Just an Observation

[Dry]

Originally posted by dwsmith
The MARSHALL PLAN rebuilt all of Western Europe after WWII.
(Someone who knows!)

Jezus, I'm glad I am not his friend.
Imagine:

- Hey Smithy, can you lend me your second car, because yesterday someone stole mine, and without car, I cannot go to work.
_ Yes, sure, but as you say, without car no work; no work no money, no money no house. So I lend you my second car, but you, your children, the children of your children must agree to let me in your house anytime I want (re: acces to airspace, put military bases,...). All you must agree that you owe me an eternal debt for beeing soooooo nice, having lend you something in time of need. Without my money, maybe that even your son wouldn't have met his wife, and your grand-children would never even have existed, so they also owe me, my children and my grand-children - eternal thanks. And if by some means, you - or your children - forget what great thing I did for you, my children and the children of my children will remind you this debt until the sun shades.
You must also agree to all things I do, bad or wrong, you will always say that I do things the right way, so you and your grand-children will even betray your friends, renounce to your love, because one day, I lend my car to your grand-father. Imagine, your grand-father received DOLLARS!!!. What is friendship, love, or even life in regards of ... US DOLLARS!!!
- Err, thanks Smithy.

[David Weldon]

Wow, so I guess this is getty pretty heavy, huh? Fortunately for me, I prefer humour! Since this started as kind of a "bash the french" thread, here's something I found quite funny and remarkably timely given the current discussion:

The following advice for American travellers going to France was compiled from information provided by the US State Department, the CIA, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and some very expensive spy satellites that the French don't know about.
It is intended as a guide for American travellers only.

General Overview

France is a medium-sized foreign country situated in the continent of Europe. It is an important member of the world community, though not nearly as important as it thinks. It is bounded by Germany, Spain, Switzerland and some smaller nations of no particular importance and with not very good shopping. France is a very old country with many treasures, such as the Louvre and Eurodisney. Among its contributions to western civilization are champagne, Camembert cheese and the guillotine.
Although France likes to think of itself as a modern nation, air conditioning is little used and it is next to impossible for Americans to get decent Mexican food. One continuing exasperation for American visitors is that local people insist on speaking in French, though many will speak English if shouted at. Watch your money at all times.

The People
France has a population of 56 million people. 52 million of these drink and smoke (the other 4 million are small children). All French people drive like lunatics, are dangerously oversexed, and have no concept of standing patiently in a queue. The French people are in general, gloomy, temperamental, proud, arrogant, aloof and
undisciplined; those are their good points. Most French citizens are Roman Catholic, though you would hardly guess it from their behaviour. Many people are communists. Men sometimes have girls' names like Marie or Michel, and they kiss each other when they meet. American travellers are advised to travel in groups and wear baseball caps and colourful trousers for easier recognition.

Safety
In general, France is a safe destination, although travellers must be aware that from time to time it is invaded by Germany. Traditionally, the French surrender immediately and, apart from a temporary shortage of Scotch whisky and increased difficulty in getting baseball scores and stock market prices, life for the American visitor generally goes on much as before. A tunnel connecting France to Britain beneath the English channel has been opened in recent years to make it easier for the French government to flee to London during future German invasions.

History
France historical figures are Louis XIV, the Huguenots, Joan of Arc, Jacques Cousteau and Charles de Gaulle, who was President for many years and is now an airport.

Government
The French form of government is democratic but noisy. Elections are held more or less continuously and always result in a draw. The French love administration so for government purposes the country is divided into regions, departments, districts, municipalities, towns, communes, villages, cafes, and telephone kiosks. Each of these has its own government and elections. Parliament consists of two chambers, the Upper and Lower, though confusingly they are both on the ground floor, and whose members are either Gaullists or Communists, neither of whom should be trusted by the traveller. Parliament's principal occupation is setting off atomic bombs in the south Pacific and acting indignant and surprised when other countries
complain.
According to the most current American state department intelligence, the President is now someone named Jacques. Further information is not available at this time.

Culture
The French pride themselves on their culture, though it is not easy to see why. All their music sounds the same and they have never made a movie that you would want to watch for anything but the nude scenes.

Cuisine
Let's face it, no matter how much garlic you put on it, a snail is just a slug with a shell on its back. Croissants on the other hand, are excellent, although it is impossible for most Americans to pronounce this word. In general, travellers are advised to stick to cheeseburgers.

Economy
France has a large and diversified economy, second only to Germany's in Europe, which is surprising because the French hardly work at all. If they are not spending four hours dawdling over lunch, they are on strike and blocking the roads with their trucks and tractors.
France's principal exports, in order of importance to the economy, are wine, nuclear weapons, perfume, guided missiles, champagne, guns, grenade launchers, land mines, tanks, attack aircraft, miscellaneous armaments and cheese.

Public Holidays
France has more holidays than any other nation in the world.
Among its 361 national holidays are: 197 Saints' days, 37 National Liberation Days,16 Declaration of Republic Days, 54 Return of Charles de Gaulle in triumph as if he won the war single-handed Days,18 Napolean sent into ExileDays, 17 Napolean Called Back from Exile Days, and 2 "France is Great and the Rest of the
World is Rubbish" Days.

Conclusion
France enjoys a rich history, a picturesque and varied landscape,and a temperate climate. In short, it would be a very nice country if it was not inhabited by French people.The best thing that can be said for France is that it is not Germany.

[nato]

Oh man that is very funny ... lot of good laughs.

Now I want to write one like that for other countries. America's would be pretty funny too ...

[dwsmith]

LOL

It is obvious that Moraelin is not an american or does he have any idea about what america is.

I guess it is ok to bash France (they are more used to it), but when someone defends the United States they are an ass?

Let me assure you that the United States IS the greatest country in the world. Can anyone defeat the United States in an all out war? Can anyone get more Gold Medals at the Olympics?

The answer is clearly NO and NO.

Lets just put this old cow to rest and let it be known that the US is the Greatest, but there are other countries out there that are not far behind!!! (except France) MUHAHAHAHAHA

[David Weldon]

I guess it is ok to bash France (they are more used to it), but when someone defends the United States they are an ass?

No, defending the US is fine.

Let me assure you that the United States IS the greatest country in the world.

It's statements like that which make you appear to be an ass.

No one knows what you're really like, but I gotta say that I'm definitely gonna sleep better tonight now that I have your personal assurances that my country is the greatest in the world. *whew* ::whipes brow::

I don't really want to dump on you too hard, I appreciate your conviction and I suppose that I agree with you, as well. What I don't agree with is the manner in which you have assaulted this thread and the other posters in it.

On a side note, the US government is most definitely _not_ the greatest government in the world, particularly with regards to it's foreign exploitation, um... I mean... policy.

Our legal system also blows, as does the complete erosion of responsibility that it has fostered.

All told, though, everywhere else is just a nice vacation spot...

[cutlerd]

First, I want to reiterate that I love the French people. I travel to Cannes on business and the people were not rude and the place was lovely. It is the French government and nation that I have problems with.

Moraelin, the French had superiority in manpower and even, on paper, better tanks than the Germans. They also outnumbered them in the air, though many of the French planes were of older models.

The problem was that even though it is likely that France would not have been able to hold out against Germany in ANY case due to problems with outdated doctrine and lack of blitzkrieg tactics and dispersal of armour on the French side, the reason France go so whooped so quickly was that they advanced into Belgium to the Dyle and were outflanked by the Germans coming through Sedan and the Ardennes.

So...yes you had a grand stroke of deception on the part of the Germans that allowed them their initial dash to the Channel.

But there would have been no such secondary deception after that. The battle for Paris could have been a proto-Stalingrad had the French decided to hold it. While that might have levelled the City of Lights, it might also have bled the Germans.

Past Paris, you start getting into some very mountainous terrain south of Vichy and the Germans supply lines would have become stretched running across the Rhine and into the French heartland.

Furthermore, it is well documented that the Germans had pushed their panzer to the very limit in their initial charge and envelopment to the Channel. Guderian in his memoirs mentions that he doubted that he could mount an effective attack for a few weeks after Dunkirk because his tanks had been pushed so hard that they were breaking down. Remember, in early WW2 tank tehcnology was still relatively new, and they broke down constantly.

The French could have fortified Paris, set up lines south of Paris and Vichy and fought for the southern half of their nation. The Brits certainly were willing to reland the BEF near Bordeaux and support their French Allies.

What effect might this have had? I think it would have taken the Germans at least a year to finish off the rest of France, given that winter would have slowed things down a lot. Another year without France might have staved off the Battle of Britain. Might have staved off Barbarossa for another year and given the Russians more time to prepare.

Devin

[reefer addict]

to be realistic america has been under englands control since it went to the federal reserve system. if you doubt it just look at who owns 51% of the fed. res.(rothchilds). every war the us fights is with or for england. then go back and research who owns england and youll find the roman catholic church. so before you blame or take credit for america ,find the truth. what scares me is who owns the roman catholic church. so if if you want to call america a great power or a arrogant country, your both right. but dont think the american people have anything to do with it. there just as guilty as your average german was during ww2. people are a product of there enviroment so if your told your the best , you start to believe it . the french people had there goverment taken from them in the 1790's by the same group. the russians held on untill the 1910's and now the "church" is on to its last frontier, islam. personally i think that all people are the same at heart but are sold a nationalistic view to keep us all fighting(divide and conquer) so to my brothers and sisters of the world open your eyes and your heart will follow

[Arrian]

Dude, I think you need to lay off the reefer.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by reefer addict
to be realistic america has been under englands control since it went to the federal reserve system. if you doubt it just look at who owns 51% of the fed. res.(rothchilds). every war the us fights is with or for england. then go back and research who owns england and youll find the roman catholic church. so before you blame or take credit for america ,find the truth. what scares me is who owns the roman catholic church. so if if you want to call america a great power or a arrogant country, your both right. but dont think the american people have anything to do with it. there just as guilty as your average german was during ww2. people are a product of there enviroment so if your told your the best , you start to believe it . the french people had there goverment taken from them in the 1790's by the same group. the russians held on untill the 1910's and now the "church" is on to its last frontier, islam. personally i think that all people are the same at heart but are sold a nationalistic view to keep us all fighting(divide and conquer) so to my brothers and sisters of the world open your eyes and your heart will follow

This is funny. It was meant as humor, right?

but dont think the american people have anything to do with it.

Yes the whole world is run by 9 cigar-smoking men working in secret underground bunkers in Antarctica pulling on the puppet-strings of the world. Methinks you've been watching too much "X-Files" my 'brother'. Of course, by your reasoning, the Pope runs th eworld singlehandedly since he runs the Roman Catholic Church. Good to know that I use the restroom simply because the Pope deigns me permission.

So like Arrian said, lay off the reefer, otherwise switch to sniffing glue..."it kills less brain cells" says scientists.

[cutlerd]

Why stop there at England? C'mon....you know you conspiracy types like to go further....let me hold your hand here.

The Rothschilds are.........Jews. There ya go!

So now we are back to the old conspiracy favourite of the Jews running the world.

Damn I wish it were so (being Jewish msyelf)....I think I'd like....oh.....Massachussetts.

Devin (co-conspirator and Illuminati member)

[Spiffor]

Thanks to you, especially to nato, for explaining me why France was disliked by Americans. Very clear, and the emphasis about WW2 and the retreat from NATO, i didn't know it was such important.
Well, now, back to the nationalistic Frenchman : I'm happy to learn something about operation Torch. When learning history in High School (and a history is really important in French education), I just learned that operation Torch was a D-Day in North Africa. Never heard the French struggled against America. So Thank you for teaching me this.
About De Gaulle and te retreat from NATO : De Gaulle's goal was not to make France a superpower like the US or USSR, but to make an independant country. Sure France was a bad team player, because De Gaulle (died 1969) didn't want it to be under the rule of the leading western power. Americans will understand this point of view, since many of them are against a domination by the UN (and frankly, how many of you Americans would like to see Bin Laden judged in the Hague, in the international court, instead of in Washington, by Americans ?).
What I'm saying is that a country wants its independance, that's normal, I'm not expecting less from every other country in the world.
Moreover : France left NATO, but not atlantic alliance : it means that France was allied with USA, Britain etc., but that French troops would not be under direct control of foreign generals. Now, France is back in NATO, and their troops in Kosovo for example were leaded by the integrated commandment.

Well, I'm not desperately defending my country (as every other country, we have much things we can't be proud about, especially collaborating with nazi Germany and the colonial wars), but I wanted to add some info about the French point of view. Once again, thaks to have shared the American POV

[laurentius]

It's amazing how people like dwsmith really believe that America is something far above all others. As a citizen of a small nation, I see America not as bad as Russia but quite close. Both are like arrogant over-weighted tourists roaming around thinking they are the center of the universe. As we know Universe doesn't have clear center and therefore we have created global institutions like the UN. It doesn't have a capital and were all citizens of the Earth anyway. Sure America wants to be the Big Boss, they want to choose the terrorists they support, and then tell everybody else that THEIR side is the right one, and that there is no other way. Like Bush is doing right now. Looking back what America has done in the past, in central america, vietnam, Bush's statements start to sound like moron thinking hes fooling bigger morons. Well, he is not.

Soviets had same Kissinger-my-ass foreing policy, thats why russians are so hated throughout the Eastern Europe. Their empire collapsed all right, but not because communims was an "evil" ideology, but because they treated others like sh*t and forgot to entertain the people. It's the same with NATO and the Warsaw pact. What were they for? To ensure the continuing oppression of Europe and highlight the hegemony of two. USA survived the race. Why does Nato still exist? It seems to me that USA among other leading NATO member states does not want global security via the UN. Instead they want to BE the UN, they want to have their wars, whenever they want to, without anyone questioning their motives. The dont want to see their chosen war criminals in Hague, instead they want to execute them in their own soil. BTW USA hasn't ever even recognized the autrority of Hague war crimes Tribunal. Clinton was bearable, Bush is just another Ronald Reagan. And in my opinion world and America cant stand for another Reagan.


I wouldn't be suprised if David Weldons "guide" would be printed someday. That's if it hasn't already.

[nato]

Thanks for the French view Spiffor. Really I mostly agree.

I always thought de Gaulle wanted to make France and Europe a third superpower but it looks like the emphasis was on independence. I still don't like what he did, but I can respect wanting independence a lot more than I respected wanting to be # 1.

The only thing I would say here is we never wanted satellites like Russia wanted Poland etc. to be, we just wanted a firm alliance ... but I understand that still might be too much if you are real independent minded.

Actually if you look at things from a Realist school of thought, de Gaulle was totally right ... it just wasn't friendly.

Anyway the cool thing is we Western countries are never going to go to war with each other even if things get unfriendly ... how many countries can say that?



laurentius - I don't think we were anywhere close to as bad as the Soviet Union. We've done a lot of wrong things, but I don't think anyone was in fear that the U.S. would come conquer them. Western Europe may not like us, but I don't think they hate and fear us like you say Easter Europe does Russia. I don't think anyone really FEARS us like the Soviets.

We tell everyone that "THEIR side is the right one, and that there is no other way." ... what do you want us to do? Say "please be on the other side ... we don't mind!" ??

NATO still exists because its members still see a value in acting together. Other countries have that right, why shouldn't we? I would say global security through the UN is impossible until there is a LOT more general agreement in the world.

What exactly would your country do if it was very powerful? Would you really be perfect angels, or would you just do the best you could?

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by nato
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.

France had case of very bad leaders, both political and military for quite some time. (And looking at their politicians: they still do)

The Maginot line is an interesting case. That they built it, it's not necessarily that stupid: before blitzkrieg, it made sense to have fortifications. And it was customary that the enemies have the decency to charge your forts, not just bypass them. And lots of other countries had built fortifications, if not as extensive as the French.

But the thing is: it was incomplete. Key elements from the original plan were missing, and there were holes in it that you could drive an army through. France acted as if it's impenetrable and they're as safe as houses behind it, when in fact it was not.

On the other hand, from a propaganda point of view it had worked wonderfully. The Germans actually believed it, and it did serve the purpose to make the bulk of their forces take the long way around instead of through it. While there was a task force that was to go at the line, it was only as a diversion.

But France seemed to be unprepared even for that. I mean, ok, the propaganda had worked, the enemy took the long way around, NOW what?

All around, it's as if there was some master plan, but the leaders forgot most of it.

[Redstone]

Very interesting to read the point of view of different nationalities, guys. But it seems you're missing a couple of points on the question of why France surrendered in 1940.

Originally posted by cutlerd

But there would have been no such secondary deception after that. The battle for Paris could have been a proto-Stalingrad had the French decided to hold it. While that might have levelled the City of Lights, it might also have bled the Germans.
....

The French could have fortified Paris, set up lines south of Paris and Vichy and fought for the southern half of their nation. The Brits certainly were willing to reland the BEF near Bordeaux and support their French Allies.

What effect might this have had? I think it would have taken the Germans at least a year to finish off the rest of France, given that winter would have slowed things down a lot. Another year without France might have staved off the Battle of Britain. Might have staved off Barbarossa for another year and given the Russians more time to prepare.

Devin

In 1914-1918 France lost 3 million men and the country was ravaged by the destruction of trench warfare. The Germans had got to within 40 miles of Paris in 1914 and the French had fought heroically but at terrible cost to drive them back. Finally when Germany surrendered, Britain and France believed that the Great War was the war to end all wars, the treaty of Versailles saw that Germany would be in economic bondage to the allies until the 1970s!

When 21 years later the French establishment saw the Panzer divisions rolling into France, realising the German army was back, this time even better equiped, tactically advanced, they knew they were beaten. To use a game analogy, the war weariness from the losses of 1914-18 and destruction to the coutryside had not yet gone.

The French are justifiably proud of Paris and would never fight knowing that it would be destroyed. Europeans have a different view of our cities than Americans. Many of our cities have stood for millennia, my home town of St Albans has Roman remains, medieval churches, renaissance houses. Had the French turned Paris into a battleground today there would be no notre dame, no louevre (sp?), no monmatre (sp?).

The BEF was badly shaken after the withdrawal from Dunkirk. They'd left alot of their heavy equipment, small arms and ammunition behind in the rush. No country had the means or the will to stand up to the German Army in 1940.

Britain and the US were lucky that the Nazi's made the wrong strategic choice - leaving Britain free to be used later as the launching pad for the Allies 1944 campaign, and turning their elite army eastwards where eventually its back would be broken.

[cutlerd]

"Britain and the US were lucky that the Nazi's made the wrong strategic choice - leaving Britain free to be used later as the launching pad for the Allies 1944 campaign, and turning their elite army eastwards where eventually its back would be broken."

First of all, France missed so many opportunities (some along with Britain) to stop Germany BEFORE another war occured that it is laughable. I won't even mention the entire Czech debacle, but even after Poland was invaded, the German forces stationed on the western front were laughable. Germany's generals themselves thought it was utter suicide, as the force stationed against the French behind the Maginot Line was not enough to stop even the French. But the French decided to sit on their arses and wait for Germany to finish off Poland, ship all of its troops back west, and then attack on one front with the entire Wehrmacht.

As far as the assertion that Germany made a wrong choice and should have gone after Britain...balderdash! The invasion of Britain was pure propoganda and fantasy on the part of Hitler and the Nazis. The Germans did try to gather a motley collection of Rhine river barges to be towed by destroyers, but tests in the Atlantic Bay of Biscay (much less choppy than the Channel) showed the barges would swamp at a loss rate of over 35%. The Germans felt the ONLY chance they had was to cross at night to avoid the Royal Navy. However, tests with the barges at night showed that in addition to the 35% swamped, another 30% got lost and ended up at the wrong destination. In other words, even under better water conditions, the Germans' own tests showed 2/3rds of their invasion force would never arrive!

The fact that the Brits bombed the barges anyways and that Germany's economy was suffering from lack of river transport simply put the final nail in the coffin. Sea Lion (the invasion of Britain) was never going to happen.

And to our Finnish friend:

I have a LOT of experience debating with Finns and Scandinavians over the US, and many Americans will be surprised to know that many Scandinavians do see the US as just as bad as Russia. I guess that just proves that cold addles the brain.

But I guess it is easy for countries that SIDED with Germany (Finland) or didn't have the guts to join the war but still supplied the German war machine with iron (Sweden) or surrendered to Germany without a shot fired (Denmark) to cast stones at glass houses.

Devin

[Padma]

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.

The English (American?) term is DUBBING. And no, it is not illegal. I am pretty sure it IS more EXPENSIVE than subtitles. After all, for subtitles, you just translate the dialog and print it on the screen. To dub, you translate the dialog, hire voice actors, record the voice-overs, etc.

Added to that cost is the common belief within the American media industry that Americans WON'T GO to a foreign movie, even if dubbed. I'm not saying that's true, just that that is the indutry perception. And it may BE true. Many Americans are ignorant about foreign cultures. I have seen some foreign films where the main character's motivation is completely alien to me:

Spouse: "Why is that character acting like that?"
Me: "Umm... Because he's French?"

And I pride myself on being a bit more informed than many. Heck, many Americans don't even understand ENGLISH movies, and we speak (almost) the same language!

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by cutlerd
First of all, France missed so many opportunities (some along with Britain) to stop Germany BEFORE another war occured that it is laughable. I won't even mention the entire Czech debacle, but even after Poland was invaded, the German forces stationed on the western front were laughable. Germany's generals themselves thought it was utter suicide, as the force stationed against the French behind the Maginot Line was not enough to stop even the French. But the French decided to sit on their arses and wait for Germany to finish off Poland, ship all of its troops back west, and then attack on one front with the entire Wehrmacht.

True. What makes it worse is that both France and Great Britain had a TREATY with Poland. Both had explicitly assured Poland that it would have to resist only for TWO WEEKS, while the French and English gather their forces to strike Germany from the west. Furthermore, they had urged Poland NOT to mobilize for war, as that could be construed as aggressive intentions. So efectively the Polish army fought that invasion with only a third of its army.

So what I'm saying is: that wasn't just missing an opportunity, it was darn well betraying an ally.

Just a thought, maybe that's why the French didn't wait for an English re-deployment in the south. They had already seen a promise like that being broken.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by cutlerd

"And to our Finnish friend:

I have a LOT of experience debating with Finns and Scandinavians over the US, and many Americans will be surprised to know that many Scandinavians do see the US as just as bad as Russia. I guess that just proves that cold addles the brain.

But I guess it is easy for countries that SIDED with Germany (Finland) or didn't have the guts to join the war but still supplied the German war machine with iron (Sweden) or surrendered to Germany without a shot fired (Denmark) to cast stones at glass houses.

Devin

The is just some things I want to say to you. First, things aren't as simple as they might seem to you as an average american. Brains can be addled in many ways my average american friend. Most efficient ways are notably smelling glue, voting for Dan Quale, watching WWF and IRCing. I dont know which you prefer, but I would guess second from the left.

What comes to WW2, hmm where to begin. Finland had two wars, the first was the Winter war which started 1939 with an attack by soviet bombers. Before the attack Soviet foreign minister Molotov and Germanys foreign minister Ribbentrop had made some intresting plans for the future.
These included the secret supplementary protocol in which germans gave Finland and the Baltic to the soviets for poland ,norway etc. So relations between Finland and Germany we not too friendly. Finland fought it's war on it's own losing 20% of it's area and the biggest province, Carelia. Althought Finland was not occupied and maintained it's sovereignity. There was absolutely no one to help us. Allmighty USA didn't gave a damn and Great Britain kept silent thereby accepting what was going on. Some 2000 swedes came to help finns on their own unassisted by their government.

The second war was started 1941, this time it was about retaliation and regainance what was lost year ago. As USA and GB refused to sell weapons to us, we had to turn to the Germans. President Ryti made deal with Hitler to grant passage for the wehrmacht to attack the Soviet positions from finnish soil. For guns, planes, bombers, tanks, artillery and for food. Please let me underline that the reason was not any sympathy for finns or for germans. It was a pure strategic manouver, to get weaponry. As you know national socialist parties as well as communist party had been banned in Finland since early 1930'ties. Later on after the peace had been achieved finns fought against the germans in Lapland after they refused to leave the country. They were pulled back to the Norway. Thats about SIDING with Nazis.

I cant really speak for swedes, norvegians of danes. But as you well know my dear average american Denmark is extremely difficult to defend due to the landscape. What comes to Sweden their motives can be questioned. IMO it was very confortable to have Finland between them and the USSR, while sametime selling iron to the germans in exhange for nazi-gold, taken from the jews.

Look, if you want to turn this thread into flamewar so be it. Just count me out of it for now on. If you are man enough to discuss about it please contact me via PM.

PS. Finland never took a cent of your Marshall-help, and oooh what a poor third world country are today!

[Arrian]

I was just thinking... I'm amazed this thread is still open. It ceased to have anything to do with Civ III long ago (if it ever did).

Everyone just take it easy, ok? We can debate who's good and who's bad until the cows come home (forever, for those who have never heard that expression) and nobody will "win" the debate. Now, clearly there is merit in talking about perceptions of Americans and Fins and Brits, etc., but perhaps that's a discussion for another time and place?

As for WWII, having majored in history in college (university), and having taken many courses which related to that particular war, I think many people tend to oversimplify it. There is an awful lot to know about WWII, and it takes some time to learn it all (I don't claim to have done this). Accordingly, there are gaps in everyone's knowledge. Toss in some common misconceptions, some cultural bias, and the natural tendency to defend your own country, and what you get is a Fin and an American slugging it out on a game forum.

I'll stop preaching now, as I doubt it will do any good.

-Arrian

p.s. One of these days, I will resist the temptation of posting in these threads at all...

[David Weldon]

Ok, it was probably pretty obvious but the humour piece I quoted was from an online source. I couldn't get a link or a reference, though, it seemed to be a mailing list type thingy...

As for Bush v. Clinton, please don't make me retch. Bush is using real force to really put an end to a real threat. It may end up being more than that (i.e. if we linger and keep bases as we did in Saudi), but for now we don't know. I personally pray that we get out as soon as we're done.

Clinton turned to terroristic bombing of tents and medicine factories because he wanted to distract the US public from personal scandal. He should have acted more slowly, with proper intelligence, and with overwhelming force. Instead he killed 100s of thousands of innocent africans (indirectly) because of bad PR at home. Talk about an evil, evil man. (btw, he then blocked all UN attempts to investigate the actual death toll in africa because he didn't want the US to "look bad". Bastard.)

Oh, and just for the record it's not true that the U.S. has never recognized the world court, we purposely chose to view it as "illegitimate" after they found us guilty (and rightly so) of using pervasive terroristic methods in multiple south american countries throughout the '80s.

We don't mind world-wide control, as long as we're the ones doing the controlling. I suspect that most governments feel the same way, it's just that ours is in a position to actually act that way and get away with it (read: overwhelming military and economic strength).

I don't believe, however, that individual actions should define a nation. Overall it can be shown that the U.S. is more friendly and provides more support to other nations (even those it was previously at war with) than any other nation in history. Lots of that is no doubt an attempt to influence those nations, but the fact remains that a _lot_ of international aid has been given.

I love the US. I despise certain things we get away with because our general public is pacified by mainstream media. I probably feel like a lot of older Germans in that regard.

But hey, we're supposed to be bashing the French! Ummm, hairy underarms! Haha!