As France rejoins NATO, a humorous reminder of why we never missed them.
on 03/13/2009 at 09:44 AM
If you want to see the French Army in action, watch the beginning of “We Were Soldiers”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3YGE28vGJ0&feature=related
Pretty Bad Day for the French!
Did you realise that in the film, the second in command to the character played by Mel Gibson was in fact the Cornishman called Rick Rescorla who saved all those people in NY?
Posted by Chris Edwards
03/13/2009 at 09:35 PM
Ok, Sorry guys, but I am going to have to ding the lot of you to hell.
Since World War II, the French and its army have been seen by many as standard-bearers for surrender, cowardice and military ineptitude.
By whom, pray tell?
The French PEOPLE can rightfully be called that, but the French MILITARY is actually quite a damn show. The fact is that they helped win WWI, helped win WWII, helped rout the Soviet 1946 offensive, helped win Greece, helped partially win Korea, damn near won Indochina, damn near won Algeria, and would have helped win Egypt were it not for our incompetence in forcing them to call off the attack on Nasser (perhaps the GREATEST geopolitical mistake we have EVER made, and we are STILL trying to recover from it), kicked the living tripe out of the Ivorians with a minimal detachment of men, and dueled the numerically superior Libyan Air Force (and its Soviet, GDR, and Polish helpers) to bomb Gadaffi’s men out of Chad.
In other words: these are no surrender monkeys.
What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up?
The army.
More like AN Army or a reinforced Corps.
How can you recognise a French veteran?
Sunburned armpits.
Perhaps though not necessarily. One could also see it from the medals, or the captured German/Algerian/Egyptian/Ivorian/Turkish/Iraqi/Soviet/Libyan war trophies, or the pictures, or the honourable discharge.
Why are there so many tree-lined boulevards in France?
Germans like to march in the shade.
This is actually rather ironic.
Why?
Because after some particularly nasty Marquis ambushes, the Germans passed several ordinances regarding tree cover in occupied France, strictly limiting what trees could be planted, where, and in what density near German formations.
Obviously they didn’t like it that much.
Why did it take Germany three days to conquer France in World War II?
Because it was raining.
Three days to conquer LUXEMBOURG perhaps, but not France, as it took roughly three months, even given the rotten shape of the French military at the time.
Why did the French give America the Statue of Liberty?
Because she has only one arm raised.
And because it was a symbol of Liberty crafted in a legendary victory salute supposed to have originated at Yorktown. But nevermind that.
Why do the French get more votes in the U.N.?
They vote with both hands.
Given the people France sends to the UN, I have to say this is likely legit.
Why is the French fighter plane called the Mirage?
It doesn’t exist.
And I suppose all those Libyan plane wrecks over Chad and Southern Libya shot themselves down?
Why don’t they have fireworks at Euro Disney?
Because every time they shoot them off, the French try to surrender.
Given the fact that most Frenchmen who go to Euro Disney are the spineless civilian Lefties, this is probably accurate.
What does ‘Maginot’ mean in German?
Welcome!
I am sure that poor André Maginot will be horrified to learn what his suriname means.
Why is the French Foreign Legion the only decent fighting force in the whole French Army?
Because it’s made up of foreigners.
In theory, yes. In practice, though, up to 40% of the Legion may well be native French due to a few time-honoured traditions to circumvent the citizenship requirement.
What does the new French flag look like?
A white cross emblazoned on a white background.
You mean the Bourbons are back?
What’s the shortest book ever written?
French War Heroes.
No, that would probably be WARS WON BY THE UNIFIED GERMAN STATE.
What is the first thing the French Army teaches at basic training?
How to surrender in at least ten languages.
Actually, more like how to drop, roll, and run (much like ours is).
What is the most useful thing in the French Army?
A rear-view mirror, so they can see the war.
Actually, I would probably have to say, oh, Their Rifles.
Why does Nike like the French Army?
Because in wartime they are the biggest buyers of running shoes.
This is rather ironic.
Why?
Because the largest buyer of running shoes is ACTUALLY the US ARMY!
Why did the French celebrate their World Cup in 1998 so wildly?
It was their first time they won anything without outside help.
I am sure that the Syrians, the Ivorians, the Austrians, the Prussians, the Russians, and the Algerians may disagree.
Why do the French have glass bottom boats in their Navy?
To see all their other ships.
Actually, glass-bottom ships were banned about a decade ago over there.
What did the mayor of Paris say to the German army as they entered the city in World War II?
‘Table for 100,000, monsieur?’
More like 240,000.
Why are the French afraid of war?
You would be, too, if you had never won one.
I am sure the Germans, Russians, Algerians, Turks, Moroccans, Austrians, Hungarians, Thais, Libyans, and Ivorians would disagree.
How do you stop a French army on horseback?
Turn off the carousel.
Which is presumably why they stick to simply infantry, Mechanized, and Armor units like us.
Did you hear about the French admiral who wanted to be buried at sea when he died?
Five sailors died digging his grave.
Actually, I cannot think of a single case when a French Admiral was NATURALLY buried at sea.
What’s the best thing about being French?
You can surrender at the beginning of the war and somebody else will win it for you.
I am sure Foch, Joffre, De Gaulle, Clemenceau, and Leclerc would appreciate this far more then I.
‘I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.’
General George S. Patton.
And you do realize that Patton was fond of exaggeration, no?
How do the French advertise surplus World War II rifles for sale?
‘Never fired, only dropped once.’
For the Lebel ones, that might even be true. For MAS 36es, M1 Garands, and Lee-Enfields, I would expect that the story would be rather different.
And a few more jokes…
A long time ago, the British and French were at war.
Which time?
In his debonair English way, the major informed the general that the reason English officers wear red coats is so that if they are shot, the blood won’t show, and the men they are leading won’t panic.
In that case, the Major is a F***ING Idiot, because he doesn’t notice the white middle section, the fact that blood on a red shirt shows through as BLACK, and that the troops can PROBABLY figure it out when someone drops to the floor without their throat.
Actually, the reason is due to an obscure tie to Parliament’s New Model Army in the Civil War.
And that is why from that day to now, all French army officers wear brown pants.
Actually, I cannot locate a single regulation pair of brown pants in the French Military. But perhaps this is why the Germans dispatched their desert infantry with an entirely brown uniform?
If you want to see the French Army in action, watch the beginning of “We Were Soldiers”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3YGE28vGJ0&feature=related
Pretty Bad Day for the French!
Not particularly. In fact, the French were actually able to cut through the Viet Minh ambush (literally knocking the socks off them in the process) and resume falling back. Of course, Hanoi would never acknowledge this.
Sorry, try again.
Posted by Turtler
03/14/2009 at 02:48 PM
Let me guess.....Your French, and proud of it. Well good for you, I’ll bet your fully knowledgable of that Guitine deal too, think we may ever see that in the good ol USA?
Let me guess.....Your French, and proud of it. Well good for you, I’ll bet your fully knowledgable of that Guitine deal too, think we may ever see that in the good ol USA?
Nope, I’m a Yank like (I assume) you are. However, I do resent giving the French more flack then they deserve.
A little thing about “history”, you know?
I’ll bet your fully knowledgable of that Guitine deal too, think we may ever see that in the good ol USA?
Yes I am, and Not unless something gets far worse then it already is.
Happy now?
Posted by Turtler
03/14/2009 at 07:03 PM
Actually the french are pretty good at stabbing allies in the back, like selling Saddam spares for his mirage jets, poor name that as thy were never seen, their last maritime victory was sinking one small unarmed trawler belonging to a protest group, oh yes when they dropped their rifles and fled algeria they refused to let the million or so non muslims who actually did a lot of the fighting, have fwench passports and the religion of piss killed most of them. Do not confuse the soldiers and citizens with the inbred elite who attempt to run the show, also do not confuse the kindly yanks who let DeGaul and LeClerc appear to spearhead the liberation, the same yanks who dilligently rebuilt the place.Go to Normandy and you will find very real affection for the American and british liberators, the Isle de Paris, glass parking lot please!
Posted by Chris Edwards
03/14/2009 at 10:30 PM
Actually the french are pretty good at stabbing allies in the back, like selling Saddam spares for his mirage jets
Perhaps occasionally, though Vichy and the present generation’s misbehavior is hardly indicative of 1,000 years of history, right?
poor name that as thy were never seen, their last maritime victory was sinking one small unarmed trawler belonging to a protest group,
Forgive me if that would NEVER be openly considered a “naval victory” and the only reason it is the most recent is because of its rather recent date.
oh yes when they dropped their rifles and fled algeria
The French military did not “drop their rifles and flee” in Algeria. Hell, by the time DeGaulle demanded they pull back (certainly one of the uglier splotches on his record) THEY WERE ON THE VERGE OF CRUSHING THE ALGERIANS COMPLETELY! SLIGHT DIFFERENCE!
million or so non muslims who actually did a lot of the fighting, have fwench passports and the religion of piss killed most of them.
No contest, save for the fact that many of those French loyalists WERE members of the “religion of piss.”
Do not confuse the soldiers and citizens with the inbred elite who attempt to run the show
Thank you, though it would be far more appreciated if you were not doing exactly that for most of your post.
also do not confuse the kindly yanks who let DeGaul and LeClerc appear to spearhead the liberation, the same yanks who dilligently rebuilt the place
Conceded, though DeGaulle, Leclerc, and CO played a secondary but hardly unimportant role in the Western Allied war effort, both in WWII and beyond.
My point is that the French were hardly cowards, and the one-off disaster of 1940 and their current idiodicy does not mean they are without use.
Remember: it was ultimately the French who helped unify Italy and evict the Austrian yoke, the French who cracked the Czar’s finest fort on the Crimea, the French who bore a lion’s share of the Western Allied burden in WWI, the French who saved Spain from a Moroccan uprising, the French who who recovered both from a crushing foreign invasion and domestic treason to help liberate Europe, the French who provided invaluable blood and resources in Algeria and Indochina, and the French who helped bomb Gadaffi’s thugs out of Central Africa.
Mark my words: we will still have use of France in this struggle. Do not discount them yet.
Posted by Turtler
03/14/2009 at 10:44 PM
Turtler, the fwench have elections and are very prone to riot to get their own way so they are what they elect (ish) and if that makes a lot of my fellow brits a bunch of tossers then that is fine by me! The last decent french leader was Charlmain (spelling??) William the conquereor was a viking.DeGaul nearly upset Adolf with his leadership with his well execuited counter attack but the lack of will in the communist infiltrated army failed him, also he was decent enough to keep us out of his EU scam, I put that down to gratitude. You could reasonably argue that france was in great part the cause of Hitlers rise to power, tha french were the instigaters of the silly reparations after the narrow loss of WW1,without the help of the USA we would not have had Stalin or Hitler fascism and communism would be unheard of, how is that working for you so far? The fact is that in the 1940s some french showed stunning bravery, a lot did not, perhaps Darwinian theory is at work here, a lot of the brave, gallant principled stock died, the lower forms of life flourished so the bar gets lowered?
Posted by Chris Edwards
03/14/2009 at 11:00 PM
you could reasonably argue that france was in great part the cause of Hitlers rise to power, tha french were the instigaters of the silly reparations after the narrow loss of WW1,without the help of the USA
This is beyond sickening. You are falling into the same trap as the Jihadists when they blame and execute the rape VICTIM for the rape while excusing the perpetrator.
Do you have ANY idea what the Kaiserreich was like?
Quick history lesson.
In 1870, Bismarck- a man whose tyrannical rule destroyed German democracy in its crib and who is the prototype of the modern dictator and ideological ancestor of both the Second Reich and the Third- lured France into a war.. His intentional targeting of civilians, refusal to reign his troops in from committing atrocities, and his crushing battlefield victories devastated France. When France finally lay in ruins by 1871, he forced a peace that was- per capita- far HARSHER than Versailles.
However, by this point in time, France was in no shape to refuse, and grudgingly surrendered to Bismarck. After the war ended, the Germans lingered for a considerable amount of time, systematically destroying great portions of France’s economic infrastructure. This cruel and self-inflicted wound was meant for one purpose and one purpose only: to cripple France economically. It succeeded, as France was left devastated, saddled with crippling war debt, savaged, and stripped of its border territory.
Bismarck was to die only two decades later, but he had ensured the continuation of his reactionary and tyrannical ideals in the form of Wilhelm the Second. In an attempt to effectively blackmail the young Wilhelm’s father, Kaiser Wilhelm I, Bismarck effectively kidnapped the heir and began to “personally tutor” him. Now we less-enlightened modern individuals would call this “personal tutoring” child abuse. In any event, Bismarck eventually succeeded molding the heir in his image but with one exception: while Bismarck was more in favor of diplomacy to isolate his foes before crushing them, Wilhelm II was far less subtle and more aggressive. When Wilhelm eventually came to power, he exacted revenge on his childhood tormentor by stripping him off his offices. Bismarck (as I mentioned before) would later die in forced retirement.
But the damage lived on. Wilhelm began to press ultra-nationalistic and imperialist objectives with the purpose of gaining a “Place in the Sun.” It is this that would ultimately trigger the war.
While I do not feel obliged to list all the events that eventually cause WWI- see my other posts for that- (needless to say, there is plenty of blame to go around on all fronts), Germany had been planning for a war of aggression in an attempt to break the France-Britain-Russia cordon on itself and Austria-Hungary, and when the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand gave them that opportunity, they jumped at it. After various threats, declarations of war, and guarantees kicked the old alliance systems into action, Germany adapted its prewar plans: to destroy its old French enemy by invading neutral Belgium and Luxembourg (in spite of the fact that they had guaranteed their neutrality!). They came within a few miles of seizing Paris and trapping the French army, but they were ultimately kicked back in the “Miracle of the Marne.”
It was now that Germany, boxed in from all sides, became desperate. And, as the military gradually took control of Germany with the Kaiser’s tact blessing, this desperation was translated into brutality.
It began in Belgium, when the Germans- not content to violate Belgian neutrality to flank the French- began to commit horrific and officially sanctioned retaliations against the civilian populace when King Albert refused to surrender. While it must be said that the atrocities were neither as widespread as they were accused of being by the Western Allies nor were they on the scale of WWII German crimes, the fact that they happened at all (coupled with prewar German genocides like their “cleansing” of German South East Africa) show that they were exceedingly willing to kill the innocent to gain an advantage. And when they crossed the French border, they continued that “policy.”
When killing the innocent failed to bring the Allies to their knees, Berlin decided to deport them back to Germany to work as effective slave labor. To say this is in violation of the Geneva Conventions is to UNDERSTATE the matter. But it gets WORSE.
Perhaps the most infamous act of the war was to came roughly a year after it started, when Germany unleashed its wolf packs in an attempt to cut the Weak underbelly of Western Allied logistics: the large British and French fleets. Unfortunately, Germany took this a step further when they opted to attack all shipping they could find in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, including Merchant shipping. Needless to say, this was in strict violation of the rules of naval warfare that had been signed in the Hague, and led to countless deaths: many of them civilian and neutral. And for this, there is no one to blame but Germany and (to a lesser extent) Austria-Hungary. While much has been made of the Western Allied use of fake distress signals to lure the U-Boats to the surface (and rightfully so, as this also constitutes a breach of the Hague accords), this was a far lesser infraction then the use of unrestricted U-Boat warfare in the first place, and ONLY happened in RESPONSE to the brutal attacks on Allied and neutral shipping.
In the Eastern Front, it was- if anything- more brutal. When the Russian front collapsed in 1915, Germany began a long and brutal policy of “Germanizing” the conquered regions of Poland, using famine as a weapon to clear the Poles from select regions slated to be populated with Germans. When the Russians managed to solidify their lins, Germany pressed the attack by deploying a weapon explicitly forbidden under Geneva: poison gas. This first use of it- soon to be replicated with horrific effects- is a further demonstration of the Kaiserreich trampling on International law when it was convenient, and- perhaps even more damningly- they did it first, as opposed to reacting to hostile use of it like the Western Allies and Russians did.
All throughout this time, it must be noted that they were openly arming Latin America against us, from Santo Domingo to Columbia to Mexico. In accordance with the 1898 Cuba Memorandum, the Germans were literally handing Pancho Villa and his ilk the bullets with which to shoot us. Perhaps the most well-known example was the infamous “Zimmerman Telegram”, which attempted to persuade Mexico to invade the American Southwest and British Belize. Needless to say, that and the other German interference was far more than a Casus Belli.
However, when the war began to wear on and the German situation grew more desperate, they began forced “requisitioning”, requisitioning that literally drove Poland, the Baltic States, the Ukraine, and Occupied Western Europe into a famine that caused death far in excess of the number the Germans outright killed. In addition, in an attempt to break Allied will, the Germans committed a historical first: Terror bombing. Starting in late 1916, German long-range bombers began to hammer targets as far afield as St. Petersburg, Paris, and London. This was also strictly forbidden under the Geneva Convention, and I must also stress that these raids were militarily insignificant and- unlike the much maligned Western Allied raids of WWII- did not target the Allied war infrastructure save incidentally: this was purely for shock value.
Finally, I find it grossly offensive that you attribute the rise of Bolshevism to the Western Allied victory, for that is as offensive as much as it is false. The truth of the matter is that in 1917, after a string of horrific defeats from the very start of the war, the Romanaov Monarchy finally collapsed. However, contrary to what the Bolsheviks and the Germans would have you believe, this was NOT the Bolsheviks who were the primary mover, but the Democratic Socialists of Alexander Kerensky. Kerensky despised the Bolsheviks of Lenin and sought to both remain in the war and to work with the center-right to both repulse the Central Powers and to build a Russian Democracy. In one of the great tragedies of modern history, this noble experiment was doomed by the most unlikely of partners. Germany had already been financing Russian revolutionaries for years, and now they sought to institute the Coup de Grace. When Kerensky desperately tried to relieve pressure on the Western Allies and the Romanians by launching an offensive against the Austro-Hungarians, the Central Powers forged an alliance with the radical socialists to undermine the offensive and eventually rout it. To finalize this victory, they arraigned to take Vladimir Illych alias Lenin out of his Swiss exile and to send him to Russia to finalize Russia’s collapse. And it worked: Kerensky fell from power, a bloody civil war began- that would give way to the Soviet tyranny of later years- and Russian Democracy was bayoneted in its crib before it ever had a chance to develop. And we are still suffering the repercussions today (don’t believe me? Look up on the main page!).
While all this was going on, Germany’s ally, Ottoman Turkey, was engaged in one of the first modern genocides (predated perhaps by Germany’s own attempts to exterminate the Herero and Naquama in German South East Africa and the influential tribes of German East Africa) against the Armenians, the Pontic Greeks, and the Assyrians. At every step of this genocide, Berlin wholeheartedly carried water for the Young Turks, and attempts to leak the truth out were harshly punished, often with death.
Perhaps more chilling than this, however, is what Germany planned to do after the war: strip Britain and France of their navies, annex Belgium and Luxembourg, “cleanse” Eastern Europe, take over most of the Allied colonies, and to go to war against the US for primacy of the Pacific and Latin America.
In effect, Democracy on the continent would have been squashed or at the very least at the mercy of an increasingly tyrannical regime adverse to it, entire ethnic groups would have been slaughtered, and yet another war would have broken out: this time in the Pacific and Latin America against the US.
However, it is quite fortunate that, in their attempts to do so, the Germans failed utterly. However, after the crucial battles of 1918 effectively destroyed the German military as an effective force, the Germans decided that if they could not hold Northeastern France, none would. Much like they had in 1871, they began to systematically demolish much of occupied France’s infrastructure and economic assets (perhaps most ironically by flooding the coal mines).
And yet you claim that the French- having been victimized twice in the space of only forty years- were unjust to demand reparations?
In case you are interested or of short memory, here is a partial tally of WWI Germany’s crimes (not including her allies, and it remains only a PARTIAL tally):
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
8. Directing attacks against civilians
9. Killing a surrendered combatant
10. Settlement of occupied territory
11. Settlement Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
12. Deportation Using poison weapons
13. Using Using civilians as shields
14. Using Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
15. cruel Directing attacks against civilians or humanitarian workers
16. attacks Taking hostages
17. Taking Summary execution
18. Summary Pillage
19. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancyPosted by Turtler
03/15/2009 at 03:38 AM
And amongst its instances of crime include:
1. The wilful and premeditated violation of Belgian and Luxembourger neutrality
2. The premeditated murder of Belgian, French, Polish, Russian, Greek, Luxembourger, Romanian, Serbian, Montinegrin, Italian, and African noncombatents by the Reichwehr or Central units under the command of the Reichwehr
3. The premeditated murder of Belgian, French, British, Italian, and Greek noncombatants by the Luftstreitkräfte or Central units under the command of the Luftstreitkräfte
4. The premeditated murder of British, French, Dutch, Belgian, American, Canadian, Italian, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Australian, Dutch, Swedish, Norwiegian, Russian, and German (Long story short: Swedish-flagged ships carrying German civilians) civilians by the Kaiserliche Marine and Central units under Kaiserliche Marine command.
5. Wilful and premeditated violation of international law governing Naval Warfare.
6. Wilful and premeditated use of Belgian, French, Polish, and Russian noncombatants as hostages.
7. The wilful and premeditated use of poison gas in violation of international law.
8. The launching of a premeditated war of aggression. (yes, slightly iffy, but given German encouragement to Vienna for war even after Serbia all but chose to lay down and play dead gives this more punch then you would think).
9. Wilful and systematic looting of private property.
Now, ponder those those crimes for a minute: do they sound familiar? They should, because it is these very crimes that the Third Reich would so brazenly commit.But how is this so?
Consider: The men who would lead the armies of the Third Reich to war and who would fulfill the terrible orders of their Fuhrer were junior officers in WWI, many of whom had a role in these crimes.
And here is the kicker: NOT A SINGLE GERMAN WAR CRIMINAL EVER WENT TO TRIAL FOR THESE ATROCITIES!
What message do you THINK that sent to these butchers in waiting?
And finally, I LOVE how you shift the blame for Hitler and his ilk off of the very Germans who hoisted him to power and followed him to hell and onto the Western Allies.
NEWSFLASH: The men who fought in WWI could NOT see the future! They only could look at the present, and the present to them was one of a titanic struggle against an enemy that was as belligerent as it was evil.
Would you condemn them for trying to make do with what they knew?
So, given the horrific list of crimes the German Empire committed in WWI, particularly against France, was it unjust for them to demand payment for these atrocities?
In addition, the key problem with Versailles was not that it was too harsh, but that it failed to either crush the Germans or to reconcile them. And given the cost of the war, it is far clearer what the more realistic option was. Had the Western Allies forced unconditional surrender on Germany and literally shoved Democracy down Germany’s throat like they did in their sectors following WWII, it is likely that German democracy would have avoided the unworkable mess of the Weimar Republic. This, coupled with a few well-placed hangings for Ludendorff, Hindenburg, possibly Wilhelm II, and a few others, and it is probable that German democracy would have succeeded where it failed while also giving a valuable base to check Bolshevik aspirations.
That the Western Allies failed to do this is their greatest crime, and for which they deserve their most stringent criticism, for their failure to insist on Unconditional surrender and occupation doomed Europe to yet another even more horrific war, fuelled in large part by the Bismarckean militarist autocracy that cause WWI (mating with the esoteric Nationalist Socialist and Occultism of the Nazis).
However, even considering this, I believe they can be let off relatively easily for the invaluable service they rendered in WWI.
we would not have had Stalin or Hitler fascism and communism would be unheard of, how is that working for you so far
I have already debunked the claptrap regarding the Soviets, now onto Hitler:
There is no way you can know that.
Why? Because an absolutist monarchy is only as good as who is in power. And what would have stopped Hitler from coming to power in a victorious Imperial Germany first by being elected to the Reichstag like he was and then stonewalling himself into power like he actually did?
And this would have been far more disastrous for the world, as rather then the weakened basket case of our world, this would have been a globe-straddling empire, easily the dominant power of its day in every field.
Do the math.
The fact is that in the 1940s some french showed stunning bravery, a lot did not, perhaps Darwinian theory is at work here, a lot of the brave, gallant principled stock died, the lower forms of life flourished so the bar gets lowered?
Well, that is something we can agree on.
Posted by Turtler
03/15/2009 at 03:39 AM
Well Turtler,
I agree the bar was changed, but I am leaning towards the other way. You see, the Germans where breeding the Fwench women in large scores during the occupation of France, and it wasnt just the Fwench Whores they where Fuckin. Wonder how many blue eyed children there are from that era today?
I agree the bar was changed, but I am leaning towards the other way. You see, the Germans where breeding the Fwench women in large scores during the occupation of France, and it wasnt just the Fwench Whores they where Fuckin. Wonder how many blue eyed children there are from that era today?
Oh puhleaze. The malaise of the 20’s and 30’s coupled with the occupation is likely what RUINED France in the first place. Compare France today with France in WWI: a rotten, dirty, leeching den of worthlessness with a brave, defiant, and unbelievably wilful ally that helped stave off European tyranny.
Hell, if anything, DeGaulle and his men (who, I might add, came of age during WWI) were likely the very last gasp of true Frenchmen worthy of the name.
Oh yes, and as for the “breeding” and “Fuckin”, I advise you that you should watch your mouth, for had you and I been in the same room, I would have been obliged by honor and by morals to knock your block off, or at least try my damnedest.
No matter how you phrase it, systematic rape in an attempt to bring about the ‘Eroberung der Gebärmutter’ (Conquest of the Womb) is not a laughing matter. Perhaps you would be less flippant about this if you had the displeasure of looking at the pictures of the aftermath and reading the diaries of those involved?
Have you ever had to TALK to the survivors of these “charming” incidents?
These were rarely “whores”, and even when they were, I fail to see how that excuses the occupying force from (and this frequently happened) driving them out of the house and then GANG-RAPING THEM RIGHT THERE!
While some cases obviously must have been consensual, it is obvious those are not the only ones you are referring to.
However, not only is it foolish, it is also patently stupid. Consider: in WWI, the main bulk of Germany’s conquests on the Western front were the rural areas of the North and Northern Mideast of France (consult a map for more details). While a few important cities in the region did fall to German hands, these were the minority. In any event, they had a minimal effect on the French bloodstream (if you believe in such idiotic pseudoscience as “national blood characteristics” in the first place) that went into WWII. Nor does it account for French performance in WWI, as Bismarck openly held contempt for the French as a lower form of life and strongly restrained his men from ‘doing it’ in one way or another with the populace (which is probably a good thing) save for using rape as a terror tactic in Alsace-Lorraine, which was annexed to Germany afterwards. Either way, it was of minimal consequence and does not deserve to be treated seriously at all.
Oh yes, and if you actually STUDIED anything, you would know that the French actually have a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of Blue-eyed individuals then the Germans (this is also ironically true for blond hair, if you wish to ask). Indeed, do you know what is one of the nations that has the highest percentages of both, both before and after WWII? THE POLES!
So, you willfully treat systematic rape as a childish passtime, cannot even get your facts straight, and then use bizarre and patently false BS that sounds like it came from one of Goebbels’ propaganda poster.
You had better think REAL carefully before you make another comment.
Because my patience with such tripe is fast running out.
Posted by Turtler
03/15/2009 at 05:09 PM
19th century morals were less developed than the 20th all nations were a whole lot less restrained then, it is a matter of history (at least until the left get to purge it) that the humiliating conditions imposed mainly by France, and opposed by some british that gave rise to the national socialists, if things had been reasonable there would have been little popular support for his ideas. Sadly the previous chancellor had allready brought the finances round but this was only just becoming aparrent Once runaway inflation ceased and it appeared he restored Germanies fortune and respect he was unstoppable, sort of mirror image obama! Hitled was a charismatic con man (also like obama) For all his huge faults without Hitler we in europe would all have a communist dictator 60 years sooner! Communism had a lot to do with ruining Franca, it also coloured Chamberlain’s cowardly behavior as he was responding to huge demonsrations against a stand (Churchill’s war diaries give good background to this) still the french nature of envy of those better off and wanting to “re-distribute wealth” (the revolution anyone?) has made the left look chic and hence the sheeple adopt the new trend and the sheepdogs have to dig them out. This will end up like the last Harry potter film, I sure hope the good guys win
Posted by Chris Edwards
03/15/2009 at 05:47 PM
Turtler, you are coming across as being overwrought, chill a bit because it seems to make your well thought out and knowledgable points less valid!
Posted by Chris Edwards
03/15/2009 at 05:51 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion turtler, and you have some very good knowledge, I wonder if you are a history teacher. I don’t dislike French people and mean no insult to them in comments, but they where beat on many times by England and then Germany in the big one, and that’s just the way it was. When I think of the French, I am reminded of ones that came over to help US defeat the Brits, nothing wrong with that. The other thing I remember from history class was the reference to the French and what they did when the tax man came around, they would hide all worthwhile objects and make the place look like shambles to keep the tax assessment low, funny....but smart.
19th century morals were less developed than the 20th all nations were a whole lot less restrained then, it is a matter of history (at least until the left get to purge it)
While I agree with you on that in general, I feel it is time to play Devil’s advocate and note that is not always the case. Hell, today various nations like China and the various feuding tribes of Africa do things that even Bismarck would have abhorred a century earlier.
However, even accepting this as a general rule (which I do) I must point out that in these wars Berlin chose to violate not only the morality and laws of our day, but of theirs as well. The fact is that the Germanic (and later German) forces under Bismarck’s command were allowed to violate the First Geneva Convention. The war was in 1870-71, and the treaty was from 1864. Thus, we can establish that Bismarck violated these provisions AFTER the fact (that is, following their induction) and thus did so with full knowledge of what they entailed. And this was just a taste of what was to come.
In WWI, the Germans knowingly violated the Second Geneva Convention (in addition to the First, though to a lesser degree then in 1870), the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, and the 1909 London Declaration. These were all international accords in force at the time of WWI that Germany broke- and I must stress that they chose to break them first, as opposed to in reaction to enemy violations- after being party to. As such, Germany openly and consciously chose to allow their forces to commit war crimes in violation of their agreements. To say the least, this is hardly a case or retroactive judgement.
that the humiliating conditions imposed mainly by France, and opposed by some british that gave rise to the national socialists, if things had been reasonable there would have been little popular support for his ideas. Sadly the previous chancellor had allready brought the finances round but this was only just becoming aparrent Once runaway inflation ceased and it appeared he restored Germanies fortune and respect he was unstoppable, sort of mirror image obama!
And THERE is where you are wrong. Why? Because the defeat in WWI does not explain German aggression before and during WWI, or the fact that many of the Third Reich’s policies originated with the Kaiserreich and Bismarck- though certainly on a lesser scale then those of Hitler’s empire. The fact remains that the rotten core of German Militarism -the infamous aristocratic/military class that included such individuals as Rommel, Beck, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, Von Spree, and their ilk- far predated the ascendency of Hitler, and survived both WWI and well into WWII until their conflicts with Hitler eventually cracked them. The fact that these inner problems within German society (particularly within the military) predated both Hitler and Versailles can be seen in their “behavior” in the East and in Germany itself, where the infamous “Friekorps” became so infamous in their varying conflicts with Bolshevik Russia, the emerging Eastern European Republics, the various dissident groups in Germany itself, and the besieged Weimar regime.
The bottom line is that Hitler was not the problem in and of itself, but a mere symptom of a far larger and more-deeply rooted one. His regime was easily the most malignent incarnation of it, but it was not the only one, and it would not have existed without considerable support or at least acquisence at all levels of German society from the gutter to the glamor. And the sad truth is that the Weimar regime as a “republic” was pretty much doomed from the start because the old authoritarian yearning for a “New Bismarck” to resurrect Germany and lead it to glory was never really stamped out until the Soviets were dancing on top of the Reichstag thirty years later. And not only did the support come from all corners of the economic spectrum, but also from all levels of the political spectrum as well. For instance, that ‘previous chancellor’ you mention bringing the ecconomy around was Gustav Stresemann, who favoured a policy of appeasing the Western Allies and Versailles. Unfortunately, he soon showed his true colors by trying to strangle the nascent Polish Republic to death in a tariff war (indeed, he admitted that his attempts to mediate with the Western Allies were only for the purpose of gaining political cover to try and seize as much of the disputed Polish-German frontier as possible). And Stresemann was no Socialist, but a staunch Right-wing monarchist. That this was the most “Peaceful” time in the Weimer Republic’s short life should tell you something: the German populace were not willing to let go of their dreams of imperial grandeur just yet, and if that had to go hand in hand with tyranny, then the responses ranged from “then so be it” to “Ok, so where’s the catch?”
The bottom line with Versailles is that it was neither weak enough to appease the Germans (as you noted) or strong enough to burn the old regime to the ground and start anew. However, the political realities at the end of the war meant that being too “embracing” was simply not going to happen. So, given this, the Western Allies should probably have attempted to simply demand total and unconditional surrender and then- like after WWII- occupy Germany (thus bringing the reality of defeat home and hanging any “Stab-in-the-Back” myths before they get off the ground), and work to institute German democracy, shoving it down their throats if need be. This would probably have helped the Western Allies get out of the wartime slump, would appease the “Revanche” crowd, and would have helped prevent a lapse into tyranny like what eventually happened. while also building an important bulwark against the Soviets while (perhaps most importantly) hammering in one key thing to the German people: You lost. Get over it. In addition, a few “tribunals” and some well-placed bullets here and there would have avenged the civilian dead who had the misfortune to run afoul of the OHL’s various schemes for victory and thus “discourage” anybody from trying it again.
On the other hand, a more generous peace would probably have been seen as a sign of weakness from Germany’s militarists (after all, what better evidence to show that you have not lost the war then a weak peace?), enraged those crying for revenge (and not entirely unjustly), and still left Germany a threat. In the end, a far harsher peace treaty would probably have been more successful then a far more lenient one at Versailles.
Hitled was a charismatic con man (also like obama)
I’m not so sure I would charactarize either as a “con man”, for both have shown all signs that they actually BELIEVE what they are doing will trigger prosperity.
For all his huge faults without malaise and socialist agitation cutting off Western Allies intervention against the Bolshevik nightmarewe in europe would never have had a communist dictator!
Fixed it for you.
Communism had a lot to do with ruining Franca, it also coloured Chamberlain’s cowardly behavior as he was responding to huge demonsrations against a stand (Churchill’s war diaries give good background to this)
Agreed.
still the french nature of envy of those better off and wanting to “re-distribute wealth” (the revolution anyone?) has made the left look chic and hence the sheeple adopt the new trend and the sheepdogs have to dig them out. This will end up like the last Harry potter film, I sure hope the good guys win
Agreed.
Turtler, you are coming across as being overwrought, chill a bit because it seems to make your well thought out and knowledgable points less valid!
Thank you for the advice, and I appreciate the concern, but I have found that it is better as a rule to be overly outraged at something of this magnitude then to be underly outradged.
Posted by Turtler
03/15/2009 at 09:11 PM
Jeez T, this was posted originally from the paper and a Brit writer was having some fun at French expense. I think they’ve been at each other for generations.
I wonder (but do not speak or read French) what the French jokes are about England and the English. Not to mention the rest of the world. Perfidious Albion comes to mind but that’s all I’m aware of due to language handicap.
It was all meant in humor and perhaps by your lights the humor was ill advised at best and mean spirited at worst. But it was humor none the less even if it was unwelcome or bad taste. Or unfair and so’s life.
Gee ... are you planning a seminar for each and every little dig at some ppl somewhere?
Seems a bit over the top.Oh and btw ... FYI, were you aware of French torture right here in England during WW2, of their own ppl and the cover ups that followed, carried out by French Intel. in London.
Look up Maurice Dufour, working for Brit Intl. and saved dozens of RAF pilots.
His reward? A secret chamber in London and tortured by de Gaulle’s security agents.True, Brits covered it up too and in hindsight pretty miserable. But given the times....
Col. Andre Dewavrin, known as Col. Passy, stated that it was better to kill 9 innocent men then let one guilty free. Sadly, Dufour wasn’t guilty of anything. Tho he did survive. Some didn’t.
I have no intention of picking a fight on points of history and have much else to do BUT..
Lets not be overly harsh re. the Friekorps. They had their reason for being and showed that in the many incursions made by Poland as early as 1929.
