Is Kyoto better than Paris?

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Ha...ght031303.html

March 13, 2003

AMERICA'S FLAILING FRANCOPHOBES
by Thomas Fleming

Neoconservative hatemongers are stirring up the Francophobic bigotry that
lies just beneath the surface of the American mind. Not content with
hurling the charge of anti-Semitism against anyone who wins an argument
with Bill Kristol (the line would extend around the world) or happens to
have something (a foundation, a magazine, a job) they want,
neoconservatives who have never fired a pellet gun
or put on a pair of boxing gloves are deriding the French for cowardice and
calling for boycotts against French wine. The assembled patriots and heroes
of the House of Representatives, not wanting to be outdone, have even
renamed the French fries and French toast served in their sumptuous,
tax-subsidized restaurant. I hope they also rename French doughnuts, which
used to be known as German doughnuts, before an
earlier set of chauvinist cretins changed the name.

What a country.

Picking on the French is a natural reflex for Americans. Our British
ancestors, after conquering France in the entirely futile and unjust
Hundred Years War, demonized their victims and burned Joan of Arc, one of
the greatest women in our history, at the stake as witch. The French have
been fair game ever since.
Although France was the boldest military nation in Europe of the past 500
years, English novelists consistently represented French characters as
mincing aesthetes tradition brilliantly satirized by W.S. Gilbert in
Ruddigore, in which a hearty British sailor represents a British
privateer’s decision to flee a French frigate as a gallant action:

For to fight a French fal lal,
It’s like hitting of a gal.
It’s a lubberly thing for to do.
And we with all our faults,
We were sturdy British salts,
Who took pity on the poor polly-vous,
Do you see
We took pity on the poor polly-vous.

Ruddigore was written over a hundred years before Rupert Murdoch created
the Weekly Standard as one of his weapons in his campaign to undermine the
United States.

Anti-French hysteria reached its peak in Mark Twain’s worst book, Innocents
Abroad, and old Mark—Confederate deserter turned court jester to the
plutocrats—could always get a laugh by playing to the lowest qualities of
the American character—our hatred of every excellence we are incapable of.
If the French are the most civilized nation on earth, so much the worse for
civilization. “Mankind,” he used to say, “is somewhere
between the angels and the French.”

In Twain’s case, the humor is both faux-naif and two-edged, aimed as much
at himself and his countrymen as at the sophisticated foreigners,
and his Joan of Arc is a remarkably sympathetic depiction of the French
saint.
On the other hand, the neoconservatives and their pseudo-conservative
allies—Messers Limbaugh and O’Reilly—are no laughing matter. They could not
tell a joke to save their lives; their knowledge of the world outside the
petty urban hells in which they are confined approaches zero; and their
patriotism is on par with their moral conscience.

Why do I say they are not patriotic? A patriot loves his nation and his
people.
Neoconservatives hate the real America. At best, we represent a four-hour
delay between appointments in New York and Los Angeles; at worst, we are
pitchfork-wielding rednecks, fundamentalists, kukluxers, wobblies, and
Coughlinites who prefer reruns of The A-Team to reruns of Friends. We buy
our clothes at Marshall’s instead of Saks or Brooks Brothers. We still eat
fried chicken with mashed potatoes and gravy for Sunday
dinner, and we drink tap water, for goodness sake, not Evian (made in
France!).

They want our boys and girls to die for their political schemes, but you
will never find a neoconservative in combat. Norman Podhoretz was in the
army, but to fathom the depth of neoconservative contempt for America, you
have only to read the account of his days in the army in Making It (what, I
wonder, is the “it” in question?
I have never heard that Norman ever made anything—not a poem, not a house,
not a model airplane—except a fool of himself.)

I succeeded in staying out of the military during the Vietnam War, and I
would never assume the right to tell others to do a “duty” that I shirked.
So much for patriotism—and moral conscience. Even in little matters the
neoconservatives display their immorality.
They are always in favor of bombing, embargoing, and boycotting anyone they
disagree with. The fact that the US bombing of Yugoslavia killed as many
people as Serbs and Albanians were killed in the preceding year of ethnic
strife in Kosovo means nothing to them. The fact that as many as half a
million Iraqi children have died as a direct result of
the embargo on Iraq that they support is all the fault of Saddam Hussein.
The fact that French farmers, businessmen, and workers, whose political
views we know nothing of, will be hurt by any boycott of French products
will not trouble the “consciences” of people who have never been to a farm,
run a business, or done a day of honest work in their lives.

I love my country, knowing all the limitations and frailties of the
American people, and I respect and admire the French, who have been a far
greater nation than we shall ever be, that is, if greatness means anything
loftier than money and bombs. Jacques Chirac, whom I have for many years
regarded as the least admirable of French politicians, is now showing
greater courage than Mitterand, national socialist though he was, ever
mustered. He is playing a dangerous game. If he loses, France will return
to the American kennel as a whipped dog, but if he wins, De Gaulle’s dream
of an independent France within an independent
Europe might actually be realized. Such a result would be good for France,
good for Europe, and good for the United States, which would have to give
up the neoconservative fantasy of global hegemony.

God bless America!

Vive la France.

Copyright 2003, www.ChroniclesMagazine.org

http://www.centralmaine.com/view/edi...thu_fran.shtml

Thursday, March 20, 2003

France-bashing reveals political shallowness

Copyright © 2003 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.

Among the most disheartening aspects of the buildup to war with Iraq has
been the dissension among Western allies, especially within the ranks of
the NATO alliance. While one might expect Russia and China to vigorously
oppose anything they see as American interests at the United Nations,
antiwar positions taken by the French and Germany may have been surprising.


RECENT EDITORIALS:

That surprise and nothing more, we hope, is at the root of the
French-bashing that has moved from late night talk shows to the halls of
the Capitol. If Americans are feeling hurt, or a little indignant, at the
French opposition to war, they'll get over it soon enough.

Anti-French sentiments, however, sometimes have gone beyond the merely
petty. Some of it has the distasteful flavor of jingoism, and it is
distressing to see congressmen leading the way with derogatory statements
about the French people and threats to embargo French goods.

The United States has a history of scapegoating ethnic groups, and
sometimes with terrible consequences. Men and women who have been elected
to the highest offices in the country ought to be more sensitive to the
messages that they are sending when they criticize the French — not on
their politics — but on their courage or their sense of justice.

Two pieces of advice are in order. The first is that America should not
forget the long alliance our two countries have shared.
It's one without debts —the French don't owe us for helping them in World
War II anymore than we owe them for our success in the
Revolutionary War of 1776. That's what friends do.

The second is that we should demand that our friends tell us the truth and
not behave as sycophants. If France opposes a war with Iraq right now, it
is obliged to say so — and could be doing us a favor. That's also what
friends do.

Let's face it — renaming French fries and French toast to freedom fries and
freedom toast is silly, at best, and at worst, underscores the shallow
level that Beltway politics has
reached these days. What's next — the freedom kiss?

http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshi...ge/frhist.html

read from the start to the end. Just do it, wiseass !
--
To understand the background of the Revolutionary War, it is necessary
to understand the history of the preceding twenty years, and especially
the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). The Seven Years’ War was fought by
the European colonial powers from Canada to the West Indies and from
Europe to far-flung colonial empires in India and the Phillippines. In
North America, we know the part of the Seven Years' war that was fought
here as the French and Indian Wars. The Seven Years' War was largely a
disaster for France and her allies. In the aftermath of the war, which
resulted in the loss of most French territory in North America and
India, the French instituted sweeping reform of the army and navy. The
French army that landed in Newport in 1781 was the product of this
thorough and fundamental reorganization.

The English victory, however, was dearly bought. The cost of fielding
the army that secured the safety of the English colonies was tremendous.
This expense, together with the continuing cost of protecting these
colonies after the war, led to English demands that the American
colonists contribute to the cost of their own protection. As a result, a
series of Acts of Parliament imposed a variety of taxes on the colonists
during the 1760s and early 1770s. For many colonists, the chains that
had linked them to Britain for almost 150 years became the chains of
servitude, foreign domination and unjust tyranny. These taxes ultimately
fueled the tensions and passions that burst into flames on Lexington
Green on April 19, 1775.

From the outbreak of armed rebellion in 1775, many in France sympathized
with the colonists. Young, idealistic French officers like the Marquis
de Lafayette volunteered their services and in many cases their personal

wealth to help equip, train and lead the fledgling Continental army. The
French government hoped to redress the balance of power that resulted
from the French humiliation in the Seven Years Wars, which gave
considerable economic and military advantages to Britain. While
maintaining formal neutrality, France assisted in supplying arms,
uniforms and other military supplies to the American colonists.

This clandestine assistance became open after the defeat of General
Burgoyne at Saratoga in 1777, which demonstrated the possibility of
British defeat in the conflict and led to French recognition of the
colonies in February 1778. As a result of the victory of the Continental
forces at Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin, who had gone to Paris as
ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate a Treaty of Amity and Commerce
and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From this point, French support
became increasingly significant. The French extended considerable
financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied
vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their
purchase.

French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory.
French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists
against the British. At the same time, British and French (and to a
lesser extent, Dutch and Spanish) forces fought for colonial wealth and
empire around the world. From 1778 through 1783 -- two years after the
defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown -- French forces fought the British in
the West Indies, Africa and India.

From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point
of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry
and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops
under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where
they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette.
Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by
the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse
intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated
the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy
to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on
the Yorktown peninsula.

At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of
time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed
their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British
positions.
After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements,
Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped
French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender
his army.

On October 19, 1781, the British forces marched out between the silent
ranks of the Americans and French, arrayed in parallel lines a mile
long, and cast down their arms.

Abbé Robin, who witnessed the surrender, described the victorious
American and French forces present at the ceremony. "Among the
Americans, the wide variety in age -- 12 to 14-year old children stood
side by side with grandfathers -- the absence of uniformity in their
bearing and their ragged clothing made the French allies appear more
splendid by contrast. The latter, in their immaculate white uniforms and
blue braid, gave an impression of martial vigor despite their fatigue.
We were all astonished by the excellent condition of the English troops,
by their number -- we were expecting scarcely 3,000 and they numbered
more than 8,000 -- and by their discipline."

George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following
words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet
was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle
were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to
Washington; in total naval and military participants the French
outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was
Rochambeau’s victory.

How strange it must have been for these French troops and their
new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies
barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed
conflict with France’s ancient enemy and the colonist’s blood kin! In
the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new
American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial domination
were finally broken.
--

this one is good too, read it !

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1175%20%20&

-
Without the French assistance don't you think that your founding fathers,
Washington first, would have been hung by the british ?...
We owe you our survival, you owe us your succesful birth.

Hi asshole ! you're stupid and I can help you to slightly change (no,
don't thank me, it's my pleasure ...) - i'll try to make up for your
failing school system - All you have to do is chilling out and be
reading the following lecture :
--
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of
French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian...

Inform yourself, and you will understand that there nothing really
humiliating in that. The Gauls Won many battles and almost won but
caesar was decidedly a great and strong-willed stratege and helped by
germanic tribes cavalry (BTW there were gauls in the roman legions too
at this time). It was mainly the inter-gallic disputes that caused their
defeat finally, and some strategical mistakes at Alesia.their
opponent was Julius Caesar, a man that the name was used as a
title 2000 yrs later (kaiser, tsar ...). See what I mean ?
BTW the gauls in the past invaded, ransacked and burnt Roma, founded
Belgrad on their way to conquer lands, ransacked delphia (Greece) and
invaded turkey (hence the Galatians).

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, but saved at the last minute by a Female
schizophrenic who inadvertantly creates The First Rule Of French Warfare;
"France's Armies Are Only Victorious When Not Led By A Frenchman"...

Hundred Years War (1337-1453)
(what about the first war against the english (Franco-angevine war:
1159-1299),
the one in which Richard Lionheart whose mother was French - and himself
member
of a French dinasty was killed by a french arrow from a crossbow, in the
eyes ...)

Some battles were won, some battles were lost, finally the stuff was
going bad (about 100 yrs later - yeah, ever wondered why it lasted
116 yrs, wiseass ? The truth is that at the beginning the english had
many defeats - do some research about a guy named Bertrand Du Guesclin)
anyway the english had some 'french allies (burgundians) at this time
and the knights and soldiers fighting the english/burgundians were french,
Jehanne d'arc (Joan of Arc) didn't fight the intruders alone ...
(and BTW Joan of Arc led the french army a very little time)
What the english gained with difficulty in about 100 yrs was regained in
very few years by the french though The french king made mistakes that
made the war lasting some more years ...
(oh ... and about the Crecy and Agincourt battles the french have nothing
to be ashamed of on the level of courage they've shown - check why and
how they lost !)
The French had to undergo the worst of the war since it was on their soil.
The only real tough stuff for the english king was that after his defeat,
He lost a part of his credibility in the mind of his people.
The war was definitely won by the french, so what's the problem ?

You should remeber what is at the origin of this conflict : in 1066 the
Duke of Normandia (France) invaded England and won at Hastings, what
explains that the french language was the official language of the
english court at least 2 centuries, and that explains that TODAY, you're
talking in a huge part in old french your whole day (in fact almost
everytime that you open your mouth) - BTW nowadays the motto of the
English monarchy is : "Dieu et Mon Droit" ( french ) and the motto of
the Most Noble Order of the Garter, which was founded in 1348 by King
Edward III as a noble fraternity consisting of the King, the Prince of
Wales (or heir-apparent to the throne) and 24 Knights Companion is
"Honni soit qui mal y pense".

Plantagenêts is neither saxon nor angles ...

Oh, BTW, a lot of your military terms and ranks are from France
(sergent, lieutenant, general, soldier (old french term for 'soldat' :
solde = money that fighters were paid) corp, regiment, division, army
is obviously derivated from armee, platoon from peloton, squad from
escouade, batallion from bataillon, garrison from garnison, even
warrior and war is derivating from 'guerrier' and 'guerre' some
old french words starting by 'g' were changed the'g' becoming
a 'w' in english (see : william : guillaume, warden : guardien,
wasp : Guespe (modern french : guêpe), to waste : gaster
(the old term for 'gater' (gâter pour les non ASCII 7 bits !) )
Some other words were taken to the french but they were taken by the
french from other countries : captain, colonel, cannon, battle etc...
so it's a little different.
'fleet' came from 'flotte' (french) that came from 'flotti' (old
scandinavian) that came from the old french 'flote' that meant "troop,
big bunch of persons", so I suppose this one counts anyway ;-)
Oh, and the bayonet was invented by the frenchmen (the name
comes from the name of the city named Bayonne)...

"a lot of your military terms and ranks are from France" ...
What could this be meaning ... hmm ... let's see . Well I let you search
by yourself (a clue ? war is not a so unknown thing to these swishy
frenchies ... maybe ?)

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first & only country ever to lose
two wars when fighting Italians...

More precisions needed we won some wars VS italians, with françois the
1st ! We brought back Leonardo da Vinci from those wars. Read about the
Bayard knight BTW.
Are you talking about war VS Charles Quint (the 5th) because you should
be informed that it is a lot more difficult to win when you're fighting
a mega-power and that you're not one yourself ....

Wars Of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huegonots...

? ? ? anyway it's Huguenots. Well more precisions needed, for what I
know we won and in fact even if at one moment english were implied, they
left
before fighting AFAIK. If i'm wrong highlight it.
Oh BTW, the Huguenots were French.

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to
get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually, the other
participant began ignoring her...

Wrong ! we were implied from 1635 to 1648 and it was rather a favorable
upshot AFAIK.

Sheesh ! what about the Franco-Spanish war that we totally won (gaining
territories) wise-ass !
Strangely enough, your memory seems selective !;-)

War Of Devolution - Tied...
The Dutch War - Tied...

No. We won AFAIK. We won many territories and cities.

I strongly suggest you to read it :

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...Louis_XIV.html

The War Of Spanish Succession - Lost...

Lost ? I don't think so ... it's not that simple (see below).
Anyway it's a Bourbon (french dynasty) on the Spanish throne,
isn't it ?

I quote (see link above about Louis XIV):

"The War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) was the most
brutal and costly of Louis’s military endeavors.
For the first time in over a century, French armies
lost battles, most notably by John Churchill, 1st Duke of
Marlborough, at the Battle of Blenheim (in what is now Germany)
in 1704 and at Ramillies (in what is now Belgium) in 1706.
The fighting made it clear that France would not gain control of the
Spanish
Netherlands (they were ultimately ceded to Austria). However,
it also revealed that the allies could not dislodge Philip
from the Spanish throne.

Realizing a stalemate, the warring nations worked to find
an acceptable formula for peace, which took nearly as long
as did the fighting. The Peace of Utrecht recognized
Philip as king of Spain but dismembered the Spanish inheritance
to balance power among France, Spain, Austria, and Great Britain.
It was also agreed that France and Spain would never be united
as one monarchy. Louis XIV died in 1715, just after the
war ended. He was succeeded by his great-grandson, Louis XV."

War Of The Augsburg League/King William's War/French And Indian War - All

The seven years war (aka french and indian war in north america):
humiliation, true !
(I want just highlight the fact that in north america in 1754, the
french were 85,000 in the "Nouvelle France" and the english people were
1,485,634 in New England...

"At first glance, it looked like a mismatch. English troops
outnumbered French troops almost 2-to-1. English colonies had
their own militias and produced their
own food. French settlements had to rely on soldiers hired by fur-trading
companies and food from the homeland."

IN 1763, we lost : India (bar 5 cities), Ohio, Canada,
left side of the Mississipi, Antilles (bar 3 islands)
and Senegal (that will have again later)

Anyway, check it out, i think it's not unuseful :-) :
(about the french and indians war - the basics)

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/...indianwar1.htm
to
http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/...indianwar4.htm

Lost, but claimed as ties. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles
the world over to label this period as the height of French military
power...

American Revolution - In a move that will become familiar to future American
generations, France claims a win even though American colonists saw far More
action. This is later known as "The De Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to The
Second Rule Of Fench Warfare; " France Only Wins When America Does Most Of
The Fighting"...

http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshi...ge/frhist.html

read from the start to the end. Just do it, wiseass !
--
To understand the background of the Revolutionary War, it is necessary
to understand the history of the preceding twenty years, and especially
the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). The Seven Years’ War was fought by
the European colonial powers from Canada to the West Indies and from
Europe to far-flung colonial empires in India and the Phillippines. In
North America, we know the part of the Seven Years' war that was fought
here as the French and Indian Wars. The Seven Years' War was largely a
disaster for France and her allies. In the aftermath of the war, which
resulted in the loss of most French territory in North America and
India, the French instituted sweeping reform of the army and navy. The
French army that landed in Newport in 1781 was the product of this
thorough and fundamental reorganization.

The English victory, however, was dearly bought. The cost of fielding
the army that secured the safety of the English colonies was tremendous.
This expense, together with the continuing cost of protecting these
colonies after the war, led to English demands that the American
colonists contribute to the cost of their own protection. As a result, a
series of Acts of Parliament imposed a variety of taxes on the colonists
during the 1760s and early 1770s. For many colonists, the chains that
had linked them to Britain for almost 150 years became the chains of
servitude, foreign domination and unjust tyranny. These taxes ultimately
fueled the tensions and passions that burst into flames on Lexington
Green on April 19, 1775.

From the outbreak of armed rebellion in 1775, many in France sympathized
with the colonists. Young, idealistic French officers like the Marquis
de Lafayette volunteered their services and in many cases their personal

wealth to help equip, train and lead the fledgling Continental army. The
French government hoped to redress the balance of power that resulted
from the French humiliation in the Seven Years Wars, which gave
considerable economic and military advantages to Britain. While
maintaining formal neutrality, France assisted in supplying arms,
uniforms and other military supplies to the American colonists.

This clandestine assistance became open after the defeat of General
Burgoyne at Saratoga in 1777, which demonstrated the possibility of
British defeat in the conflict and led to French recognition of the
colonies in February 1778. As a result of the victory of the Continental
forces at Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin, who had gone to Paris as
ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate a Treaty of Amity and Commerce
and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From this point, French support
became increasingly significant. The French extended considerable
financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied
vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their
purchase.

French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory.
French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists
against the British. At the same time, British and French (and to a
lesser extent, Dutch and Spanish) forces fought for colonial wealth and
empire around the world. From 1778 through 1783 -- two years after the
defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown -- French forces fought the British in
the West Indies, Africa and India.

From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point
of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry
and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops
under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where
they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette.
Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by
the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse
intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated
the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy
to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on
the Yorktown peninsula.

At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of
time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed
their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British
positions.
After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements,
Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped
French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender
his army.

On October 19, 1781, the British forces marched out between the silent
ranks of the Americans and French, arrayed in parallel lines a mile
long, and cast down their arms.

Abbé Robin, who witnessed the surrender, described the victorious
American and French forces present at the ceremony. "Among the
Americans, the wide variety in age -- 12 to 14-year old children stood
side by side with grandfathers -- the absence of uniformity in their
bearing and their ragged clothing made the French allies appear more
splendid by contrast. The latter, in their immaculate white uniforms and
blue braid, gave an impression of martial vigor despite their fatigue.
We were all astonished by the excellent condition of the English troops,
by their number -- we were expecting scarcely 3,000 and they numbered
more than 8,000 -- and by their discipline."

George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following
words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet
was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle
were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to
Washington; in total naval and military participants the French
outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was
Rochambeau’s victory.

How strange it must have been for these French troops and their
new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies
barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed
conflict with France’s ancient enemy and the colonist’s blood kin! In
the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new
American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial domination
were finally broken.
--

this one is good too, read it !

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1175%20%20&

--
Without the French assistance don't you think that your founding fathers,
Washington first, would have been hung by the british ?...
We owe you our survival, you owe us your succesful birth.

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

Wrong (For instance : Jemmapes, Valmy, Fleurus, etc...) see later ...

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember The First Rule!)
due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British
footwear designer...

The french armies were composed of corsicans ?
We fought generally alone VS the whole Europe and we won, we possessed
almost the whole Europe during 15 yrs, Moscow burnt - who did this
things other than us ?
I know : who cares you're not here to be just, but to troll, sorry to
make you lose your sparetime making you quickly reading this.
Even at Waterloo, we were at some moments near to win against the
_ COALITION _. The anglo-dutch corp was in trouble at some moment, but
the prussians and Blücher definitively changed the things.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany's first go around at playing the
drunk frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on Saturday night...

Crimea war (1854-55) won by the coalition (among them France that
had the most troopers among the allies).

Interesting excerpt :
http://www.xenophongi.org/crimea/war/crimware.htm

"The Storming of the Malakoff.
During July the Russians lost on an average 250 men a day, and at last it
was decided that Gorchakov and the field army must make another attack at
the Chernaya - the first since Inkerman. On the 16th of August the corps of
Generals Liprandi and Read furiously attacked the 37,000 French and
Sardinian troops on the heights above Traktir ridge. The assailants came on
with the greatest determination, but the result was never for one moment
doubtful. At the end of the day the Russians drew off baffled, leaving 260
officers and 3000 men on the field. The allies only lost 1700. With this
defeat vanished the last chance of saving Sevastopol. On the same day (Aug.
16th) the bombardment once more reduced the Malakoff and its dependencies
to impotence, and it was with absolute confidence in the result that
Pelissier planned the final assault. On the 8th of September 1855 at noon,
the whole of Bosquet's corps suddenly swarmed up-to the Malakoff. The
fighting was of the most desperate kind. Every casemate, every traverse,
was taken and retaken time after time, but the French maintained the prize,
and though the British attack on the Redan once more failed, the Russians
crowded in that work became at once the helpless target of the siege guns.
Even on the far left, opposite Flagstaff and Central bastions, there was
severe hand- to-hand fighting, and throughout the day the bombardment mowed
down the Russian masses along the whole line. The fall of the Malakoff was
the end of the siege. All night the Russians were filing over the bridges
to the north side, and on the 9th the victors took possession of the empty
and burning prize. The losses in the last assault had been very heavy, to
the allies over 10,000 men, to the Russians 13,000. No less than nineteen
generals had fallen on that day. But the crisis was surmounted. With the
capture of Sevastopol the war loses its absorbing interest. No serious
operations were undertaken against Gorchakov, who with the field army and
the remnant of the garrison held the heights at Mackenzie's Farm. But
Kinburn was attacked by sea, and from the naval point of view the attack is
interesting as being the first instance of the employment of ironclads. An
armistice was agreed upon on the 26th of February and the definitive peace
of Paris was signed on the 30th of March 1856."

Italy wars (or Austro-Franco-sarde war) won by Napoleon III in 1859 ...

Victory in China and Annexions in the future vietnam (186*).

The Franco-prussian war (1870-1871) : Lost.
But the german army was bigger and more modern (they were in a
war politic for some moment at this time ( victory VS denmark (1864),
VS Austria (Sadowa - 1867))
In France the Army was disorganized since the "war" in Mexico (*)
and our emperor Napoleon the IIIrd was ill (and not far of his death)

(*) (expeditionnary corp from 1862-1867. BTW, we can't really talk
of a real defeat on the battlefield, we did take Mexico)

Besides, The most remarkable military fact in the history of the
Foreign Legion is the battle of Camerone (Mexico, April 30th, 1863).
In that occasion 62 french "légionnaires" fought
against more than 2,000 enemies, resisting for about 10 hours.
Even today, the Legionnaires' year starts on "Camerone day".

The official monument says :
HERE, THEY WERE LESS THAN SIXTY AGAINST A WHOLE ARMY
ITS NUMBER CRUSHED THEM BUT LIFE RATHER THAN BRAVERY
LEFT THESE FRENCH MEN ON THE 30TH OF APRIL 1863.
TO THEIR MEMORY.
(Since, when the Mexican troops pass in front of
the monument, they "show their weapons"(?) - a honoring salute)


World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United
States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep

Wrong. and not tied, asshole - so, you're a propagandist ...

1913 :
----------
Population :

Germany : 67 millions
France : 39.6 millions (only country of those 4 countries that will be
devastated by the war)
UK : 46 millions
USA : 95 millions

Germany : 1,800,000 dead soldiers
wounded : 4,216,000 soldiers

France : 1,450,000 dead soldiers (maybe underestimated for political
propaganda reasons)
wounded : 3,600,000 soldiers

UK : 740,000 dead soldiers
wounded : 2,090,000 soldiers
(about 940,000 dead soldiers if we add the ones from the Commonwealth
(Canada, Australia, etc ...))

USA : 116,000 dead soldiers

Italy : 680,000 dead soldiers
Austria-Hungary : 1,200,000 dead soldiers
Russia : 1,700,000 dead soldiers

The plans of the germans was to crush the french before Russia have
mobilized all its army (germany at this time was reputated being the
most powerful army)
Result : We stood untill the victory, on the contrary of the
Russians ...
BTW Greece stood (and so the blockade) because of the French
troops over there IIRC.

1914-1918 : The French army was the major military actor on the Western
front for 4 years. The British took a very active part on that front for
4 years too. The allies under Marechal Foch's French command eventually
won the war. The American troops massively arrived on the front only 4
months (July 1918) before the end of the war (November 1918).

Western front March 1918 : 174 allies divisions : 99 French + 58 British
+ 12 Belgian + 3 US + 2 portuguese.
Western Front November 1918 : 211 Allies divisions : 104 French + 60
British + 30 US + 12 Belgian + 2 portuguese + 2 Italian + 1 Polish.

After the war, the French were universally saluted as the country that
saved democracy and the victor amongst all the Allies (and especially in
the US) and their international prestige was very high, just like that
of the US in 1945. It just seems like history is no longer taught in the
US now.

Stop spitting on the graves of the 1,500,000 dead French soldiers TIA.

The USA that entered the war at the end of the war refused to hear
about the agreements that the Europeans made before :
The result : Because of the versailles' treaty as wanted by the USA
(that won't finally be recognized by the USA), the italians that had
about 700,000 dead soldiers,
didn't have the territories that was promised to them
in secret agreements made in London in 1915. The Italians were totally
torqued and thought they were deceived,
what were indirectly one of the vectors causing the birth of the fascism
in 1919.

BTW USA and Uk pledged that they will help France in case of a German
agression, pledge that will be abandoned in 1919 by both.

It recalls me the fact that G. washington didn't honor his treaty
with the French in 1794 for trade advantages with The UK that was at war
with the French. Maybe because we were surrounded by the whole europe
wanting our end. Ingrates !

I add that The UK made many unconditional concessions to Germany with
the agreement of the French, since France almost abandoned its
diplomatic sovereignty to the UK from 1923 till WWII (why, will you say
? Because we needed them to face Germany. We needed allies. I add that
France was dependant of UK for oil (90 % of our oil was coming from the
UK companies - no oil at will, no offensive war).

Chamberlain said "yes" to the nazis about the rebuilding of the of the
german war fleet in 1935.

France wanted to respond to the German army's reoccupation of the
Rhineland in 1936, but the UK opposed the idea giving thereby Hitler the
greenlight for what he had in mind. They said that the remilitarization,
of the Rhineland wasn't a threat to our vital interests... you
understand what it means in diplomatical language, don't you ? ;-)

No plants destroyed in Germany (unlike France), no rebuilding in some
parts of the country ... in regions that have some economic importance
(mines, steel industry, etc ...) Though The USA and the UK made us go
away from the Ruhr in 29 and abandon all german money for war
reparations (US plan named Young)...
but we were always in debts towards the allies (US mainly)

with a winner, but one who doesn't call then "Fraulein". Sadly, widespread
use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French
gene pool...

A moronic insult to your country since with such sentences , you make look
the US dudes like degenerated conceited jerk-offs.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States &
Britain, just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song...

We lost after 6 weeks because of BIG STRATEGICAL mistakes, ( I
insist on this because of the eternal "cheese eatin' surrender monkeys"
coming from posts from your charming country) and a less efficient army
- BTW blitzkrieg was partly inspired to Guderian by a book from De Gaulle
(so all french generals are not sorta genetically incompetents like you
guys seem to think.) you knew it I suppose since you're so learned !
The french army was in fact defeated because of a strategy of
encirclement that seemed impossible to realize for our gernerals, the
german armored divisions pass thru the Ardennes (highlands and woods)
that was reputated impossible to pass ! from the moment where the front
was cut and that we were encircled in our biggest part, it was lost !
it's easy to understand !
Our old supreme generals were still with old conceptions and a
thinking about a static war (their last reference was the WWI in which
we managed to resist the most powerful army in the world - with help
of course but we were less numerous than the german in population anyway).
It didn't help them to change their mind
BTW, 130,000 French soldiers died in this "lost for the beginning
battle" from the 10th may to the armistice 6 weeks later (allowing to
the english soldiers to go back to england though french were put into
pieces by bombing stukas and german tanks ! (see at the end))

BTW, 1 month after the beginning of the attack against France by the
Germans, Mussolini wanted his part of the cake and attacked France that
was already in a total skedaddle ! His troops entered France and was
stopped and repelled in Italy by the few French soldiers that were
there.

French : 180,000 (casualties : killed : 38 / wounded : 42 /
disappeared : 180 )

Italians : 500,000 (casualties : killed 631 / wounded : 3,400 / captured
: 1140 )

He was more successful in bombing the civilians fleeing on the roads !
Mussolini has to sign an armistice with France the 24th june (2 days
after the one with the germans) !!!
Italy attacked France the 10th june ... (isn't that more humiliating
considering the situation of France in June 1940 ?)

Oh BTW... just a little digression ... England is an island (without any
frontiers with another state, and a powerful, very populated state
like Gremany), TIA to notice it !

With such a hammering, humiliating and "downcasting" defeat (and more than
half of the country lost), the people needed a bright figure to give
them back hope and a slight confidence. It's a national hero from
1914-1918 that took power, P. Pétain - 84 years old. He was renowned
to have been kind with the troopers in WWI and he was the Verdun winner..
He set a sort of regime near fascism to get the nation up (BTW some of
the government was people hating French revolution and wanting to give
back some old values to the people, pro-facists, cynic go-getters, and
antisemitic men.)
The first thing Petain had in mind was the survival of France (weird, eh
?) what implied collaboration with the threatening, more powerful
germans - and Nazis, btw.
Oh I forgot : "France the collaborator", eh ? What about the free french
and De Gaulle, the 2nd DB (Koufrah, Bir Hakeim), General Leclerc, Jean
Moulin, FFI, 1st army of De Lattre, Monte Cassino (general Juin) etc...

In 1939, after Germany and USSR invaded Poland, We tried some military
operations in Norway (France & UK) we wanted to helped Finland but
Norway, denmark and sweden (IIRC) didn't wanted us to pass their strait
to go help the finns ... Yeah we didn't attack directly when Poland was
invaded...
Attacking at this occasion would have mean attacking germany and USSR ...
It was not a little affair... And BTW what you have to know is that the
germans had a "maginot line", the Siegfried line (even longer than ours)

and guess what : there were divisions in there, so ...
was it the good plan to go to the slaughterhouse without a better way
to act since the german divisions busy in Poland would have had the time
to come back on us in a not so long time ....

_Oh ,BTW where were the USA ?_
Obviously not fighting the Nazis ...

In UK and France the horrid and frightening memory of WWI was a
cold shower for anybody (look at the stats I put above and) and I
add that we were with belgium the only western country to be devastated,
the moon landscape left after the war would have make ponder anybody (in
2005 we still find shells from WWI !) the young generation was in big
proportion decimated ... the north - north-east was an important
economical industrial joint ... the germans before leaving drowned our
mines too ...
So yes, we were less eager as a peaceful democracy with a trauma to go
to war than the pumped brain-washed nazi war-machine ... it's a fact ...
But when the war started after a moment the combativity appears more
strong and the more the situation was bad the more decided was the
soldiers (see dunkirk)
At some place French soldiers stopped the german thrust and opposed an
harsh resistance (well, of course, those kind of thing
happen in almost any war ... but it means that there were some
sufficiently ballsy and combative soldiers ...)
I add that after that Belgian surrended unconditionnally, after the
english left, after the big nunmber of prisonner in dunkirk and
elsewhere, the french soldiers kept on fighting outnumbered till the
armistice though it was pretty clear that all was lost !
They stopped when the marechal (Marshall) Petain demanded them to stop.

Before the war, France was a democracy though the biggest part of Europe
were autocracies (often for the 20's) and you despise France for what
happened and the way it acted !?!
It's easy to brag and give lessons when you never have been and probably
will never be in such a huge crisis. we will never see you in this kind
of situation, pure noble son of the USA, "in god you trust" : you can,
you are living in a hyperpower, wise-ass ! (and far from any real direct
danger)
You are / were an hyperpower and you, despite this fact, dare make
comments on the weakness of the others and their attitude !
How cheeky !

You came also because you could and had to earn and because
Germany and Italy declared war to you. I thank and respect
the US soldiers that came and freed us, but as I said in other
circumstances, how being sure that you would have come -
it relativizes the "gallant white knight icon", guy !

The US had official links (embassy and all that)
with the nazis until they were bombed by the Japs and that Hitler and
Mussolini declared war to them ? What they were doing until the dawn of
1942 ? Selling for cash only (cash and carry law)... No wonder they had
3/4 the gold reserve of the world after WW2, they surely knew how to
take advantage of Nations fighting against nazism... And by the way, the
US had links with illegitimate government of Vichy far into the war, and
recognized De Gaulle's government just few days before the Liberation.
--
BTW :

According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US
government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott
Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. :
www.clamormagazine.org

Nasty Nazi Business - Corporate Deals with Nazi Germany :
www.ranknfile-ue.org

http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

The 1941 affaire : When Washington was at war with the FREE FRENCH and
backed the VICHY REGIME :
www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com

http://www.miquelon.org/history.html
--
BTW The French Fleet was under the Vichy's government control .... In
1942 when the german invaded the 'free' territory of France they
directed quickly towards the French Fleet at Toulon (South of France)
The French admiral gave the order to scuttle all the fleet in order that
the germans don't take it...
According to De Gaulle that lived in England at this time, England had
very few troops on their soil and if the germans had taken the french
fleet, they could have succeeded in invading England.
In a way, maybe this admiral changed the future of the war ?....

population in 1939 :
------------------

France : 41.9 millions

germany : 79.5 millions

UK : about 48 millions (?)

Italy : 43.1 millions

USA : 131.67 millions (1940)

USSR : more than 150 millions (?)


casualties :

France :
dead soldiers : 211,000 to 213,300
dead civilians : 330,000 to 350,000

USA :
dead soldiers (on 2 fronts) : 292 to 298,000
civilians : negligible - almost none.

UK :
dead soldiers : about 245,000
dead civilians : 92,700 to 150,000

Japan :
dead soldiers : 1,220,000 to 1,300,000
dead civilians : 672,000 to 700,000 (and some due to 2 nuking on
japanese cities)

Germany :
dead soldiers : 3,500,000 to 3,850,000
dead civilians : 780,000

USSR :
dead soldiers : about 7,500,000 to 11,000,000
dead civilians : about 7,000,000 to 10,000,000

Italy :
dead soldiers : 230,000 to 242,200
dead civilians : 150,000 to 153,000

China :
dead soldiers : about 1,310,200
dead civilians : 10,000,000

As you can see France (and others) suffered more of the war than USA ...
so pack back your lessons ...

War In Indochina - Lost. French forces claim illness, take to bed with the
Dien Bien Flu... (sic)

1946-1954 , I thought that you didn't do better but you dare to brag
about it... that's pretty cheeky, wise-ass.

http://wrc.lingnet.org/viethist.htm

"Dien Bien Phu. "The newly appointed commander of French forces
in Vietnam, General Henri Navarre, decided soon after his arrival
in Vietnam that it was essential to halt a Viet Minh offensive
underway in neighboring Laos. To do so, Navarre believed it was
necessary for the French to capture and hold the town of
Dien Bien Phu, sixteen kilometers from the Laotian border."

"Viet Minh strategists, led by Giap, concluded that a successful
attack on a French fortified camp, timed to coincide with the peace
talks, would give Hanoi the necessary leverage for a successful
conclusion of the negotiations.

Accordingly, the siege of Dien Bien Phu began on March 13,
by which time the Viet Minh had concentrated nearly 50,000
regular troops, 55,000 support troops, and almost 100,000
transport workers in the area.
Chinese aid...reached 1,500 tons per month by early 1954.

The French garrison of 15,000, which depended on supply
by air, was cut off by March 27, when the Viet Minh artillery
succeeded in making the airfield unusable. An elaborate system
of tunnels dug in the mountainsides enabled the Viet Minh to
protect its artillery pieces by continually moving them to prevent
discovery. Several hundred kilometers of trenches permitted the
attackers to move progressively closer to the French encampment.

In the final battle, human wave assaults were used to take the
perimeter defenses, which yielded defensive guns that were
then turned on the main encampment. The French garrison
surrendered on May 7, ending the siege that had cost the lives of
about 25,000 Vietnamese and more than 1,500 French troops."
(Country Study, Vietnam, pp. 57, 58.)"

In the same situation even the USA would have certainly lost this battle.
The US didn't help militarily, France left Vietnam split in 2, the Northern

part being communist. The US left Vietnam reunited under communist
rules, doesn't look to be a better job...
(The USA came a long time later after the french in viet nam and they
came cause they decided to apply their "dominoes' theory")

Algerian Revolution - Lost. Loss marks first defeat by a western army by a
Non-Turkic Muslim force since The Crusades, and produces The First Rule Of
Muslim Warfare; "We Can Always Beat The French". This rule is identical to
the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish,
and Vietnamese...

We won in Algeria but De Gaulle gave up for personal political reasons,
what proves your overt lack of knowledge - thanx.

Talking about the crusades, we often won and founded christian realms
(Jerusalem Realm) that lasted 2 centuries (Jerusalem Kings from 1099 to
1291 -
though in the end they weren't french anymore IIRC) despite the fact that
the muslims were more numerous.
Have you ever heard about the Templars (A french knight order), BTW ?
After the IVth crusade there were even french emperor of Constantinople and

of the byzantine empire ...

http://www.mathematical.com/briennejean1195.html

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/earlyblazon/...tantinople.htm

War On Terrorism - Keeping in mind it's history, France surrenders to

On 12/26/1994 the GIGN (our SWAT) stopped algerian islamists to crash a
plane on Paris (Possibly on the Eiffel tower)

http://www.specialoperations.com/Cou...rism/gign.html

The Germans and Muslims. Just to be safe, they attempt to surrender to
Vietnamese Ambassador, who takes refuge in a McDonalds...

Trolling is forbiden by the Geneva Convention...
As it is forbidden to have photographed sexual spree with prisonners
or to kill them ...

In closing, let me ask this question of French Military Trivia:

Q. How many French troops does it take to defend Paris?
A. Who knows? They've never tried.

wrong : 1870-71 and against the vikings in 885 and 910...
I suppose we can add 1914 though Paris wasn't besieged but saved
during a battle in movemement.

(BTW, yes, nearly fifty times in two hundred years the lands of
the Franks were invaded by the vikings and we were sometimes attacked
on the southwest by the Saracens of Spain, and on the northwest by
the Norsemen). The magyars also invaded the country (33 raids from
899 to 935) and the rest of Europe committing horrendous crimes.

Your historical knowledge is thin ... some of your examples are true
but a lot are incomplete or totally wrong, and you "strangely" forgot
to talk about some of our victories, sometimes wonderful, like when we
stood
alone VS the whole Europe and won - BTW in the revolutionnaries war we
fought also VS other countries' armies and we won though our country
was broke (without money I mean), and without good officers ! (since in the

past the officers had to be nobles, so after the revolution ... well, I
don't
need to make you a drawing, eh ...) - For an example of french
victory VS a foreign army, check the end and read the summing up of
Fleurus.

What about the Franco-Gallic emperor Charlemagne (769-814) and
his big European Empire ? (also a vector of christianisation in Europe)
Talking about Christianisation, the famous Saint Patrick studied the
bible (in Nice and Auxerre) and was made bishop in France before
going to evangelise the Irish - France was a center of knowledge
in these dark times.

What about Clovis(465-511) (first king of France (Merovingian Dynasty)
[Louis, Ludwig, Lewis, Lodwick, Luis, luigi, Ludovic, are names coming
from the name "Clovis"]) that will conquer almost all the Gaul and is
the ONLY reason of the survival and the re-propagation
of the official catholic doctrine.in Europe (the other "germanic
tribes" at this times were arians (christian heretics (cf. Arius))
or heathen - What explains that France was also known as "the oldest
daughter of the Church". Clovis was the only catholic king of Europe
and is the one that won against all the others !

What about Charles Martel (The Hammer) that Stopped the muslim expansion
in 732 and 739 (the Wisigothic Spain was invaded since 711)
His son Pippin of Heristal (Pippin the short(?) - father of charlemagne)
that became king, is the one that gave at the Pope the embryo of his
pontifical states that Lasted till 1870 ...

France was a powerful realm.
Mathew paris an english chronicler qualified Saint Louis [1226-1270]
(aka Louis the IXth - and yes, this is the very same Saint Louis from
who the name of the big city in Missouri is taken) as "the King of the
King".
Louis the IXth was become the arbiter of the Christian Europe.
His fame had gone beyond the western Europe. The mongols proposed him to
take the Turks in the back in the near orient (This proposition is kept
nowadays, in the "Archives Nationales" in Paris.
[BTW, the Russians were still vassals of the mongol horde at this time,
IIRC]

At the beginning of the XIVth century, the italian poet, Dante,
was complaining that "the Capetian" (king of France - at this time
"Philippe IV le Bel"(1285-1314)) was extending his shadow upon all the
christiannity and was thinking about being crowned as Emperor like
Charlemagne.
Everywhere, between th XIVth and XVth century, "The Realm" (or The Big
Realm) or "The King" (or the Big King) designated the King of France
that was seen as the archetype of the King.
At the beginning of the XVIth century, the King of France was seen as
the ideal to reach. Machiavel, the politic theorizer, was admirative of
the institutions of the realm of France.

You want a great french victory : in 1124, when the german emperor Henry V
invaded the Champagne region (France), the only fact that the french
king Louis the VIth deployed his army of knights, forced the emperor to
go away without any fight ...
Oh and do you know Bouvines (1214) ?
French realm against a coalition (england, Holy roman germanic empire
(german emperor otton IV) and also the count of flanders
and count of Boulogne...
Guess what, the COALITION lost
(though they were about 3 times more numerous).

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/bouvines.htm

see the map at :
http://bataille.bouvines.free.fr/pla...gen.php3?np=09

The Magna Carta (1215) was imposed to the king of England by
his barons because he was weakened after the battle
of Bouvines that _WE WON_ ...

Napo during the campaign of Italy in 1796, won against 80,000
well-equiped professional Austrian soldiers, though his soldiers were
starved withouth good clothes, without any artillery ... and were
40,000...
(At this time France, its population and its army was
in a pitiful state, there were no more money, we were broke)

I could talk about many of the napoleonic battles (Jena and
Austerlitz comes to mind).

"Austerlitz, Dec. 1805: You always hear about Austerlitz as "Napoleon's
Greatest Victory," like the little guy personally went out
and wiped out thecombined 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."

BTW, France is the biggest European country by the size (Russia and
Ukraine apart what is kinda special you will admit !) is this just
by chance ? (of course Germany was amputated after WWII but ...)
Nowadays France is the 4th economical power too.

---
Fleurus
26 June, 1794

An important battle in deciding the fate of the infant French republic,
Fleurus is also noted for being one of the first battles to include aerial
reconnaissance.
It occurred when a sizeable Austrian army under the Prince of Saxe-Coburg
moved to attack a French army pushing into the Netherlands.
Saxe-Coburg's 52,000 regulars took on General Jean-Baptiste Jourdan's
75,000
troops, many of them conscipts, and found the going tough.
His poorly coordinated attacks were quickly countered by Jourdan who was
able to observe the Austrian moves from several military balloons.
The battle, which lasted about six hours, was a major reverse for the
First Coalition and ended Austrian control over the Netherlands.
French losses have been put at about 4000, while the Austrians suffered
2300 casualties.
---
Dunkerque : 26/05/1940 - 04/06/1940

"Lord Gort, Commander of the British Expeditionary Force, (240,000
troops) saw that he could not complete his orders to retreat to the
Somme. On May 25, he indicated to Churchill that he could not link up
with Weygand's forces and he was creating a perimeter around the town of
Dunkerque on the Pas de Calais. From May 27-30, the BEF consolidated
around Dunkerque, along with half of the French First Army. Five French
Divisions set up a roadblock at Lille, where they held out for four days
against seven German Panzer divisions. This allowed the British and the
French in Dunkerque to set up a defensive perimeter and wait for
evacuation.

The plan had called for 48,000 men to be removed. By the evening of May
30, 120,000 were rescued. Among these only 8,000 were French; this
worried Churchill greatly. He asked for more French soldiers to be
evacuated. "So few French have got out so far.......I will not accept
further sacrifices by the French."

On June 4, the last day of Operation Dynamo, over 26,000 French troops
were returned to England. The remaining 40,000 French troops were left
on the beaches and were taken by the German Army that very day.

The evacuation owed much to the unstinting bravery of the French First
Army fighting at the Dunkerque perimeter and to the RAF. 340,000 troops,
more than 100,000 of them French, could be evacuated to England to fight
again another day

Most of the French went back to fight in France, but the rescue of the
BEF gave heart to the British public all out of proportion to the defeat
it suffered."

--
I guess all that allow me to call you a stupid untaught god-fearing
flag-waving
strafing monkey, eh ?... You must be the king of the jerks.

Oops, forget this post.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:57:44 GMT, "michael" wrote:

"waggg" wrote in message ...

Do you realize that advertising and doinbg the apology of a website
that
contaisn ****-name.com is a serious indicator that your IQ is most
likely
below the average human level ? ...

yeah, but it's still a sure bet to be way higher than that of a person
who
confuses etiquette with intelligence...

There's no need to talk about Netiquette. I wasn't.

and neither was i... thanks for the confirmation of my thesis...

Remind that the person you're talking with is not English speaking.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:00:36 GMT, "Dieter Aaaa" Dieter
wrote:

I'm afraid that Tchiowa has pointed _exactly_ the issue.
And it is getting worser every day.
I also used to visit Paris very frequently for business reasons. O, what
are these people frustrated !

frustrated of/by what ?

come on :
"the bitterness of the French about everything in the world around them,
particularly if you're English speaking, is palpable. They believe that
they were once Masters of the World and they are bitter because they
believe that England, US, Germany, basically everyone else is depriving
them of their rightful place in the world. And it shows in their behavior."

that is speculations .... how could he "know" that ? it sounds like an
anglo-saxon speaking .... Give me a break.

As for the behavior ... people under stress in big cities are not prone to
be "cool" ... big deal. I'd say it's not specific to Paris. Paris is not
EuroDisney, before being a popular tourist destination it is the capital of
the 5 th (few times ago for decades teh 4th) economic power ...

Anyway, Paris is mainly inhabited by either very rich people or very poor
ones. Parisians are not representative indeed.

I think that the sour bitterness is even spreading to the borders of
france.

OK feel free tto explain your sentence then :

"yeah, but it's still a sure bet to be way higher than that of a person
who

confuses etiquette with intelligence..."


what's this ?
Is it like the "if the bomb goes off make sure you're higher than the bomb"
quote from the movie "More" ? A good scene that, when Mimsi tokes up in her
little hotel room in Paris, and the music is so mellow, we flyyyyyyyyy and
flyyyyyyyyy.

In either case, i wouldn't call it "my sentence", but maybe you weren't
bouncing on this last post of mine you were quoting before this last chunk,
bugger if I know where it came from...

Oh and remind the person you're talking with is not English speaking.

ok...I'll try. French is fine too.
"pas de grandes differences.
Idem pour Saint Petersbourg et Singapour.
Mais je trouve toutefois que Montreal eclate largement Bucarest."

I'm sure we can find some common language. If you were speaking to me that
is, because i'm not so sure.

'arabiyye kaman mnih, iza beddak ( lughat al fuhsa aidan)
italiano anche, ma chi se ne frega...
nihongo mo dekiru
espanol mas difficil, pero entiendo
auf deutsch, vielecht möglich, aber schwer...

sorry for feeding such a chiante thread, mais bon