Just an Observation

[Moraelin]

Gotta thank our friend dwsmith for promptly proving why so many people think Americans are ignorant rednecks. It's blanket statements like that. (Not to say that all Americans really are like that, but we all tend to remember the rednecks better than the intelligent people. It's only human nature.)

The Marshall plan has nothing to do with some very simple facts. Like that Japan continues to be an amazing economy, in spite of having no natural resources. Divide Japan's industrial exports by its population, and do the same for the US's. Now also factor in how much of the materials used are imported. If the US was so bloody amazing at building that good an economy, why couldn't they build THEIR OWN economy to be as efficient as the Japanese one? I do believe that the US was first to jack up the import taxes to keep their economy from being taken over by the Japanses, not the other way around.

That's also ignoring that the Japanese industry really kicked off in the sixties, when they were faced with either upping their quality or going bankrupt. The new element was: integrated circuits. And that was the Japanese culture that got their act together, not the "american dollar". (The American idea of quality is that if an OS still needs patching even after five years, it's OK. Point in case: Windows NT 4.0.)

That's also ignoring that the Marshall plan, while indeed it helped, didn't even cover a fraction the losses those countries had in WW2. If those countries had gotten to keep their economy intact over the war, like the USA did, I do believe they'd be WAY ahead now. Check your numbers before making such silly statements that a whole world's economy was built with US dollars, while everyone just sat on their butts.

The Marshall plan also did NOT cover stuff that happened BEFORE WW2. The fact that Germany went from total famine and economic collapse, to being able to support so many panzer divisions, was NOT done with US dollars. (Or are you trying to tell me that you actually sponsored THAT too, just to get Europe into war?)

Also, the German Autobahns (highways) are far superior quality than anything built anywhere in America or Canada. Regardless of whose money it was built with, the point remains that someone was able to design and build a better infrastructure. And that they can maintain and build them even many decades after the Marshall plan. If you're so industrious, why don't you build them too? In game terms, that's what industrious means.

That said, I never said I wouldn't give the Americans any advantages in the game. But I would probably give them Commercial (more money, less corruption) instead of Industrious.

[Bugg]

Not only does the US have the worlds No.1 industry it has the No.1 economy and the No.1 Military and the No.1 education and so on and on and on...

We are a great country,but not that great. We are not the No. 1 country in education. I went to school in England and Germany and in my opinion, our system doesn't come close. The English have a great system. Japan seems like it could be tough also, great technology.

Back to French Bashing
Specific ability- France is allowed to make and break treaties with no penalties.
Also allowed to sell units and tech to barbarians

[BanastreTa]

[SIZE=1] And most Americans are rednecks, atleast subconciously.

"Redneck" would be a good civ trait for the expansion pack.

Anhaueser-Busch wonder creates three happy citizens in each city.

Immunity to cultural conversion except by other redneck civilizations.

Cities have +1 defense bonus (citizens are well-armed)

And of course, you'd have to bring back the truck unit from Civ 2, even if it is no longer used as freight/caravan.

BT

[dwsmith]

THIS POST IS DELEATED FOR REASONS OF US/FRANCE BASHING IS STUPID!

[dwsmith]

THIS POST IS DELEATED FOR REASONS OF US/FRANCE BASHING IS STUPID!

[dwsmith]

THIS POST IS DELEATED FOR REASONS OF US/FRANCE BASHING IS STUPID!

[Zizka]

Yes but does the world really need 45,000 more american patentx for salad shooters, ACME love-enhancing/baldness cure cream and battery operated marital aids..

Z


Note on WWII. On sept 1. 1939 No one was ready militarily for WWII even the german general staff appeared edgy about the prospects of general war and had expected war to begin in '42 at the earliest. Yes Hitler hated france but his goal was humilition not racial conflict in the west. Interestingly some period historical revisionsim did emphasize that the french were really a germanic group (franks). However this is only true for some of the old aristocracy, th bulk of the population has always been celtic.(note this is an ethnographic not ness. cultural reference)

Z

[Disgracian]

dwsmith - Your tenacity, though kind of cute, is wasted effort I assure you.

Even if you do (but you won't) prove that America is a better country than anybody else's, it doesn't cover up the fact that you are an arseclown.

You will always be an arseclown and you probably always have been (ever since you developed a personality, that is). Your perception of your country does not reflect on you as an individual. And it is there that you are sorely lacking.

In fact, your dogged insistance that America is the greatest nation on earth is clear evidence of your own inferiority complex.

The sooner you realise that we all see through you, the better.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by dwsmith
You are an IDIOT. The reason that the OS is still being patched is because the product evolves as the rest of the computer market does. dll's and drivers are patched to work with newer versions of software and to correct bugs.

Bzzt. Wrong. NT 4.0 never evolved at all. Even after all these years, it STILL doesn't really support anything new. There is still no support AT ALL for USB. There still isn't even the tiny hack need to support VFAT32 if it already had the 16 bit VFAT. It still has no DirectX above 3.0. And so on. The patches have been just that: patches to fix the countless bugs and security holes it shipped with.

As for patents, I suggest you visit IBM's patent database, for some truly patently ridiculous stuff. I'm talking literally patents for a hat with an american football goal thingie replica glued on it. (If you thought propeller beanies were the apex of silly, this one definitely tops it.) A patent for a male masturbation machine. (You'd think a hand is enough to get that job done.) And so on and so forth.

What started as a way to protect truly new inventions, ended up as a pile of pointless patents for dead obvious stuff. It's no more than ammo for lawyers, when companies want to sue each other.

[Arrian]

Threads like this one depress me. Someone makes some type of comment that could be considered "anti-american" and sure enough, SOMEONE just HAS to take the bait and make a fool of himself, and unfortunately, of the rest of us. Dwsmith, are you actually serious, or are you just messing around (I really, really hope its #2).

Look, so America is rich and powerful. Many other nations have been at other points in history. No need to brag about it and claim it somehow makes us better than anyone else, which it doesn't. The education comment... displays beautifully how lacking our educational system is, at least in terms of learning about the rest of the world. We're an insular society, partly due to the sheer size of the country and to our current power. An awful lot of us are arrogant about it... without even knowing it sometimes.

Thanks a bunch for perpetuating a lovely stereotype about Americans.

As for nationalism (or patriotism, as we generally refer to it here), I have a quick story to share:

A few weeks after Sept. 11, some friends and I were out at a dance hall (country line dancing... ugh, but one of my friends is into it.. she's from New Hampshire, ok?). They stopped the music and put on the "Star Spangled Banner." I was talking to a friend and didn't immediately notice this and was still talking, and got "shushed" by a waitress. I felt bad, as I do love my country and happen to like the anthem... UNTIL my friend pointed out the large Confederate Flag hanging from the ceiling. It took all I had not to bust out laughing.

Now, about the French in Civ III. The fact is that most of the civ traits in the game could be associated with most of the civs. So you gotta pick two. Industrious isn't a bad one, I don't think. You could argue that America should be commercial/industrious too (personally, the only traits I really don't think make sense for us are militarist and religious... notwithstanding our fearless leader). You could argue that the Chinese should be scientific... the Germans industrious... etc. As for the French being pink, heh, I gotta admit I like that.

-Arrian

[Kurgan]

I do not know if the USA are the greatest in all those fields, greatness depends on what everyone considers great. But talking about patents, you should discount all the US patents researched by foreign scientists ( a lot of them are hired after being educated in their countries). I do not claim that the USA is inferior or France or any other country is superior, but I prefer to live in Spain rather than in the USA, and for sure the USA have a higher per capita income, more killings, more violence, more power, etc, but I do not like your society and your values, and I do not think they are worst than any other, simply I do not like them. Maybe the problem is that you do not understand that other people maybe do not like your way of life, because you think that everybody wants what you have. By the way, here in Europe before WWII we had factories, roads, cars, telephone, railroads, universities etc, and !!!surprise!!!, they were not bought whit dollars, but with our own money. Another thing about your economy, is that you developed a strong economy because since the foundation of the USA, you had the most protectionist tariffs in the world, because you knew your products could not compete with the European ones (those numbers you can find from US sources on tariffs and duties), and you did not lowered them till WWII was over and no other industrial power was left in one piece. About the Film industry you should know that any film not shoot in english have to be shown with subtitles in the USA by law, and who wants to go for an audiovisual experience and have to read dialogues that very often do not show even half of what it is said, that is also protectionism; the Film "Vanilla Sky" with Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz is a remake (one of many) of a European film, but it was in Spanish, and the Hollywood industry do not allow free competition. I think ,and I am sure that me, poor ignorant in the exterior areas of the Empire I am wrong because the education systems outside the USA are a big ****, that you are a little bit too self centered. I am sure all countries and cultures are (self-centered), but you have the means to have the best education system in the world, and you have one of the worst (of the industrialized countries), very often you do not even appreciate the wonders that you have in your country, how are we going to ask you to know about the wonders and history of other countries when you do not know your own (of course this is a generalization, and I intend no offense, I am sure I fall in other generalizations too)

[nato]

Several issues to respond to here...

The civ trait combinations are most easily added up 5+4+3+2+1.

The French get an unfair bad reputation militarily. Until the Franco-Prussian War they were top of the line militarily. They had a very real martial tradition, and were not cowards like everyone thinks. Overall I would say they have had a bad century, but the ones before the 20th were fantastic.

France does get an unfair reputation, but they deserve some of it for pulling out of NATO. Makes me so mad!!

French probably should not be Industrious. Germans have a great work ethic and deserve it ... however I hestitate to call any Europeans Industrious because of their low hours worked per week. By that measure Americans earn the trait. Japanese of course really deserve it.

American grade schools suck badly. Japanese ones are great. However that reverses completely when you consider universities. Japanese ones are awful, and no one can top American ones, especially grad schools. Europeans are in between, but they excel at high quality non-college training.

It would be wrong to say Japan and Germany owe everything to American help. Obviously they worked damn hard to make that happen. However it would be nice if America bashers did remember that we were a lot nicer than a lot of nations would have been.

Calling all Americans rednecks is just plain ignorant.

Moraelin, your line "I do believe that the USA still doesn't have an equivalent of the German Autobahns" ... are you kidding?? Our highway system is sometimes called a wonder of the world. In general no one is as car and truck focused as us Americans ... I doubt the Autobahn compares well to our highways. The Superhighways in Civ2 were based on ours, I think.

About U.S. nationalism, whenever there is some crisis we Americans have a "rally around the flag" effect. For a while our patriotism will be artificially high ... after a while it will drop back to our normal low key level. Also at that time Bush will revert back to not being nearly so popular.

[Moraelin]

Just to make it clear again: I did not intend it to degenerate into an US-bashing thread. I do think that Commercial (more money, less corruption) would have been a closer approximation than Industrious (quicker roads and mines), but that is in no way intended to be an insult. (Heck, it means I think higher of them in that aspect than of my own country.) Besides, really, Commercial is a very powerful trait in the game, so I doubt that many of all y'all who complain about corruption would have felt insulted if the game shipped that way. So?

Besides, indeed, it is all an approximation. ALL cultures have ALL those traits, only to a lesser or higher degree. Only in cheap SF series whole civilizations pursue one goal and only one. Klingons are that way, Ferengi are that way. No Klingon would ever trade instead of fighting, no Ferengi would rather fight than trade.

A more realistic approximation would have been that instead of a "you have it or you don't" situation, each trait would have been a percentage, somewhere between 0% and 100%. AND it should change slowly over time, depending on which way I lead that civilization. E.g., if I wage lots of wars, the Militaristic trait of my culture would slowly raise (likely at the expense of something else.) E.g., if I peacefully build lots of universities, allocate lots of money and specialists for reasearch, and only fight in self defense, my people would slowly become more Scientiffic and less Militaristic. E.g., if I build lots of religious wonders and become a theocracy, my people should slowly become more religious, while if I build more coloseums than cathedrals, they might slowly lose some of the interest in religion. (And I mean slowly as in: over hundreds of years.)

I mean, for example, take the RL Greece. Which Greece are we talking about? The one from thousands of years ago, or the one from today? No offence to Greece or its people, but I think it's less scientiffic today than it was back then. Cultures change over time.

Furthermore, even within a culture at any given time there are variations across the country. Which Greeks do we talk about? Athens or Sparta? They were quite different cultures. Which Americans are we talking about? Silicon Valley or the Amish? See what I mean?

But since such fine details are beyond the scope of Civ 3, what we have is an approximation. Given one culture, which would you say are it's two highest priorities. Ugh. Take a wild guess.

[nato]

Just want to say I agree Americans should be Commercial. Not sure what the 2nd trait should be, but we are definitely Commercial.

Like many, I disagree very much with some of the traits given to civs.

I am not sure which traits the French should get. Cultural Nationalistic would do it!

[Elowan]

Frankly -- as far as France is concerned -- I agree with Mark Twain.

[Moraelin]

Maybe Scientific would be a fitting second trait for America. Not sure either. Just taking a guess, seeing as a lot of the 20'th century discoveries were made there. (Admittedly, a lot of them were done with "imported" scientists. But then IMHO it just means the USA recognized the importance of research enough to pay those scientists better. Sounds Scientific enough to me.)

[Spiffor]

Hey, eventually I agree that French are industrious in a civ point of view : they have the fastest trains in the world

Mmmh... Ok, I admit it, I'm french. And I didn't know before lurking on Apolyton that the Americans consider us as whimpy. I don't understand why, since France has long been a military nation, with some successes (from stopping the Arab progression in 732 to the Napoleonic wars). Could someone explain me why the French are considered as cowards by the Americans ?

[nato]

Spiffor - I cannot speak for all Americans, but here is a try at an answer.

Like I said above, France has gotten an unfair reputation. So I agree with you.

The main reason is France lost the Franco Prussian War and the early part of WW II. During WW I they were having a very tough time against the Germans as well. So the last 3 big wars have all been losses or near losses against the Germans.

France does have a long proud history before that ... but Americans don't always think that far back. Most of that happened before we were even a country, so we have a shorter span of reference sometimes.

Also, Americans see WW I and WW II as the U.S. coming to save France and Britain. So we have the picture that France was not doing well and needed to be saved. (I know the France/U.K. view would be we were slacking by coming late ... this is just how some Americans might see it if they were not trying to see it from another way.)

More than anything it is probably surrendering in WW II ... WW II is very very important to Americans so we emphasize it a lot.

Also pulling out of NATO was very rude ... after all NATO was formed in large part to protect France. France shirked the commitment, but still got the protection of all the other allies ... this did not help France's image.

Ok I hope I have not somehow offended anyone ... keep in mind please my online name is nato so I must like U.S., U.K., and France a lot ... West unite!

[cutlerd]

Spiffor,

As an American, a student of World History, and an avowed disliker of France the nation but an avowed friend of France the people, I will try to answer your very honest and reasonable question.

The biggest reason for France's bad rep in the US is twofold. First, France's utter capitulation in WW2. Say what you like about the benefit the British had with the Channel between them and Germany, I have NO DOUBT that even without the Channel, the Brits would have fought Hitler to the LAST MAN for their home country.

France capitulated with over 2/3rds of the nation untouched by Germany. Italy made it about 100 yards into France through the Alps. In addition, the French gave up Paris with nary a shot being fired in the city. It was, without a doubt, a complete and utter wimp out. When the Brits evacuated Dunkirk, they already had plans to re-land those troops in France to the south along the Atlantic Coast to pick up the fight again. Surrender never occured to the Brits. In fact, some unlucky Brits were redeployed back into France from Dunkirk when the French capitulated.

And not only did France capitulate, but a great many of them reveled in the Vichy government and especially chose to vent their anti-Semitism by gleefully rounding up Jews and Communists for the death camps.

But for Americans, the REAL affront came during Operation Torch. Here are Americans coming to liberate your damned nation and what happens? The French fire on us!!!!! Yes a cease-fire was eventually negotiated...but how the hell is that for gratitude?

"Ve are Vichy France, and honour demands zat ve fire upon ze Americans coming into our lands"

Well..where the hell was French honour when they decided to roll over on the Germans? Why decide to show backbone when your friends show up to help you? With friends like the French...who needs enemies?

Everytime I see a documentary on Torch or read about it and know that American boys were killed by French soldiers in the act of trying to liberate France it makes me want to slap a poodle.

Add to this the utter gall (no pun intended) of the French conduct during WW2, especially Mssr. Charles DeGaulle. Read up on their constant demands for equal status and concerns about preserving "French Pride" during WW2 that, in many cases, actually hampered Allied operations and cost American and British lives. The French were a beaten country that rolled over on the Germans and here they are trotting around with their chests puffed out as if they deserved the same consideration as the US and Britain? Once again, makes me want to slap a poodle.

But wait...there's more. So after all of this, we form Nato. What do the French do? They pull out of Nato. Then Mssr. De Gaulle makes this statement:

"Our nuclear weapons point both to the east and to the west"

What an unmitigated, arrogant bastard to even suggest that France might ever consider nuking America.

I am not finished yet.

France also denied us use of their airspace during the Gulf War.

I will sum it up in a nutshell. The problem is that France continually acts as if it is a superpower but except for the pre Middle Ages and a rather brief Napoleanic interlude, it really hasn't been much of a world power at all. It is one thing to be arrogant when you ARE a superpower and have accomplished mighty deeds on the world stage (we Americans are certainly arrogant). But it is far worse to be arrogant when you have no basis whatsoever to act that way. It makes you seem like little brats who are jealous of the other nations of the world because your time in the spotlight of the world stage was so brief.

I leave you with this:

The first French super carrier the Charles De Gaulle finally rolled off of the production line after 3 billion dollars in cost and something like 15 years in construction. But a problem occured. Sacre bleu! They found that in the many years it took them to finally build the damned thing, the naval jets France intended to use had become obsolete. And the new Rafaeles required 18 more feet of runway space than the carrier they just built had!

In desperation, they finally just bolted an 18' piece of metal onto the end of the carrier deck and have decided to pray that works. If you see pictures of the vessel as it currently sails to help in Afghanistan, look for the shiny piece of metal on the front.

Vive la France!

Devin

[David Weldon]

There's a beer commercial in the U.S. that summarizes the "whimpy french" opinion quite nicely:

"Hard to respect a people when you have to bail them out of two big ones in the same century...

Gotta hand it to 'em for mayonaise, though...

Way to go, pierre."

I guess that helps to reinforce the uneducated hick image of the U.S. at the same time, huh?

[nato]

cutlerd - I agree with you on one thing, the part about France acts too arrogant. I think France's main problem is its bad attitude. They have treated America like an enemy just because we were more powerful than them.

France is just a terrible team player. They are too obsessed with being number one, and they are rude to their allies. De Gaulle said we were more dangerous than the USSR, then he says great powers have "no friends, only interests." If you have that attitude, fine ... but don't expect to have any friends.

That is why people are mad at France, and that is why this thread comes up periodically.

Edit: Now I feel guilty ... I do like France, I just wish they were more of a team player ... whether they like us or not, we are all stuck together.

[HatchetMan]

Originally posted by habadacus
French Civilization:

Civilization Bonuses:

Can surrender 1 turn before country declares war on them
50% bonus to production after capture by Germany
Drags America into a war every 60 turns

[Evil Robot]

Originally posted by Kurgan
Another thing about your economy, is that you developed a strong economy because since the foundation of the USA, you had the most protectionist tariffs in the world, because you knew your products could not compete with the European ones (those numbers you can find from US sources on tariffs and duties), and you did not lowered them till WWII was over and no other industrial power was left in one piece. About the Film industry you should know that any film not shoot in english have to be shown with subtitles in the USA by law

1st Point: America was the second largest industrial power (behind Great Britain and in front of Germany) by 1900. By 1913, it had surpassed Great Britain by a sizable margin. I really doubt our products "could not have competed" with the equivalent European ones.*

2nd Point: No, it is not illegal. I watch films without subtitles ALL THE TIME. Try Spanish, French, Italian, and German classes in the US. You think they show movies with subtitles? Kinda defeats the purpose. I don't know what you're talking about, sir. Please find me a legal code, and maybe I'll believe you.

*Source: My 'European History' textbook. From a survey written by a Frenchman in about 1950.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by nato
cutlerd - I agree with you on one thing, the part about France acts too arrogant. I think France's main problem is its bad attitude. They have treated America like an enemy just because we were more powerful than them.

France is just a terrible team player. They are too obsessed with being number one, and they are rude to their allies. De Gaulle said we were more dangerous than the USSR, then he says great powers have "no friends, only interests." If you have that attitude, fine ... but don't expect to have any friends.

That is why people are mad at France, and that is why this thread comes up periodically.

A distinction has to be made clear between the French government and the French people. The French people (NOT Parisians, they have their own nationality it seems) are, next to the Germans, some the nicest and hospitable folks you'll ever meet. I have spent every mid-July to mid-August backpacking across Europe from Slovakia to Ireland, and I can tell you that the French are certainly a greater and kindlier thing than France. Therefor, I have no problem at all with the French, it's France that I have a problem with.

The rest of the world seems to enjoy remarking how arrogant America is. Americans, as a whole, feel the same way towards France. America does it's deeds that earn the power it has today and the ego to match. Regardless, America does it's best to use it's power and influence responsibly and tries to get along with the rest of the world. France, however powerful it once was, has it seems a Napoleon complex (pun indented). They are no longer the greatest/most influential nation of the world, and yet does it's best to prove otherwise.

WWII was brought up earlier and that, apart from the American Civil War, was perhaps the most important event in the American psyche. It defined who we feel we are as a nation and how we perceive the world around us. Unfortunately, WWII and it's aftermath is the timeframe wherein France's actions piss us off the most: namely the pre-mature (in America' eyes) surrender to Germany and the withdrawal from NATO. Both of these are actions of the schizophrenic French government, not the French people themselves. The French resistance was a key part of the Allied victory and D-Day would have been even more risky if not impossible without it.

*shrug* Some Americans have a problem making the distinction between the French people and France itself. Then again, it's not like the rest of the world is in the habit of showing America the same courtesy either. In the end, we are all near-sighted and xenophobic.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by cutlerd
But for Americans, the REAL affront came during Operation Torch. Here are Americans coming to liberate your damned nation and what happens? The French fire on us!!!!! Yes a cease-fire was eventually negotiated...but how the hell is that for gratitude?

Last I've heard, Operation Torch was a fake both ways. IF the French troops had simply surrendered -- or worse yet, just joined the Allies -- it was feared that the Germans would vent their frustration on France. The SS was known for razing whole towns for much lesser affronts than that.

So basically what happened there was a mock resistance, with an aggreement before hand that the French would surrender after a few days. Yes, the cease fire had actually been negotiated before the first US soldier even set foot there, not after a few days.

The Germans had less frustration to vent. After all, it wasn't much of a surprise to them that the "cowardly" French surrender again as soon as they take any losses. Same as in 1940. What else is new?

IF the French had actually fought you for real, then I do believe that your forces for Operation Torch were by far not enough to succeed. We're not talking Normandy here, but a rather small and fragile beach head. The French forces were far more than enough to deal with that, or at least to turn it into a very long and very bloody fight.

(And even Normandy COULD have went pear shape, if the Germans weren't 100% sure that the invasion would be at Calais, and that Normandy is merely a diversion.)

So if you want to talk bastards, then in my book BOTH sides that aggreed to that mockery are bastards. Because it was real fight, and men died. Both Americans and French. Men got crippled. For what? For show business.

Then again, it could be argued that the show was really necessary. So the French did what they had to do, and you did what you had to do, as per the script. Like good actors do. They're not any worse, and you're not any better in THAT operation.

[cutlerd]

Regarding the absurd claim that the US requires non English films to have subititles....I work in the film industry and handle foreign films (amongst others) and that is just plain false. Ever heard of Godzilla? Ever seen a subtitled Godzilla flick in a US theatre? Nope. Know why? They were ALL DUBBED.

The reason 90% of foreign films are subtitled in the US is because generally the market for foreign films in the US is comprised of film buffs and students of fine film who, rightly IMO, regard a subtitled version of a film as a more pure version that better keeps the artist's vision intact.

Regarding Operation Torch, at two of the three landings a negotiation was reached and there was no bloodshed, but the accounts I have both read and seen of the contested landings tells me that it was not in any way a bogus resistance but on by the French. Given that the Vichy French were VERY protective of their navy (witness their outrage when the British and DeGaulle struck them at Oran and Dakar [the French even ratliated with a strike at Gibraltar on the British], I doubt they would have willingly allowed their battleships to be sunk during Torch.

Could Torch have succeeded against a fully resisting French armee d' Afrique? Probably not given the lack of air cover and long supply lines. But that does not excuse in ANY WAY the deaths they caused to American boys landing in North Africa.

Devin

[SeferKoheleth]

Speaking as a law student, the more I learn the less I like the French.

I just got through reading a French extradition hearing of a suspected terrorist at the 1972 Munich Olympics (you know, when the PLO killed every Israeli athlete). Both Israel AND Germany sought this guy's extradition. What did the French do?

They told the Germans that they couldn't get him because THEY DIDN'T FILL IN THE BLOODY FORM PROPERLY!!!!

They told the Israelis that they couldn't get him because killing Jews in Germany doesn't violate French law (uh.. not only is that wrong under multiple international conventions, it defeats the purpose of EXTRADITION).

So they released him and put him back on a plane to Tunisia, where he was greated with a hero's welcome.... Oh, and the French never explained why they dropped charges relating to forging FRENCH documents and committing FRENCH immigration violations....

Then there was Rwanda-- where the French backed Hutu millitiamen in their slaughter of Tutsis.

And I'm not even going back PAST 1980!!

A totally stupid, worthless, cheese race- those Frenchmen. Nice cheese, nice wine-- miserable people. And a foreign policy that waxes and wanes between "we surrender" and "we hate America" with the occasional "Arab terrorists deserve our support."

Instead of commercial and industrious (industrious? yea who strike and whine for a 30 hour work week-- I don't think so)- I'd suggest "cowardly" and "pompous"

[Moraelin]

Whether or not you like France's attitude -- and I'm not that fond of it either -- bringing in WW2 won't solve much. I still maintain that there wasn't that much that France could hope to achieve, if it kept fighting. It had suffered massive losses, but in turn had inflicted only minimal damage to the Germans. In fact, the French and British combined had inflicted less punishment than Poland did. Literally.

Germany had achieved not just air superiority, but plain air supremacy, and wasn't affraid to use its bombers to good effect. Both against military and civilian targets, including refugee convoys. The Luftwaffe seemed invincible, to both the French and to the Germans themselves. Maybe it looked TOO much so. The fact that so many people were saved instead of wiped out at Dunkirk was mainly due to a stupid German experiment, to see if they can destroy them all with only aircraft, while explicitly ordering the ground troops to halt.

The French pilots had fought well, and did shoot down more Luftwaffe aircraft than they lost. Pretty surprising, given that a stupid French government had (among other thing) cut down the power on the engines of fighter planes, to cut the costs. But they DID lose to the superior numbers of German aircraft, and now the Luftwaffe ruled the skies.

The French military doctrine had been severely outdated. In spite of the fact that the French HQ had a copy of "Acthung: Panzer", the book which told exactly how tanks will be used in a Blitzkrieg, apparently noone had bothered reading it. The French used their tanks in small groups, like in World War 1, which were no match for the Panzer divisions. (In all fairness, it had worked well in WW1, but only because the Germans had nothing to oppose to those tanks.) Plus, no tank was a match for the mighty 88mm German AT gun. And they had lost a lot of tanks to the Luftwaffe. (There goes the "aircraft can't kill" Civ 3 theory)

The Maginot line would have been good and fine, but it had been simply bypassed through Belgium. The reason why there were no fortifications on the border with Belgium was again, due to French politics. They didn't want to make Belgium feel left alone. (Though another interpretation was that the line was actually INTENDED to guide an invading army throug Belgium, making it concentrate on one point where it can be intercepted. Only someone forgot about that part.)

IMHO France was already defeated, by any count. Sure, we can all talk about bravery and fighting to the last man. But for all the French political blunders, THAT was the first right decision one of their leaders had made in a long time.

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by Evil Robot


1st Point: America was the second largest industrial power (behind Great Britain and in front of Germany) by 1900. By 1913, it had surpassed Great Britain by a sizable margin. I really doubt our products "could not have competed" with the equivalent European ones.*

2nd Point: No, it is not illegal. I watch films without subtitles ALL THE TIME. Try Spanish, French, Italian, and German classes in the US. You think they show movies with subtitles? Kinda defeats the purpose. I don't know what you're talking about, sir. Please find me a legal code, and maybe I'll believe you.

*Source: My 'European History' textbook. From a survey written by a Frenchman in about 1950.

1st point, The fact that you had that big industrial muscle (and it is completely true that you had it) does not mean that because the lack of labor hand the salaries over there were much higher (and that is a good thing, and one of the reasons so many people migrated) the cost of the manufactured goods was much higher there. The Soviet Union had an impressive industrial muscle, but when it had to compete, it was useless, or they had to devote double (or more) the energy and resources than the US. What I said, and that is true, that if since the beginning of the USA you would have applied the free trade policy the US defends, you would have not industrialized (or at least at different pace), because it was much cheaper to buy textiles from the factories of Liverpool where they paid a misery to children five years old. In the US the salaries where much higher, because the scarcity of labor force. I still think that you should see the tariffs and duties and contrast them with the english ones at the same time from the foundation of the US till the end of WWII. My point is not that the US had not a strong industry, my point is that you had it, because you protected "unfairly" (if you really think that free trade is always and in all situations the best policy) your industries. What you say about your industry in 1900 and 1913 is true, what what I say is true too.

And for the films I do not understand you, What I mean is that it is illegal, to (the problem is that I do not know the word in english) take a film which is in another language than english, and erase the original soundtrack, and put the dialogues in english looking as it they spoke english (hell I can not remember how this process is called). Here in Spain we see all the American films translated to Spanish, without subtitles. You of course can watch the movie in its original language, but not "translated" to english. That is why the European films not made in english can not reach the US market of people that only speak english. If in Spain the American movies had the same obstacle, it would be a pain in the neck for most of the Spanish that do not speak english, and do not want to read the films, they will not be as popular as they are.

[nato]

N. Machiavelli - Yes of course, every single country in the world the people are just fine, but the government is awful. Just about every non-American I have talked to has said the same thing about America (except the American = redneck guy I guess) ... I really think it is true for all countries.

Moraelin - You might be right, but like I said earlier, and then N. Machiavelli said too ... WW II is very very important to America. It is our "defining moment".

Also we like it a lot because we were at our greatest moment and the height of our power right after it. All was right with the world to us! An example ... I can remember in my high school history class (early '90s) ... my teacher telling us basically that America was just so perfect back then and they were the "Greatest Generation" and now my generation has basically ruined everything (mostly because we lost the so wonderful manufacturing industries to Japan).

What I'm saying is, WW II is an idealized, super important time to Americans. So we will emphasize it.

Most people (not just Americans) don't try too hard to look at history from other countries point of view. So the fact that France was in a hopeless position doesn't matter much to most non-French.

In response to what you are saying, some people would say ... why did France get in such a hopeless position in the first place? They had a bigger army, more and better tanks, more aircraft, better artillery, defensive advantage ... and all that is true. France "should" have won, but it got outfought.

Throw in a joke about the stupidity of the Maginot Line and France gets a very bad reputation.

I am not defending this, just explaining it. I actually AM pretty pro French ... so are almost all Americans if it came down to another war ... there are just a lot of jokes and criticisms.