Subject: The Complete Military History of France

[JSOCMarine]

I got this today from several guys who are SF, Force Recon and UDT vets. Thought I'd pass it on.

I was always astonished by the arrogance of many of the French officers I met during my career. For a crew that absorbed as many ass-whippings as they have, they sure do talk a good game.

The reluctance of the French government to show some "sack" and admit that Saddam has to go is further proof that the French leaders are a breed of people who simply will not stand up for what is right, even when they know that the issue is black and white.

I for one could give a shit about what the French think about America. All I ask is that they realize that they are speaking French instead of German because of America and a few REAL allies! S/F

------------------------ORIGINAL ARTICLE---------------------------

Subject: The Complete Military History of France

- 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."

-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 Devolution - 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. 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?"

[NewportBarGuy]

Outstanding!!!


However... You forgot about the one victory that has given their military hope for the coming Century.

Greenpeace.

[Bravo_One_Three]

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

It brought tears to my eyes!

[SN]

Truth hurts, glad I am not French.

[Nugent]

Well I think this pretty well explains their current reluctance to get involved.

To be fair though, I believe it was a French Duke who stopped the Muslims in their sacking of Europe.

Scott

[Lionsniper]

You would expect to find atleast one guy in all that history who wasn't a loser wouldn't you?

[musselswithfries]

1778 Benjamin Franklin signs an alliance treaty with France.

Please try french oysters with some nice chablis white wine when
you get the chance, only maine lobster with californian white tastes better.

[Lionsniper]

But there's nowt wrong with a meat pie, chips and gravy, served with a traditionally brewed pint of ale!!!!!

[musselswithfries]

True. Had that many times while at uni in London.

[GackMan]

Originally posted by Nugent
To be fair though, I believe it was a French Duke who stopped the Muslims in their sacking of Europe.



Bah!! 1295 AD - King Jan Sobeski. A POLLACK!! stopped the Ottoman Turks.

Croissants were made in the shape of the cavalry stirrups to commemorate the occasion and Frenchies still eat them today.

see... Polish cav saves Europe. the French make pastries.

[Crashola]

Check out the Official Magazine of the French Military. (http://www.flashbunny.org/content/frenchmagazine.html) .

[Daredevil]

Originally posted by GackMan
Bah!! 1295 AD - King Jan Sobeski. A POLLACK!! stopped the Ottoman Turks.

Croissants were made in the shape of the cavalry stirrups to commemorate the occasion and Frenchies still eat them today.

see... Polish cav saves Europe. the French make pastries.

Depends on when you're talking about.

King Sobieski stopped the Turks at Vienna.

Much earlier in time, Charles Martel, the "Hammer of the Franks" stopped the Muslims after they crossed the Pyrenees from their base in Spain.

[Nugent]

Yes Martel was the one I was referring to.

Scott

[GackMan]

I thought he was German? Karl Der Hammer?

sounds like a pro wrestler.. or Porn star.

Maybe I just remember it from reading it in German.

[MI-2]

Great read here. Here we are facing the most evil-minded terrorists, some wanting to kill ALL Americans without even questioning why, and France, Germany, now Russia pull this public show of support for Saddam by requesting more time. THat way the American/British soldier will have to fight in the heat. France could care less about American lives, and Germany is fast becoming like them. I may go out on a limb here, but the GSG9 supports the US position by a large majority, its France and Chirac, and his life long political career. Never has he served, and I hope the future US administrations remember their position. One thing is for sure guys, those countries would never lend a hand to the US if we were invaded, and on them we cannot and must NOT trust. This is on us. We have to defend our safety, and I say so be it. And my advice to the French and Germans is don't get in the way. You're not leading, you're not following, so GTFOOTW. All those dead Americans who lay upon those shores, for what?

[musselswithfries]

Chirac has an officer rank in the french cavalry and was wounded in the algerian war. This distinquishes him from coke-snorting national guardsman George W. Bush and civilians Donald Rumsfeld and Dr. Paul Wolfowitz.

The only dove in the Bush administration is a full general, as far as
I know. Not that the civilians could not be right in the matter.

[NewportBarGuy]

coke-snorting national guardsman George W. Bush

Got some proof for that accusation there, steamed clam?

[SN]

mussulwith fries:

Watch the Guard comments, many of us have served in the Guard, our Guard and Reserve are very involved (unlike you) in the Global War On Terror.

[musselswithfries]

Sorry about that, actually I have done reservist training myself after completing my military service back home ( not Germany ).
Really no offense intended at guard units or any part of the U.S military, I just did not like portraying President Chirac as a whining
civilian.

President Bush himself has acknowledged his former drug habit while at uni, of course I know he has given up both this and drinking a long time ago. I guess I am just being the typical cynical european without morale or vision, damned.

[Purple36]

Originally posted by NewportBarGuy
Got some proof for that accusation there, steamed clam?

Ya kill me, NBG!:)

[GackMan]

HEY! Can we get this back on topic?

http://www.tomeaker.com/freep/googlefrench.jpg

[MI-2]

Very sorry for my ranting. I think the French ROE the article mentions are insightful, worthy of discussion. Please forgive me.

[GackMan]

i'm just saying... let's bash the french a little more. I'm back at my desk after luch and I need a good laugh.

[DFC5343]

OK...

[lrd]

French Bashing a la Mark Twain

France has neither winter nor summer nor morals--apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

France has usually been governed by prostitutes.
- Notebook #18, Feb.- Sept. 1879

The French are the connecting link between man & the monkey.
- Notebook #18, Feb.- Sept. 1879

[cj]

Originally posted by DFC5343
OK...

That kills me, I can't stop laughing----bahahhahahha!

What else has to be said when a nation's premier fighting force is comprised of foreigners.:D

[GackMan]

Originally posted by cj
What else has to be said when a nation's premier fighting force is comprised of foreigners.:D

I'm so using that all the time from now on.

[ut3]

Gackman - - that google search is some funny shit

DFC5343 -- One of the best covers of a magazine I've seen in awhile!

[GackMan]

just in keeping with this post....


What's the French army's PT test?

two minutes of pushups, two of situps, and a two mile run backwards with your hands in the air.

[GackMan]

LMMFAO!!

Check out these web pages:

This is an american living in france. describes the web page as

All you need to know about the 'French exception'
more than 20 years behind enemy lines
http://merdeinfrance.blogspot.com/

And this one:

Exposing French Extremism.
http://www.francewatch.com/

http://www.francewatch.com/images/about_francewatch.gif

[Bretzelpresent]

Originally posted by JSOCMarine
I got this today from several guys who are SF, Force Recon and UDT vets. Thought I'd pass it on.


------------------------ORIGINAL ARTICLE---------------------------

Subject: The Complete Military History of France

- 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."

-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 Devolution - 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. 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?"


Ok let's speak about History...not your version..:

About the Gallic wars: They lost..like every "barbarian" contry from Hispania to the British islands...

About 100 Year War: They WIN. And Joan of Arc was French.

About Italian wars: First they only fight some battles with "Italians" (a country wich doesn't exist a the time) in fact they fight with the Swiss mercenaries (they win at the battle of Marignan in 1515) and the Spanish leadered by "El Gran Capitan" one of the best tactitian of the time.

Wars of Religions: This is a french civil war, and the catholics cleary win this war.

Thirthy Year War. You are TOTALLY WRONG about this one. Ever hear of the battle of Rocroi when the French destroyed the migthy Spanish "Tercios", one of the best military unit of all the times ?...Did reafd anything about the 1659 peace treaty when France becomed the most powerfull military power of Europe until 1815 ? Marshall Turennes, Vauban, Louis XIV does ring a bell ?

War of the spanish succesion: Did they really lost ?..After all the King of the Spain is still a menber of the French royal family: The Bourbons..And at the end Villars wins some battle wich saved the day for France.

About A merican Revolution: Ah it's difficult for a francophobe to admit that they saved your ass during this war ?
50% of the forces at Yorktown were French, De Grasse wins a naval battle against the British squadron near Yortown and then helped to win the most important battle in this war with his heavy artillery...and the money, the military advisors, the diplomatic help to get the alliance of Spain and Holland...well...

About the French Revolution: You mean that the Prussians and Austrians at the battles of Valmy and Fleurus were in reallity ...French ??? LOOOLLLL...

About the Napoleonic Wars: Ok we have France a country against all the military powers of Europe From 1796 to 1815, who conquered territories from Madrid to Moscu ...yeah this period is really a shame for the french military prestige....

First Wold war: Well we have the battles of the Marne, Verdun, of the Somme (yes they participed), the 1918's counter stikes and a big ect...Those french teached to Patton how to use a tank, to the american soldiers how to fight in an modern war, they give to you the 75mm, 105mm, 155mm guns (your today's weapons are still based on those guns) ...again an extremely Ironic WELL......

Franco-Prussian war and WWII: Wich countries could defeat the Germans at the time the French were defeated by those invaders ? Maybe with a Channel....btw u forget the FFL, the FFI ,and the fact that French troops were occupying Germany after 1945

Indochina: What do you espect from a country who was still almost destroyed by the war ? The USA did better in the 1965-1975 period ?

Algeria: They give the indenpendence to the Algerians but they NEVER lost the war..in fact many french officers were against the De Gaulle's act becaus they really thought that the war could be win.

War on terrorism: Tell this to the french soldiers who were cleaning minefields near the Kandahar airport ....and risking their lives.

In fact your forget many victories:
Like the Frank (ancestors of the french) against the muslim hordes in Tours (732), some medieval wars, the Italy Unification war, the Crimean War, many colonial wars...ECT.....


bonus question :who has build and give the StatueoftheLiberty , symbol of USA to US ?
can't u guess ?

[koreamarine]

Francophobe= one afraid of the French.... All those afraid of the French raise just ONE hand (Not two- as soon as any nearby French see the first hand go up, their natural Pavlovian reaction will be to attempt to surrender en masse- and we are trying to take a serious poll here and will need to be able to distinguish those who are afraid of the French from those French who are assuming that it is time to surrender to someone, anyone...)

"Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys"
-Homer Simpson

Seriously, it is sad to see the French position what it is today... Here in Korea during the war, a French battalion was attached to the 23d Infantry of the 2d Infantry Division.... Great outfit, made up of real warriors. Fought valiantly at places like Chipyong Ni, made up of men who had served with Free French forces in WWII- the CO a man who was in actuality a Major General, but took a reduction in rank to LtCol to command the battalion and served under a "nom-de-guerre". No cowards there....

[lrd]

Originally posted by Bretzelpresent
Ok let's speak about History...not your version..:

bonus question :who has build and give the StatueoftheLiberty , symbol of USA to US ?
can't u guess ?
According to the National Park Service: "The Statue was a joint effort between America and France and it was agreed upon that the American people were to build the pedestal, and the French people were responsible for the Statue and its assembly here in the United States. However, lack of funds was a problem on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. In France, public fees, various forms of entertainment, and a lottery were among the methods used to raise funds. In the United States, benefit theatricalevents, art exhibitions, auctions and prize fights assisted in providing needed funds. Meanwhile in France, Bartholdi required the assistance of an engineer to address structural issues associated with designing such as colossal copper sculpture. Alexandre Gustave Eiffel (designer of the Eiffel Tower) was commissioned to design the massive iron pylon and secondary skeletal framework which allows the Statue's copper skin to move independently yet stand upright. Back in America, fund raising for the pedestal was going particularly slowly, so Joseph Pulitzer (noted for the Pulitzer Prize) opened up the editorial pages of his newspaper, "The World" to support the fund raising effort. Pulitzer used his newspaper to criticize both the rich who had failed to finance the pedestal construction and the middle class who were content to rely upon the wealthy to provide the funds. Pulitzer's campaign of harsh criticism was successful in motivating the people of America to donate.
http://www.nps.gov/stli/prod02.htm#Statue%20of

I feel kind of like the stereotypical wife who thought she had a wonderful marriage only to find out that her husband and best friend have been screwing each other for years and, now that the kids are raised and gone, plan to run off together. Many Americans are so angry at France precisely because of France's contributions to our fledgling nation. To simplify, an element of trust is gone. We must not confuse modern France with the France of the 1700's, just as you must not confuse modern America with Colonial America.

The French ambassador wrote an op/ed piece in The New York Times entitled: "A Warning on Iraq, From a Friend" in which he tries to explain the French position. His conclusion: "The inspections should be pursued and strengthened, and Saddam Hussein must be made to cooperate actively. War must remain the very last option. "

He warns us -- but what are the consequences if we don't comply? He says "Hussein must be made to cooperate actively" -- but who is going to make him comply? The French?

[cj]

Originally posted by Bretzelpresent
Ok let's speak about History...not your version..:

About A merican Revolution: Ah it's difficult for a francophobe to admit that they saved your ass during this war ?
50% of the forces at Yorktown were French, De Grasse wins a naval battle against the British squadron near Yortown and then helped to win the most important battle in this war with his heavy artillery...and the money, the military advisors, the diplomatic help to get the alliance of Spain and Holland...well...


First Wold war: Well we have the battles of the Marne, Verdun, of the Somme (yes they participed), the 1918's counter stikes and a big ect...Those french teached to Patton how to use a tank, to the american soldiers how to fight in an modern war, they give to you the 75mm, 105mm, 155mm guns (your today's weapons are still based on those guns) ...again an extremely Ironic WELL......

Franco-Prussian war and WWII: Wich countries could defeat the Germans at the time the French were defeated by those invaders ? Maybe with a Channel....btw u forget the FFL, the FFI ,and the fact that French troops were occupying Germany after 1945

Indochina: What do you espect from a country who was still almost destroyed by the war ? The USA did better in the 1965-1975 period ?


can't u guess ?

Alas we have a defender of France. Alright buddy, you jumped into the fray and lets check some of your facts.

First: "50% of the forces at Yorktown were French, De Grasse wins a naval battle against the British squadron near Yortown and then helped to win the most important battle in this war with his heavy artillery...and the money, the military advisors, the diplomatic help to get the alliance of Spain and Holland...well..."

The above is half truth. Yes the French were at Yorktown in large numbers and for that we are grateful. But in typical French fashion they tested the winds of war before committing themselves on the side of the victor. IN FACT, Yorktown wasn't the most important battle of the American Revolution. In FACT, the most important battle was fought at Saratoga-years before the French became engaged. The first time a British Army was defeated by the Americans on the battlefield. Additionally, the only reason the French became engaged in the first place was because Lafayette came here to see if the Americans had a chance at winning and when it looked like we were, the French decided to make the leap-only about five years into the war.

Another interesting FACT and what makes Saratoga so interesting as it relates this topic is that the British Forces at Saratoga marched south of Canada before they were met on the battlefield. Well lets go a few years back to another war where the French were involved. We call it the French and Indian War. I know this hurts, especially you being from Quebec and all, but the Brits and Americans kicked the French out of Canada.

Second: "Franco-Prussian war and WWII: Wich countries could defeat the Germans at the time the French were defeated by those invaders ? Maybe with a Channel....btw u forget the FFL, the FFI ,and the fact that French troops were occupying Germany after 1945"

Interesting you devote two sentences to probably the most humilating French losses. LET ME SAY ONE WORD--VICHY. Ever hear of it? Not only were the French defeated in one week, but they then turned arround and not only formed a government in cooperation with Hitler they took the extra step of fielding an Army and Navy to fight alongside the Axis. IN FACT we fought AGAINST the FRENCH in North Africa during WWII. Now I don't want to take anything away from those brave fighters in the French resistance, no few ever fought harder, and I mean FEW.

Cest le vie. Did I get that right?





:p

[Lionsniper]

So it was the French who taught us how to use the Tank was it?

My mistake but I do believe that was the British!

France occupied Germany after WWII did they?

I believe they had a little help from the British and the Americans, and has already been pointed out in this discussion the FFL? I do believe that is the French Foreign Legion - i.e. your best troops are foreigners!!

Just my opinion but welcome to you anyway, although you appear to be the only one who is prepared to speak up for the French!

[myclearcreek]

Cest le vie. Did I get that right?

Close.

c'est la vie

Rhonda

[Powder_Squall]

I know I said I'd rather listen than talk, but I have to jump in.


"About the Napoleonic Wars: Ok we have France a country against all the military powers of Europe From 1796 to 1815, who conquered territories from Madrid to Moscu ...yeah this period is really a shame for the french military prestige.... "

Bretzelpresent,

la période napoléonienne ne saurait être considéré comme l'heure de gloire de la France. Les Français s'y accrochent car l'histoire qu'on leur enseigne à l'école est manipulée par un obscurantisme historique chauvin.

Napoléon n'était pas un dictateur "à la romaine", comme le prétendent plusieurs. Il n'était qu'un potentat, et de peu d'envergure. Études médiocres, attentisme et propagande ont caractérisés son ascension. Je conseille la lecture de "Napoléon, l'imposture" de Roger Caratini, si tu t'intéresses réellement au sujet.

L'Histoire à laquelle tu te réfères passe sous silence les crimes sauvages commis en Égypte, le traitement des Juifs, l'esclavage et j'en passe. Elle omet peut-être de mentionner que certains des "accomplissements" du potentat, comme le Code Civil, ne doivent rien à celui-ci, qu'il n'a fait que s'approprier le fruit du travail des autres.

Militairement, on peut reconnaître à la Grande Armée une valeur certaine, encore qu'elle était dirigée par des attentistes, comme Ney. Et contrairement à ce que tu prétend, l'empire ne s'est jamais étendu jusqu'à Moscou. Les Russes l'ont brûlée plutôt que de l'abandonner à l'ennemi. La Grande Armée dût ensuite battre piteusement en retraite, harcelée par les cosaques.

La France napoléonienne était une dictature, dont le chef se prenait pour le repésentant de Dieu sur Terre et cherchait par tous les moyens à étendre son pouvoir, principalement par les armes, et très souvent au détriment des droits de l'homme, qu'il affirmait défendre. Un maître de la propagande, de surcroît.

Si tout cela ne signifie rien à tes yeux, alors peut-être est-il juste que tu fasses aussi l'éloge d'Hitler, qui, comme on le constate, partageait nombre des traits de Napoléon 1er.

Que la France ait joué un rôle dans la guerre d'indépendance américaine m'est égal. Ils y sont allé pour tirer profit de la situation dans les colonies, dont ils étaient exclus depuis 1760. Les Français se sont inspirés par la suite de la Révolution américaine pour la leur, eux-mêmes qui avaient influencés les révolutionnaires américains. En fait, le 18e siècle fut la seule véritable période de dialogue entre les deux pays.

Pour ce qui est de la tension actuelle, elle repose davantage sur la relation post 2e GM. La France, qui, alors que les troupes américaines se battaient encore pour libérer le sol français, insistait (à travers de Gaulle) pour que des troupes françaises soient les premières dans Paris libérée, alors qu'ils n'avaient su ni la défendre, ni la reconquérir. Le rôle exagéré des FFI/FFL, les exactions commis en Allemagne en 1945, et cette attitude générale d'ingratitude pour ceux qui avaient libéré le pays (les USA et l'Angleterre), ont jetés les bases de l'antiaméricanisme dans son incarnation moderne. Et que dire des milliards de $ injectés pour econstruire une Europe, qui par deux fois en 50 ans , s'est elle-même mise à feu et à sang.

Mais tout cela est passé de loin. Ce qui dérange aujourd'hui dans l'attitude de la France, c'est son petit air moralisateur. Pourtant, les Français sont à blâmer pour le programme nucléaire irakien. Et pour les Mirages. Et les Exocets. La France, fournisseur d'armes numéro un de Saddam, devant les USA et l'Allemagne. La France dont les compagnies pétrolières , elles aussi, ont leur plan pour l'après-Saddam. La France qui oublie un peu trop vite que si le Tiers-monde hors-Amérique va si mal, c'est que les puissances coloniales européennes ont très mal gérées la décolonisation. En fait dans le cas de la France, celle-ci s'est faite dans le sang. Guerre en Indochine, guerre en Algérie, intervention en Afrique de l'Ouest, etc. La France qui possède toujours des colonies (Bangui, Djibouti, Polynésie, Guyane) et qui opprime les populations locales (présence militaire, assassinats). Bref, un France qui a les mains très sales, trop sales pour faire la leçon aux États-Unis, même si ceux-ci n'ont pas un dossier impeccable.
Passons sur l'Allemagne, qui tentaient, il y a 60 ans, de faire des Juifs un souvenir.

Now, in closing, I'd like to mention, that I, too, am a citizen of Quebec province, Canada. The lines above are addressed to bretzelpresent and his arguments, hence the french. I am sick and tired of all the bullshit I hear these days about how America is evil and France is great. I am tired of the simplistic propaganda carried by the local and French medias and sorry over the small number of persons who are willing to look past the appeareances in this so-called "Iraq crisis". I am sorry, too, that people like Bretzelpresent give a bad image of my society, which, like all others, has much to do to improve. I am not a gung-ho partisan of the war. I'm not sure I want to see American troops caught in vicious street fights, nor do I wish the death of the Iraqi people. But I am in favor of a regime change in Bagdad, and I do believe now is the time to act. I'm just not yet convinced of the necessity of a full-scale war. I am well aware that there is many unknown factors in this affair, that I do not know of or understand. For th time being, I stand along the position of people like Norman Scharwtzkopf and Joseph Ralston, both former "top brass". I feel their reasons to be against this war are way sounder than the common anti-US, alarmist propaganda and all similar oil-conspiracy stories we are fed up here in Socialismland. I also happen to be of german descent, and closely following the political situation over my ancestors'land, I'm pissed by the european stance on this affair. I don't know what they are trying to achieve (other than winning votes, in the case of Schroder), I can only hope this will somehow turn the right way.

This said, Bretzel, I've been reading your few posts, so I'm telling you: Va-t-en. Dégage. Sacre ton camps. Bug off! You've got no friends here with your arrogant, know-it-all, whiney comments. You are not here for a debate, you are here to jerk peoples' strings. You sound like all those ignorant dipshits I have to deal with in college every day. I come to this board to find different points of view. I don't always agree with what I read, but it's still a refreshing change. As a fellow Québécois, I'm asking you, please leave. You give me a bad name.
:mad:

[UberCree]

Betzlpresent, you no doubt are a seperatist?
Just remember if and when you guys ever separate, the Cree people will take our 2/3rds of Quebec and stay with Canada! Ha ha.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

[cmr]

Originally posted by Bretzelpresent



bonus question :who has build and give the StatueoftheLiberty , symbol of USA to US ?
can't u guess ?

We know who gave it to us.

Statue of Liberty:

Made in France; Repaired in America

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Landmarks/images/restoration.gif

[Bretzelpresent]

Originally posted by Powder_Squall
so I'm telling you: Va-t-en. Dégage. Sacre ton camps
ok mais seulement si tu lis ça pauvre bûcheron bouzeux :

The American Media can bite me... an open letter to the President.

The American Media used to be the best in the world. I remember watching CNN and thinking that it had to be the best channel ever. Then it all went down hill, with the O J Simpson trial. That's when American journalists forgot about what they learnt in Journalism 101: there is the nice to know and the need to know. The former is not news. Never has been, never will be.
The latter is what they are supposed to report.

It sounds simple enough, so how did they fuck it up? Easy. This is America we are talking about: the almighty dollar raised its ugly head, and ratings became more important than Journalism. Nowadays, journalists do not report based on what we should know, but on what we want to know. That subtle shift is the reason for this mess that American Journalism as fallen into.

Case in point: when 9/11 hit, that's all we could see on TV. Fair enough, on the first day, the media had a responsibility to tell it like it is while also attempting to soothe the soul of the Nation. But to this day, we are still subjected to special reports on Fireman Bob and what a great guy he was, blah blah blah, when there is a slow news day.

I am not being insensitive to the situation. Yes some of those guys acted in a heroic fashion to try and save their fellow man from the horror of the day. But this stuff belongs on shows like 20/20, not the news flash. You know, it's that need to know / nice to know thing all over again. This constant exploitation of people's misery by news organizations is sickening.

Second case in point: a bunch of kids drowned in the Merrimack river in Massachusetts some months ago. The next day, Katie Couric, cold-hearted bitch that she is, is interviewing some 7 year old kid and asks him: "How did it feel watching your best friend die in the river while you were still holding his hand?" Is this bitch for real? This kid is already traumatized to all hell, and that's what she comes up with? The poor kid just burst out in tears at the all too vivid memory that Couric felt the need to bring up. What a stupid cunt. Sure, it was great for ratings to be able to say "We have the exclusive story". And if it has to come at the expense of a 7 year old kid's feelings, so be it, right? She should have been fired the same day.

Nowadays, it is all the rage for the Media to blast France and Germany because of their stance against immediate war against Iraq as pushed by President Bush. Let's insult a whole country, a whole culture, just because we know that that's what Joe Asswipe out there wants to hear. That's America for you: they want someone to blame so that they can feel better about themselves.

The bottom line is that President Bush had two choices: either go and bomb the crap out of Saddam, or go the diplomatic way and get the UN involved. The Bush Administration chose the latter, and halfway through the process, they decide they want to go kick ass instead. Sorry, we changed our mind, so all ya'lls need to give us your blessing. Except that that's not the way it works at the UN. See, it was created to try and *prevent* the sort of situation that Bush is trying to push down their throat. Note that neither France nor Germany is saying that there should not be any action taken against Hussein. They are saying that the UN has to finish its already-started function, and that if it were to not prove satisfactory, then it is still time to go and take that punk Hussein out. President Bush made one mistake: he thought that he was still riding that 9/11 wave and that everybody at the UN was going to say "Sure thing, cowboy, get that six-shooter blasting". In other words, he wanted to go kick ass and get the world opinion on his side. Unfortunately for him, it does not work that way.

So instead of focusing on that error, the media go ahead and blast the hell out of two countries that are simply trying to respect the process that was started and the spirit in which that process was created. That France is part of this tandem makes it even juicier: the jokes about surrendering armies, the jokes about without the US France would still be speaking German, it's all flying in talk shows and political shows alike anytime you turn on the TV.

I think that the American people should learn their history. Without French troops, America would still be a colony trying to fight off the Red Coats. Without German/Nazi scientists, NASA would never have sent those guys to the Neil and Buzz to the moon. Oh but they don't want to think about that, if they know it at all, because it does not paint their country in the light they want to see it in. So they "conveniently" forget about those simple historic facts, and they only talk about WWII. Hell most Americans think that WWII started in 1941 for Pete's sake! How easy do you think those masses of morons are to manipulate and convince?

American Education is lacking in the areas of History and Geography in appalling ways. Most kids out of high School are clueless on those topics. Remember that recent poll where 20% of kids in High Schools thought that Massachusetts was the biggest city in New England? You gotta be kidding me! How fucking miserable is that? 10% of the same kids could not find the Pacific Ocean on a world map!

It is that arrogance that America displays that has terrorists the world over frothing at the mouth to come and detonate bombs in your backyard. Now make no mistake: I do not condone acts of terrorism of any kind. I despise their cowardice. I am not creating excuses for terrorists. What I am saying is this: America still has not understood that 9/11 was not about *them*. It was about those guys that blew up your buildings by driving planes into them. It's about their situation, it's about their anguish. At this stage, not understanding that is playing in the hands of the very same terrorists the US are still chasing halfway around the globe. Refusing to stop looking at its own belly button is what is costing America dearly, and will continue to cost America dearly. America is too busy declaring itself the Chosen People to worry two bits about what growing in a Palestinian camp is about. Imagine this America: let's pretend that tomorrow, the UN feels bad about the situation of Mexico, and tells all people in California that they have to get the hell out so that Mexicans can move in to what used to be their land. Do you think that this would happen peacefully, or do you think that Californians would take arms and say "over my dead body"?

Now translate that story to the Middle East, where Palestinians were told to get the hell out so that Israel could occupy what had been their land because the World felt bad -- and justly so -- about what had happened to Jews during the Holocaust. Don't you see that the Palestinians have a valid claim to that land? Once again I am not saying that the situation justifies Terrorism, because it clearly does not. Nothing does, period. But trying to understand the situation goes a long way towards attempting to resolve it.

America never gave a crap about Terrorism until they were hit directly. They never cared when Paris was bombed in the eighties, when the IRA was blowing up churches all over the place. Shit, Joe Asswipe in the middle of Oklahoma probably did not know where Ireland was on a map. But all of a sudden, terror strikes in the Heart of New York City, and the whole world is expected to bow to America's demands. While I agreed with President Bush's speech "You're either with us or against us" in the fight against terrorism, there are still diplomatic and international rules that need to be respected if you initiate them.

Frankly, I personally wish that President Bush had just gone to Iraq and started his war without asking permission first. I think that the action has merit, I think that it is morally justifiable, and I think that it is the right thing to do. But playing the UN for fools, and blaming your mistake on other countries, that I do not care for. As for the media, it is their responsibility to report on those facts -- not rewrite history to please their mainly ignorant audience

j'espère que tu mourras moins con , pour un prof d'histoire tu me fais bien pitié avec ta médiocrité compactée ,surtout en ce qui concerne l'histoire de Napoléon ,j'espère que ces quelques dates te rafraîchiront la mémoire :

some french victories in twenty years :

Aboukir (Egypte), 11 juil. 1799
Adige (Italie), 28 mars 1799
Alba de Tormes (Espagne), 28 nov. 1809
Aldenhoven (Allemagne), 2 oct. 1794
Alexandrie (Egypte), 2 juil. 1798
Alkamer (Pays-Bas), 27 août au 30 nov. 1799
Almeida (Portugal), 24 juil. 1810
Almonacid (Espagne), 11 août 1809
Altenkirchen (Allemagne), 4 juin 1796
Amberg (Allemagne), 21 août 1796
Arcole (Italie), 15-16-17 nov. 1796
Arlon (Belgique), 17 avril 1794
Astorga (Espagne), 21 avril 1810
Austerlitz (Rép. tchèque), 2 déc. 1805
Badajoz (Espagne), 10 mars 1811
Bamberg (Allemagne), 4 août 1796
Bassano (Italie), 8 sept. 1796
Bassignano (Italie), 19 mai 1799
Bautzen (Allemagne), 19-20 mai 1813
Berg-op-Zoom (Belgique), 8 mars 1814
Biberach (Allemagne), 2 oct. 1796 et 9 mai 1800
Breslaw [Breslau] (Pol.), 7 déc. 1806 au 3 janv. 1807
Burgos (Espagne), 19 sept. 1812
C. de Sprimont (Belgique), 18 sept.1794
Caldiero (Italie), 30 oct. au 2 nov. 1805
Capri (Italie), 18 oct. 1808
Castel Franco (Italie), 23 nov. 1805
Castiglione (Italie), 5 juil. 1796
Champaubert (France), 10 fév. 1814
Chébreisse (Egypte), 7 au 13 juil. 1798
Ciudad-Rodrigo(Espagne), 5 juin au 10 juil. 1810
Courtrai (Belgique), 17 juin 1792
Dantzig (Pologne), 19 mars au 26 mai 1807
Dego (Italie), 15 avril 1796
Diernstein [Dürrenstein] (Autriche), 14 nov. 1805
Diersheim (Allemagne), 20-26 avril 1797
Dietikon (Suisse), 22-26 sept. 1799
Dresde (Allemagne), 26 août 1813
Düsseldorf (Allemagne), 8 sept. 1795
Eckmuhl (Allemagne), 22 avril 1809
Elchingen (Allemagne), 13 oct. 1805
Engen (Allemagne), 3 mai 1800
Espinosa (Espagne), 10-11 nov. 1808
Essling (Autriche), 21-22 mai 1809
Etlingen (Allemagne), 9 juil. 1796
Eylau (Russie), 8 février 1807
Fleurus (Belgique), 26 juin 1794
Friedberg (Allemagne), 24 août 1796
Friedland (Russie), 14 juin 1807
Fuente d'Ouoro [de Oñoro] (Espagne) 5 mai 1811
Gaete (Italie), 7 fév. au 18 juil. 1806
Gebora (Espagne), 19 fév. 1811
Geisberg (France), 6 déc. 1793
Gênes (Italie), avril-mai 1800
Girone (Espagne), 21-25 déc. 1809
Grand-Port (La Réunion), 23 août 1810
Gratz (Autriche), 26 juin 1809
Guntzbourg (Allemagne), 9 oct. 1805
Halle (Allemagne), 17 oct. 1806
Hanau (Allemagne), 30 oct. 1813
Heilsberg (Pologne), 10 juin 1807
Héliopolis (Egypte), 20 mars 1800
Hochstett (Allemagne), 19 mai 1800
Hohenlinden (Allemagne), 3 déc. 1800
Hollabrunn (Autriche), 15 déc. 1805
Hondschootte (France), 7-9 nov. 1793
Iéna (Allemagne), 14 oct. 1806
Jaffa (Israël), 3 mars 1799
Jemmapes (Belgique), 6 nov. 1792
Kehl (Allemagne), 24 juin 1796
Krasnoë (Russie), 14 août et 17 nov. 1812
La Corogne (Espagne), 16 janv. 1809
La Moskowa (Russie), 7 sept. 1812
La Piave (Italie), 8 mai 1809
Landau (Allemagne), 2 au 8 août 1792
Landshut (Allemagne), 21 avril 1809
Le Bastan (France), 27 juil. 1794
Le Boulou (Espagne), 13 août 1794
Le Caire (Egypte), 8 au 24 juil. 1798
Le Mincio (Italie), 8 fév. 1814
Le Var (France), mai 1800
Lerida (Espagne), 23 avril 1810
Les Pyramides (Egypte), 21 juil. 1798
Ligny (Belgique), 16 juin 1815
Lille (France), 26 sept. au 9 oct. 1793
Loano (Italie), 23 nov. 1795
Lodi (Italie), 11 mai 1796
Lübeck (Allemagne), 7 nov. 1806
Lutzen (Allemagne), 2 mai 1813
Luxembourg (Luxembourg), 12 juin 1795
Medina del Rioseco [Rio Seco] (Esp.), 14 juil. 1808
M.[alo] Jaroslawietz (Russie), 24 oct. 1812
Madrid (Espagne), 4 déc. 1808
Maestricht (Pays-Bas), 27 fév. 1793
Mantoue (Italie), 30 janv. 1797
Marengo (Italie), 14 juin 1800
Maria-Belchite (Espagne), 18 juin 1809
Medelin [Medellin] (Esp.), 28 mars 1809
Mequinenza (Espagne), 8 juin 1810
Millesimo (Italie), 14 avril 1796
Moeskirch (Allemagne), 5 mai 1800
Mohilew (Biélorussie), 20-21 juil. 1812
Mondovi (Italie), 5 avril 1796
Mont Thabor (Israël), 16 avril 1799
Montagne noire (France), 17-20 nov. 1794
Montebello (Italie), 12 juin 1800
Montenotte (Italie), 9-11 avril 1796
Montereau (France), 18 fév. 1814
Montmirail (France), 11 fév. 1814
Mutta Thal (Suisse), 14-16 août 1799
Naples (Italie), 25 janv. 1799
Neresheim (Allemagne), 10 août 1796
Neuwied (Allemagne), 18 avril 1797
Ocaña (Espagne), 19 nov. 1809
Olivenza (Espagne), 22 janv. 1811
Oporto (Porto), 29 mars 1808
Ostrolenka (Pologne), 16 fév. 1807
Peschiera (Italie), 1er juin 1796
Plaisance (Italie), 5 mai 1800
Polotsk (Biélorussie), 16-18 août 1812
Pozzola (Pozzolo), 25 déc. 1800
Prentzlow (Allemagne), 28 oct. 1806
Pultusk (Pologne), 26 déc. 1806
Raab (Hongrie), 14 juin 1809
Raguse (Croatie), 26 mai 1806
Rastat (Allemagne), 5 juil. 1796
Ratisbonne (Allemagne), 23 avril 1809Rivoli (Italie), 14 janv. 1797
Roses [Rosas] (Espagne), janv. 1795 et déc. 1808
Roveredo (Italie), 3 et 5 sept. 1796
Saalfeld (Allemagne), 10 oct. 1806
Sagonte (Espagne), 25 oct. 1811
San Giuliano [Marengo] (Italie), 14 juin 1800
Saragosse (Espagne), 21 déc. 1808 au 21 fév. 1809
Schliengen (Allemagne), 23 oct. 1796
Sediman (Egypte), 30 mars 1798
Sierra [Somo Sierra] (Esp.), 30 nov. 1808
Smolensko (Russie), 16-17 août 1812
St Georges (Italie), 14 sept. 1796
Tagliamento (Italie), 14 mars 1797
Tarragone (Espagne), 28 juin 1811
Tortose [Tortosa] (Esp.), 2 janv. 1811
Toulouse (France), 10 avril 1814
Tourcoing (France), 18 mai 1794
Tudela (Espagne), 23 nov. 1808
Uclez (Espagne), 13 janv. 1809
Ulm (Allemagne), 20 oct. 1805
Valence (Espagne), 1er janv. 1812
Valls (Espagne), 25 fév. 1809
Valmy (France), 20 sept. 1792
Valontina [Valountina] (Russie), 19 août 1812
Vique (Espagne), 20 fév. 1810
Wagram (Autriche), 6 juil. 1809
Wattignies (France), 16 oct. 1793
Weissembourg (France), 2 avril au 26 déc. 1793
Wertingen (Allemagne), 8 oct. 1805
Wurschen (Allemagne), 21 mai 1813
Ypres (Belgique), 12 nov. 1792
Zurich (Suisse), 25-26 sept. 1799


casse-toi historien de mesdeux !:mad:

[Doogie320]

Originally posted by Bretzelpresent
some french victories in twenty years :

Aboukir (Egypte), 11 juil. 1799
Adige (Italie), 28 mars 1799
Alba de Tormes (Espagne), 28 nov. 1809
Aldenhoven (Allemagne), 2 oct. 1794
Alexandrie (Egypte), 2 juil. 1798
Alkamer (Pays-Bas), 27 août au 30 nov. 1799
Almeida (Portugal), 24 juil. 1810
Almonacid (Espagne), 11 août 1809
Altenkirchen (Allemagne), 4 juin 1796
Amberg (Allemagne), 21 août 1796
Arcole (Italie), 15-16-17 nov. 1796
Arlon (Belgique), 17 avril 1794
Astorga (Espagne), 21 avril 1810
Austerlitz (Rép. tchèque), 2 déc. 1805
Badajoz (Espagne), 10 mars 1811
Bamberg (Allemagne), 4 août 1796
Bassano (Italie), 8 sept. 1796
Bassignano (Italie), 19 mai 1799
Bautzen (Allemagne), 19-20 mai 1813
Berg-op-Zoom (Belgique), 8 mars 1814
Biberach (Allemagne), 2 oct. 1796 et 9 mai 1800
Breslaw [Breslau] (Pol.), 7 déc. 1806 au 3 janv. 1807
Burgos (Espagne), 19 sept. 1812
C. de Sprimont (Belgique), 18 sept.1794
Caldiero (Italie), 30 oct. au 2 nov. 1805
Capri (Italie), 18 oct. 1808
Castel Franco (Italie), 23 nov. 1805
Castiglione (Italie), 5 juil. 1796
Champaubert (France), 10 fév. 1814
Chébreisse (Egypte), 7 au 13 juil. 1798
Ciudad-Rodrigo(Espagne), 5 juin au 10 juil. 1810
Courtrai (Belgique), 17 juin 1792
Dantzig (Pologne), 19 mars au 26 mai 1807
Dego (Italie), 15 avril 1796
Diernstein [Dürrenstein] (Autriche), 14 nov. 1805
Diersheim (Allemagne), 20-26 avril 1797
Dietikon (Suisse), 22-26 sept. 1799
Dresde (Allemagne), 26 août 1813
Düsseldorf (Allemagne), 8 sept. 1795
Eckmuhl (Allemagne), 22 avril 1809
Elchingen (Allemagne), 13 oct. 1805
Engen (Allemagne), 3 mai 1800
Espinosa (Espagne), 10-11 nov. 1808
Essling (Autriche), 21-22 mai 1809
Etlingen (Allemagne), 9 juil. 1796
Eylau (Russie), 8 février 1807
Fleurus (Belgique), 26 juin 1794
Friedberg (Allemagne), 24 août 1796
Friedland (Russie), 14 juin 1807
Fuente d'Ouoro [de Oñoro] (Espagne) 5 mai 1811
Gaete (Italie), 7 fév. au 18 juil. 1806
Gebora (Espagne), 19 fév. 1811
Geisberg (France), 6 déc. 1793
Gênes (Italie), avril-mai 1800
Girone (Espagne), 21-25 déc. 1809
Grand-Port (La Réunion), 23 août 1810
Gratz (Autriche), 26 juin 1809
Guntzbourg (Allemagne), 9 oct. 1805
Halle (Allemagne), 17 oct. 1806
Hanau (Allemagne), 30 oct. 1813
Heilsberg (Pologne), 10 juin 1807
Héliopolis (Egypte), 20 mars 1800
Hochstett (Allemagne), 19 mai 1800
Hohenlinden (Allemagne), 3 déc. 1800
Hollabrunn (Autriche), 15 déc. 1805
Hondschootte (France), 7-9 nov. 1793
Iéna (Allemagne), 14 oct. 1806
Jaffa (Israël), 3 mars 1799
Jemmapes (Belgique), 6 nov. 1792
Kehl (Allemagne), 24 juin 1796
Krasnoë (Russie), 14 août et 17 nov. 1812
La Corogne (Espagne), 16 janv. 1809
La Moskowa (Russie), 7 sept. 1812
La Piave (Italie), 8 mai 1809
Landau (Allemagne), 2 au 8 août 1792
Landshut (Allemagne), 21 avril 1809
Le Bastan (France), 27 juil. 1794
Le Boulou (Espagne), 13 août 1794
Le Caire (Egypte), 8 au 24 juil. 1798
Le Mincio (Italie), 8 fév. 1814
Le Var (France), mai 1800
Lerida (Espagne), 23 avril 1810
Les Pyramides (Egypte), 21 juil. 1798
Ligny (Belgique), 16 juin 1815
Lille (France), 26 sept. au 9 oct. 1793
Loano (Italie), 23 nov. 1795
Lodi (Italie), 11 mai 1796
Lübeck (Allemagne), 7 nov. 1806
Lutzen (Allemagne), 2 mai 1813
Luxembourg (Luxembourg), 12 juin 1795
Medina del Rioseco [Rio Seco] (Esp.), 14 juil. 1808
M.[alo] Jaroslawietz (Russie), 24 oct. 1812
Madrid (Espagne), 4 déc. 1808
Maestricht (Pays-Bas), 27 fév. 1793
Mantoue (Italie), 30 janv. 1797
Marengo (Italie), 14 juin 1800
Maria-Belchite (Espagne), 18 juin 1809
Medelin [Medellin] (Esp.), 28 mars 1809
Mequinenza (Espagne), 8 juin 1810
Millesimo (Italie), 14 avril 1796
Moeskirch (Allemagne), 5 mai 1800
Mohilew (Biélorussie), 20-21 juil. 1812
Mondovi (Italie), 5 avril 1796
Mont Thabor (Israël), 16 avril 1799
Montagne noire (France), 17-20 nov. 1794
Montebello (Italie), 12 juin 1800
Montenotte (Italie), 9-11 avril 1796
Montereau (France), 18 fév. 1814
Montmirail (France), 11 fév. 1814
Mutta Thal (Suisse), 14-16 août 1799
Naples (Italie), 25 janv. 1799
Neresheim (Allemagne), 10 août 1796
Neuwied (Allemagne), 18 avril 1797
Ocaña (Espagne), 19 nov. 1809
Olivenza (Espagne), 22 janv. 1811
Oporto (Porto), 29 mars 1808
Ostrolenka (Pologne), 16 fév. 1807
Peschiera (Italie), 1er juin 1796
Plaisance (Italie), 5 mai 1800
Polotsk (Biélorussie), 16-18 août 1812
Pozzola (Pozzolo), 25 déc. 1800
Prentzlow (Allemagne), 28 oct. 1806
Pultusk (Pologne), 26 déc. 1806
Raab (Hongrie), 14 juin 1809
Raguse (Croatie), 26 mai 1806
Rastat (Allemagne), 5 juil. 1796
Ratisbonne (Allemagne), 23 avril 1809Rivoli (Italie), 14 janv. 1797
Roses [Rosas] (Espagne), janv. 1795 et déc. 1808
Roveredo (Italie), 3 et 5 sept. 1796
Saalfeld (Allemagne), 10 oct. 1806
Sagonte (Espagne), 25 oct. 1811
San Giuliano [Marengo] (Italie), 14 juin 1800
Saragosse (Espagne), 21 déc. 1808 au 21 fév. 1809
Schliengen (Allemagne), 23 oct. 1796
Sediman (Egypte), 30 mars 1798
Sierra [Somo Sierra] (Esp.), 30 nov. 1808
Smolensko (Russie), 16-17 août 1812
St Georges (Italie), 14 sept. 1796
Tagliamento (Italie), 14 mars 1797
Tarragone (Espagne), 28 juin 1811
Tortose [Tortosa] (Esp.), 2 janv. 1811
Toulouse (France), 10 avril 1814
Tourcoing (France), 18 mai 1794
Tudela (Espagne), 23 nov. 1808
Uclez (Espagne), 13 janv. 1809
Ulm (Allemagne), 20 oct. 1805
Valence (Espagne), 1er janv. 1812
Valls (Espagne), 25 fév. 1809
Valmy (France), 20 sept. 1792
Valontina [Valountina] (Russie), 19 août 1812
Vique (Espagne), 20 fév. 1810
Wagram (Autriche), 6 juil. 1809
Wattignies (France), 16 oct. 1793
Weissembourg (France), 2 avril au 26 déc. 1793
Wertingen (Allemagne), 8 oct. 1805
Wurschen (Allemagne), 21 mai 1813
Ypres (Belgique), 12 nov. 1792
Zurich (Suisse), 25-26 sept. 1799


casse-toi historien de mesdeux !:mad:

Sorry, I don't see his retreat from Moscow in this list and how the Grande Armee was reduced to a starving, half-naked mass by logistics, Napoleon's ego, and Russia's winter.

I'll never forget seeing the photos of the "parade" that was held in Paris after the Allies liberated the city (Don't say that De Gaulle liberated the city, he was allowed to because of political pressure.). The Resistance rounded up the women that collaborated with the Germans and shaved their heads. As far as the camera could record (an American city block, give or take) were women, bald as could be, on parade. Most countries when occupied don't have such a behavior. I guess the profit was too great for the women of Paris from 1940-44.

I study history. Even if I didn't I need to only look as far as the white crosses just inland of Omaha, Utah, Gold, Sword, and Juno beaches to understand the price that we paid for your freedom. Go lecture to those men and women about history. Better still, go tell their families.....

BTAR

[GackMan]

interesting... not a single date starts with 19xx or 20xx

I could post a list of Spanish naval victories... they are still not a world power. But at least they don't cry about it.


Originally posted by Bretzelpresent

some french victories in twenty years :

Aboukir (Egypte), 11 juil. 1799
<SNIP!>
Zurich (Suisse), 25-26 sept. 1799

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by Doogie320
I study history. , the price that we paid for your freedom. Go lecture to those men and women about history. BTAR

if you study history, then you should know the reason why US entered WW2 ...I hope strong for you

it wasn't "to save the French" , no , it was because of the 12/07/1941 ,when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor ,and also because nazis were sinking US boats

so if US fought ,it wasn't for "the french freedom" ,no ,it was to defend its self interests ,as Lafayette with americans friends did when he fought against the brits for "the american freedom" :

"In October 1777 the colonials won a great victory at Saratoga but we should not forget that over 80% of the muskets used there were French Charlevilles and that almost 90% of the artillery and gunpowder had been supplied by France through Beaumarchais’ company. There would have been no victory at Saratoga without this secret aid from the French. This vindicated the King’s decision and encouraged France to sign a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance.

In February 1780, the King approved the plan to send troops to America. By July Rochambeau had arrived at Newport, Rhode Island, with his army. Meetings with Washington at Hartford, Connecticut, in September and again at Wethersfield, Connecticut, in May 1781 laid the foundation for the plan to have the combined armies march south to join Lafayette’s forces at Yorktown where victory was achieved in October 1781 with the help of de Grasse, whose fleet defeated the British off Chesapeake Bay. This war, which would have been lost by 1778 without French aid, finally ended victoriously with the signing of the Treaty of Peace in 1783.

His Most Christian Majesty, King Louis XVI of France ,one without whose aid the Independence of the United States might not have been achieved."

did you get it ? ;)

[MK19 (mod 3)]

Hey ass clown, I swear I thought I told you to get lost...now its on.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by GackMan
interesting... not a single date starts with 19xx or 20xx



what was given to you was an example of french victories in a period of only twenty years

do u want that I give you the names and the dates of the battles won by the French in 19xx or 20xx ,so you can verify after ,as it seems you doubt and you aren't able to find history at first at yourself
I'll do if you want

[NewportBarGuy]

Originally posted by Drizzt
if you study history, then you should know the reason why US entered WW2 ...I hope strong for you

it wasn't "to save the French" , no , it was because of the 12/07/1941 ,when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor ,and also because nazis were sinking US boats

so if US fought ,it wasn't for "the french freedom" ,no ,it was to defend its self interests ,as Lafayette with americans friends did when he fought against the brits for "the american freedom" :

"In October 1777 the colonials won a great victory at Saratoga but we should not forget that over 80% of the muskets used there were French Charlevilles and that almost 90% of the artillery and gunpowder had been supplied by France through Beaumarchais’ company. There would have been no victory at Saratoga without this secret aid from the French. This vindicated the King’s decision and encouraged France to sign a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance.

In February 1780, the King approved the plan to send troops to America. By July Rochambeau had arrived at Newport, Rhode Island, with his army. Meetings with Washington at Hartford, Connecticut, in September and again at Wethersfield, Connecticut, in May 1781 laid the foundation for the plan to have the combined armies march south to join Lafayette’s forces at Yorktown where victory was achieved in October 1781 with the help of de Grasse, whose fleet defeated the British off Chesapeake Bay. This war, which would have been lost by 1778 without French aid, finally ended victoriously with the signing of the Treaty of Peace in 1783.

His Most Christian Majesty, King Louis XVI of France ,one without whose aid the Independence of the United States might not have been achieved."

did you get it ? ;)

Just so we keep the facts straight: We went to war with Germany because Germany declared war on the United States. Germany declared war on the United States in response to the United States declaring war on Japan... That whole Alliance thing... There are some who make the case that perhaps we might not have even gone to war with Germany had they not declared war on us... Had the German generals with a serious case of the ass... Field Marshal Erwin Rommel chief among them... Of course, we all know what happend once Germany did declare war.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by NewportBarGuy
Just so we keep the facts straight: We went to war with Germany because Germany declared war on the United States. Germany declared war on the United States in response to the United States declaring war on Japan... That whole Alliance thing... There are some who make the case that perhaps we might not have even gone to war with Germany had they not declared war on us... Had the German generals with a serious case of the ass... Field Marshal Erwin Rommel chief among them... Of course, we all know what happend once Germany did declare war.

I agree with you

[GackMan]

Originally posted by Drizzt
do u want that I give you the names and the dates of the battles won by the French in 19xx or 20xx ,so you can verify after ,as it seems you doubt and you aren't able to find history at first at yourself
I'll do if you want

i think that you miss the point.

they are a bunch of fucking cry babies who are willing to fuck up the balance of power over an oil deal that htey have with the iraqis.

[GackMan]

Originally posted by NewportBarGuy
That whole Alliance thing...

Oh, you mean an alliance? Like NATO?

Except that the US didn't decide to selectively participate and turn its back on its allies?

[NewportBarGuy]

Originally posted by Drizzt

In February 1780, the King approved the plan to send troops to America. By July Rochambeau had arrived at Newport, Rhode Island, with his army.


I'll grant you that... Doesn't mean I like what you say... How 'bout I Rochambeau you... You know how it works right? I'll go first.

[NewportBarGuy]

Originally posted by GackMan
Oh, you mean an alliance? Like NATO?

Except that the US didn't decide to selectively participate and turn its back on its allies?

YES! I'm glad someone got what I was trying to say... You win a Snickers bar!

Nicely done Gackman... Or should I say Officer Gackman. Congratulations...

[Bravo_One_Three]

Originally posted by Drizzt
what was given to you was an example of french victories in a period of only twenty years

do u want that I give you the names and the dates of the battles won by the French in 19xx or 20xx ,so you can verify after ,as it seems you doubt and you aren't able to find history at first at yourself
I'll do if you want

You can come up with a list of BATTLES that the french won in the 20th century? Great, because I can come up with a list of WARS that they lost.

I'm still having a hard time stomaching the fact that more Americans died taking france back, than france did trying to defend it in the first place.

To paraphrase John Clease... "Take that, you snivelling french caaaaaannnnniget!"

[for Pete's sake]

Originally posted by Bravo_One_Three
You can come up with a list of BATTLES that the french won in the 20th century? Great, because I can come up with a list of WARS that they lost.

I'm still having a hard time stomaching the fact that more Americans died taking france back, than france did trying to defend it in the first place.

To paraphrase John Clease... "Take that, you snivelling french caaaaaannnnniget!"
hi
ok I can also show you Wars of the 20th ,where French are winner

France has always been an allied and a friend for US ,and will always be
remember the french contributions for Iraq war 1,for Kosovo , for Afghanistan

to be allies is a status which implicate the dialogue and the respect of the partners
it is to know to consult each other to find a consensus


moreover ,France could have big threats of terrorists,of islamists muslims after of war in Irak :
remember when France was close to have its 09/11 :when islamists wanted to crash an Airbus A300 and 257 passengers on the Eiffel Tower in Paris the 24 December 1994,and how it ended :
http://www.specialoperations.com/Counterterrorism/gign.html
France will never forget ...
u know ,France fears this kind of attack ,because it's easy for terrorists to hit when and where they want ,and the f****** as****** can do big damages NBC (and after that u can't nuke for revenge because there aren't country targets )
and this kind of threat could increase dramatically , if the islamists do calls for jihad because of a war on Irak

my two cents ...

[Powder_Squall]

Hahaha, nice to see I ticked you off, buffoon:

"ok mais seulement si tu lis ça pauvre bûcheron bouzeux "

Insults, great. You must have failed everything but french history in school, have you? For your information, I've never even touched a lumber, as for cow dung, it spells "bouSeux", smartass. You should attend class instead of reading Le Monde Diplomatique.


"Second case in point: a bunch of kids drowned in the Merrimack river in Massachusetts some months ago. The next day, Katie Couric, cold-hearted bitch that she is, is interviewing some 7 year old kid and asks him: "How did it feel watching your best friend die in the river while you were still holding his hand?" Is this bitch for real? This kid is already traumatized to all hell, and that's what she comes up with? The poor kid just burst out in tears at the all too vivid memory that Couric felt the need to bring up. What a stupid cunt. Sure, it was great for ratings to be able to say "We have the exclusive story". And if it has to come at the expense of a 7 year old kid's feelings, so be it, right? She should have been fired the same day. "

Well, I've read it and was appalled to see how biased and dumb you are. Biased because you spew more propaganda than all cable networks together and dumb because I doubt anyone will follow your poor attempt at hyping minor events to oversize proportion. That Kouric stuff was really lame, but if you think it's a sign of decay, you should watch more serious TV, not those "TV-ready-to go" programs. You watch Kouric's show...How serious is that? Ever watched PBS instead? No, probably beyond your grasp.
If you think US TV is bad, stop watching it. You'll be forced to see how mainstream Canadian and French TV is, too.

"Nowadays, it is all the rage for the Media to blast France and Germany because of their stance against immediate war against Iraq as pushed by President Bush. Let's insult a whole country, a whole culture, just because we know that that's what Joe Asswipe out there wants to hear. That's America for you: they want someone to blame so that they can feel better about themselves. "

Well, reverse the situation and that's the rest of the world for you. Oh, wrong. Unlike you, I won't base my appreciation of a people on its media, otherwise I couldn't see the French in painting. French media has been doing what US media is doing now for centuries. From Tocqueville to modern day Le Monde and Le Monde Diplomatique (funny how french newspapers refer to the whole world in their title...), anti-americanism has been the "rage" all year round for 200 hundred years. America is starting giving some back. You should read "L'obsession anti-americaine" from Jean-Francois Revel, form the Academie Francaise. But beware, you will need to rebuild your whole way of thinking, because the rehashed "ready-to-think" speeches of yours will be forever ruined. Can you deal with that? I hope so, otherwise you'll look like an idiot.

"The bottom line is that President Bush had two choices: either go and bomb the crap out of Saddam, or go the diplomatic way and get the UN involved. The Bush Administration chose the latter, and halfway through the process, they decide they want to go kick ass instead. Sorry, we changed our mind, so all ya'lls need to give us your blessing. Except that that's not the way it works at the UN. See, it was created to try and *prevent* the sort of situation that Bush is trying to push down their throat. Note that neither France nor Germany is saying that there should not be any action taken against Hussein. They are saying that the UN has to finish its already-started function, and that if it were to not prove satisfactory, then it is still time to go and take that punk Hussein out. President Bush made one mistake: he thought that he was still riding that 9/11 wave and that everybody at the UN was going to say "Sure thing, cowboy, get that six-shooter blasting". In other words, he wanted to go kick ass and get the world opinion on his side. Unfortunately for him, it does not work that way.

So instead of focusing on that error, the media go ahead and blast the hell out of two countries that are simply trying to respect the process that was started and the spirit in which that process was created. That France is part of this tandem makes it even juicier: the jokes about surrendering armies, the jokes about without the US France would still be speaking German, it's all flying in talk shows and political shows alike anytime you turn on the TV. "

Well, how more simplistic can you get? What's next? You're going to tell me how all this is a conspiration to get the Iraqi oil? Look, maybe it's too much thinking for you, but over the past decade, Hussein has been deaf to diplomacy. Although I believe the way of the words would be the best case scenario, it's just not that easy. By staging a force Saddam knows he can't defeat, Bush is pointing a gun straight at the despot's head and he's giving the whole world a very convincing impression that he's going to pull the trigger. And it works. He got the inspectors back in country and he's keeping the pressure on. Proof that it works? It took Saddam 24 hours to change his mind on wether he was going to destroy his best missiles. But if you observe carefully (something I doubt you're familiar with) the US diplomatic "ballet", it's all about pushing the threat to the extreme, than backing off, and so forth. A bit like tango. Now, maybe Saddam won't be smart enough to gey the message. After all, he has showed clearly how poor he is at reading the global situation. He made so many missteps in the past, he could well make one now. But if he disarms and war is avoided, you will have to bow before the one you call a "cow-boy" and his team for setting up such a diplomatic ploy.
And if you think France and Germany are resisting the process by pure respect of diplomacy, you're far more naive than you seem. France has massive economic interest in Iraq and a US-coached change of regime wouldn't care for those interests. France is still waiting for the dividends of all those weapons (Mirages, Exocet, chemical artillery ordnance, etc) and nuclear technology she sold to Iraq. As for Schroeder, he's playing the easy way of populism by following what the euro-intellectuals ask for, because getting re-elected is his primary concern and he knows he won't achieve it with warlike stances when the German electorate has many other concerns (how to deal with the Euro-crisis, among others. Germany lost more than it gained from that deal).
And Russia just want its billions it loaned to Saddam back. Should the US give Putin assurance that he'll gwt his money, Russia could well become the next stepping stone to Iraq. But you don't see it that way, do you? You prefer the easy-to-get crap you get from Le Monde or Liberation. Good, keep dreaming.


"I think that the American people should learn their history. Without French troops, America would still be a colony trying to fight off the Red Coats. Without German/Nazi scientists, NASA would never have sent those guys to the Neil and Buzz to the moon. Oh but they don't want to think about that, if they know it at all, because it does not paint their country in the light they want to see it in. So they "conveniently" forget about those simple historic facts, and they only talk about WWII. Hell most Americans think that WWII started in 1941 for Pete's sake! How easy do you think those masses of morons are to manipulate and convince? "

Well, whoever told you that France's role in the American Revolution was crucial fooled you. Maybe you should learn history too. A couple regiments and a flottilla did help, but if you think it was crucial... France wasn't fighting for America. She was pricking England because she was bitter from her humiliating defeat in Nouvelle-France. So she decided that if she couldn't have an American colony, then nobody would. How noble! And if you want to play that game, you just stepped in a minefield because you are defending a country which had to rely on others to save its hide twice in 50 years, and among those who liberated her twice, there was the USA. If french intellectuals resent America because their ego as "has-been power" is bruised, I couldn't care less.

Notice that I stress "intellectuals", because unlike you, I can make a difference between what I read and what I know. French media is mostly rampant with anti-americanism, but I know for a fact that french people are great people, that none of the many I know is any more anti-american than I am and I know that because I have many Frenchmen in my direct environment, including family and I lived in Aix for 18 months. And guess what else? Half my family is german and you wouldn't believe how german people are sick with Schroeder. If you think the guy is a pacifist with pure soul, think again. Maybe you idealize him and Chirac, who by the way, is a shame to all frenchmen I know. Hell, he's the guy they elected by default to eject LePen-le-Nazi from the race, but they perceive him as he his, a liar and a crook. And it sickens me me to see these two guys pursuing their goals at the expense of their people.

"American Education is lacking in the areas of History and Geography in appalling ways. Most kids out of high School are clueless on those topics. Remember that recent poll where 20% of kids in High Schools thought that Massachusetts was the biggest city in New England? You gotta be kidding me! How fucking miserable is that? 10% of the same kids could not find the Pacific Ocean on a world map!"

Oh then my poor friend, you are the blind leading the blinds. In a recent Ministere de l'Education survey, Sc. Pol. teachers at CEGEP level across the province, including some of our best-ranked schools like College Brebeuf, complained that over half of their students couldn't name the US president and didn't know who Yasser Arafat was. And in many of Quebec Province's universities, students in Facultes d'education complained how unfair it was that future french teachers had to pass a test to check their grammatical competence! It was a shame to watch our future teachers, those who will educate our children, barely able to prduce an intelligible phrase on national TV! How smart is that? Since I assume, you , like me, have completed you studies here in Quebec (or did you even finish high school?) then surveys give you as at least as dumb as the american students. Or maybe it's not true. Maybe you could realize that numbers can lie and give false impressions and that if US students don't know on a map where is Woolakuchee, GA. maybe it's because they don't give a fuck! Students will be students, wherever on this planet.

"Frankly, I personally wish that President Bush had just gone to Iraq and started his war without asking permission first. I think that the action has merit, I think that it is morally justifiable, and I think that it is the right thing to do. But playing the UN for fools, and blaming your mistake on other countries, that I do not care for. As for the media, it is their responsibility to report on those facts -- not rewrite history to please their mainly ignorant audience"

Well, if you really believe that, no sweat. UN doesn't need the US or anyone to look like fools because that is what "Le Machin", to quote De Gaulle, is: a bunch of clowns pretending to help the world. Hell, the only thing that works there is UNICEF and it is almost operating independantly because world leaders don't give a heck about it and leave it alone. As for the media, it is your responsability as a free thinker (if you are one) to get your information from various, complementary sources, corporate and independant alike and build your own ideas and adapt them. It's not the reponsability of Catie Kouric.


"Hell most Americans think that WWII started in 1941 for Pete's sake! "

You nailed your case: the Second World War started officially in 1941, when America and USSR joined the war against Japan and Germany, making it de facto a WORLD war. Before 1941, it was two separate conflicts, one in Asia, one in Europe/North Africa. We put the starting date of September 3, 1939 only by convenience, because that's the day the chain of events that would lead ro global war begun.

As for Napoleon, I never referred to his military exploits, merely to his political "skeletons in the closet".

I, too, hope you will die less stupid, as you so kindly wished me. And I will, because I learn more and more every day. Unfortunately, I'm afraid your case is desperate and nothing short of a miracle will make you less stupid, not because you're not educated, but because you are an arrogant, prickly and gross "colon". You do know what that means, do you? I'd wish we didn't use words like that, but if you need it to feel better...And who ever said I was an historian?
And I'm not going anywhere, since unlike you, I'm not here to jerk people's nerves.

Allez, à plus, bouffon!





:D

[Rikkers]

I didn't read all the posts above, but just skimmed through them. They look similar to the e-mails that I receive on a daily basis from my....friends.
-Yes French politics are weak
-No, not all French are against the war in Iraq
-Many may not know this but the French have their hands full(and have for some time) with terrs inside their borders. Several months ago I was in Marseille and every other day there was another cell taken down. These cells were ready to rock with weapons, munitions and plans in their safe houses and on airport grounds.
-The French soldiers that I know are ready to fight (OK some of them are foreigners fighting for France). They have already been issued their desert gear, have been engaged in buid-up training and are eagerly awaiting word.
Some units have been in Afghanistan from the get-go and those that didn't get a piece of that can't wait to go to Iraq.
-In France, they think that we, the good people of the US of A, are against the war. Why? Because the anti-war protests over here make such great news. Don't get caught up in the media, its all warped.
-The politics will work itself out, the French president is putting on a good show so that the huge muslim population (anybody been to down town Marseille?) won't burn the country down if he jumps on the band wagon too quickly.
-The US will take care of business with or without them

Rick

[Trivia]

World War II: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States
and Britain.


Correction regarding the French in WW II. You rightly note that the French were
defeated by The Germans and signed an armistice in 1940. What is not
mentioned, (and desperately needs to be illuminated) is that the
legitimate government of France set up shop in un-occupied Vichey and
maintained control of the French armed forces and colonial holdings
through late 1942. This effectively made France one of the Axis powers
along with Germany and Italy until the Vichey government fell. Some of
the more notorious examples of French co-operation with the Axis was the
mass deportation of French Jews to German concentration camps by French
soldiers, the arrest and execution of pro-Allied French resistance fighters,
and even the formation of a French Waffen SS unit, (SS Charlemagne) that
fought against the Russians in Berlin in 1945.
What few Americans realize today is to what extent the French armed forces
resisted the Allies during the war. They fought the British in Syria and
Madagasgar. When the Allied invasion of North Africa occured in November 1942,
the French engaged the British and Americans on air, land, and sea at Oran,
Algiers, and Casablanca. American pilots flying the P-40 Tomahawk from the
carrier USS Ranger found themselves fighting the same aircraft with French
national markings that we had sold them previously. One of the last battleship
duels in history took place off of Casablanca, where the American USS Mass-
achusetts , (BB-59) engaged the French battleship Jean Bart and sank 4 French
destroyers. Serious resistance from the French was short lived though,
(doubtless
to save French lives) and the Germans quickly occupied the Vichey section of
southerm France when they realized how worthless their "allies" were in
battle.
It is interesting to note that Americans spent more time shooting at French
soldiers in WW II than they did the "official" German ally, the Italians. In
hind
sight, I suppose it is not surprising at all.

By my count, France managed to lose World War two twice.

[memo]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/peirce/peirce55.html

I’ve noticed that it is very much de rigueur to mock the French these days. Jonah Goldberg, whom one would suppose would look inward for someone to mock, does this regularly. It is considered good sport on Free Republic and a personal survey of friends and acquaintances reveals a great deal of contempt on their part for all things French.

The recent success of Jean-Marie Le Pen has provoked an outpouring of rage from all the usual left wing suspects, and astonishingly, from some Jews. Justin Raimondo seems to be the only one to see the irony in this. In a world where Muslims are attacking synagogues and beating Jews in the street, it is with a sense of wonder that I consider the Jewish resistance to Le Pen whose sin is to oppose having his country swamped by those same Muslims.

To understand Le Pen, it might help for folks to read Jean Larteguy’s classics, The Centurions and The Praetorians, which chronicle the French Paratroops and their fight against the communists in Indochina and Algeria. One may criticize le Paras (and their comrades in the Foreign Legion) but to mock their military prowess is a sin. Le Pen was a soldier in the elite 10th Paratroop Division which should tell anyone all they need to know about him. Algerie Francais was the rallying cry in those days but those days are gone and now it’s the Algerians who are conquering France!

I remain astonished that people mock the French as reluctant soldiers good only for surrendering en masse. I suppose I should know better, public schooling being what it is these days. Perhaps we should try a history lesson and consider some contradictions in the American mentality.

There was only one possible reason for the US to enter World War I on the side of the allies, and that was out of a sense of loyalty to France, not the miserable English who once again were committing piracy on the high seas. Lacking far sighted diplomats we failed to see that this would inevitably harm even those for whom we supposedly went to war. You see in those days, Americans still had a sense of history – we remembered who had helped us gain our independence from the hated British. Our troops arrived in France and the headlines blared "Lafayette, we are here!"

These were the same French people who had sent us the gift of the Statue of Liberty, and upon whom we had modeled our army and much else. French was indeed, the primary foreign language taught at West Point for many years for the simple reason that France was considered the military power of the world. Waterloo only enhanced the glory of France, much to the astonishment of the English who claimed the battle as an "English Victory" even though they contributed but a fraction of the troops on the field. The French won the glory, the Germans won the battle, and the British took the credit.

There would have been no victory at Yorktown (and no United States) had not Admiral de Grasse’s fleet and Rochambeau’s soldiers arrived in time to seal the blockade and trap the British Army. (Rochambeau would later die in combat fighting for Napoleon at the Battle of the Nations – Leipzig, in 1813.)

The gallant Lafayette struggled against the horrors of the French Revolution when it convulsed into the Terror and continued to strive to bring freedom to his country, even when the fat king, Louis XVIII, was enthroned by Allied bayonets.

There is no denying that the original ideals of the French Revolution were greatly influenced by what the soldiers had learned fighting beside us in our own struggle for freedom. After the initial purges and disorder the French Army had gradually morphed into a force to be reckoned with – throwing back the Austrians, Prussians, Russians, and English, sometimes simultaneously.

The Allied coalitions who warred on France were all financed by England, a country that had a stake in making the world safe for despotism, coupled with a reluctance to spill English blood.

Can military history be discussed with a mention of "The Corsican Ogre," the great Napoleon? Yes he was the first of the modern dictators, and ultimately he suppressed hard-won civil liberties and drowned Europe in blood. Yet until 1808 he was more sinned against than sinning. His despotic powers in no way exceeded those of Franz, Alexander, Wilhelm, and the mad king George III, none of whom mitigated their rule with anything like the Code Napoleon which at least insured a level of civil liberty far ahead of that of any country in the world except America. Napoleon, despite his political battles with the Pope, restored the Catholic Church in France which had been suppressed during the excesses of the Terror. America was his ally and we purchased Louisiana and much else from him.

In 1808 when Napoleon foolishly invaded Spain, he bought his country much misery. Until then, the Napoleonic Wars were wars of aggression against the French, initiated by despotic monarchs alarmed by the French concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity. The French Army, hardened by the wars of the revolution, was the finest fighting force the world would encounter before 1940 and Napoleon was the master who made such brilliant use of that tool. Corrupted by power, Napoleon betrayed his people and his soldiers with his wars in Spain and Russia, but this in no way detracts from the glory his soldiers achieved on the battlefield.

For those who mock the French defeat in 1940 it might pay to consider what the French did to the Prussians in 1806! There has rarely been a more complete victory than that achieved by the French at the twin battles of Jena / Auerstadt. The blitzkrieg that followed took Prussia down in approximately the same time frame as Nazi Germany took down France in 1940. They did it without motor vehicles or tanks which considering the pace of warfare in those days is truly astonishing. In 1813 the Prussians repaid him in kind, having learned the lessons of warfare the hard way. The Germans have always been fighters but it is fair to say that Napoleon’s Grande Armee taught them to be soldiers.

One studies this time period and it becomes all too clear that the victors write the history. The battles in Spain were a sideshow yet well over half the English language books written on the Napoleonic era chronicle either the Peninsula War or the battle of Waterloo. Yet even at Waterloo the actual number of British troops was barely fifteen thousand. Those folks like to fight by proxy.

Which brings me to my point: why do we consider England a natural ally, and France virtually an enemy? In our revolution and again in 1812 we were fighting as allies of France against the hated British! It was the British who despised us and tried to topple us and contested with us for Maine and Oregon and mocked us as backwoods hillbillies, unworthy of a place in the family of nations.

It was Britain who tricked us into sacrificing one hundred thousand of our best men in that horror called The War To End All Wars. It was the English who conspired with the traitor Roosevelt to involve us in World War II. And it has been the English who have lead the charge to open the gates of civilization to the Islamic immigrants who now threaten to subsume us, not be feeble acts of terrorism, but by sheer numbers.

So we make fun of France for losing so ignominiously in World War II, forgetting that the French had literally lost an entire generation in the First World War II and had little left to give. Feeble as France had become, they none the less went to war against the fearsome Wehrmacht because their ally Poland was in danger. Surely there is some honor in that?

Now France is again in trouble because the French ambassador to London complained that the world was being drawn into war over a "shitty little country." Since that country happens to be Israel – there has been a huge outcry against the alleged anti-Semitism of the French. Yet France was one of the first countries to give Jews full rights as citizens. Not to mention the harsh fact that the key part of the statement is quite literally true. Whether the war is the fault of the Israelis or the Arabs is hardly the point – the world is on the brink of war and that cannot be disputed.

M. Le Pen actually supports Israel’s right to defend itself yet is called anti-Semitic simply because he is a member of the political right! How convenient it is to forget that the pogroms of the twentieth century were manifestations of left wing politics – to those who think only in sound bites I remind you that Nazi stands for "National Socialist Workers Party!"

So we have the hilarious contradiction of the press whose minions slander the French as anti-Semitic when they criticize Israel and again when they condemn the mass migration of Arabs into the French heartland. The attacks on Jews in France have all been perpetrated by Muslims. Le Pen wants to stop Arab immigration – thus he is an anti-Semite! Warning! Warning! This does not compute!

There is a certain charm to the French character that cannot be denied. There is a story of the Cold War, when the Soviets had released a new and fearsome tank. Everyone was panicking and it was determined that information must be obtained. The Americans launched a satellite for the purpose of tracking this beast, at a cost of millions. The British sent an SAS team into East Germany – they broke into a tank and stole the manuals – for the cost of a replacement lock. The French were more civilized about the whole thing. Their military attaché called his Soviet counterpart: "I’ve been hearing about this fascinating new tank – may I see it?" The Russian took him on a guided tour and let him drive the darn thing!

Where else in the world do the people eat and drink like it matters, yet retain those infuriatingly slender waist lines? Who else would have canceled an important diplomatic event with the Iranians, simply because the Iranians objected to the French tradition of having wine with their meals? Is it possible that the traditions of a Western country might actually matter? The French thought so. Contrast this with Walter Mondale’s hilarious farce of a performance at a political rally for Hispanics, where he ate his tamale, wrapper and all, claiming it to be among his favorite foods! Some folks might call that pandering.

Can a freedom-loving Johnny Reb like me be a fan of Jean Marie le Pen? After all, despite his fearsome reputation with the limp-wrested aficionados of political correctness, he is far to the left of me. Yet a man who wishes to preserve his own country’s culture and history cannot be all bad – I share those beliefs and wish him the best. My real question is when will an American politician stand up for us? Is our Republic and our history not worth defending? We certainly can’t count on that ridiculous Senor Bush!

Yes I have my moments when I find the French quite as annoying as everyone else seems to. But what a dull world it would be without them. And now I must get back to work – I’m laboriously translating a French military history, The E’popee Napoleonienne, one chapter at a time. It’s a fascinating exercise and French is after all, the language of soldiers!

by Michael Peirce