Ungrateful Americans Unworthy of the French

[The Black Monk]

The French

by Gary Brecher

The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I
Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history,
supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to
see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:

www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

Well, I'm going to tell you guys something you probably don't want to
hear: these sites are total bull****, the notion that the French are
cowards is total bull****, and anybody who knows anything about
European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand
years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe,
maybe the world.

Before you send me more of those death threats, let me finish. I hate
Chirac too, and his disco foreign minister with the blow-dry ‘do and
the snotty smile. But there are two things I hate more than I hate the
French: ignorant fake war buffs, and people who are ungrateful. And
when an American mouths off about French military history, he's not
just being ignorant, he's being ungrateful. I was raised to think
ungrateful people were trash.

When I say ungrateful, I'm talking about the American Revolution. If
you're a true American patriot, then this is the war that matters.
Hell, most of you probably couldn't name three major battles from it,
but try going back to when you read Johnny Tremaine in fourth grade
and you might recall a little place called Yorktown, Virginia, where
we bottled up Cornwallis's army, forced the Brits' surrender and
pretty much won the war.

Well, news flash: "we" didn't win that battle, any more than the
Northern Alliance conquered the Taliban. The French army and navy won
Yorktown for us. Americans didn't have the materiel or the training to
mount a combined operation like that, with naval blockade and land
siege. It was the French artillery forces and military engineers who
ran the siege, and at sea it was a French admiral, de Grasse, who
kicked the **** out of the British navy when they tried to break the
siege.

Long before that, in fact as soon as we showed the Brits at Saratoga
that we could win once in a while, they started pouring in huge
shipments of everything from cannon to uniforms. We'd never have got
near Yorktown if it wasn't for massive French aid.

So how come you *******s don't mention Yorktown in your cheap
webpages? I'll tell you why: because you're too ignorant to know about
it and too dishonest to mention it if you did.

The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much
when they only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not
hate the Brits? They're the ones who killed thousands of Americans in
the Revolution, and thirty years later they came back and attacked us
again. That time around they managed to burn Washington DC to the
ground while they were at it. How come you web jerks never mention
that?

Sure, the easy answer is because the Brits are with us now, and the
French aren't. But being a war buff means knowing your history and
respecting it.

Well, so much for ungrateful. Now let's talk about ignorant. And
that's what you are if you think the French can't fight: just plain
ignorant. Appreciation of the French martial spirit is just about the
most basic way you can distinguish real war nerds from fake little
teachers'pets.

Let's take the toughest case first: the German invasion, 1940, when
the French Army supposedly disgraced itself against the Wehrmacht.
This is the only real evidence you'll find to call the French cowards,
and the more you know about it, the less it proves. Yeah, the French
were scared of Hitler. Who wasn't? Chamberlain, the British prime
minister, all but licked the Fuhrer's goosesteppers, basically let him
have all of Central Europe, because Britain was terrified of war with
Germany. Hell, Stalin signed a sweetheart deal with Hitler out of
sheer terror, and Stalin wasn't a man who scared easy.

The French were scared, all right. But they had reason to be. For
starters, they'd barely begun to recover from their last little scrap
with the Germans: a little squabble you might've heard of, called WW
I.

WW I was the worst war in history to be a soldier in. WW II was worse
if you were a civilian, but the trenches of WW I were five years of
Hell like General Sherman never dreamed of. At the end of it a big
chunk of northern France looked like the surface of the moon, only
bloodier, nothing but craters and rats and entrails.

Verdun. Just that name was enough to make Frenchmen and Germans, the
few who survived it, wake up yelling for years afterward. The French
lost 1.5 million men out of a total population of 40 million fighting
the Germans from 1914-1918. A lot of those guys died charging German
machine-gun nests with bayonets. I'd really like to see one of you
office smartasses joke about "surrender monkeys" with a French
soldier, 1914 vintage. You'd **** your dockers.

****, we strut around like we're so tough and we can't even handle a
few uppity Iraqi villages. These guys faced the Germans head on for
five years, and we call them cowards? And at the end, it was the
Germans, not the French, who said "calf rope."

When the sequel war came, the French relied on their frontier
fortifications and used their tanks (which were better than the
Germans', one on one) defensively. The Germans had a newer, better
offensive strategy. So they won. And the French surrendered. Which was
damn sensible of them.

This was the WEHRMACHT. In two years, they conquered all of Western
Europe and lost only 30,000 troops in the process. That's less than
the casualties of Gettysburg. You get the picture? Nobody, no army on
earth, could've held off the Germans under the conditions that the
French faced them. The French lost because they had a long land border
with Germany. The English survived because they had the English
Channel between them and the Wehrmacht. When the English Army faced
the Wermacht at Dunkirk, well, thanks to spin the tuck-tail-and-flee
result got turned into some heroic tale of a brilliant British
retreat. The fact is, even the Brits behaved like cowards in the face
of the Wermacht, abandoning the French. It's that simple.

Here's a quick sampler of some of my favorite French victories, like
an antidote to those ignorant websites. We'll start way back and move
up to the 20th century.

Tours, 732 AD: The Muslims had already taken Spain and were well on
their way to taking the rest of Europe. The only power with a chance
of stopping them was the French army under Charles "the Hammer"
Martel, King of the Franks (French), who answered to the really cool
nickname "the Hammer of God." It was the French who saved the
continent's ass. All the smart money was on the Muslims: there were
60,000 of them, crazy Jihadis whose cavalry was faster and deadlier
than any in Europe. The French army was heavily outnumbered and had no
cavalry. Fighting in phalanxes, they held against dozens of cavalry
charges and after at least two days of hand-to-hand combat, finally
managed to hack their way to the Muslim center and kill their
commander. The Muslims retreated to Spain, and Europe developed as an
independent civilization.

Orleans, May 1429: Joan of Arc: is she the most insanely cool military
commander in history or what? This French peasant girl gets
instructions from her favorite saints to help out the French against
the English invaders. She goes to the King (well, the Dauphin, but
close enough) and tells him to give her the army and she'll take it
from there. And somehow she convinces him. She takes the army, which
has lost every battle it's been in lately, to Orleans, which is under
English siege. Now Joan is a nice girl, so she tries to settle things
peaceably. She explains in a letter to the enemy commanders that
everything can still be cool, "…provided you give up France…and go
back to your own countries, for God's sake. And if you do not, wait
for the Maid, who will visit you briefly to your great sorrow." The
next day she put on armor, mounted a charger, and prepared to lead the
attack on the besiegers' fortifications. She ordered the gates opened,
but the Mayor refused until Joan explained that she, personally, would
cut off his head. The gates went up, the French sallied out, and Joan
led the first successful attack they'd made in years. The English
strongpoints were taken, the siege was broken, and Joan's career in
the cow-milking trade was over.

Braddock's Defeat (aka Battle of Monongahela) July 1755: Next time
you're driving through the Ohio Valley, remember you're passing near
the site of a great French victory over an Anglo-American force twice
its size. General Edward Braddock marched west from Virginia with
1,500 men—a very large army in 18th-c. America. His orders were to
seize French land and forts in the Valley—your basic undeclared
land-grab invasion. The French joined the local tribes to resist, and
then set up a classic ambush. It was a slaughter. More than half of
Braddock's force—880 men—were killed or wounded. The only Anglo
officer to escape unhurt was this guy called George Washington, and
even he had two horses shot out from under him. After a few minutes of
non-stop fire from French and Indians hidden in the woods, Braddock's
command came apart like something out of Nam, post-Tet. Braddock was
hit and wounded, but none of his troops would risk getting shot to
rescue him.

Austerlitz, Dec. 1805: You always hear about Austerlitz as "Napoleon's
Greatest Victory," like the little guy personally went out and wiped
out the combined Russian and Austrian armies. The fact is, ever since
the Revolution in 1789, French armies had been kicking ass against
everybody. They were free citizens fighting against scared peasant and
degenerate mercenaries, and it was no contest. At Austerlitz, 65,000
French troops took on 90,000 Russians and Austrians and destroyed
them. Absolutely annihilated them. The French lost only 8,000,
compared to 29,000 of the enemy. The tactics Bonaparte used were very
risky, and would only have worked with superb troops: he encouraged
the enemy to attack a weak line, then brought up reinforcements who'd
been held out of sight. That kind of tactical plan takes iron
discipline and perfect timing—and the French had it.

Jena, Oct. 1806: just a quick reminder for anybody who thinks the
Germans always beat the French. Napoleon takes on the Prussian army
and destroys it. 27,000 Prussian casualties vs. 5,000 French. Prussian
army routed, pursued for miles by French cavalry.

You eXile guys might want to remember that the French under Napoleon
are still the only army ever to have taken all of continental Europe,
from Moscow to Madrid. I could keep listing French victories till I
had a book. In fact, it's not a bad idea. A nice big hardback, so you
could take it to the assholes running all the anti-French-military
sites and bash their heads in with it.

-----

ONLY THE IGNORANT DARE CALL FRENCH COWARDS
Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2003
May 1, 2003

VERDUN, France - Something keeps drawing me back to this most evil and
sinister battlefield on earth, a mere 18 km (10.8 miles) by 10 km (6
miles), where during ten hellish months of 1916 1.4 million French and
German soldiers were killed or gravely wounded.

Each year it is my custom to greet spring in France's exquisite
countryside, exploring battlefields and forts of the two world wars.
But this, my sixth journey to Verdun, holds particular personal
meaning.

Decades of travel, covering many wars, reading the history of man's
folly have made me a cosmopolitan who detests borders and earnestly
believes mankind's worst evils are nationalism and religious
fanaticism. Still, there are four countries that I hold particularly
dear and to whom I feel respectful (as opposed to hormonal)
patriotism, respect, and loyalty - Canada, France, Switzerland, the
United States (in alphabetical, not emotional order), and reserve a
special place for Pakistan.

Quixotic as it may sound, while at Verdun, I apologized as a US Army
veteran to France's fallen soldiers for the slander and disgraceful
lies hurled at their memory by American know-nothings and pro- Israel
neo-con pundits who poured venom on the French for not agreeing to
President George Bush's imperial oil war against Iraq.

`Defeat monkeys'….`surrender specialists'…..`never won a war'…`always
saved by Americans'…`in war, like an accordion, useless and noisy..'
`cowards' …were hurled at France by American commentators. The
internet filled with anti-French jokes and lists of French military
defeats.

I invite all those flag waving, fire-breathing American couch patriots
who called French cowards to visit Verdun. The air here still stinks
of death; only deformed, stunted bushes grow on its poisoned soil. In
the towering gray stone Ossuary repose bone pieces of 135,000 men.

In 1916, the Germans sought a decisive battle on the strategic heights
above Verdun, where they planned to bleed France's army to death with
their massed artillery. On the first day of battle alone, French
positions were inundated by one million heavy shells. The titanic
bombardment went on for ten months, explosives against human flesh.
Trenches and dugouts were pulverized. Entire French regiments were
destroyed in hours.

The French commander, Gen. Nivelle, ordered his 2nd Army defending
Verdun: `No surrender; no retreat, not even an inch: die where you
stand.' And so they did.

On 4-5 June, the Germans poured 100,000 poison gas shells - chlorine,
phosgene, and cyanide - onto only 4 kms of French-held front - then
launched divisional assaults against the position. French soldiers had
no gasmasks. Thousands died in hideous agony, or were blinded. Yet
they somehow held.

Shells churned the battlefield into a gigantic quagmire of mud,
rotting corpses, body parts, dead horses, overhung by a toxic miasma
of chlorine and mustard gas. Troops went days without food; they drank
from shell craters filled with bodies, and often drowned in them.
German flamethrowers inflicted frightful casualties. Shells rained
down round the clock. Every tiny elevation, every fort, became a
little Thermopylae.

At the height of the German attack on Fort Vaux, over 2,000 heavy
shells an hour, some 405mm 1,000 kg monsters, were exploding each on
its roof and glacis. When we today talk about soldier's combat stress,
think of the heroic garrison of Vaux, burned, gassed, poisoned by
toxic smoke, dying of thirst, fearing they would be buried alive at
any moment, yet fighting on. The French lost 100,000 casualties trying
to retake another fort, Douaumont.

Three-quarters of the French Army, an and entire generation of
France's men, passed through the inferno of Verdun. Units stayed in
line until they had lost 60% casualties. Every town and village in
France bears a war memorial with names of its sons fallen at Verdun.
The heights above the Meuse River became France's Calvary; `They shall
not pass' the army's and nation's credo.

The attacking Germans fought, as always, like lions, losing 400,000
dead. They almost broke through, but were finally held at the last
line of French defenses, at fearsome sacrifice. French soldiers fought
like tigers, with their legendary fury and élan: over 430,000 died at
Verdun; 800,000 were gassed or crippled for life. Bones are still
unearthed here today, 87 years later; French metro's and busses only
recently ended reserved seating for `mutilated war veterans.' After
the war, there were not enough young Frenchmen to farm the fields or
produce children.

In the end, the French held Verdun. In this battle alone, France lost
almost 1.5 times total US losses in all of World War II, and 20% of
its nearly 2 million dead from 1914-1918.

To the northwest of here is Sedan. In May, 1940, the racing German XIX
Panzer Corps negotiated the dense Ardennes Forest and fought across
the Meuse, dividing, then shattering the French Army. Italy attacked
in the south.

The French did not simply surrender, as some Americans claim. Their
army fought valiantly, but was overwhelmed and torn apart by German's
high-tech military machine, just as Iraq's outdated forces were
recently obliterated by high-tech US forces.

The French government wanted to fight on from Brittany, but there were
no army divisions left intact. France lost 210,000 dead in 1940
fighting Germany and Italy; America lost 292,000 men during the entire
war. Let's keep the historical record accurate.

-------

BM

[Alan Minyard]

On 7 Oct 2003 06:56:05 -0700, (The Black
Monk) wrote:

>The French
>
>by Gary Brecher
>
>The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I
>Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history,
>supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to
>see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:
>
>www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
>
>Well, I'm going to tell you guys something you probably don't want to
>hear: these sites are total bull****, the notion that the French are
>cowards is total bull****, and anybody who knows anything about
>European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand
>years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe,
>maybe the world.

Germany 2, France 0, enough said.

Al Minyard

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

>
> Germany 2, France 0, enough said.
>
> Al Minyard


Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
Shows your knowledge of european history.....
Enough said.
--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> Germany 2, France 0, enough said.
>

Germany is two and oh versus France? Didn't Germany surrender in WWI?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
> Shows your knowledge of european history.....
> Enough said.
>

What three conflicts would that be?

[captain!]

posting a war nerd article eh?

apparently he got published in an american newspaper not too long ago. i
don't know which one though.

"The Black Monk" > wrote in message
om...
> The French
>
> by Gary Brecher
>
<snipped>

[robert arndt]

(The Black Monk) wrote in message >...
> The French
>
> by Gary Brecher
>
> The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I
> Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history,
> supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to
> see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:
>
> www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
>
> Well, I'm going to tell you guys something you probably don't want to
> hear: these sites are total bull****, the notion that the French are
> cowards is total bull****, and anybody who knows anything about
> European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand
> years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe,
> maybe the world.
>
> Before you send me more of those death threats, let me finish. I hate
> Chirac too, and his disco foreign minister with the blow-dry ?do and
> the snotty smile. But there are two things I hate more than I hate the
> French: ignorant fake war buffs, and people who are ungrateful. And
> when an American mouths off about French military history, he's not
> just being ignorant, he's being ungrateful. I was raised to think
> ungrateful people were trash.
>
> When I say ungrateful, I'm talking about the American Revolution. If
> you're a true American patriot, then this is the war that matters.
> Hell, most of you probably couldn't name three major battles from it,
> but try going back to when you read Johnny Tremaine in fourth grade
> and you might recall a little place called Yorktown, Virginia, where
> we bottled up Cornwallis's army, forced the Brits' surrender and
> pretty much won the war.
>
> Well, news flash: "we" didn't win that battle, any more than the
> Northern Alliance conquered the Taliban. The French army and navy won
> Yorktown for us. Americans didn't have the materiel or the training to
> mount a combined operation like that, with naval blockade and land
> siege. It was the French artillery forces and military engineers who
> ran the siege, and at sea it was a French admiral, de Grasse, who
> kicked the **** out of the British navy when they tried to break the
> siege.
>
> Long before that, in fact as soon as we showed the Brits at Saratoga
> that we could win once in a while, they started pouring in huge
> shipments of everything from cannon to uniforms. We'd never have got
> near Yorktown if it wasn't for massive French aid.
>
> So how come you *******s don't mention Yorktown in your cheap
> webpages? I'll tell you why: because you're too ignorant to know about
> it and too dishonest to mention it if you did.
>
> The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much
> when they only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not
> hate the Brits? They're the ones who killed thousands of Americans in
> the Revolution, and thirty years later they came back and attacked us
> again. That time around they managed to burn Washington DC to the
> ground while they were at it. How come you web jerks never mention
> that?
>
> Sure, the easy answer is because the Brits are with us now, and the
> French aren't. But being a war buff means knowing your history and
> respecting it.
>
> Well, so much for ungrateful. Now let's talk about ignorant. And
> that's what you are if you think the French can't fight: just plain
> ignorant. Appreciation of the French martial spirit is just about the
> most basic way you can distinguish real war nerds from fake little
> teachers'pets.
>
> Let's take the toughest case first: the German invasion, 1940, when
> the French Army supposedly disgraced itself against the Wehrmacht.
> This is the only real evidence you'll find to call the French cowards,
> and the more you know about it, the less it proves. Yeah, the French
> were scared of Hitler. Who wasn't? Chamberlain, the British prime
> minister, all but licked the Fuhrer's goosesteppers, basically let him
> have all of Central Europe, because Britain was terrified of war with
> Germany. Hell, Stalin signed a sweetheart deal with Hitler out of
> sheer terror, and Stalin wasn't a man who scared easy.
>
> The French were scared, all right. But they had reason to be. For
> starters, they'd barely begun to recover from their last little scrap
> with the Germans: a little squabble you might've heard of, called WW
> I.
>
> WW I was the worst war in history to be a soldier in. WW II was worse
> if you were a civilian, but the trenches of WW I were five years of
> Hell like General Sherman never dreamed of. At the end of it a big
> chunk of northern France looked like the surface of the moon, only
> bloodier, nothing but craters and rats and entrails.
>
> Verdun. Just that name was enough to make Frenchmen and Germans, the
> few who survived it, wake up yelling for years afterward. The French
> lost 1.5 million men out of a total population of 40 million fighting
> the Germans from 1914-1918. A lot of those guys died charging German
> machine-gun nests with bayonets. I'd really like to see one of you
> office smartasses joke about "surrender monkeys" with a French
> soldier, 1914 vintage. You'd **** your dockers.
>
> ****, we strut around like we're so tough and we can't even handle a
> few uppity Iraqi villages. These guys faced the Germans head on for
> five years, and we call them cowards? And at the end, it was the
> Germans, not the French, who said "calf rope."
>
> When the sequel war came, the French relied on their frontier
> fortifications and used their tanks (which were better than the
> Germans', one on one) defensively. The Germans had a newer, better
> offensive strategy. So they won. And the French surrendered. Which was
> damn sensible of them.
>
> This was the WEHRMACHT. In two years, they conquered all of Western
> Europe and lost only 30,000 troops in the process. That's less than
> the casualties of Gettysburg. You get the picture? Nobody, no army on
> earth, could've held off the Germans under the conditions that the
> French faced them. The French lost because they had a long land border
> with Germany. The English survived because they had the English
> Channel between them and the Wehrmacht. When the English Army faced
> the Wermacht at Dunkirk, well, thanks to spin the tuck-tail-and-flee
> result got turned into some heroic tale of a brilliant British
> retreat. The fact is, even the Brits behaved like cowards in the face
> of the Wermacht, abandoning the French. It's that simple.
>
> Here's a quick sampler of some of my favorite French victories, like
> an antidote to those ignorant websites. We'll start way back and move
> up to the 20th century.
>
> Tours, 732 AD: The Muslims had already taken Spain and were well on
> their way to taking the rest of Europe. The only power with a chance
> of stopping them was the French army under Charles "the Hammer"
> Martel, King of the Franks (French), who answered to the really cool
> nickname "the Hammer of God." It was the French who saved the
> continent's ass. All the smart money was on the Muslims: there were
> 60,000 of them, crazy Jihadis whose cavalry was faster and deadlier
> than any in Europe. The French army was heavily outnumbered and had no
> cavalry. Fighting in phalanxes, they held against dozens of cavalry
> charges and after at least two days of hand-to-hand combat, finally
> managed to hack their way to the Muslim center and kill their
> commander. The Muslims retreated to Spain, and Europe developed as an
> independent civilization.
>
> Orleans, May 1429: Joan of Arc: is she the most insanely cool military
> commander in history or what? This French peasant girl gets
> instructions from her favorite saints to help out the French against
> the English invaders. She goes to the King (well, the Dauphin, but
> close enough) and tells him to give her the army and she'll take it
> from there. And somehow she convinces him. She takes the army, which
> has lost every battle it's been in lately, to Orleans, which is under
> English siege. Now Joan is a nice girl, so she tries to settle things
> peaceably. She explains in a letter to the enemy commanders that
> everything can still be cool, "?provided you give up France?and go
> back to your own countries, for God's sake. And if you do not, wait
> for the Maid, who will visit you briefly to your great sorrow." The
> next day she put on armor, mounted a charger, and prepared to lead the
> attack on the besiegers' fortifications. She ordered the gates opened,
> but the Mayor refused until Joan explained that she, personally, would
> cut off his head. The gates went up, the French sallied out, and Joan
> led the first successful attack they'd made in years. The English
> strongpoints were taken, the siege was broken, and Joan's career in
> the cow-milking trade was over.
>
> Braddock's Defeat (aka Battle of Monongahela) July 1755: Next time
> you're driving through the Ohio Valley, remember you're passing near
> the site of a great French victory over an Anglo-American force twice
> its size. General Edward Braddock marched west from Virginia with
> 1,500 men?a very large army in 18th-c. America. His orders were to
> seize French land and forts in the Valley?your basic undeclared
> land-grab invasion. The French joined the local tribes to resist, and
> then set up a classic ambush. It was a slaughter. More than half of
> Braddock's force?880 men?were killed or wounded. The only Anglo
> officer to escape unhurt was this guy called George Washington, and
> even he had two horses shot out from under him. After a few minutes of
> non-stop fire from French and Indians hidden in the woods, Braddock's
> command came apart like something out of Nam, post-Tet. Braddock was
> hit and wounded, but none of his troops would risk getting shot to
> rescue him.
>
> Austerlitz, Dec. 1805: You always hear about Austerlitz as "Napoleon's
> Greatest Victory," like the little guy personally went out and wiped
> out the combined Russian and Austrian armies. The fact is, ever since
> the Revolution in 1789, French armies had been kicking ass against
> everybody. They were free citizens fighting against scared peasant and
> degenerate mercenaries, and it was no contest. At Austerlitz, 65,000
> French troops took on 90,000 Russians and Austrians and destroyed
> them. Absolutely annihilated them. The French lost only 8,000,
> compared to 29,000 of the enemy. The tactics Bonaparte used were very
> risky, and would only have worked with superb troops: he encouraged
> the enemy to attack a weak line, then brought up reinforcements who'd
> been held out of sight. That kind of tactical plan takes iron
> discipline and perfect timing?and the French had it.
>
> Jena, Oct. 1806: just a quick reminder for anybody who thinks the
> Germans always beat the French. Napoleon takes on the Prussian army
> and destroys it. 27,000 Prussian casualties vs. 5,000 French. Prussian
> army routed, pursued for miles by French cavalry.
>
> You eXile guys might want to remember that the French under Napoleon
> are still the only army ever to have taken all of continental Europe,
> from Moscow to Madrid. I could keep listing French victories till I
> had a book. In fact, it's not a bad idea. A nice big hardback, so you
> could take it to the assholes running all the anti-French-military
> sites and bash their heads in with it.
>
> -----
>
> ONLY THE IGNORANT DARE CALL FRENCH COWARDS
> Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2003
> May 1, 2003
>
> VERDUN, France - Something keeps drawing me back to this most evil and
> sinister battlefield on earth, a mere 18 km (10.8 miles) by 10 km (6
> miles), where during ten hellish months of 1916 1.4 million French and
> German soldiers were killed or gravely wounded.
>
> Each year it is my custom to greet spring in France's exquisite
> countryside, exploring battlefields and forts of the two world wars.
> But this, my sixth journey to Verdun, holds particular personal
> meaning.
>
> Decades of travel, covering many wars, reading the history of man's
> folly have made me a cosmopolitan who detests borders and earnestly
> believes mankind's worst evils are nationalism and religious
> fanaticism. Still, there are four countries that I hold particularly
> dear and to whom I feel respectful (as opposed to hormonal)
> patriotism, respect, and loyalty - Canada, France, Switzerland, the
> United States (in alphabetical, not emotional order), and reserve a
> special place for Pakistan.
>
> Quixotic as it may sound, while at Verdun, I apologized as a US Army
> veteran to France's fallen soldiers for the slander and disgraceful
> lies hurled at their memory by American know-nothings and pro- Israel
> neo-con pundits who poured venom on the French for not agreeing to
> President George Bush's imperial oil war against Iraq.
>
> `Defeat monkeys'?.`surrender specialists'?..`never won a war'?`always
> saved by Americans'?`in war, like an accordion, useless and noisy..'
> `cowards' ?were hurled at France by American commentators. The
> internet filled with anti-French jokes and lists of French military
> defeats.
>
> I invite all those flag waving, fire-breathing American couch patriots
> who called French cowards to visit Verdun. The air here still stinks
> of death; only deformed, stunted bushes grow on its poisoned soil. In
> the towering gray stone Ossuary repose bone pieces of 135,000 men.
>
> In 1916, the Germans sought a decisive battle on the strategic heights
> above Verdun, where they planned to bleed France's army to death with
> their massed artillery. On the first day of battle alone, French
> positions were inundated by one million heavy shells. The titanic
> bombardment went on for ten months, explosives against human flesh.
> Trenches and dugouts were pulverized. Entire French regiments were
> destroyed in hours.
>
> The French commander, Gen. Nivelle, ordered his 2nd Army defending
> Verdun: `No surrender; no retreat, not even an inch: die where you
> stand.' And so they did.
>
> On 4-5 June, the Germans poured 100,000 poison gas shells - chlorine,
> phosgene, and cyanide - onto only 4 kms of French-held front - then
> launched divisional assaults against the position. French soldiers had
> no gasmasks. Thousands died in hideous agony, or were blinded. Yet
> they somehow held.
>
> Shells churned the battlefield into a gigantic quagmire of mud,
> rotting corpses, body parts, dead horses, overhung by a toxic miasma
> of chlorine and mustard gas. Troops went days without food; they drank
> from shell craters filled with bodies, and often drowned in them.
> German flamethrowers inflicted frightful casualties. Shells rained
> down round the clock. Every tiny elevation, every fort, became a
> little Thermopylae.
>
> At the height of the German attack on Fort Vaux, over 2,000 heavy
> shells an hour, some 405mm 1,000 kg monsters, were exploding each on
> its roof and glacis. When we today talk about soldier's combat stress,
> think of the heroic garrison of Vaux, burned, gassed, poisoned by
> toxic smoke, dying of thirst, fearing they would be buried alive at
> any moment, yet fighting on. The French lost 100,000 casualties trying
> to retake another fort, Douaumont.
>
> Three-quarters of the French Army, an and entire generation of
> France's men, passed through the inferno of Verdun. Units stayed in
> line until they had lost 60% casualties. Every town and village in
> France bears a war memorial with names of its sons fallen at Verdun.
> The heights above the Meuse River became France's Calvary; `They shall
> not pass' the army's and nation's credo.
>
> The attacking Germans fought, as always, like lions, losing 400,000
> dead. They almost broke through, but were finally held at the last
> line of French defenses, at fearsome sacrifice. French soldiers fought
> like tigers, with their legendary fury and élan: over 430,000 died at
> Verdun; 800,000 were gassed or crippled for life. Bones are still
> unearthed here today, 87 years later; French metro's and busses only
> recently ended reserved seating for `mutilated war veterans.' After
> the war, there were not enough young Frenchmen to farm the fields or
> produce children.
>
> In the end, the French held Verdun. In this battle alone, France lost
> almost 1.5 times total US losses in all of World War II, and 20% of
> its nearly 2 million dead from 1914-1918.
>
> To the northwest of here is Sedan. In May, 1940, the racing German XIX
> Panzer Corps negotiated the dense Ardennes Forest and fought across
> the Meuse, dividing, then shattering the French Army. Italy attacked
> in the south.
>
> The French did not simply surrender, as some Americans claim. Their
> army fought valiantly, but was overwhelmed and torn apart by German's
> high-tech military machine, just as Iraq's outdated forces were
> recently obliterated by high-tech US forces.
>
> The French government wanted to fight on from Brittany, but there were
> no army divisions left intact. France lost 210,000 dead in 1940
> fighting Germany and Italy; America lost 292,000 men during the entire
> war. Let's keep the historical record accurate.
>
> -------
>
> BM

Excellent post and use of historical facts. I can't wait for Keith
Willshaw to show up and say something stupid in reply!

Rob

p.s. They don't also want to hear how the first Continental Army was
trained by a Prussian general or how German-Americans fought with
honor during both World Wars... not to mention how much of the
"American Arsenal" of today originated in the "Third Reich" or how a
German dream (Von Braun's) got us to the moon- man's greatest
achievement thus far.

[tscottme]

The Black Monk > wrote in message
om...
> The French
>
> by Gary Brecher
>
> The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I
> Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history,
> supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to
> see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:
>

Yeah and the French were ruled by gay kings and lead by mentally-ill
girls, should we treat the French as if that ancient history is still
current? Maybe we should.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[The Black Monk]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
> > Shows your knowledge of european history.....
> > Enough said.
> >
>
> What three conflicts would that be?

He means the Franco-Prussian war.

regards,

BM

[The Black Monk]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Oct 2003 06:56:05 -0700, (The Black
> Monk) wrote:
>
> >The French
> >
> >by Gary Brecher
> >
> >The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I
> >Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history,
> >supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to
> >see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:
> >
> >www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
> >
> >Well, I'm going to tell you guys something you probably don't want to
> >hear: these sites are total bull****, the notion that the French are
> >cowards is total bull****, and anybody who knows anything about
> >European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand
> >years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe,
> >maybe the world.
>
> Germany 2, France 0, enough said.

It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.

BM


> Al Minyard

[Marc Reeve]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
> > Shows your knowledge of european history.....
> > Enough said.
> >
>
> What three conflicts would that be?

Yeah, by my score, it's

Napoleon vs. Prussia - a clear win for France
Franco-Prussian War - a clear win for Germany
World War I - "no decision"
World War II - a clear win for Germany in 1940

so that's a 2-1-1 record for Germany.

-Marc

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"The Black Monk" > wrote in message
om...
>
> He means the Franco-Prussian war.
>

That's one. What are the other two?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> World War I - "no decision"
>

Did Germany not surrender?


>
> World War II - a clear win for Germany in 1940
>

But a clear loss in 1945.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:

> >
> > Germany 2, France 0, enough said.
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
>
> Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
> Shows your knowledge of european history.....
> Enough said.

*You're* counting WW1 as a loss to Germany?

Amazing.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(The Black Monk) wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> t>...
> > "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
> > > Shows your knowledge of european history.....
> > > Enough said.
> > >
> >
> > What three conflicts would that be?
>
> He means the Franco-Prussian war.

Even so, he can only get a 3-0 score in Germany's favor by
giving Germany a win for WW1.

Think about it.

[Ugly Bob]

"ArVa" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > a écrit dans le
> message de nk.net...
> >
> > "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
> > > Shows your knowledge of european history.....
> > > Enough said.
> > >
> >
> > What three conflicts would that be?
> >
>
> Pierre-Henri was probably refering to the war of 1870, won by the Germans
at

Though, technically, Germany didn't exist until 1871, after the war.
Just thought I'd muddy the waters even further :-)

-Ugly Bob

> the expense of France who lost some territory in the eastern part of the
> country (this heavy defeat was also the signal of the end for the second
> empire and the French people eventually gained a new republic, the third),
> but I agree with your other post : Germany did loose WWI to the Allies and
> this war is anything but a defeat for France (well, I know some who won't
> agree with that...).
>
> ArVa
>
>

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Steve Hix" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> In article >,
> (The Black Monk) wrote:
>
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > t>...
> > > "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
> > > > Shows your knowledge of european history.....
> > > > Enough said.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What three conflicts would that be?
> >
> > He means the Franco-Prussian war.
>
> Even so, he can only get a 3-0 score in Germany's favor by
> giving Germany a win for WW1.
>
> Think about it.


I was just making a sarcasm, to underline the fact that even in his twisted
conception of victory/defeat, Al Minyards got it all wrong.
What I meant was "of you consider WWI and WWII as a 2-0 for Germany, you
might as well throw in the Prussian victory of 1870 and make it 3-0".
I should have added a smiley, sorry.
--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Steve Hix" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> In article >,
> "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Germany 2, France 0, enough said.
> > >
> > > Al Minyard
> >
> >
> > Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
> > Shows your knowledge of european history.....
> > Enough said.
>
> *You're* counting WW1 as a loss to Germany?

See my previous post. I was just rewriting 19th century history the Minyard
way.
PHB

[The Black Monk]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "The Black Monk" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > He means the Franco-Prussian war.
> >
>
> That's one. What are the other two?

France was defeated by Germany in WWII (despite putting up a fight
that was more heroic than the Americans had done in 100 years).

WWI was a draw. Probably Germany WOULD have won had the Americans not
entered the war. But, as the articles showed, not because of French
lack of courage or fighting prowess.

regards,

BM

[The Black Monk]

"tscottme" > wrote in message >...
> The Black Monk > wrote in message
> om...
> > The French
> >
> > by Gary Brecher
> >
> > The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I
> > Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history,
> > supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to
> > see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:
> >
>
> Yeah and the French were ruled by gay kings and lead by mentally-ill
> girls, should we treat the French as if that ancient history is still
> current?

And America is led by a mildly retarded "dry drunk" who, like a one
year old, almost choked to death on a pretzel. Prior to that it was
led by a degenerate hillbilly who was getting blow jobs from a fat
chick while on the phone with senators. Etc. etc.

> Maybe we should.
>
> --
>
> Scott

The below must be a joke, right?

> --------
> "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
> reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,

Er...from the army.

> there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
> the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
> destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

This bitch should have worked for Pravda 20 years ago. She's a
typical, aggressively unattractive and tasteless American woman.
Actually, no. She would have to put on another 80 lbs. to be a
typical American "Jennifer".

BM

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"The Black Monk" > wrote in message
om...
>
> France was defeated by Germany in WWII (despite putting up a fight
> that was more heroic than the Americans had done in 100 years).
>
> WWI was a draw.
>

It's not a draw when one side surrenders. Where's the other one?

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 8 Oct 2003 05:57:03 -0700, (The Black
Monk) wrote:

>WWI was a draw.

The allies won, which is why French and British troops were occupying
the Rhine crossings until the peace treaty was signed and the Germans
weren't doing the same to Paris.

>Probably Germany WOULD have won had the Americans not
>entered the war.

The Germans threw their last die in their 1918 offensives, staged to
eliminate the British and French armies before the Americans appeared
in the field against them. These offensives were defeated by, in the
vast majority, British and French forces long before the Americans
fielded substantive forces in the front line. The first major
American offensive took place in September 1918, two months *after*
the French had resumed the offensive after defeating the Germans
attacking them. And before anybody mentions the US forces present at
the Second Marne, they should aquaint themselves with the fact that
the British commited equivalent forces to the Americans in that
battle, never mind the far larger commitment of French resources which
dwarfed both.

> But, as the articles showed, not because of French
>lack of courage or fighting prowess.

Beyond that the French were the major partner in the Allied campaign
on the Western Front from 1914 to 1917, and carried the main weight of
the attritional burden against Germany in that period, something they
get zero acknowledgement for from a lot of people with contemporary
political axes to grind.

The history of their actual contribution to WW1 speaks for itself.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[tw]

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
.. .
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> > "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
> > > Shows your knowledge of european history.....
> > > Enough said.
> > >
> >
> > What three conflicts would that be?
>
> Yeah, by my score, it's
>
> Napoleon vs. Prussia - a clear win for France
> Franco-Prussian War - a clear win for Germany
> World War I - "no decision"

Other than one side surrendering - and it wasn't the French.

> World War II - a clear win for Germany in 1940

Which wasn't even the half - time score...

[morten lund]

amen to that!

/Morten

"The Black Monk" > wrote in message
om...
> The French
>
> by Gary Brecher
>
> The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I
> Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history,
> supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to
> see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Black Monk" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
t>...
> > "The Black Monk" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > He means the Franco-Prussian war.
> > >
> >
> > That's one. What are the other two?
>
> France was defeated by Germany in WWII (despite putting up a fight
> that was more heroic than the Americans had done in 100 years).
>

Hardly, the US Civil war had only happened 50 years previously
and the cost to the US in terms of losses as a percentage of
population far higher than France sustained in 1940.

Indeed one hesitates to call the French defence heroic,
individual French units certainly fought heroically and noone
doubts the courage of the french soldier but the
army, as a result of poor organisation and leadership,
did not put up a good performance.


> WWI was a draw. Probably Germany WOULD have won had the Americans not
> entered the war. But, as the articles showed, not because of French
> lack of courage or fighting prowess.
>

agreed.

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 18:04:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Germany 2, France 0, enough said.
>>
>
>Germany is two and oh versus France? Didn't Germany surrender in WWI?
>
Yes, after the British and the US defeated their army.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 8 Oct 2003 05:57:03 -0700, (The Black
Monk) wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
>> "The Black Monk" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >
>> > He means the Franco-Prussian war.
>> >
>>
>> That's one. What are the other two?
>
>France was defeated by Germany in WWII (despite putting up a fight
>that was more heroic than the Americans had done in 100 years).
>
>WWI was a draw. Probably Germany WOULD have won had the Americans not
>entered the war. But, as the articles showed, not because of French
>lack of courage or fighting prowess.
>
>regards,
>
>BM

In WWII, at the time of the German invasion of France, the French had
more tanks than the Whermact, as well as a greater percentage of
mechanized divisions. They hid in the Maginot line, and their armor
was thrown away in piecemeal engagements.

In WWI the French troops mutinied, and many went home. By the end of
the war the French army was totally defeated.

Al Minyard

[Marc Reeve]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > World War I - "no decision"
> >
> Did Germany not surrender?
>
They did... but I believe the French lost a higher percentage of their
population (the war being fought mostly on French soil).
>
> >
> > World War II - a clear win for Germany in 1940
> >
> But a clear loss in 1945.

Yea, verily... but how much the French contributed to said defeat is
debatable. (Especially given the argument that if Paris had been
bypassed as originally planned, instead of DeGaulle stealing the French
divisions to liberate the city, the war might have ended six months
sooner.)

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, after the British and the US defeated their army.
>

You'll find that the French army played a significant role in defeating the
German army, if you care to look.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> They did... but I believe the French lost a higher percentage of their
> population (the war being fought mostly on French soil).
>

Irrelevant. The victor does not surrender.

[The Black Monk]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "The Black Monk" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > France was defeated by Germany in WWII (despite putting up a fight
> > that was more heroic than the Americans had done in 100 years).
> >
> > WWI was a draw.
> >
>
> It's not a draw when one side surrenders. Where's the other one?

Germany surrendered not just to France. It collapsed fighting against
the combined forces of France, the UK, and the USA. Otherwise one can
come up with silly examples of, for example, Canada or Brazil
defeating Germany in World War II (both had declared war).

BM

[The Black Monk]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "The Black Monk" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> t>...
> > > "The Black Monk" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > >
> > > > He means the Franco-Prussian war.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's one. What are the other two?
> >
> > France was defeated by Germany in WWII (despite putting up a fight
> > that was more heroic than the Americans had done in 100 years).
> >
>
> Hardly, the US Civil war had only happened 50 years previously
> and the cost to the US in terms of losses as a percentage of
> population far higher than France sustained in 1940.

I meant the last 100 years, prior to today. It was my lack of clarity
here though.

> Indeed one hesitates to call the French defence heroic,
> individual French units certainly fought heroically and noone
> doubts the courage of the french soldier but the
> army, as a result of poor organisation and leadership,
> did not put up a good performance.

I differentiate heroism from organization and leadership. Poland's
forces were well organized on the "platoon" level, but in general were
extremely poorly organized (mobilization, for example, was a
tragicomic mess). Yet the Poles may have been the most heroic army in
World War II.

regards,

BM

>
> > WWI was a draw. Probably Germany WOULD have won had the Americans not
> > entered the war. But, as the articles showed, not because of French
> > lack of courage or fighting prowess.
> >
>
> agreed.
>
> Keith

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(The Black Monk) wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> t>...
> > "The Black Monk" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > France was defeated by Germany in WWII (despite putting up a fight
> > > that was more heroic than the Americans had done in 100 years).
> > >
> > > WWI was a draw.
> > >
> >
> > It's not a draw when one side surrenders. Where's the other one?
>
> Germany surrendered not just to France. It collapsed fighting against
> the combined forces of France, the UK, and the USA.

But, unless you can show that France in WW1 surrendered to Germany,
you can't very well count WW1 as a win for Germany and a loss for France.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"The Black Monk" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Germany surrendered not just to France. It collapsed fighting against
> the combined forces of France, the UK, and the USA.
>

The point is you can't count WWI as a win for Germany and a loss for France.

[Magnus Link]

"Ugly Bob" > wrote in message >...

> > > > Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.

> > Pierre-Henri was probably refering to the war of 1870,

> Though, technically, Germany didn't exist until 1871, after the war.

Thanks to the French victories during the Napoleonic Wars, Germany
didn't exist as a unified state 1806-1871, but on the other hand:
Germany remained split, after 1871 in two empires, one led by Prussia
and one led by Austria.

European history knowledge is understandably in short supply in the US
(as is actually knowledge on US history in Europe).

But we suffer with you, and hope you will recover soon, so you can get
your priorities right. Whom do you have the most in common with?
Oppressive regimes in South America and the Muslim World, or the
democracies in Europe?

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Black Monk" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "The Black Monk" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > t>...
> > > > "The Black Monk" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > >
> > > > > He means the Franco-Prussian war.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's one. What are the other two?
> > >
> > > France was defeated by Germany in WWII (despite putting up a fight
> > > that was more heroic than the Americans had done in 100 years).
> > >
> >
> > Hardly, the US Civil war had only happened 50 years previously
> > and the cost to the US in terms of losses as a percentage of
> > population far higher than France sustained in 1940.
>
> I meant the last 100 years, prior to today. It was my lack of clarity
> here though.
>

In which case the heroic defence of Bastogne by the US airborne
forces has to be counted as does the massive defeat inflicted
by Patton's army in the breakout from Normandy

Lets not forget either the courage and doggedness the USMC
showed at Guadalcanal , Tarawa and a dozen other islands
when fighting a determined enemy unafraid of death.

> > Indeed one hesitates to call the French defence heroic,
> > individual French units certainly fought heroically and noone
> > doubts the courage of the french soldier but the
> > army, as a result of poor organisation and leadership,
> > did not put up a good performance.
>
> I differentiate heroism from organization and leadership. Poland's
> forces were well organized on the "platoon" level, but in general were
> extremely poorly organized (mobilization, for example, was a
> tragicomic mess). Yet the Poles may have been the most heroic army in
> World War II.
>

We are talking of the French not the poles and for the most part
the French army was not especially well organised even at platoon level.

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:38:21 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"The Black Monk" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> Germany surrendered not just to France. It collapsed fighting against
>> the combined forces of France, the UK, and the USA.
>>
>
>The point is you can't count WWI as a win for Germany and a loss for France.
>
Actually, you can. The Germans clearly defeated the French Army.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 8 Oct 2003 22:53:14 -0700, (Magnus Link) wrote:

>"Ugly Bob" > wrote in message >...
>
>> > > > Actually it's Germany 3 France 0.
>
>> > Pierre-Henri was probably refering to the war of 1870,
>
>> Though, technically, Germany didn't exist until 1871, after the war.
>
>Thanks to the French victories during the Napoleonic Wars, Germany
>didn't exist as a unified state 1806-1871, but on the other hand:
>Germany remained split, after 1871 in two empires, one led by Prussia
>and one led by Austria.
>
>European history knowledge is understandably in short supply in the US
>(as is actually knowledge on US history in Europe).
>
>But we suffer with you, and hope you will recover soon, so you can get
>your priorities right. Whom do you have the most in common with?
>Oppressive regimes in South America and the Muslim World, or the
>democracies in Europe?

Our priorities are "right" now. The fact that France is willing to
support terrorists so that the attacks will occur elsewhere does not
make France our friend.

And your country most certainly does *not* "suffer with us". If you do
personally, I thank you.

Al Minyard

[guy wastiaux]

just wanted to add that WWI lasted just 4 years :) It's quite enough
already.
Apart from that, nice article :)
Hey Al Minyard : you seem to forget it was mostly French and European
philosophists who made it possible to write the US constitution,
through their ideas. You OWE to Europe your very existence as a
democracy. And don't pretend otherwise.


The Black Monk wrote:
> The French

>
> BM


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[guy wastiaux]

-How about Finsbury Park ? Great Britain is your great ally, though it
is THE meeting place for islamic terrorists. That doesn't make Great
Britain your enemy.
Supporting terrorists isn't something done in France. There were many
terrorist attempts in the past 15 years or so, almost all from islamic
terrorists.
By the way, the US right-wing extremists seem to be good at blowing
buildings too. Now who's producing/supporting terrorists ?

Alan Minyard wrote:
> Our priorities are "right" now. The fact that France is willing to
> support terrorists so that the attacks will occur elsewhere does not
> make France our friend.
>
> And your country most certainly does *not* "suffer with us". If you do
> personally, I thank you.
>
> Al Minyard


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Christians for Cheeseburgers.]

"guy wastiaux" > wrote in message
...
> just wanted to add that WWI lasted just 4 years :) It's quite enough
> already.
> Apart from that, nice article :)
> Hey Al Minyard : you seem to forget it was mostly French and European
> philosophists who made it possible to write the US constitution,
> through their ideas. You OWE to Europe your very existence as a
> democracy. And don't pretend otherwise.
>

France only helped the US because they hated the Brits. They used the US for
their own selfish agenda.

>
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > The French
>
> >
> > BM
>
>
> --
> Guy Wastiaux
> aka FauCon PoiLu
> visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
> mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, you can. The Germans clearly defeated the French Army.
>

That's clear only to the ignorant.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Malev" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:44:42 GMT, "Christians for Cheeseburgers."
> > wrote:
>
>
> >France only helped the US because they hated the Brits. They used the US
for
> >their own selfish agenda.
> >
>
> You are a long way from getting the Nobel Prize for History.


In this case he's pretty much spot on.

The French motivation for helping the fledgling US
was scarcely a love of democracy, France
was govened by an absolute monarch.

On the other hand France was at war with Britain at the
time. France and Britain were global rivals in pretty
much the same way the USA and USSR were after WW2.

Keith

[guy wastiaux]

I disagree. You're wright when you say that France was ruled by an
absolut monarch, but helping the Americans against the British just for
their agenda is not all the way true. There was really this motivation
of hurting GBs colonies, but the main thrust of help that the US was
getting didn't come from the King.
If you dig in deeper, you'll find out that it was mainly businessmen
like Beaumarchais who were interested in selling weaponry to the US,
around 1760/1770. It's true that french troops were used, but France had
many colonies around the area, so it wasn't such a big effort.
Those same businessmen were the spear of the intellectual revolution of
1789, as in they were the ones who established the basis of the new
post-kingdom society. So there truly was an interest in democracy,
especially since the US were the first colonies to arise against an old
type of society, like the one ruling France at the time. Of course, the
French Kings, Louis XV and Louis XVI after that, weren't really
interested in democracy :)

Finally, you're totally off the spot (;D) when comparing the rivalry
between France & England and the one between USSR & the US. At the time,
both kingdoms were from the same type, whereas the US & USSR were
completely different, and I think it changes things a lot.


Keith Willshaw wrote:
> In this case he's pretty much spot on.
>
> The French motivation for helping the fledgling US
> was scarcely a love of democracy, France
> was govened by an absolute monarch.
>
> On the other hand France was at war with Britain at the
> time. France and Britain were global rivals in pretty
> much the same way the USA and USSR were after WW2.
>
> Keith
>
>


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Keith Willshaw]

"guy wastiaux" > wrote in message
...
> I disagree. You're wright when you say that France was ruled by an
> absolut monarch, but helping the Americans against the British just for
> their agenda is not all the way true. There was really this motivation
> of hurting GBs colonies, but the main thrust of help that the US was
> getting didn't come from the King.

It came from the French State which was the King, nothing
happened without his approval, those who behaved in ways
Le Roi disapproved of ended up in the Bastille.


> If you dig in deeper, you'll find out that it was mainly businessmen
> like Beaumarchais who were interested in selling weaponry to the US,
> around 1760/1770. It's true that french troops were used, but France had
> many colonies around the area, so it wasn't such a big effort.

French troops could only be committed with the approval of the
French monarch and the French Navy was heavily involved too.

> Those same businessmen were the spear of the intellectual revolution of
> 1789, as in they were the ones who established the basis of the new
> post-kingdom society. So there truly was an interest in democracy,
> especially since the US were the first colonies to arise against an old
> type of society, like the one ruling France at the time. Of course, the
> French Kings, Louis XV and Louis XVI after that, weren't really
> interested in democracy :)
>

However the fact remains that the motivation for the aid
supplied by the French state to the fledgling USA was
to hurt Britain

There may indeed have been business men who
had other interests but then that was true of England
too. A lot of English interests sympathised with the
rebels.

> Finally, you're totally off the spot (;D) when comparing the rivalry
> between France & England and the one between USSR & the US. At the time,
> both kingdoms were from the same type, whereas the US & USSR were
> completely different, and I think it changes things a lot.
>

Actually I believe I'm spot on

The rivalry was global, France and England fought each other
for colonial possessions around the world. Wellington
learned his craft fighting French supported forces in India.

George Washington had been part of the forces supporting
the British during the French and Indian wars

During the series of wars that only ended at Waterloo
French and British forces came into conflict on every
continent except Antarctica, even the colonisation
of Australia was a race with the British getting there
first.

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:42:31 +0200, guy wastiaux >
wrote:

>just wanted to add that WWI lasted just 4 years :) It's quite enough
>already.
>Apart from that, nice article :)
>Hey Al Minyard : you seem to forget it was mostly French and European
>philosophists who made it possible to write the US constitution,
>through their ideas. You OWE to Europe your very existence as a
>democracy. And don't pretend otherwise.
>
>
>The Black Monk wrote:
>> The French
>
>>
>> BM

What rubbish. The Europeans were still absolute monarchies at the
time. The European democracies owe their existence to the US.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:59:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> Actually, you can. The Germans clearly defeated the French Army.
>>
>
>That's clear only to the ignorant.
>
So you are not aware of the mutinies in the French Army? Or the fact
that they had lost virtually all of their offensive capability??

Al Minyard

[guy wastiaux]

quite true for the monarchies, but they was this intense intellectual
effort from the European elites, whose ideas eventually led to the
writing of the constitution. The fact that there were absolut monarchies
in Europe didn't prevent those ideas to emerge. Of course there were
many actors in-between, but they just passed the stuff along.

Alan Minyard wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:42:31 +0200, guy wastiaux >
> wrote:
>
>
>>just wanted to add that WWI lasted just 4 years :) It's quite enough
>>already.
>>Apart from that, nice article :)
>>Hey Al Minyard : you seem to forget it was mostly French and European
>>philosophists who made it possible to write the US constitution,
>>through their ideas. You OWE to Europe your very existence as a
>>democracy. And don't pretend otherwise.
>>
>>
>>The Black Monk wrote:
>>
>>>The French
>>
>>>BM
>
>
> What rubbish. The Europeans were still absolute monarchies at the
> time. The European democracies owe their existence to the US.
>
> Al Minyard


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Scott MacEachern]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:02:56 -0500, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>What rubbish. The Europeans were still absolute monarchies at the
>time. The European democracies owe their existence to the US.


? You think that the Brits had an absolute monarchy in 1776? The
Dutch?

Scott

[Chuck Johnson]

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:38:21 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Black Monk" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>> Germany surrendered not just to France. It collapsed fighting
>>> against the combined forces of France, the UK, and the USA.
>>>
>>
>>The point is you can't count WWI as a win for Germany and a loss for
>>France.
>>
> Actually, you can. The Germans clearly defeated the French Army.
>
> Al Minyard
>

Al,

Put down the crack pipe. Now.

-Chuck

[Skysurfer]

Alan Minyard nous disait :

> What rubbish. The Europeans were still absolute monarchies at the
> time.

France ? A monarchy ?
UK ? An absolute monarchy ?????

"That was Alan joke of the day".

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:43:56 +0200, Skysurfer > wrote:

>Alan Minyard nous disait :
>
>> What rubbish. The Europeans were still absolute monarchies at the
>> time.
>
>France ? A monarchy ?
>UK ? An absolute monarchy ?????
>
>"That was Alan joke of the day".

Yes, France was a monarchy at the time of the American Revolution, and
while the UK had a Parliament, at the time it was essentially an
absolute monarchy.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:43:56 +0200, Skysurfer > wrote:
>>France ? A monarchy ?
>>UK ? An absolute monarchy ?????
>>
>>"That was Alan joke of the day".
>
>Yes, France was a monarchy at the time of the American Revolution, and
>while the UK had a Parliament, at the time it was essentially an
>absolute monarchy.

No, by then we'd publicly decapitated two kings who thought that their
rule was absolute: the lesson had sunk in by then.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:44:17 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:43:56 +0200, Skysurfer > wrote:
>>>France ? A monarchy ?
>>>UK ? An absolute monarchy ?????
>>>
>>>"That was Alan joke of the day".
>>
>>Yes, France was a monarchy at the time of the American Revolution, and
>>while the UK had a Parliament, at the time it was essentially an
>>absolute monarchy.
>
>No, by then we'd publicly decapitated two kings who thought that their
>rule was absolute: the lesson had sunk in by then.

Two? Who was the other one?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Raymond]

> Germany 2, France 0, enough said.

???

R.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> The history of their actual contribution to WW1 speaks for itself.
>
>


Yes, Thanks for starting the damn thing.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[George Z. Bush]

Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> The history of their actual contribution to WW1 speaks for itself.
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, Thanks for starting the damn thing.

The French assassinated Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo? I'll have to correct my
history book......it's got it all wrong! Imagine blaming those lovable
Austrians for pulling the cork out of the dike?

George Z.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:44:17 +0100, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwlync
>h.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>>Yes, France was a monarchy at the time of the American Revolution, and
>>>while the UK had a Parliament, at the time it was essentially an
>>>absolute monarchy.
>>
>>No, by then we'd publicly decapitated two kings who thought that their
>>rule was absolute: the lesson had sunk in by then.
>
>Two? Who was the other one?

My mistake. Charles I thought he was an absolute monarch, and lost his
head over the issue; James II also got deposed and replaced, but was
able to flee the country rather than be executed.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:44:17 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:43:56 +0200, Skysurfer > wrote:
>>>France ? A monarchy ?
>>>UK ? An absolute monarchy ?????
>>>
>>>"That was Alan joke of the day".
>>
>>Yes, France was a monarchy at the time of the American Revolution, and
>>while the UK had a Parliament, at the time it was essentially an
>>absolute monarchy.
>
>No, by then we'd publicly decapitated two kings who thought that their
>rule was absolute: the lesson had sunk in by then.

That is a good way to make the point :-)

Al Minyard

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> Tank Fixer wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> The history of their actual contribution to WW1 speaks for itself.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes, Thanks for starting the damn thing.
>
> The French assassinated Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo? I'll have to correct my
> history book......it's got it all wrong! Imagine blaming those lovable
> Austrians for pulling the cork out of the dike?
>


No, but the French could have let it go instead of getting involved. I
suspect the war might have been a good bit shorter. More like the previous
one in the Balkans..


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[ArVa]

"Tank Fixer" > a écrit dans le message de
k.net...
>
> No, but the French could have let it go instead of getting involved. I
> suspect the war might have been a good bit shorter. More like the previous
> one in the Balkans..
>

You seem to be a bit confused with European history (you're obviously not
the only one), so let me help you :
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914m/willnick/timeline.htm

Just read the 1914 events timeline, it will be enough I guess.

ArVa

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> "Tank Fixer" > a écrit dans le message de
> k.net...
> >
> > No, but the French could have let it go instead of getting involved. I
> > suspect the war might have been a good bit shorter. More like the previous
> > one in the Balkans..
> >
>
> You seem to be a bit confused with European history (you're obviously not
> the only one), so let me help you :
> http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914m/willnick/timeline.htm
>
> Just read the 1914 events timeline, it will be enough I guess.
>

In reading through the time line I see where France could have stayed out
of it. If France stays out then UK stays out which keep Canada out.

==
1914 28 June - Assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife at Sarajevo

1914 24 July - German ambassadors transmit note in Paris, London, and St
Petersburg that conflict be localised

1914 24 July - Paul Cambon proposes conference and announces support of
Russia in case of Russians at war with Austria

1914 27 July - France accepts Grey's proposals of mediation while telling
Russians the French army would fully stand by Russia militarily

1914 28 July - French General Staff informs Russian military attache in
Paris that French Army is fully ready and active to do her duty as an ally
of Russia
==




--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[ArVa]

"Tank Fixer" > a écrit dans le message de
k.net...
>
> In reading through the time line I see where France could have stayed out
> of it. If France stays out then UK stays out which keep Canada out.

and then the US don't intervene, and there is no treaty of Versailles, and
therefore no WWII, and so on and so on...

>
> ==
> 1914 28 June - Assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife at Sarajevo
>
> 1914 24 July - German ambassadors transmit note in Paris, London, and St
> Petersburg that conflict be localised
>
> 1914 24 July - Paul Cambon proposes conference and announces support of
> Russia in case of Russians at war with Austria
>
> 1914 27 July - France accepts Grey's proposals of mediation while telling
> Russians the French army would fully stand by Russia militarily
>
> 1914 28 July - French General Staff informs Russian military attache in
> Paris that French Army is fully ready and active to do her duty as an ally
> of Russia


Congratulations, as you have just demonstrated that selecting partial
historical events *out of context* (internal and foreign polices, leaders
personalities, alliances, peoples mentality, former events and history,
etc...) only leads to a biased, uncomplete and eventually false vision of
history...

ArVa