. The Yorktown monuments by the James River have lots of names of dead Frenchmen on themā¦we owed them alot.
i think they hardly saved our assesā¦the northern part of the war was wrapped up before their involvement.
However, i most certainly would not say they did nothingā¦they played a major part.
BTW, lafayette is NOT one of them. He joined up on his own accord. He is a good American.
The French navy however blocked the british escape and helped force teh surrender. That canāt be forgotten.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The conclusion that the French are less warrior-type from most is simply a matter of Biology. Most of the high Test men got killed off in the 2 wars, France more so because of all the losses in WWI. It makes sense that if most of the real men are killed off, the āstay-at-homesā would reproduce. It would probably takes several generations before high Test men would start to emerge again.[/quote]
That would be true if all the āhigh Testā men AND women were killed.
But a bunch of stay-at-homes were too old or too young to fight.
And they were able to f*ck the hottie widows 
some of whom probably also disposed of āhigh Testā genetics.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Haha. Hey man, I donāt think theyāre pussies at all, mostly because of the Napoleanic Wars
But fighting wars is far different from writing songs.
France hasnāt been a threat to anyone since the Napoleanic Wars. Since then everyone has whipped their ass including Mexico. Hitler just looked at them funny and they surrendered!
But now, since they write a song we are to believe that they have grown a pair? Give me a break.
The French were pretty ferocious in the first world war.
Yea, how conveniantly Verdun is forgotten in the rhetoric.
āThe Germans could no longer afford to commit new troops to Verdun and, at a cost of some 400,000 French casualties and a similar number of Germans, the attack was called off. Germany had failed to bleed France to death and from October to the end of the year, French offensives regained the forts and territory they had lost earlierā
400,000 in five months.
When was the last time the United States had that kind of casualty rate? Never, as I recall. In fact, there were 600,000 killed in the Civil War (1861-1865), and that was more than the US has lost in all its other wars combined.
So the French took as many casualties in four months than the US has taken in 150 years.
Not too mention, the French strategy was inerently flawed in WWII, as they had the Maginot Line, a massive fortification system, on their Eastern boundary (they were under the assumption that if the Germans attacked again, it would be in similar fashion to WWI). They were outgeneralled, but that had nothing to do with the soldiers themselves, not too mention alot to do with Hitlerās military prowess.
Might want to think twice about slandering a whole race in fighting ability there Lorisco. All men will fight well when properly led- nationality has little to do it.
You guys are idiots who canāt read. I slandered the French government for surrendering. I made that clear in my last post. I never stated anything about the French people. So STFU!
Well Lorisco, when you say āHitler looked at them funny and they surrenderedā, you arenāt just pointing at the government there. Being as you donāt seem all that well versed in history, Iām just saying be caredful who you slander.[/quote]
Well I guess that means you have a different version of history than the rest of us as everything I have stated is historically accurate. And for the second time, only the Government can surrender a country, so anyone with a brain would know I was referring to the French Government and not the people.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
[/quote]
Nice effort Zap but a bit skewed. You kind of left out a few important events such as conquering Britain and the hundred years war, and sacking Rome.
However I have to agree, generally, the people from the area of France have been fierce fighters but BADLY led with ridiculous tactics and idiot generals. From time to time they had some good leadership. They are probably proudest of Napoleon, but the guy was a complete moron at strategy in his later years, suffering piles with a wandering mind.
The soldiers however were often quite brave and ferocious.
These days though, I think the peopel are too used to long summer holidays and sitting around smoking.
Also, it is a bit lame how the anti-French progoganda is spread around the USA. And then, people trying to infer John Kerry seemed a bit āFrenchā ā¦ it is just pathetic. Why should France have supported the stupid war which was obviously for misrepresented reasons and has been proven to have been a stupid move - or at least, badly executed?
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
Nice effort Zap but a bit skewed. You kind of left out a few important events such as conquering Britain and the hundred years war, and sacking Rome.
However I have to agree, generally, the people from the area of France have been fierce fighters but BADLY led with ridiculous tactics and idiot generals. From time to time they had some good leadership. They are probably proudest of Napoleon, but the guy was a complete moron at strategy in his later years, suffering piles with a wandering mind.
[/quote]
Bold words about the greatest general in historyā¦
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
Nice effort Zap but a bit skewed. You kind of left out a few important events such as conquering Britain and the hundred years war, and sacking Rome.
However I have to agree, generally, the people from the area of France have been fierce fighters but BADLY led with ridiculous tactics and idiot generals. From time to time they had some good leadership. They are probably proudest of Napoleon, but the guy was a complete moron at strategy in his later years, suffering piles with a wandering mind.
Bold words about the greatest general in historyā¦[/quote]
no offense, but you have a real napoleon love thing going on.
He did lose, twice. Other generals didnātā¦what do you think makes him the best?
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
Nice effort Zap but a bit skewed. You kind of left out a few important events such as conquering Britain and the hundred years war, and sacking Rome.
However I have to agree, generally, the people from the area of France have been fierce fighters but BADLY led with ridiculous tactics and idiot generals. From time to time they had some good leadership. They are probably proudest of Napoleon, but the guy was a complete moron at strategy in his later years, suffering piles with a wandering mind.
The soldiers however were often quite brave and ferocious.
These days though, I think the peopel are too used to long summer holidays and sitting around smoking.
Also, it is a bit lame how the anti-French progoganda is spread around the USA. And then, people trying to infer John Kerry seemed a bit āFrenchā ā¦ it is just pathetic. Why should France have supported the stupid war which was obviously for misrepresented reasons and has been proven to have been a stupid move - or at least, badly executed?
[/quote]
i think the anti french is spread around the worldā¦crap, when i was down in Oz/NZ they were bagging the french far worse than any brit or yank iāve ever heardā¦
it seems the french can piss off the people of the world as much as we can.
[quote]Diomede wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
Nice effort Zap but a bit skewed. You kind of left out a few important events such as conquering Britain and the hundred years war, and sacking Rome.
However I have to agree, generally, the people from the area of France have been fierce fighters but BADLY led with ridiculous tactics and idiot generals. From time to time they had some good leadership. They are probably proudest of Napoleon, but the guy was a complete moron at strategy in his later years, suffering piles with a wandering mind.
Bold words about the greatest general in historyā¦
no offense, but you have a real napoleon love thing going on.
He did lose, twice. Other generals didnātā¦what do you think makes him the best?
[/quote]
I think Irish is short so he admires the little guy.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Diomede wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
Nice effort Zap but a bit skewed. You kind of left out a few important events such as conquering Britain and the hundred years war, and sacking Rome.
However I have to agree, generally, the people from the area of France have been fierce fighters but BADLY led with ridiculous tactics and idiot generals. From time to time they had some good leadership. They are probably proudest of Napoleon, but the guy was a complete moron at strategy in his later years, suffering piles with a wandering mind.
Bold words about the greatest general in historyā¦
no offense, but you have a real napoleon love thing going on.
He did lose, twice. Other generals didnātā¦what do you think makes him the best?
I think Irish is short so he admires the little guy.[/quote]
Thereās lots of short people in the world. Height doesnāt really play into it too much.
Iāve been reading alot about the French Revolution, and the Napoleanic Wars. I really admire him as a military tactician- there were very few that could stand toe-to toe with him in battles.
Not only that, but I admire him more in the philisophical sense, like Dostevsky wrote about in Crime and Punishment. To me, he is truly is the measure of what one man can really accomplish, especially during his Hundred Day rule. To be able to walk into a country, and literally have the King run from Paris just because he heard you were comingā¦thatās just badass.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Diomede wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
Nice effort Zap but a bit skewed. You kind of left out a few important events such as conquering Britain and the hundred years war, and sacking Rome.
However I have to agree, generally, the people from the area of France have been fierce fighters but BADLY led with ridiculous tactics and idiot generals. From time to time they had some good leadership. They are probably proudest of Napoleon, but the guy was a complete moron at strategy in his later years, suffering piles with a wandering mind.
Bold words about the greatest general in historyā¦
no offense, but you have a real napoleon love thing going on.
He did lose, twice. Other generals didnātā¦what do you think makes him the best?
I think Irish is short so he admires the little guy.
Thereās lots of short people in the world. Height doesnāt really play into it too much.
Iāve been reading alot about the French Revolution, and the Napoleanic Wars. I really admire him as a military tactician- there were very few that could stand toe-to toe with him in battles.
Not only that, but I admire him more in the philisophical sense, like Dostevsky wrote about in Crime and Punishment. To me, he is truly is the measure of what one man can really accomplish, especially during his Hundred Day rule. To be able to walk into a country, and literally have the King run from Paris just because he heard you were comingā¦thatās just badass. [/quote]
Read up on Nelson. Great military leader from the period.
[quote]hedo wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Diomede wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
French war record
Nice effort Zap but a bit skewed. You kind of left out a few important events such as conquering Britain and the hundred years war, and sacking Rome.
However I have to agree, generally, the people from the area of France have been fierce fighters but BADLY led with ridiculous tactics and idiot generals. From time to time they had some good leadership. They are probably proudest of Napoleon, but the guy was a complete moron at strategy in his later years, suffering piles with a wandering mind.
Bold words about the greatest general in historyā¦
no offense, but you have a real napoleon love thing going on.
He did lose, twice. Other generals didnātā¦what do you think makes him the best?
I think Irish is short so he admires the little guy.
Thereās lots of short people in the world. Height doesnāt really play into it too much.
Iāve been reading alot about the French Revolution, and the Napoleanic Wars. I really admire him as a military tactician- there were very few that could stand toe-to toe with him in battles.
Not only that, but I admire him more in the philisophical sense, like Dostevsky wrote about in Crime and Punishment. To me, he is truly is the measure of what one man can really accomplish, especially during his Hundred Day rule. To be able to walk into a country, and literally have the King run from Paris just because he heard you were comingā¦thatās just badass.
Read up on Nelson. Great military leader from the period.
[/quote]
Horatio Nelson?
May I interject something here as a new-comer to the Politics forum?
Does EVERY fucking argument on this forum end up being a democats vs. republicans thing?
[quote]danmaftei wrote:
May I interject something here as a new-comer to the Politics forum?
Does EVERY fucking argument on this forum end up being a democats vs. republicans thing?[/quote]
Depending on your political affiliation, the way you look at history is vastly different.
So yea, it does.
I wrote this a couple years ago for some reason or another. The style is a bit rough and I donāt know where I was going with the last paragraph, but here it is.
On French cowardiceā
If you want to understand why France put up so little of a fight in WWII one must look back to WWI. In that war France, a nation of ~40 mil at the time (to the best of my recollection) lost 1.4 million soldiers (dead), another ~2mil invalid, and had a total casualty count of over 6 million. They suffered the highest casualty rate (casualties/total forces mobilized) of any of the allied powers (~75%!). Few would call the effort of WWI a display of cowardice.
To put this into some perspective, the US has had fewer soldiers killed in all of its wars combined, while its total population was ~4-5 times the size during the WWI period.
Like the English, but to an even far greater extent, the French described the losses in the key demographic group of young males as a ālost generationā. The demographic effects only began there though, as not only was there the damage of having a large portion of the nationās young adult males killed or left invalid, but further, these males who would have entered a child/family creating stage of life never did so.
As a result, by the mid 30ās, the number of males coming of age (as measure by the draft classes) was half what it had been a few years before. That huge demographic gap helps explain why the common sentiment amongst the French was that there would be no France left if they had to fight another war like the last one.
After the Polish invasion, the writing was basically on the wall. Germany had far greater demographic reserves and industrial capacity --especially as it had been left untouched during WWI, whereas the eastern 1/3 of France, its industrial centers, had been laid waste by the war-- than France or England could muster.
This superiority could also be brought to bear entirely on France, as unlike in the first world war, Germanyās eastern front was secured by the non-aggression pack with the SU. Furthermore, Germany had introduced a new paradigm in military tactics. Using mobile and mechanized armies, with concentrated tank formations, the old style French army --and at this point all of the worldās armies-- was outclassed.
They were using mostly infantry support tanks spread thin over their front, and a conscript army facing off against a then heavily professional German army using modern style tanks and tactics, with a far superior officer corps. Meanwhile, it should be noted, that the POS known as the Sherman hadnāt even been developed by this point- the US didnāt even have a main battle tank. Digression aside, the Germans were using innovative and unorthodox methods of organization and strategy-- indicated above-- as had been laid out in a couple books during the early 30s by a then unknown French general by the name of Charles de Gaulle.
The hope of the French was to stop the Germans at the border. Unfortunately for the French though, the Germans were able to break through the Ardennes forest, which the French had left lightly defended, believing it to be impassable. At this point, the chances of victory for the French went from slim to none and the Brits ran for the channel, while the French conscripts melted away.
It is probably fair to say that the French regular army played a substantially smaller role in the outcome of the war than did the resistance. There are quite a number of good books on this topic, and it does demonstrate that there were at least a few heroic types left in France at that point, especially because failure meant a trip along with oneās family to a concentration camp as opposed to a POW camp for soldiers.
If it isnāt yet clear why in the modern context the Europeans tend to be pacifistic, think of it this way. Everyone who had any predisposition or even willingness to fight got their chance in WWI and WWII. Given the casualty rates, itās fair to reason that by way of selection all that would remain after two wars and ~30 million combat deaths would be the pacifists; especially when one tacks on the extra ~30 million civilian casualties in the European theater, and the total physical destruction of the continentās infrastructure.
I;m getting really tired of typing this.
In the current context of which we are speaking, the Germans and Russians were just as outspoken in their opposition to the US policy in iraq, yet I see that most people are ignoring them. What makes France so special as to earn the āfreedom fryā treatment while we continue to eat āHamburgersā? I have theory on that but Iām too tiredā¦
Nice post Etaco.
Yes, if the US lost a whole generation, as the Europeans did, they would tend to be more pacifistic.
We were after the Civil War, and that was only about 600,000 dead.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
May I interject something here as a new-comer to the Politics forum?
Does EVERY fucking argument on this forum end up being a democats vs. republicans thing?
Depending on your political affiliation, the way you look at history is vastly different.
So yea, it does. [/quote]
Good to know, good to knowā¦ Iāll sign up as a liberal then. Is there perhaps a list I could consult as to find out who I will be arguing against in the next couple of weeks?