Damn the French they have gone TOO far! - Page 3

Arrian · April 2, 2003, 17:48

Hmm.

I'll go with...

.5/10. Demerit for making the troll obvious by actually claiming ethnic superiority.

-Arrian

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 17:50

Quote:

In that war the brits grafted away to win, while the french were cowardly surrendering white flag wavers

Thank God for the valiant 3 week stand of the BEF. Dunkirk showed those German buggers what the Brits were made of. Or at least what their backside looked like...

Imran Siddiqui · April 2, 2003, 17:52

I think the troll was pretty good. People got roped in.

Worthingtons · April 2, 2003, 17:54

The French arent really of a different ethnic background anyway, my point is that we fought and we grafted, they didnt. Would you disagree that protecting you're wife and children fromt the army of a dangerous dictator is a good quality? and I suppose you'd argue that surrending is a GOOD one!??!

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 17:55

Coming from Rothy it's not a troll...

And doesn't getting "roped in" usually involve being angry? When I read the "better PEOPLE" line I literally burst out laughing.

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 17:57

Quote:

The French arent really of a different ethnic background anyway

Yes they are.

Arrian · April 2, 2003, 17:58

Really? I just smirked and assumed it was in jest.

...

-Arrian

Menlas · April 2, 2003, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Rothy
The French arent really of a different ethnic background anyway, my point is that we fought and we grafted, they didnt.

And the fact there was a sea between you and the germans counts for nothing, i suppose...

Hmm, those trolls

Worthingtons · April 2, 2003, 18:03

Fine, I'll have it that whenever you cross a border where people still share common ancestors there is ALWAYS ethnic differences - since this isnt the point.

My Point was too close to the line so you jump on the 'racism' boat, even the post actually get's to the route of the problem.

In the two Wars we Proved that not had we better equipment ect, our PEOPLE came through to win the war for us. ever heard how heavy London took it during the initial stages of WW2? the tactic was to dampen the morale of our people so much that we would surrender, and such simular tactics employed in France had frenchmen running for thier white flags whilst in England it only brought us closer than ever and increased our determination.

But I suppose it's too much for some to suggest the people of one nation have greater determination and courage than that of another regardless of what history proves.

the_ceebs · April 2, 2003, 18:05

On a discussion site for newspaper/media types earlier today, I saw that some people thought it was the work of Anti-european brits or one of the more pro-war newspapers.
Their support for this argument?

1). The cemetary that was desecrated is the closest to the entrance of the channel tunnel.

2).The word rosbif (a french slang term for the english) is spelled rosbeef. This is not a misspelling that a Frenchman would make.

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 18:07

Quote:

ever heard how heavy London took it during the initial stages of WW2

Really now. As heavy as the French took it in both wars? Not even close.

The Allies weren't prepared for the new method of warfare employed by the Germans. Not the French, and not the British who ran just as fast from the initial onslaught as the French did.

If France had had 20 miles of open water protecting them and Britain had been the one bordering Germany then you'd have gone under just as quick...

Arrian · April 2, 2003, 18:09

I think leadership was also a factor, Frogger.

-Arrian

Worthingtons · April 2, 2003, 18:10

An Attempt to 'draw people in' perhaps, but you cannot ignore the points.

Frogger, you need to distinguish between a surrender and a tactical retreat - The French gave up thier Capital!

In our retreat many normal folk sailed over to dunkirk risking thier life and ignoring any other commitments to pick up our soldiers.

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I think leadership was also a factor, Frogger.

-Arrian

Indeed. Chamberlain might have drawn the Brits down in less than 6 weeks.

Worthingtons · April 2, 2003, 18:15

Yes, Chamberlain was a weak leader. Churchill was a very strong leader, although i dont think the British spirit during WW2 can be totally accredited to him.

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Rothy
An Attempt to 'draw people in' perhaps, but you cannot ignore the points.

Frogger, you need to distinguish between a surrender and a tactical retreat - The French gave up thier Capital!

In our retreat many normal folk sailed over to dunkirk risking thier life and ignoring any other commitments to pick up our soldiers.

Leaving your allies and bulwark against Nazi aggression stranded.

You and the French were both outfought and outmaneuvred. The Allied lines were in chaos. The Germans were sweeping forward dozens of miles each day. Hundreds of thousands of French troops were trapped in pockets on the frontier.

The traitors who formed Vichy France were not admirable people, but in a defeated nation you don't have to look too far to find your quisling (named after a Norwegian, not a Frenchman interestingly enough).

Spiffor · April 2, 2003, 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, in a earlier post, you pointed with pride that you were a member of the French communist party. One reason is that the French communist party fought against fascism and Nazism during WWII.

We were allies then.

I only wish we were allies once again against the modern incarnation of fascist evil - Saddam Hussein. Is there anyway we can turn this around and gain support of people like you and the French left?

The only way would be to convince us this war has been decided to save the Iraqis from their dictator, and not for the egoistical interests of the US. Except if some massive propaganda is done, it is a lost cause. I often quote "L'humanité" when I'm giving news about France here, it is the communist newspaper, the one that I read. And everything in this paper says Bush went to war for his interests and America's. The whole section of the paper is dubbed "Bush's War", rather than "War in Iraq" as one would expect

Pekka · April 2, 2003, 18:20

There were three capitals in Europe that were not invaded by foreing troops.. London, Moscow and Helsinki. So we must rule like crazy! What do you say, let's from secret military alliance, we finns, you brits, and you ruskies? We could think about what role the US would get, maybe they could be in that secret alliance too. I'm telling you guys, we'd rule the world!

Pekka · April 2, 2003, 18:22

Because looking our fighting tendencies, we will go to the last man and never turn our backs when fight is on. So either we are victorious and kick everyones butts, or we die trying. I think we have a good chance though..

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 18:22

Stockholm, Bern, Madrid and Lisbon weren't invaded either.

Only the Finns managed it by actually aligning themselves with the Nazis...

Worthingtons · April 2, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

'You and the French were both outfought and outmaneuvred'

Very true, in the opening we were certainly caught unprepared, in fact the 'mock' Surrender of Britain was even filmed as propaganda by the Germans but we somehow managed to turn it around in time for the Americans to come and help us mop up. As I say tho, we are determined people, and willing to graft when neccesary.

I heard sometime back in France that they had reduced the hours of a standard to working week (35 hours is it now?) - I suppose some people just like the easy option...

Spiffor · April 2, 2003, 18:25

"The Brits are superior PEOPLE"

You know you Rosbifs are kind of funny people who are best at being the laughingstock of our superior French people

Sandman · April 2, 2003, 18:26

The reasons for the defeat of France were ones of geography. End of story.

Pekka · April 2, 2003, 18:26

Frogger, true but they weren't fighting that much.

You claim we only were able to take the invasion attempt because nazis gave us some weapons? It was a help sure, but I don't see what the problem is. We didn't have common goals, or plans for that matter, they gave us weapons. Also few troopers came too, ready to fight SU, but eventually we had to fight with them too. I don't see your point. Moscow survived only because of the help of US and Britain?

Is there anything you would say we did wrong? Or are you just frustrated because I didn't add Canada to the list of secret alliance?

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 18:30

My point isn't about the Winter War, but about how you managed to avoid the brunt of Nazi agression.

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Portugal were all neutral throughout the war. The Finns managed to be allied to the side with the upper hand at all points in time. Interesting...

Menlas · April 2, 2003, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
The reasons for the defeat of France were ones of geography. End of story.

It is probably a good reason indeed, because you'll notice Rothy still didn't answer to this one

Pekka · April 2, 2003, 18:35

Frogger, ah you meant that. Yep true..
But then again, SU did attack, so what you want? SU AND Nazis attacking us? Man, you really are tough one to please

Cyclotron · April 2, 2003, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
The only way would be to convince us this war has been decided to save the Iraqis from their dictator, and not for the egoistical interests of the US.

That seems clearly self-evident to me, so I see no reason to waste time pointing it out to the French. Why is it we need to convince you of anything?

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
Frogger, ah you meant that. Yep true..
But then again, SU did attack, so what you want? SU AND Nazis attacking us? Man, you really are tough one to please

I'm just having you on a bit, Pekka.

Worthingtons · April 2, 2003, 18:37

Geography cannot tell the whole story, few nations have freely deserted thier capital without putting up a tremendous fight. Being next Germany I'm sure didnt help, but hey where the hell did those troops in the 'maginot line' go

?