[quote]hspder wrote:
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Europeans are being held hostage in their own countries – with no easy way out.
[/quote]
As I am European I know full well how anoying (and I say annoying because I don’t really want to admit that muslims are an emotional disruption) this is.
The problem, really, is that we’re pretending there should be an easy way out.
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 ‘stay-at-homes’ would reproduce. It would probably takes several generations before high Test men would start to emerge again.
Our field artillery battalion worked with a French unit in Operation Desert Storm. They were brave, tough and skilled soldiers. Don’t mistake the policy of the government for the valor of its troops.
“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 Schwartzkopf
[quote]hspder wrote:
swivel wrote:
hspdr, can you elaborate on the relationship between diminished ethics and muslim immigration ? are you saying this is cause and effect or coincidental ?
Many Europeans will tell you they blame muslims for it.
Personally, I think that’s just an excuse… The erosion of work ethics has many other causes that have nothing to do with Muslim immigration.
If anything, it was the greed of European corporations, who wanted cheap labor, that brought them in (sound familiar?).
[/quote]
yes it does. thanks for your post!
[quote]hspder wrote:
If anything, it was the greed of European corporations, who wanted cheap labor, that brought them in (sound familiar?).[/quote]
So, the desire for cheap labor brought Muslim immigrants into Europe (mean old corporations), but generous social welfare programs that didn’t require citizenship didn’t?
Google:
french military victories
And hit the I’m feeling lucky button.
Good stuff.
[quote]orion wrote:
Jprocrastinator wrote:
orion wrote:
It took ALL of Europe to take the French down…
It took all of Europe to take Napoleon down, and in all fairness, Napoleon wasn’t French…
that is not exactly true.
The real strenght of the french army was that free men, that were led by free men, fought against armies that were led by aristocrats.
In the french army you led men when you had proven that you knew how to do it, in the other armies you led men when you were born into the right family.
That, and the powerful idea of France defined as a nation and not as a bunch of subjects ruled by the same monarch made all the difference, because it led to the “levee en masse” (basically all of France took up arms) which was then led expertly by men who had been bakers, carpenters or whatever else in their civil lifes.
Napoleon being a military genius did help though.
The Marseillaise was written back then and 200 years later we know that they did not only talk the talk, they also walked the walk, which is why it still is the battle anthem for freedom.[/quote]
the battle anthem for freedom?
riiight…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Haha. Hey man, I don’t think they’re pussies at all, mostly because of the Napoleanic Wars
But fighting wars is far different from writing songs.
France hasn’t 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.
“The 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 earlier”
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 Hitler’s 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. [/quote]
You guys are idiots who can’t 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!
[quote]Diomede wrote:
the battle anthem for freedom?
riiight…[/quote]
I posted the link to the lyrics and several acoustic versions of it.
Imagine tens of thousands of soldiers singing that, marching…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, the desire for cheap labor brought Muslim immigrants into Europe (mean old corporations), but generous social welfare programs that didn’t require citizenship didn’t?[/quote]
No, they didn’t.
There are many countries in Europe with generous welfare programs. Spain, for example, which is run by a Social-Democrat party (the great PSOE). You don’t see Muslims immigrating at the millions into Spain, even though it actually BORDERS several Arab Muslim countries (just across the Mediterranean).
Why?
Because they don’t have greedy corporations that will employ them.
Same thing goes for Portugal, who is run by yet another Social-Democrat party, the great PS.
I actually asked a few Moroccans – the biggest Muslim community in The Netherlands – why they didn’t go to Spain or Portugal rather than Holland, being as they are much closer to Morocco. Their answer? “We couldn’t get a job there”.
Companies have a social responsibility and their behavior has social consequences. Unfortunately most CEOs are too busy trying to have a good quarter to even try to think about how their actions can have a destructive long-term impact. And even if they did, honestly, most of them are just too stupid to even have the slightest idea of what they are doing long-term.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Haha. Hey man, I don’t think they’re pussies at all, mostly because of the Napoleanic Wars
But fighting wars is far different from writing songs.
France hasn’t 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.
“The 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 earlier”
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 Hitler’s 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 can’t 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!
[/quote]
Well Lorisco, when you say “Hitler looked at them funny and they surrendered”, you aren’t just pointing at the government there. Being as you don’t seem all that well versed in history, I’m just saying be caredful who you slander.
[quote]orion wrote:
Diomede wrote:
the battle anthem for freedom?
riiight…
I posted the link to the lyrics and several acoustic versions of it.
Imagine tens of thousands of soldiers singing that, marching…
[/quote]
I just somehow dont equate Napoleon with freedom. And that would be the only time tens of thousands of French soldiers have ever marched…forward at least.
I think the whole anthem is just a little too violent
[quote]swivel wrote:
hspdr, can you elaborate on the relationship between diminished ethics and muslim immigration ? are you saying this is cause and effect or coincidental ?
[/quote]
I think he meant correlational…casue and effect is hard to prove–especially in the social sciences.
[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 ‘stay-at-homes’ would reproduce. It would probably takes several generations before high Test men would start to emerge again.
[/quote]
huh? Are you telling me only the high level T men were conscripted into the military? More likely the high T men figured a way to get out of it.
[quote]Diomede wrote:
orion wrote:
Diomede wrote:
the battle anthem for freedom?
riiight…
I posted the link to the lyrics and several acoustic versions of it.
Imagine tens of thousands of soldiers singing that, marching…
I just somehow dont equate Napoleon with freedom. And that would be the only time tens of thousands of French soldiers have ever marched…forward at least.
[/quote]
Hahah. Appreciate the humour. But read up on some history man.
It wasn’t so much Napolean as the ideals that were represented by him. Though he did make himself emperor, the more important thing to Europeans at the time was the fact that he had been important in the French Revolution. And the last thing that the monarchies in Europe wanted was a free French army coming anywhere their landed aristoracies and Kings.
Not too mention that Napolean was a furious enemy of the despotism and the King of France.
[quote]Diomede wrote:
orion wrote:
Diomede wrote:
the battle anthem for freedom?
riiight…
I posted the link to the lyrics and several acoustic versions of it.
Imagine tens of thousands of soldiers singing that, marching…
I just somehow dont equate Napoleon with freedom. And that would be the only time tens of thousands of French soldiers have ever marched…forward at least.
I think the whole anthem is just a little too violent
[/quote]
Well, I don?t equate Napoleon with freedom either, but under his rule people had room to breathe freely and that is something they didn?t have under the monarchy or the Jacobinians.
That is why they fought for him. Fighting for him meant fighting for themselves.
Yes the song is violent. But what is the message? If you come to us , trying to enslave us, french soil will drink your blood.
I refuse to believe that violence is inherently wrong.
French war record
Gallic Wars
Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War
Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; “France’s armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.” Sainted.
Italian Wars
Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion
France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
Thirty Years War
France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Revolution
Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War
Tied
War of the Augsburg League/King William’s War/French and Indian War
Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession
Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
American Revolution
In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as “de Gaulle Syndrome”, and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; “France only wins when America does most of the fighting.”
French Revolution
Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars
Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War
Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France’s ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
World War I
Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
World War II
Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina
Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu
Algerian Rebellion
Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; “We can always beat the French.” This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism
France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald’s.
The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be “Can we count on the French?”, but rather “How long until France collapses?”
“Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage.”
Or, better still, the quote from last week’s Wall Street Journal: “They’re there when they need you.”
With only an hour and a half of research, Jonathan Duczkowski provided the following losses:
Norse invasions, 841-911.
After having their way with the French for 70 years, the Norse are bribed by a French King named Charles the Simple (really!) who gave them Normandy in return for peace. Normans proceed to become just about the only positive military bonus in France’s [favour] for next 500 years.
Mexico, 1863-1864.
France attempts to take advantage of Mexico’s weakness following its thorough thrashing by the U.S. 20 years earlier (“Halls of Montezuma”). Not surprisingly, the only unit to distinguish itself is the French Foreign Legion (consisting of, by definition, non-Frenchmen). Booted out of the country a little over a year after arrival.
Panama jungles 1881-1890.
No one but nature to fight, France still loses; canal is eventually built by the U.S. 1904-1914.
Napoleonic Wars.
Should be noted that the Grand Armee was largely (~%50) composed of non-Frenchmen after 1804 or so. Mainly disgruntled minorities and anti-monarchists. Not surprisingly, these performed better than the French on many occasions.
Haiti, 1791-1804.
French defeated by rebellion after sacrificing 4,000 Poles to yellow fever. Shows another rule of French warfare; when in doubt, send an ally.
India, 1673-1813.
British were far more charming then French, ended up victors. Therefore the British are well known for their tea, and the French for their whine (er, wine…). Ensures 200 years of bad teeth in England.
Barbary Wars, middle ages-1830.
Pirates in North Africa continually harass European shipping in Meditteranean. France’s solution: pay them to leave us alone. America’s solution: kick their asses (“the Shores of Tripoli”). [America’s] first overseas victories, won 1801-1815.
1798-1801, Quasi-War with U.S.
French privateers (semi-legal pirates) attack U.S. shipping. U.S. fights France at sea for 3 years; French eventually cave; sets precedent for next 200 years of Franco-American relations.
Moors in Spain, late 700s-early 800s.
Even with Charlemagne leading them against an enemy living in a hostile land, French are unable to make much progress. Hide behind Pyrennes until the modern day.
French-on-French losses (probably should be counted as victories too, just to be fair):
1208: Albigenses Crusade, French massacared by French.
When asked how to differentiate a heretic from the faithful, response was “Kill them all. God will know His own.” Lesson: French are badasses when fighting unarmed men, women and children.
St. Bartholomew Day Massacre, August 24, 1572.
Once again, French-on-French slaughter.
Third Crusade.
Philip Augustus of France throws hissy-fit, leaves Crusade for Richard the Lion Heart to finish.
Seventh Crusade.
St. Louis of France leads Crusade to Egypt. Resoundingly crushed.
[Eighth] Crusade.
St. Louis back in action, this time in Tunis. See Seventh Crusade.
Also should be noted that France attempted to hide behind the Maginot line, sticking their head in the sand and pretending that the Germans would enter France that way. By doing so, the Germans would have been breaking with their traditional route of invading France, entering through Belgium (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, etc.). French ignored this though, and put all their effort into these defenses.
Thomas Whiteley has submitted this addition to me:
Seven year War 1756-1763
Lost: after getting hammered by Frederick the Great of Prussia (yep, the Germans again) at Rossbach, the French were held off for the remainder of the War by Frederick of Brunswick and a hodge-podge army including some Brits. War also saw France kicked out of Canada (Wolfe at Quebec) and India (Clive at Plassey).
Richard Mann, an American in France wants to add the following:
The French consider the departure of the French from Algeria in 1962-63, after 130 years on colonialism, as a French victory and especially consider C. de Gaulle as a hero for ‘leading’ said victory over the unwilling French public who were very much against the departure. This ended their colonialism. About 2 million ungrateful Algerians lost their lives in this shoddy affair.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Google:
french military victories
And hit the I’m feeling lucky button.
Good stuff.[/quote]
I don’t know about good, but hilarious and surprising it surely is.
French war record:
They are living in the fifth republic now, as free men and women.
What else matters?