Why do we hate the french again?
Seriously! I remember banning evian water and people saying "freedon fries" when France didn't want to help us go to war against Iraq, but is that the only reason??
I mean, what does that have to do with all of France's citizens?
I hope people aren't judging all of US based on Bush.
Maybe there's more to it. Could someone fill me in?
the french have a long history of sucking ass. the idea that they have only recently started to dislike us is a myth. the frogs were pissed at allied troops even as they were being liberated.
Because they are French.
(I think the whole Freedom Fries thing is laughable (Fries are as Belgian or so a friend told me in high school), but I have never expressed a fondness for things French ... brie, escargot, mimes, Gerard Depardieu ... all French, all not worth my time. The only thing I come close to liking is crepes, and well ... overly thin pancakes drizzled in orange flavored booze? I'd rather have ice cream.)
i always thought the french were our pals until i did some work with their military and spent some time in their embassy. *ahem* fuck the frogs.
Ira Einhorn.
But I do love a nice baked brie...
i dig chicks named Bri - does that count?
The French live to be contrary. They LOVE contrariness--but only in themselves. They also pour sauce over everything and pronounce it delicious. I do like French bread, though.
Aw--Lookout! :blush: you made my day!
That's the difference.
french ~ Baked Brie ~ tasty but weak.
American ~ Baked Beans ~ firepower galore. :shotgun:
Don't you remember? They set off that
bomb over here. :worried:
We hate them because they feel as strongly about France as we do about the good ole USA.
or maybe it is because they won't admit their power to do anything but talk belligerently ended some time ago.
america isn't quite yet there, but give us some time. a couple real international powerhouses will rise only to push us down the ladder of relevancy.
Basically because they can be as arrogant, nationalistic, and self-centered as we are, without the military and economic arsenal to back it up.
Maybe because they have a knack for having someone pulling their irons out of the fire after being steamrolled, then acting like they would have done it anyway if they had a bit more time (De Gaulle was a puke like this), and then being to proud to admit that they were fucked if the good guys didn't help.
You know why French army rifles are such a great deal at surplus sales- they have never been fired and only dropped once!!
Hitler's troops embarrassed them so badly I am surprised they even had the termerity to call DeGaulle a *cough*General.
For me it's not so much the French I dislike, but Parisians. Because the Parisians shower infrequently, the women have hairy armpits, they have a history of surrendering their country and being ingrateful when their bacon is saved by the United States, they are arrogant and rude pricks who think their shit doesn't stink (though there's a lot of that in the Red States of America), they want our tourist dollars but treat us like we're a nuisance, etc.
That being said, they often have to deal with ignorant and "ugly" Americans who don't learn any French language or culture and who go to France and expect everyone else to accomodate them and adjust to American culture. They, like most of the rest of the world, see America like a baby holding a .44 magnum. America is a much newer country, doesn't respect the sovereignty of traditions of other nations, tries to bully every other nation on earth by pointing that big gun at them, etc.
Maybe because they have a knack for having someone pulling their irons out of the fire after being steamrolled, then acting like they would have done it anyway if they had a bit more time (De Gaulle was a puke like this), and then being to proud to admit that they were fucked if the good guys didn't help.
You know why French army rifles are such a great deal at surplus sales- they have never been fired and only dropped once!!
Hitler's troops embarrassed them so badly I am surprised they even had the termerity to call DeGaulle a *cough*General.
ENOUGH, ALREADY!
The ugy American is definately alive and well! Look here, I have traveled in Europe and endured some bizarre behavior on the part of SOME French people. But then again, when I was in grad school, my best friend was a woman from France. She was a trip! Very witty and warm and interested in American culture.
When It comes to WWII, where were WE when Rommel did his surprise maneuver around the Maginot line? Asleep, waiting for Pearl Harbour. Where were the Brits? Running like hell for Dunkirk, that's where.
People ignorant of European history (that means 99.9999999% of all Americans) find it easy to make arrogant assumptions. First of all, WWI was fought on French soil. Any of you genius's ever read
All Quiet on the Western Front ? No? I didn't think so. Run down to your public library and get a copy. I'll wait.
(*TAPS FOOT IMPATIENTLY*)
OK, WWI was one of the most awful wars in modern history. Thousands gave their lives for an inch of territory either way. It was brutal, trench warfare. It was stupid, horrible, and pointless.
"In Flanders fields the poppies grow..."
Nah, none of you people have read Rupert Brooke, either. Never mind.
The French people were so horrified and outraged by the deaths and suffering of trench warfare in WWI, that there was zero popular support for building up an agressive military in the 20's and 30's. The French just wanted to be left alone, thank you. Their posture was DEFENSE, hence the Maginot line which actually was pretty clever - they just didn't extend it all the way to the Adrienne. Now everybody today knows the words
blitzkrieg and the name Rommel, but this man and that technique were a stunning developments back in 1940. If you folks don't think Patton or McArthur or Eisenhour would have been put on the retreat by a surprise attack of panzer divisions over the Canadian border, led by no less a general than Rommel, himself, think again.
As far as Charles de Gaule, he was wounded twice at the beginning of WWI and promoted to captain in 1915. He was ultimately captured by the Germans at Verdun and made 5 escape attempts from the German prison camps.
After the armistice, de Gaulle was assigned to a Polish division being formed in France. He fought against the Red Army during the civil war and won Poland's highest military decoration, Virtuti Militari.
De Gaulle's military ideas appeared in his book, The Army of the Future (1934). In the book he criticized the rigid theories of war that was exemplified by the Marginot Line. The book was unpopular with the politicians and the military who who refused to strengthen France's peace-time military force between the wars.
On the outbreak of the WWII, at Caumont, De Gaulle became the only French commanding officer to force the Germans to retreat during the German invasion of France.
So, you wouldn't call De Gaulle, a general, eh? Just what branch of the military do you serve in, anyhow, chief?
Parisians shower infrequently
You know, I've met al kinds of assholes and idiots but recently radar has moved into this new category I don't have a name for that combines, almost bizarrely, irrational and extreme xenophobia, an aparant need to insult everyone and a complete lack of any logic or reason, anyone care to come up with a name for this?
I think mostly because you haven't frigging been there. Having very recently spent a week wandering around the west coast of France I can confidently say that the amount of women liable to give you whiplash you turn around so fast is higher than anywhere else in the world I've been to.
In Flanders fields the poppies grow
if you are going to insult and show your superior knowledge, at least get it right.
the line is
IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow know what the next line is? the author is John McCrae. he was a Canadian.
But then again, when I was in grad school, my best friend was a woman from France.
no offense - but that has been a day or two ago. (honestly) don't assume that everyone who holds no fondness for the french is a chestbeating, flagwaving, xenophobe. some of us actually have experience with these people. i have a number of clients and aquaintances who are french. the two or three who don't fit the mold don't change the facts - i served with the french military. i spent A LOT of time in the french embassy. my opinions (and that is all they are) are based upon my observations of the french among their own. their guns, nor their dicks, have been big enough to justify their overflowing arrogance which is only rivaled by their condescension of all things non-franco in origin.
All Quiet on the Western Front ? No? I didn't think so. Run down to your public library and get a copy.
yeah, i've read it a fair few times. if you'll pull your arrogant head out of your tight ass long enough to decide - which chapter would you like to discuss. the bird's song near the end was especially poignant if you ask me.
hence the Maginot line which actually was pretty clever
"hey our male population has recently been decimated by a war of attrition fought in trenches - let's build a stagnant line of defense and call it a day. yep. brilliant.
if you are going to insult and show your superior knowledge, at least get it right.
the line is IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow know what the next line is? the author is John McCrae. he was a Canadian.
You got me on the author, but not the lines:
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Here's Rupert Brooke:
If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England.
But come on, Lookout, other than you and me, how many folks know that much about the poets and poetry of WWI and the nature of the fighting that inspired it? My point still stands.
no offense - but that has been a day or two ago. (honestly) don't assume that everyone who holds no fondness for the french is a chestbeating, flagwaving, xenophobe. some of us actually have experience with these people. i have a number of clients and aquaintances who are french. the two or three who don't fit the mold don't change the facts - i served with the french military. i spent A LOT of time in the french embassy. my opinions (and that is all they are) are based upon my observations of the french among their own. their guns, nor their dicks, have been big enough to justify their overflowing arrogance which is only rivaled by their condescension of all things non-franco in origin.
1990 Not yesterday, but not the stone ages, either. I went back for a second Master's after I'd been in my profession for a while.
My comments were not aimed at you, but the poster whom I quoted. Yes, the French can be arrogant. So can the Americans. You did not not make the statement that de Gaull should not be called a general or call into question the bravery of the French people or the reasons why they would have the attitudes that they did between the two world wars. These are the things I was addressing.
yeah, i've read it a fair few times. if you'll pull your arrogant head out of your tight ass long enough to decide - which chapter would you like to discuss. the bird's song near the end was especially poignant if you ask me.
Chapter 7. Meeting the three women. Lets talk about that. Its easy to skip to the end and read the last page several times and get the bird's song part. And I won't call you arrogant or accuse you of having your head up your ass, either.
"hey our male population has recently been decimated by a war of attrition fought in trenches - let's build a stagnant line of defense and call it a day. yep. brilliant.
Many excellent military scholars have conceded that the Maginot Line would not have been a bad idea if it had been extended all the way across the Adrienne. De Gaull disagreed. My point was not so much about the wisdom or lack there-of the Maginot line, but rather of the strong distaste for warfare that the people of France acquired as a result of WWI. Sure, hind sight is always 20/20.
When It comes to WWII, where were WE when Rommel did his surprise maneuver around the Maginot line? Asleep, waiting for Pearl Harbour.
Uh, minding our own business and staying out of the war? It had kind of been established that because The Great War had been so horrendous that we really didn't want to get involved in global conflict?
That's kind of what I vaguely recall from history class.
Uh, minding our own business and staying out of the war? It had kind of been established that because The Great War had been so horrendous that we really didn't want to get involved in global conflict?
That's kind of what I vaguely recall from history class.
And the French were precisely of the same opinion. Both France and the US were subjected to a sudden attack by an enemy. The US had geography on its side. France didn't.
It sounds like a case of "There's something about you I hate about myself"
That's brilliant, stacey. could you expound on that a little? I like!
OK, i'll fess up, i was being an ass in my response to you Marichiko - i shouldn't have insulted you. my apologies.
as far as the poem goes? the word "grow" is only present in the last line.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
OK, i'll fess up, i was being an ass in my response to you Marichiko - i shouldn't have insulted you. my apologies.
as far as the poem goes? the word "grow" is only present in the last line.
Apologies accepted, Lookout. We were actually both right about the lines. One was the first, one was the last. You got the author right, too, so my hat is off to you. I have to hand it to you, you are more well read than many folks. ;)
When It comes to WWII, where were WE when Rommel did his surprise maneuver around the Maginot line? Asleep, waiting for Pearl Harbour.
Hardly asleep, we were already preparing, at least on paper, how to handle Hitler if Europe fell and he tried to claim Canada.
As for the attack on Pearl Harbor, yes, that was a semi-surprise but the Jap threat was not. The attack was expected in the far east.
People ignorant of European history (that means 99.9999999% of all Americans) find it easy to make arrogant assumptions.
Excellent example of arrogance...thanks.
First of all, WWI was fought on French soil.
Yes it was, for years and years because the french didn't have the brains or balls to take it to Germany
Any of you genius's ever read All Quiet on the Western Front ? No? I didn't think so. Run down to your public library and get a copy. I'll wait.
(*TAPS FOOT IMPATIENTLY*)
Ah...another excellent example, thank you.
OK, WWI was one of the most awful wars in modern history. Thousands gave their lives for an inch of territory either way. It was brutal, trench warfare. It was stupid, horrible, and pointless.
Yes it was and when the Americans arrived the french wanted our boys to crawl into the trenches and continue the same stupid tactics they had used for years. Plus they wanted us to do it with crap weapons that they would charge us for.
It's only when the Americans said fuck the french and took the battle to the Germans did the stalemate finally break and push the Germans back to Germany.
Oh..that's when the french took charge again and sowed the seeds of WW II.
"In Flanders fields the poppies grow..."
Nah, none of you people have read Rupert Brooke, either. Never mind.
Kudos...a third excellent example.
The French people were so horrified and outraged by the deaths and suffering of trench warfare in WWI, that there was zero popular support for building up an agressive military in the 20's and 30's. The French just wanted to be left alone, thank you.
Nay, nay, they were so busy pompously flogging the German economy they didn't notice they were promoting WW II.
Their posture was DEFENSE, hence the Maginot line which actually was pretty clever - they just didn't extend it all the way to the Adrienne. Now everybody today knows the words blitzkrieg and the name Rommel, but this man and that technique were a stunning developments back in 1940.
I've no way of knowing if Germany could have been stopped at that point but I highly doubt it.
If you folks don't think Patton or McArthur or Eisenhour would have been put on the retreat by a surprise attack of panzer divisions over the Canadian border, led by no less a general than Rommel, himself, think again.
First of all we wouldn't have been surprized. Secondly, retreat maybe but to regroup not acquiesce. To fire up the still and reload shells instead of standing on the corner in our best suits, crying.
As far as Charles de Gaule, he was wounded twice at the beginning of WWI and promoted to captain in 1915. He was ultimately captured by the Germans at Verdun and made 5 escape attempts from the German prison camps.
After the armistice, de Gaulle was assigned to a Polish division being formed in France. He fought against the Red Army during the civil war and won Poland's highest military decoration, Virtuti Militari.
De Gaulle's military ideas appeared in his book, The Army of the Future (1934). In the book he criticized the rigid theories of war that was exemplified by the Marginot Line. The book was unpopular with the politicians and the military who who refused to strengthen France's peace-time military force between the wars.
On the outbreak of the WWII, at Caumont, De Gaulle became the only French commanding officer to force the Germans to retreat during the German invasion of France.
So, you wouldn't call De Gaulle, a general, eh? Just what branch of the military do you serve in, anyhow, chief?
Since you're an expert on De Gaulle, tell me, was he in charge of the french troops in Morocco that shelled our boys trying to land in Africa?
I'll bet even De Gaulle knew enough to try to fight from a position of strength if you can.
Mari, condescension is
not your position of strength. ;)
Damn, Bruce........How could ANYONE add to that?...
dats right....you da man.....I wish I was half as smart as you.
History major?
"I told 'em 'bout my history.." [quote] SLING BLADE
Hardly asleep, we were already preparing, at least on paper, how to handle Hitler if Europe fell and he tried to claim Canada.
As for the attack on Pearl Harbor, yes, that was a semi-surprise but the Jap threat was not. The attack was expected in the far east.
Excellent example of arrogance...thanks.
You are welcome. Semi-surprise? On paper? Almost doesn't count. Ask the families back then of the men killed at Pearl Harbour. Not exactly a stunning American victory, now was it? Great preparation for the Jap threat. Yeppers.
Yes it was, for years and years because the french didn't have the brains or balls to take it to Germany
In that case, nor did our esteemed British cousins who were also fighting in that particular war. In fact, the Brits declared war on Germany before the French did.
Ah...another excellent example, thank you.
Yes it was and when the Americans arrived the french wanted our boys to crawl into the trenches and continue the same stupid tactics they had used for years. Plus they wanted us to do it with crap weapons that they would charge us for.
General Pershing of the US was hardly a military genius either. By time the American Expeditionary Force got around to joining the conflict in 1918, Pershing resisted using American forces as reinforcements for British and French units, as suggested by the Allies. Pershing also maintained the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British and French commanders. As a result the American Expeditionary Force suffered a very high rate of casualties in its operations in the summer and fall of 1918. No one nation had the market cornered on stupid slaughter of its troops in that particular conflict. The US was no exception.
Saying that they wanted us to enter the war with "crap weapons that they would overcharge us for" is a vast over simplification of the problem of supplies and weaponary in that era for the US military.
SNIP:
The demand for arms was so immense and immediate and the time required for contracts to be let and industry to retool so lengthy that the Army for a long time would have to train with obsolete weapons in and, the end, would have to depend heavily on Allied manufacture.
The one weapon providing no particular problem was the rifle. To add to already existing stocks, the Army's own arsenals increased production of Springfields, while plants that had been filling Allied orders modified the British Lee-Enfield rifle to take U.S. ammunition for use by U.S. troops. All American units reaching France during the first year had to be equipped with Allied machine guns and automatic rifles, but new and excellent Browning machine guns and automatic rifles began coming off U.S. production lines in volume by mid-1918. Of some 2,250 artillery pieces used by American forces in France, only a hundred were of U.S. manufacture. Similarly an embryonic U.S. Tank Corps used French tanks, and in some instances British and French tank battalions supported U.S. troops. The Air Section that expanded rapidly to 11,425 flying officers, of whom 5,000 reached France, also had to depend primarily on planes provided by the Allies. The United States did produce a good 12-cylinder Liberty airplane engine, and a few U.S. planes saw service in latter weeks of the war. SOURCE
I'll reply to the rest of your remarks later.
Marichiko,
Actually, I am Canadian. I have never served in the Military. I have never met DeGaulle. I do not have a Masters in European History, but I have read quite a bit about WWII and some about WW I.
DeGaulle's war record is one thing, but his mouth is another. His out-of-line comment in Montreal regarding separatists insulted the Canadian government, of whom he was their guest, and was a slap in the face to a country who sent thousands to their deaths to liberate France. Imagine a British officer going to the South instead of Washington and announcing "Long live the Confederacy". Yeah, exactly- what an asshole.
As for the fact that your best college bud was French- WHOOP DE DOOOO! I worked with a French guy for 3 years who was the epitome of class; the stereotypical classy, well-spoken Frenchman. Unfortunately there are more than two Frenchmen. Also, unfortunately, the French military were demolished. Evidently your friend's bonhomie did not translate to effective military tactics. Hitler himself admitted that he was worried about France's vast numerical superiority, but he figured out in about two minutes that they couldn't get out of their own way in all-out combat.
The fact that DeGaulle humbled a few Germans, or tried to escape a prison camp, didn't change the fact that DeGaulle was an arrogant, pompous ass. Whatever ability he had to command may have resulted in temporarily slowing the Germans, but in the end he had to run with his tail between his legs, and then run around England mouthing off like the Krauts were lucky he wasn't still over there kicking ass...
Marichiko,
Actually, I am Canadian. I have never served in the Military. I have never met DeGaulle. I do not have a Masters in European History, but I have read quite a bit about WWII and some about WW I.
DeGaulle's war record is one thing, but his mouth is another. His out-of-line comment in Montreal regarding separatists insulted the Canadian government, of whom he was their guest, and was a slap in the face to a country who sent thousands to their deaths to liberate France. Imagine a British officer going to the South instead of Washington and announcing "Long live the Confederacy". Yeah, exactly- what an asshole.
Thank you for clarifying your reasons for your dislike of the man. Why didn't you say so in the first place? I have no opinion on his comments to Canadian separatists because like many Americans, I am woefully ignorant on that topic.
As for the fact that your best college bud was French- WHOOP DE DOOOO!
Yes, one person does not indicate a nation. My point, exactly.
You are welcome. Semi-surprise? On paper? Almost doesn't count. Ask the families back then of the men killed at Pearl Harbour. Not exactly a stunning American victory, now was it? Great preparation for the Jap threat. Yeppers.
I'll do better than that I personally know a half dozen people that were there. The attack of Pearl was a very risky move on the japs part. Many mistakes were made like not believing the radar, thinking the attack would be in McArthurs yard, thinking the japs would declare war first even though they had attacked without warning, repeatedly, in the past. Yes I know the Translation story.
But, we were hardly sleeping, do you think the carriers were out of pearl without their usual escorts accidently?
Yeah, on paper. You have to do that before you ramp up production of material, which had started. Of course the pols were siphoning some of that off for lend-lease, but it had started.
Were we ready for a major land war? No. The government was still trying to figure out how to convince the public that wanted to stay out of it. Gee, maybe Pearl Harbor was part of that.
In that case, nor did our esteemed British cousins who were also fighting in that particular war. In fact, the Brits declared war on Germany before the French did.
Two wrongs make a right? I was trying to stay on topic.
General Pershing of the US was hardly a military genius either. By time the American Expeditionary Force got around to joining the conflict in 1918, Pershing resisted using American forces as reinforcements for British and French units, as suggested by the Allies. Pershing also maintained the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British and French commanders. As a result the American Expeditionary Force suffered a very high rate of casualties in its operations in the summer and fall of 1918. No one nation had the market cornered on stupid slaughter of its troops in that particular conflict. The US was no exception.
That's right, Pershing refused to crawl in the trenches like the others. Maybe that's why we suffered 321K casualties (114K dead) compared to the 15 [COLOR=DarkRed]million [/COLOR] the french, Brits and Russians totaled. Oh yeah, Pershing was really stupid.
Saying that they wanted us to enter the war with "crap weapons that they would overcharge us for" is a vast over simplification of the problem of supplies and weaponary in that era for the US military.
SNIP: The demand for arms was so immense and immediate and the time required for contracts to be let and industry to retool so lengthy that the Army for a long time would have to train with obsolete weapons in and, the end, would have to depend heavily on Allied manufacture.
The one weapon providing no particular problem was the rifle. To add to already existing stocks, the Army's own arsenals increased production of Springfields, while plants that had been filling Allied orders modified the British Lee-Enfield rifle to take U.S. ammunition for use by U.S. troops. All American units reaching France during the first year had to be equipped with Allied machine guns and automatic rifles, but new and excellent Browning machine guns and automatic rifles began coming off U.S. production lines in volume by mid-1918. Of some 2,250 artillery pieces used by American forces in France, only a hundred were of U.S. manufacture. Similarly an embryonic U.S. Tank Corps used French tanks, and in some instances British and French tank battalions supported U.S. troops. The Air Section that expanded rapidly to 11,425 flying officers, of whom 5,000 reached France, also had to depend primarily on planes provided by the Allies. The United States did produce a good 12-cylinder Liberty airplane engine, and a few U.S. planes saw service in latter weeks of the war. SOURCE
I'll stick with my "over simplified" version to your politically correct version.
I'll reply to the rest of your remarks later.
Waiting with abated breath. :cool:
I'll do better than that I personally know a half dozen people that were there. The attack of Pearl was a very risky move on the japs part. Many mistakes were made like not believing the radar, thinking the attack would be in McArthurs yard, thinking the japs would declare war first even though they had attacked without warning, repeatedly, in the past. Yes I know the Translation story.
But, we were hardly sleeping, do you think the carriers were out of pearl without their usual escorts accidently?
We were sleeping, admit it. I don't know anyone who was at Pearl. My Dad was with the Royal Canadian Air Force at the time and later flew the "hump" over India to Burma to supply Merrill and the rest of the US forces there. I have little respect for Pershing because McArthur disliked him strongly. My Dad was a huge fan of McArthur. So much for personal connects in WWII. Pearl took us by surprise, get over it, already.
I was trying to stay on topic.
So was I. However a discussion of the First World War must include the major combatants, don't you think? Sure, we could just talk about France. Let's see, in 1914 the French for some strange reason dug a bunch of trenches and fired off a bunch of ammunition and then in 1918 they stopped after thousands of young men from France had died. The end. :eyebrow:
That's right, Pershing refused to crawl in the trenches like the others. Maybe that's why we suffered 321K casualties (114K dead) compared to the 15 [COLOR=DarkRed]million [/COLOR] the french, Brits and Russians totaled. Oh yeah, Pershing was really stupid.
Come on, you're not actually going to try to back yourself into a corner over PERSHING, are you? Give me something I can USE here, Bruce! Let's discuss Robert E. Lee's generalship or Rommel's or McArthur's or even Westmoreland's. I'm not wasting my time on Pershing. You can sing his praises if you want.
You over-looked one teensy little thing. Everyone else was in that damn war from 1914-1918 which (I'll help you out) = 4 years. US forces didn't arrive in Europe in any number until 1918. So, Pershing gets credit for the fact that we were involved in the conflict for only a year and the dead from our country were fewer in number than the dead from THREE others? See what I mean about attempting to defend Pershing?
I'll stick with my "over simplified" version to your politically correct version.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY
Well, I suppose in a sense they WOULD be "politically correct." Hell, I'm sticking with the US Army's version. My Dad would expect no less of me.
Waiting with abated breath. :cool:
A-bated, really? Well, hang on while I go check my trap lines. You've caught me at a busy time. :p
Yes it was, for years and years because the french didn't have the brains or balls to take it to Germany
Actually, taking the fight to Germany was exactly the French's strategy in the opening phases of the fighting 1914. The French, however chose the wrong point for their assaults (fighting the previous war, as many nations are inclined to do) and ended up rushing into the Germany envelopment.
It's only when the Americans said fuck the french and took the battle to the Germans did the stalemate finally break and push the Germans back to Germany.
Ummm, don't give me that. I know American history books are terribly biased, but check your facts.
By 1918 more then 2/3 of the German infantry and 3/4 of their artillery were aligned against the British to the north of Paris. The American role in the majority of the fighting of 1918 consisted of making sure the Germans could not redeploy more strength to the north by making sustained, large scale attacks of the kind the French were too tired and worn down to make.
The reason for the high percentage of American casualties was not their equipment, but rather the failure of Pershing (another arrogant bastard, by all accounts) to adopt the artillery/infantry tactics used by the majority of front line troops by 1918. His continued use of wave style frontal assaults (at a time when the elite of both sides were using squad style fire and manuever tatics) only suceeded due to the state and number of the German troops arrayed against them. Those same tactics tried 2 years earlier would have resulted in an even greater slaughter of American troops and, very likely, little sucess.
Since you're an expert on De Gaulle, tell me, was he in charge of the french troops in Morocco that shelled our boys trying to land in Africa?
Actually, no he wasn't. He was on a British ship off shore pissed off that he was not allowed to land with the troops.
By time the American Expeditionary Force got around to joining the conflict in 1918, Pershing resisted using American forces as reinforcements for British and French units, as suggested by the Allies. Pershing also maintained the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British and French commanders. As a result the American Expeditionary Force suffered a very high rate of casualties in its operations in the summer and fall of 1918.
Let's see, now. we are sending American troops over to a war that has been eating trench troops alive. should we put our fresh troops in as reinforcement in the trenches? here is an idea - let's do something that will be extremely bloody and brutal for the short term, but has a much better chance of bringing the war to a close sooner. while the majority of the german military is still tied up maintaining the strongpoints of their trench system, let's attack their weaker points en mass. it will be bloody, but one of two things will happen - A) you will find THE weak spot and snap the line, or B) they will have to rebalance troops along the line to prevent option A, thus allowing the allied troops to then push the entire line back in a methodical manner. Pershing was not a military genius, but he would have been downright stupid to have fallen into the trap of lending American troops as mere reinforcements.
At this point your hostage bitch says, "baby, baby...wha's goin' ON?" and you all disperse in a rain of fire.
I'm not sure who Brianna is channeling, but it reminds me of the Evil Midnight Bomber what Bombs at Midnight...
We were sleeping, admit it. I don't know anyone who was at Pearl. My Dad was with the Royal Canadian Air Force at the time and later flew the "hump" over India to Burma to supply Merrill and the rest of the US forces there. I have little respect for Pershing because McArthur disliked him strongly. My Dad was a huge fan of McArthur. So much for personal connects in WWII. Pearl took us by surprise, get over it, already.
Only the civilians were sleeping and only a fool would think that Roosevelt or the pentagon were getting very much sleep at the time or the 2 years before. Yes I know it wasn't built yet.
They new the war was coming, they could only guess where and when. They guessed wrong.
So was I. However a discussion of the First World War must include the major combatants, don't you think? Sure, we could just talk about France. Let's see, in 1914 the French for some strange reason dug a bunch of trenches and fired off a bunch of ammunition and then in 1918 they stopped after thousands of young men from France had died. The end. :eyebrow:
Now you've got it! For 4 years the french did nothing but loose. To their credit they didn't acquiesce...that time.
Come on, you're not actually going to try to back yourself into a corner over PERSHING, are you? Give me something I can USE here, Bruce! Let's discuss Robert E. Lee's generalship or Rommel's or McArthur's or even Westmoreland's. I'm not wasting my time on Pershing. You can sing his praises if you want.[/Qoute] Good move...don't waste your time with something you don't know jack shit about. [Quote]You over-looked one teensy little thing. Everyone else was in that damn war from 1914-1918 which (I'll help you out) = 4 years. US forces didn't arrive in Europe in any number until 1918. So, Pershing gets credit for the fact that we were involved in the conflict for only a year and the dead from our country were fewer in number than the dead from THREE others? See what I mean about attempting to defend Pershing?
So you (and Silent) are saying that if we had followed the french example of fighting in the trenches we wouldn't have had their 76% casualty rate and the war would have ended soon any way? Grow up. Pershing may have been decimated 2 years earlier but it wasn't 2 years earlier, was it? Pershing did the right thing for and at the right time. He ended the war quickly with a casualty rate of 8%. :p
Let's see, now. we are sending American troops over to a war that has been eating trench troops alive. should we put our fresh troops in as reinforcement in the trenches? here is an idea - let's do something that will be extremely bloody and brutal for the short term, but has a much better chance of bringing the war to a close sooner. while the majority of the german military is still tied up maintaining the strongpoints of their trench system, let's attack their weaker points en mass. it will be bloody, but one of two things will happen - A) you will find THE weak spot and snap the line, or B) they will have to rebalance troops along the line to prevent option A, thus allowing the allied troops to then push the entire line back in a methodical manner. Pershing was not a military genius, but he would have been downright stupid to have fallen into the trap of lending American troops as mere reinforcements.
Well, Lookout, I imagine historians could debate this endlessly. I'm going to give a snip from a
Great WWI site. Tons of information there from a wide variety of sources. This thread has really drifted along hasn't it? Maybe that's why Brianna seems so confused! ;)
The initial attack was carried out according to schedule but the successive waves showed great inaptitude in following up the advance. Officers as well as men did not understand how to make use of the terrain. Instead of seeking protection when they encountered opposition they merely fell back. To crawl backward or forward on the ground or to advance in quick jumps does not seem to by understood by the Americans. They remain lying on the ground for the time being, and then just stand up again and try to advance.
Neither in mass formations nor individually do the Americans know how to conduct themselves in an attack.
The higher command, also, did not understand how to grasp quickly the new situation and exploit it to the best advantage. After the infantry had reached its objective the higher command failed. They were not familiar with the tactical principles in the use of divisions and attack units for the destruction of the enemy. It was therefor possible for the [German] Army Detachment, under the most difficult conditions, to extricate itself from its precarious situation in one night, and, with only a short distance intervening between it and the enemy, to occupy new positions of resistance…
U.S.
Assault formations too dense and lacking flexibility. . .scouts seldom used. . .supporting arms improperly deployed. . .junior officers show little initiative. . .command HQ too far in the rear.
Exactly two weeks after St. Mihiel, the greatest battle of the AEF, the Meuse-Argonne Offensive began. With some units redeployed from St. Mihiel without any chance to digest the lessons they had just learned and with other divisions placed into the line with minimal training, things came unraveled.
According to Alan Millett and his associates who grade the AEF with a D for tactical performance::
The US approach to war [had become] basically attritional and the US also failed to emphasize surprise and exploitation of advantages. The failure to capture Montfaucon on the first day of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive was the biggest example of this. The 4th Division could have circled the hill as the 79th division in front was stalled. But, directives hindered the thinking of commanders and the Germans reinforced the position, helping stall the offensive.
The 35th Division on the Attack the Second Day of the Argonne Offensive
The Germans Staff after the start of the Argonne. Offensive put it rather brutally in one of their analyses:
The American Infantry is very unskillful in the attack. It attacks in thick columns, in numerous waves echeloned in depth, preceded by tanks. This sort of attack offers excellent objectives for the fire of our artillery, infantry and machine guns.
In 1989 Historian and Army Officer Rod Paschall analyzed what had happened to the AEF.
It had gone wrong. [in the Argonne]. Even in the best of conditions it was doubtful whether nine divisions could be supported over such a poor network of roads. The Americans were tied to a simple but inflexible plan that called for attacking on line, anchoring flanks with the advance of neighboring units, and keeping within the confines of divisional boundaries, a system that the Germans had learned to abandon long before.
Col Paschall explains there was a problem with basic tactical doctrine. of the AEF:.
…American doctrine was based on the 1917 Field Service Regulations, which were hardly revised from the prewar 1911 version. The manual specified that the attack should be conducted under the conditions of fire superiority , with advance achieved by infantry rushes. Fire superiority was to be gained by accurate rifle fire. For the Americans, the bane of Western Front attackers--the machine gun--was viewed as a "weapon of emergency". . .To be sure, artillery would assist the infantry, but the soul of an American assault was the rifleman.
General Hunter Liggett, observed in April 1918 that he could find no definitive U.S. instructions on open warfare. There was little doubt that all the U.S. officers talked about it, but when one attempted to find precise doctrine for its execution, the existing literature was a bit thin. Liggett made his concern known to Pershing's headquarters, and action was eventually taken. New Doctrine was published--after the war was over. Marichiko - any time you take green troops with only basic combat skills and align them against a bloodied but experienced opponent there will be some mistakes made at a tactical level. so what is your point? what should Pershing have done? i don't want a hindsight view of things - this was real war, real bullets, real time. you never know exactly what your opponent has, is thinking, is doing - you only have what you think they have, are thinking, are doing.
so with that backdrop - what better way did Pershing have to end the war?
and BTW - citing foreign military command's opinions of American leadership strengths and weaknesses is not exactly flawless. i seem to remember quotes from British officers complaining about the American's absolute ignorance of the proper use of infantry. that may have been during the revolutionary war.
But.... Pershing ended it quickly with a very low casualty rate. You can nit pick till the cows come home but them's the facts. :p
They guessed wrong.
Thank you. :p
Now you've got it! For 4 years the french did nothing but loose. To their credit they didn't acquiesce...that time.
It was a stalemate, Bruce. Read your history books. The Brits and the French against the Germans. No one went much of anywhere.
Good move...don't waste your time with something you don't know jack shit about. So you (and Silent) are saying that if we had followed the french example of fighting in the trenches we wouldn't have had their 76% casualty rate and the war would have ended soon any way? Grow up. Pershing may have been decimated 2 years earlier but it wasn't 2 years earlier, was it? Pershing did the right thing for and at the right time. He ended the war quickly with a casualty rate of 8%. :p
See my reply to Lookout, above. I wouldn't be talking about "not knowing jack shit" after your little oversight in regard to information from the Office of Chief of Military History. Glass houses and all that, you know. ;)
Marichiko - any time you take green troops with only basic combat skills and align them against a bloodied but experienced opponent there will be some mistakes made at a tactical level. so what is your point? what should Pershing have done? i don't want a hindsight view of things - this was real war, real bullets, real time. you never know exactly what your opponent has, is thinking, is doing - you only have what you think they have, are thinking, are doing.
so with that backdrop - what better way did Pershing have to end the war?
and BTW - citing foreign military command's opinions of American leadership strengths and weaknesses is not exactly flawless. i seem to remember quotes from British officers complaining about the American's absolute ignorance of the proper use of infantry. that may have been during the revolutionary war.
That was several quotes, the last one from an American officer. Pershing trained American troops in Paris for 6 months before committing them to battle. This was another complaint the allies had against him - the inordinate (to them) length of time before Pershing would commit his divisions. You can have very experienced soldiers, but they will die just like raw troops when forced to make stupid battleground stances.
Thank you. :p
They were not asleep as you claimed. :p
It was a stalemate, Bruce. Read your history books. The Brits and the French against the Germans. No one went much of anywhere.
Unlike you I read my history and talked to the people that made it.
No one went much of anywhere except the cemetary.
And Pershing ended the stalemate that would have continued had he crawled in the trenchs with the french.
See my reply to Lookout, above. I wouldn't be talking about "not knowing jack shit" after your little oversight in regard to information from the Office of Chief of Military History. Glass houses and all that, you know. ;)
What oversight? I made no oversight. You are just trying to obfuscate the disscussion with bullshit details like you did with the post about tactics. But that doesn't work because results not endless details are what count. I don't care if your father was chairman of the joint chiefs, you don't know what your talking about, if you did it wouldn't take you so long to look everything up before posting. :lol:
Oh....and the french suck. :p
You are just trying to obfuscate the disscussion with bullshit details like you did with the post about tactics. But that doesn't work because results not endless details are what count. I don't care if your father was chairman of the joint chiefs, you don't know what your talking about, if you did it wouldn't take you so long to look everything up before posting. :lol:
Right, wouldn't want to dilute a debate with any nasty old facts. Name-calling is so much more fun without them. :eyebrow:
So you (and Silent) are saying that if we had followed the french example of fighting in the trenches we wouldn't have had their 76% casualty rate and the war would have ended soon any way? Grow up. Pershing may have been decimated 2 years earlier but it wasn't 2 years earlier, was it? Pershing did the right thing for and at the right time. He ended the war quickly with a casualty rate of 8%. :p
I don't think I said anything of the sort.
My main points were/are:
1) Pershings tactics were out dated by 1918. The only reason they suceeded was due to the Americans being aligned against a tired, decimated German army.
2) Do not credit Pershing with any sort of insight with his choice of these out moded tactics. Being in the right place at the right time is not military genius, it's luck.
3) French tactics by 1918 were not as evolved as German or Canadian tactics. I am not holding them up as an example of elite WWI infantry.
4) Do not quote casualty rates from the entire war and expect the to have any real significance. Had the Americans been in the conflict from 1914 fighting a fresh German army without the lessons of the previous 4 years of fighting, I'm sure their casualty rates would have been right up there.
5) Do not attempt to say "Pershing ended the war". He was supporting cast. An important part, yes, but the forces which defeated the bulk and elite of the German army of 1918 were not American.
You know, I think the reason that a lot Americans have this hate on for the French is that many French have an open disdain for Americans.
And why do the French have this disdain for Americans? A couple of reasons:
1) Americans tourists have the worst reputation for being ignorant, arrogant loud mouths. Having witnessed first hand some of what that's is based on, I can't say that it is entirely un-earned.
2) The French have an insecurity about themselves. They are as proud of their country as Amercans are about theirs, but loss of international prestige, the diminishing importance of the French language, and the fact that their pride has taken a couple of stiff blows in the last century, has resulted in them attempting to take any comfort they can about themselves.
The above is just my opinion garnered from traveling abroad.
And I'm not trying to defend the French. I think their knee-jerk anti-americanism is childish. But I also think that whole "Freedom Fry" thing was infantile too.
I've actually heard Americans say that the French are ungrateful after they "saved their asses". :headshake:
Never has America gone to war to save France. The fact that the Germans were removed from French soil was mere pragmatism. France was the easiest route to get at the Germans.
And as far as the French were concerned, it was just pay back for the help they gave during the American Revolution.
:lol:
I agree with your "opinion garnered". :beer: Nobody's better than us, especially when it comes to being ignorant, arrogant loud mouths. ;)
My point was don't sell Pershing short, he was smart enough not to continue the trench death stalemate.
I agree with your "opinion garnered". :beer: Nobody's better than us, especially when it comes to being ignorant, arrogant loud mouths. ;)
My point was don't sell Pershing short, he was smart enough not to continue the trench death stalemate.
I guess we'll have to disagree about Pershing. All my reading indicates that his choice of tactics were mainly influenced by his low opinion of French and British troops and his high opinion of his own soldiers. He felt that all the Hun needed was to face some "Real Men". He disregarded advice from several sources and went his own way. The fact that he was sucessful despite all that means I place him into histories "Lucky Bastards" bin as opposed to the "Military Geniuses" one. :)
In his defence, he inspired the men who followed him (a trait not to be dismissed lightly) and was not put off by the bloody necessaties of fighting in that era.
Right, wouldn't want to dilute a debate with any nasty old facts. Name-calling is so much more fun without them. :eyebrow:
For someone who professes to be well educated you sure don't comprehend what you read very well. I didn't say facts, I said bullshit details. You can argue details about any thing in history but it doesn't change the result. That's what's important.
Left to their own, the french would have dragged on like the Iran-Iraq war.
Oh Silent, thanks for the tip on DeGaulle in Morocco. Should have know he wasn't actually involved in the fighting. :headshake
I guess we'll have to disagree about Pershing. All my reading indicates that his choice of tactics were mainly influenced by his low opinion of French and British troops and his high opinion of his own soldiers. He felt that all the Hun needed was to face some "Real Men". He disregarded advice from several sources and went his own way. The fact that he was sucessful despite all that means I place him into histories "Lucky Bastards" bin as opposed to the "Military Geniuses" one. :)
In his defence, he inspired the men who followed him (a trait not to be dismissed lightly) and was not put off by the bloody necessaties of fighting in that era.
Aren't all winning Generals lucky bastards? :lol:
Silent - i usually get burned if i assume anything, but... it sounds like you've never been in the military.
One of the reasons Pershings men would run into withering fire was because they believed in him. one of the reasons they believed in him is because had earned their respect. it is standard for a commander (especially one in command of green troops) to be boisterous and build them up - telling them (and anyone else who can hear) that they are the absolute best unit in existence. there is no one smarter, stronger, tougher, meaner... he says this to give them the confidence that is needed in a situation where the individual can look to his left and right and no that 1 of 3 will die in the coming hours or days.
the commander will undoubtedly be transferred or promoted to a new unit, and will shortly thereafter begin making the exact same claims about the new unit - you are the toughest, most bad ass MFers around! no one can stop you if you stick together!
if the brits and french were offended at Pershings insistance that HIS troops were the best and the brits and french weren't worthy of any praise, then too bad. do you really think he felt that way? or is it more likely that his troops were hearing how badly chewed up the brits and french were and he needed to give them the confidence that it wouldn't/couldn't happen to them?
Silent - ignoring or choosing not to follow the advice of military leaders who had gone to trenches is not a sign ignorance or foolishness - it is an acknowledgment that a completely different thought process was needed. America was weak on many war materials - but it had plenty of men. an overwhelming number of men if used properly. while Pershing was not a military genius, he knew what the situation was, what his strengths were and acted accordingly.
judging him against modern values and strategic thought wouldn't be proper.
Silent - i usually get burned if i assume anything, but... it sounds like you've never been in the military.
You would assume incorrectly.
One of the reasons Pershings men would run into withering fire was because they believed in him. one of the reasons they believed in him is because had earned their respect. it is standard for a commander (especially one in command of green troops) to be boisterous and build them up - telling them (and anyone else who can hear) that they are the absolute best unit in existence. there is no one smarter, stronger, tougher, meaner... he says this to give them the confidence that is needed in a situation where the individual can look to his left and right and no that 1 of 3 will die in the coming hours or days.
If you read above, I give him credit for having the ability to inspire the men below him. Not an insignificant ability, and a requirement for anyone to be successful in command for any length of time.
if the brits and french were offended at Pershings insistance that HIS troops were the best and the brits and french weren't worthy of any praise, then too bad. do you really think he felt that way? or is it more likely that his troops were hearing how badly chewed up the brits and french were and he needed to give them the confidence that it wouldn't/couldn't happen to them?
My opinions about Pershing's attitudes were not derived from his pre battle speeches, or talks to his troops. They are garnered from the writings of men who were there with him as well as his own notes. He was an Anglophobe who viewed the French (after touring their lines) as weak and defeatest.
He does not come right out and say these things (especially to his allies) but it is what I and many historians have garnered from the written records and writings of the men who were there.
Silent - ignoring or choosing not to follow the advice of military leaders who had gone to trenches is not a sign ignorance or foolishness - it is an acknowledgment that a completely different thought process was needed. America was weak on many war materials - but it had plenty of men. an overwhelming number of men if used properly. while Pershing was not a military genius, he knew what the situation was, what his strengths were and acted accordingly.
That's just it. He did not dismiss the recomendations of his allies to try something new. What he did was not new. It was not inovative. It was the same old tactics that were used in 1914 with a couple of adjustments in equipment and artillery usage. The fact that he did not send thousands to a pointless death was entirely due to the quality of the troops facing him. Had the Americans been deployed in the Arras sector, or perhaps closer to Ypres, the results would have been quite different.
I give him credit for his leadership. I give him credit for resisting French and British pressure to deploy the AEF piecemeal. As for his military capabilities, I defer to Douglas MacArthur, who considered Pershing a desk soldier with no grasp of tactics or innovation.
judging him against modern values and strategic thought wouldn't be proper.
Who is doing that? I'll give you a short list of current-at-the-time tactics Pershing did not use:
Creeping barrage, trench raids, interdictive artillery fire, independant platoon action, squad level LMG support, counter battery fire.
Some of these were employed by local commanders, but they were not in Pershing's "Play book". His "Wave" attacks and direct artillery fire methods were so 1916..
:p
For someone who professes to be well educated you sure don't comprehend what you read very well. I didn't say facts, I said bullshit details. You can argue details about any thing in history but it doesn't change the result. That's what's important.
Left to their own, the french would have dragged on like the Iran-Iraq war.
Oh Silent, thanks for the tip on DeGaulle in Morocco. Should have know he wasn't actually involved in the fighting. :headshake
With all due respect, I'm educated enough to reject stone-walling without data to back it up as an acceptable method of debate. You can throw hissy fits all you like, but your statements mostly have not been backed up by any data. Its a lazy way out to call facts that don't support your pet peeves "bullshit details." I might call the chart you cut and pasted above, "bullshit detail", if I were to go by your usage of the phrase.
Hissy fits are a chick thing, that's your department. I don't hissy fit.
You said I was over simplifying, I said you were over complicating because you can argue the value of 4 foot vs 6 foot trenches or the merits of one caliber bullet over another, ad nauseum. It doesn't change the facts;
1~ the french fought for 4 years and got no where with a 76.3 % casualty rate.
2~ Pershing ended the war in months with an 8.2% casualty rate.
That's it....the bottom line....we won.
Oh...3~ the french suck. :lol:
Alright, I after doing some re-reading last night I will have to retract some of my invective against Pershing.
He was not so much anti-British/French as he was ultra pro-American. To an extent that, some third parties have remarked, he was a bit blind to some of the weaknesses of his troops and the AEF in general.
[font=Arial][size=2][color=DarkRed][font=Times New Roman][size=3]French Security Alert:
Be aware that the French government announced yesterday that it has
Raised its terror alert level from 'Run' to 'Hide'.
The only two higher levels in France are 'Surrender' and 'Collaborate.'
The rise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France's
White flag factory, effectively paralysing their military.
[color=Navy]Sure it's old...but it's still funny.[/color]:lol:
[/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
Free trip to Arlington or Paris, Arlington or Paris, Arlington er....hmmm.....I gotta go for Paris. (France, not Texas) :)
Not to divert this armchair general's convention but I wanted to clear up something about "french fries".
The term is a corruption of "frenched fries. It refers to the way the potato is cut.
I hope french fries or what ever you want to call them are once again safe for democracy.
carry on. fry 'em if you got 'em.
;)
I feel so guilty for not reading through all of these posts, after all, I asked the question. I kind of wanted a simple answer, like "because they bombed us" or "because they treat american tourists like crap" or "they started it"...
I never was good at history. I used to cram in school, get A's, and forget it all. History just bores me...
It seems like, from what I scanned, we don't really have a good reason to hate them as a group..
I still don't get it!
Who said you need a "good" reason?
I actually spent about 10 minutes thinking about your question this morning, staceyv. I have narrowed my personal reasons down to two:
(1) At least half of all the French-language films I've ever watched sexualizes underage kids. It's like their directors can't make it through 2 hours of footage without lovingly filming a 12-year old with erect nipples, partially nude, showering with her schoolgirl friend, or at least hinting at prepubescent sexuality. For me, it goes beyond creepy, but it seems to be widely accepted as long as the director is French. The most mainstream example is Luc Besson's "Leon" a.k.a. "The Professional". It's a beautifully shot film, which means that critics call the sensual way the camera moves over Natalie Portman (age 10 or 12 or so) "art", not kiddie porn. Lock up the pervs and there would be no French cinema that didn't feature those stupid fucking street puppets. (imo)
(2) Pierre Capretz, whose bug-eyed, tousled-hair narration of
French In Action was permanently etched into my brain throughout high school and college. Great course, frightening dreams at night. This picture does him too much justice -- the man's actually quite insane.
good wine, good cheese, but they spit, they smell, they're rude, and they run at the mention of war. nuff said.
Noodle's post reminds me that in addition to harboring murderers, they also have a record of providing sanctuary to child molesters.
If you've ever met an arrogant Parisian from around that general area you will know how easy it is to hate the French. It all started with De Gaulle trying to boost morale.
I feel so guilty for not reading through all of these posts, after all, I asked the question. I kind of wanted a simple answer, like "because they bombed us" or "because they treat american tourists like crap" or "they started it"...
I never was good at history. I used to cram in school, get A's, and forget it all. History just bores me...
It seems like, from what I scanned, we don't really have a good reason to hate them as a group..
I still don't get it!
Because we can. Is that simple enough for you. :eyebrow:
We resent them because we needed their navy once a long time ago when we were young.
I hate the French because they think that I don't know how to order my own food at a restaurant.
But I do like their toast. And, fries. French fries---the food of gods. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmfrenchfries :yum:
Nobody's all bad.
We resent them because we needed their navy once a long time ago when we were young.
And their sluts seduced our poor naive Ben Franklin. :lol:
And their sluts seduced our poor naive Ben Franklin. :lol:
And on one occasion, Capnhowdy too...I mean two. :blush:
Actually, I think we're mad about the Statute of Liberty. :3_eyes:
Lingering animosity from the French-Canadian War?
We got ripped off by the Louisiana Purchase?
OK, I'll stop now. I only got two hours sleep last night and I'm even sillier than I usually am. [SIZE=1]I'll just go away now and eat some liberty fries...[/SIZE]
Good wine, good cheese, good bread, good movies, beautiful women, charming underclothes, (for cows too, see above), why should they have these things and not us? We should forget about iraq and iran and go to france and take all that shit for ourselves.
We shouldn't pay for it either because they would just try to short–change us.
Meanwhile, there is always a sibling that the other family members don't especially like. Tommy Smothers said, "Mom always liked you best". Maybe Tommy Smothers was the Frenchman of that closely knit family.
Meanwhile, there is always a sibling that the other family members don't especially like.
Were YOU that family member? :D
Were YOU that family member?
Do you mean was I black, or was I related to sheep?
Someone hacked tw's login again ...
(good one)
Frankly, I find myself struggling to care. America is not yet perfect, and I'd rather work on that than try to fix somebody else's country.
Frankly, I find myself struggling to care. America is not yet perfect, and I'd rather work on that than try to fix somebody else's country.
Wash your mouth out with Olympia. :lol:
Wash your mouth out with Olympia. :lol:
I prefer Coors as my mouthwash of choice. They don't call the stuff "Colorado Kool-aide" for nothing. Which reminds me of a joke (WARNING: thread de-rail in progress):
A Coloradoan, a Texan, and a Californian were sitting in a bar having a round of drinks. The Californian chugged his white wine spritzer and threw his empty wine glass at the wall and said, "In California we have so much money, we never drink out of the same wine glass twice." The Texan stared at the Californian, and then, not to be out-done, he swallowed his shot of Jack Daniels in a single gulp and threw his empty shot glass at the wall and bragged, "In Texas we have so much sand that we never drink out of the same shot glass twice." The Coloradoan looked in disbelief at the Texan and Californian, finished his can of Coors off, crumpled up the can, and drew out a gun and shot both the Californian and the Texan. Then the Coloradoan looked around the bar and announced, "In Colorado we have so many Californians and Texans, we never drink with the same ones twice!"
I imagine you could switch around states and nationalities to tailor this joke to suit your own situation. ;)
Lunaephiliac is in Olympia country. ;)
I reckon Lunaephilliac is in No Alcohol Sales to Minors country, Olympic or otherwise. Maybe a Starbucks' buzz iis in order.
Why do you think he/she is a minor? :question:
I'm lost in this forum
Sorry my english is not fluent but you won't have to bear my awful accent.
As soon as I read all your messages about french people I will answer you.
It's quite interesting to see the opposite opinion despite they are not always very kind for us.
For instance I've recently met russians people, the "old communists opponents" and the main thing I've listened is that we're all victime of our medias and schoolbooks (our intellectual laziness too !) that distort the truth.
Later
Bye
Good wine, good cheese, good bread, beautiful women
Hey that's Laos
We should forget about iraq and iran and go to Xxxx and take all that shit for ourselves
Air America was there but left. USAF was there and left a shit load of UXO there.
I'm lost in this forum
Sorry my english is not fluent but you won't have to bear my awful accent.
As soon as I read all your messages about french people I will answer you.
It's quite interesting to see the opposite opinion despite they are not always very kind for us.
For instance I've recently met russians people, the "old communists opponents" and the main thing I've listened is that we're all victime of our medias and schoolbooks (our intellectual laziness too !) that distort the truth.
Later
Bye
Don't go away! Stay and let us know how cool you are! We had a French person at the cellar a bit ago and he/she didn't do anything but insult American food...so, that didn't do any good! Hang around! Enlighten us! :)
Thank you Brianna
I’ve just read the 2 first pages.
First excuse me if my words exceed my thought.
It's not always easy to find all the shades I'd like to.
wolf :
Freedom Fries thing is laughable : OK it's true they are belgian
And I don't think freedom is a matter of choice among different fries !
if politics go on like this, it will be our last freedom.
coca or pepsi, shell or esso, nike or addidas... that's a pity.
(in their history US have already boycotted Francfort sausages which are german !)
lookout123 :
“I always thought the french were our pals until I did some work with their military and spent some time in their embassy. *ahem* fuck the frogs.”
Don’t mistake French people and military or embassy. Those are too often professional of betrayal. It’s the same for every country : France, China, GB, Germany, South Africa and of course US. Just look at history where alliances have been decided and so often not respected.
I want to add that our high school system produces a lot of inflated students, (I was one of them) and you may have met them in such a professional sphere. I imagine it’s the same with Yale and the “Skull and bones” and all US people are not like Yale’s students.
Furthermore I think we meet people who “resonate” like us wherever they come from.
Brianna
“They also pour sauce over everything and pronounce it delicious”
We say the same about English people !
Griff
“We hate them because they feel as strongly about France as we do about the good ole USA”
I don’t understand ole, but I think I agree
Richlevy
“Basically because they can be as arrogant, nationalistic, and self-centered as we are, without the military and economic arsenal to back it up.”
OK
Guyute
“Maybe because they have a knack for having someone pulling their irons out of the fire after being steamrolled, then acting like they would have done it anyway if they had a bit more time (De Gaulle was a puke like this), and then being to proud to admit that they were fucked if the good guys didn't help.” I imagine it’s “too” proud
De Gaulle : see Marichiko’s message
Radar
“they have a history of surrendering their country and being ingrateful when their bacon is saved by the United States”
In France we really really thank US soldiers who have poor their own blood, but not US government.
We think they could have interfere before, but they have waited Europe was destroyed enough to be sure to become the economical and political leader after the war. Furthermore Soviet Union was the new competitor that required to be stopped.
So France freedom itself was just a detail, it’s the reason Allied decided not to free Paris but to run to Berlin before Russians.
After the war the “president” Franco, dictator of Spain, has kept the power in his country despite he helped Hitler in sending spanish troops. Is it a manner to bring liberty in a country ?
Look on the net for information on Gladio, Stay behind, Paper Clip… thanks to this operations, the US put pro-US governments in Europe against European interests and recruited nazis scientists.
The Marshall plan helped Europe to rebuilt war damages but it wasn’t free, there was financial interests to refund after.
Governements are not humane, they don’t care about French, African, US people. They just believe in oil and money. Don’t listen to what they say, just look at their actions.
To be clear and frank I don’t trust states, governments, army, big firm, flags and medals, whatever they are : french, US or kenian…
Radar
“For me it's not so much the French I dislike, but Parisians.”
In France we say we must be crazy to live in Paris. It’s lovely in summer to visit as a tourist but not during the other seasons, it’s overcrowded with cars everywhere.
My town Nantes during a festival :
http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=8792
http://www.nantes.fr/ext/royal_de_luxe_2005/vendredi.asp
http://www.lean.to/gallery/royaldeluxe
“Because the Parisians shower infrequently, the women have hairy armpits”
Have you already been to Paris to verify that ? We say the same about Portugueses.
As for us US people are all fat like Mickael Moore. It’s so silly.
Marichiko
Thank you for your intervention
Jaguar : Hello
xoxoxoBruce :
“that's when the french took charge again and sowed the seeds of WW II.”
Yes with Clémenceau in Versailles Treaty 28 06 1919.
But you forget
- another French, George Mandel. Mandel, birth name : Jerobeam Rothschild
- Colonel Edward M. House and Bernard Baruch important employees of the Rothschild Bank.
- David Lloyd George prime minister of Great-Britain with his counsellor, Sir Philip Sassoon, “descendant in line” (translation OK ?) of Amschel Rothschild.
- Vittorio Emanuele Orlando minister-president of Italia.
- The last but not the least : Thomas Woodrow Wilson, president for the United States .
(You can notice the influence of bank Rotschild)
It’s always the same principle : states wants to divide, weaken and exploit their opponents : German secret service and banks propped up Lenine against tsar Nicolas 2 before the revolution of 1917 to weaken Russia.
Poland had always been a puppet between the interests of Germany, Russian and France, in order to protect all of them from each other.
US has won the cold war and divides URSS in several republics, and prop pro-US governments up in order to lead pipelines towards US tankers too. Iouchenko, the nice pro occidental Ukrainian president is fascist, so was his pro-Russian opponent. (A friend of mine is Ukrainian)
England, US, France (less now because of US influence), exploit African countries. Now US take the main role in Asia (except China ?). And I don’t talk about Arabian countries exploited from the beginning of 20th century by the “7 sisters” (US, English, French, Dutch petrol companies)
All those states have dirty hands !
If I was US I’d try to find information about “the Virginia company” because thanks to it, the Britain Crown could always be the owner of United States. It’s an economical power instead of a political domination which is too evident. Is it true ?
“Were we ready for a major land war? (in 1940) No. The government was still trying to figure out how to convince the public that wanted to stay out of it. Gee, maybe Pearl Harbor was part of that.“
OK for me
That’s all for today
Bye / A bientôt
thanks for your response and welcome to the cellar.
it may be hard for you to understand but i seriously doubt that anyone in here really truly hates all french people. conversations like this are started more for humor, and then turn into friendly and not-so-friendly nose tweaking.
we can say that we dislike or hate a group of people, but then when you actually meet one on an individual basis you may find you like them. do i really hate the french? no not really. they are just people. i have no respect for the french military. i have no respect for the diplomats and foreign service workers that i met in the embassies. i believe that the french government parades and preens in the world of international politics without realizing that it has been some time since France was truly and international powerhouse. but there are a number of French people that i know and like. people are just people. some i like, some i dislike. nationality doesn't really matter. for instance, RichLevy is a cellarite that i disagree with on most every issue, but i'm willing to bet that he is a helluva nice guy that i'd enjoy conversing with. BUT when you have a group of people with RichLevy's views, it is easy to say "i don't like them", etc. it is the difference between group and person to person dynamics.
---
and if you really think that the US waited to enter WWII until Europe was in a shambles so that we could step in take center stage in the world then i can understand why you might distrust and dislike America. unfortunately, that would be a misunderstanding of American sentiment and politics leading up to that time period.
Welcome to the Cellar, Bargalunan. I am sorry that you would drop in here and read this thread. A Frenchman might well use it as an example of "Why do we hate the Americans?" I hope you'll come back, anyhow. Its interesting to get the perspective of people from other countries.
By the way, I bet most people here would not be able to write French or any other language well enough to comment on a written discussion in a foreign language. Of course, we Americans are sooooo superior! :eyebrow:
Of course, we Americans are sooooo superior! :eyebrow:
Only you.
Only you.
Hey, thank you for recognizing my wonderfulness at last! Je suis adorable, est-ce que je ne suis pas ? :D
I like 4 of em: one ex-coworker, one kid I played Rogue Spear with, his friend who he introduced me to in a chatroom (who I've spoken with maybe 3 times -- she doesn't know any English, and my French is nearly as bad), and a guy who used to come into the bait shop I worked at. They liked me okay, too.
I also harbor no ill will towards any of their mothers, which gets me up to 8. I don't know how many fathers they had :lol: so I can't add them yet.
Other than the stupid looking Foreign Legion uniforms and that nasty tasting Kraft salad dressing, I say....what the hell.
Welome to the cellar, bargalunan.
Always remember... controversies "R" us.
And BTW did you guys really invent the French tickler? heehee.......
Why do you think he/she is a minor? :question:
ArithmeticOK...fashion thread. :rolleyes:
Bonjour comment ça va ?
Thank you for your welcome, I will repeat in France that all US people are not bad ! :love:
There’s no problem really, if I was on my nerves, I wouldn’t have written a so long message.
How can you kill a French person ?
Shoot above his head, in his complex of superiority
How can you easily make money ?
Buy a French for his real price, and sell him for the price he thinks he worth
A lot of political decisions upset me (French, English, of course US because they rule the world...) So did Rome, France, England before.
I just think that things will change thanks to simple people and not from the head of states.
In France we talk about "the hundredth monkey".
I've really got nothing against US people (as you said lookout123).
If you just could calm down mac donalds, coca cola, Lance Armstrong and Paris Hilton.... :p
How could I be angry with US people when you give birth to Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby and Unforgiven are two of my favorite films ! )
Ten years ago, the US image in France was not so bad : sometimes very good, good or sometimes irritating. But now because of G and GW Bush, the “Falcons” (or “Hawks” ?), Colin Powell and the Gulf war, French people less and less trust American politic.
And we were really disappointed when GW Bush was reelected. We think he’s crazy, idiot and dangerous.
Be sure that French TV not always criticize US politic, they are sleeping. They rather criticize Mickael Jackson’s nose or Janett’s nipple. :mg:
But they detailed the reason why Chirac didn’t want to help Bush :
- ONU had never received any evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding High Destruction Weapons. (Colin Powell has lied in showing a test tube, we’re still waiting for his report)
- There is still no proof of link between Saddam Hussein and Ben Laden.
- so what’s the purpose to invade Irak ?
A French joke :
Why was GW Bush sure that Saddam owned High Destruction Weapons ?
Because he has kept the receipt !
(French and German sold weapons to Irak too, we’re not better)
US army bombs Irak and Halliburton rebuilts the building.
Dick Cheney is the former President of Halliburton (and KBR (private army). For us it’s as crazy as if Ben Ladden Corporation (firm of Oussama BL’s father) had rebuilt the Twin Towers. (I repeat in France we say there’s still no link between Irak and Ben Laden)
It’s my opinion from France. Bush’s government isn’t clear. France, Germany, Spain, China… acted like this before.
In France we foresee war against Iran at end of August / beginning September.
I hope we’re wrong.
lookout123 :
I’ve read again my notes about WWII (written by Russian historian Valentin Faline.)
Usually history is written by the winner !
He said that the war could have finished since 1942 if Churchill and US leaders who agreed with him (FD Roosevelt, Cordel Hull) had agreed to open a new front line that
Beaverbrook and Cripps in British army, and Eisenhower among other leaders were thinking it was possible.
But in fact Anglo Saxon wanted to replace Nazi’s domination over Europe, but they need to weaken Russia. Thus they let Germany and Russian fight against each-other. Churchill wanted also to control petrol in Caucase and Middle Asia. It’s the following of war of Crimée (1854/1856) (west Russia) between Russian on one side, and British allied with French.
After the battle of Koursk, in 1943, Anglo Saxon (Churchill, Roosevelt) even thought to allied with Nazi army to fight against Soviets. (Remember Franco in my last post).
May be those are the reasons why De Gaulle didn’t trust Anglo Saxon politicians.
Economical domination is an argument we often read in France (not in our schoolbooks, it’s too complex !).
Links :
http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article16696.html (sorry it’s only in French and Spanish)
Item in English about US influence (it’s critical) :
http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article156.html (U.S. ruling class’ bargains with the Reich)
http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article91.html (Psychological Cold War)
http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article39.html (Ford Foundation)
http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article109.html (Skull and bones)
That’s part of my informations. There’s no problem for me if you tell me it’s false.
I’ve read a book I think it’s excellent :
“A People’s History of the United States. 1492 – Present”
written by Howard Zinn, teacher in Boston University
Another French example about WWII : Russia betrayed some French communists (!) (pro Russians) members of the Resistance movement and denounced them to Nazis, because those French people could have helped US troops to arrive the firsts in Berlin !!
So who killed JFK ?
It’s not De Gaulle !
Can you help me ?
In all your posts you often talk about Pershing. In France history his name may take one line. (except for missiles)
Brianna :
"My house was built on an ancient Indian burial ground. It was the site of Satanic rituals, witch-burnings and five John Denver Christmas specials."
It may be strange, do you see ghosts ? play with energy, spirits ? A friend of mine is “talking” with souls to help them to do their last wishes before going to heaven. :3_eyes:
Bye
Hi again, bargalunan.
My little "signature" line about my house being built on ancient Indian burial ground, etc., is just a joke. Because I live in Ohio it is totally possible that I am on some sort of ancient Indian ground, I doubt that it is a burial ground because if it were it would probably be some State sanctioned park or something. The joke is that all those terrible things happened on the site--the Satanic rituals, the witch-burnings, but the most HORRIBLE things were the Five John Denver Christmas Specials...see? Just a joke!
I thought your last response/post was very good, barga. Well thought out, well informed. We need a French voice here in the Cellar! I hope you stay and have fun with us!
Interesting coincidence. I'm housesitting for some friends, who also offered their basement rooms to our church's new pastor and family (big house). The pastor's previous gig was in France, so they're all fluent. The 2 boys have a flawless accent, at least to my untrained ears.
Once again... My pastor is temporarily living under the same roof as me. And his lovely wife and precious kids are completely enamored with France and French culture.
Dad was gone, so mom, the kids, and I played pool and talked in French. I was terrified that I would swear accidentally when I missed a shot, but otherwise, I ended the evening feeling quite magnanimous and warm/fuzzy about the world. And also like a hypocrite. Something about spending the day dissing people, then having a grand old time with them in the evening. :blush:
He said that the war could have finished since 1942 if Churchill and US leaders who agreed with him (FD Roosevelt, Cordel Hull) had agreed to open a new front line that
it is quite possible, but you must remember that America was just breaking out of its isolationist past, unwillingingly at that. then when you look at american strategic thought at the time it looks a little less heinous than what this author suggests. there were concerns that our green, unbloodied young men would be slaughtered if they weren't FULLY trained - and everyone's definition for that is different. there were many different proposals for ops plans, but in the end it was decided that the best course of action was to wait until the US had trained and equipped (haha) an overwhelming number of GI's to send over to the theater. keep in mind that americans were not interested in any sort of negotiated peace so the goal wasn't to fight until a position of strength was achieved and then pause. the goal was to overwhelm and crush the opposition.
John Denver is unknown in France (at least for me)
Perhaps is less sexy than Britney Spear
John Denver is unknown in France (at least for me)
Perhaps is less sexy than Britney Spear
www.johndenver.com will tell you all you need to know. He was a cheesy guy who wrote and played cheesy songs for cheesy people.
I really like that French band Air. This intrigues me, and I want to look into more French pop. Many of the artists I like say they were influenced by Serge Gainsbourg.
John Denver is unknown in France (at least for me)
Perhaps is less sexy than Britney Spear
You don't want to know about John Denver. He's dead, thank God. Forget you ever even heard his name. Here in the US, he's just about everyone's favorite singer to hate. Now Jean Luc Ponty... ;)
Here in the US, he's just about everyone's favorite singer to hate.
Oh, I don't know about that. I liked "Poems, Prayers, and Promises" and "Back Home Again".
But you forget
- another French, George Mandel. Mandel, birth name : Jerobeam Rothschild
- Colonel Edward M. House and Bernard Baruch important employees of the Rothschild Bank.
- David Lloyd George prime minister of Great-Britain with his counsellor, Sir Philip Sassoon, “descendant in line” (translation OK ?) of Amschel Rothschild.
- Vittorio Emanuele Orlando minister-president of Italia.
- The last but not the least : Thomas Woodrow Wilson, president for the United States .
(You can notice the influence of bank Rotschild)
No, I didn't forget. I never forget the power of bankers and their money to shape the world to their advantage. That's always been true but Wilson's input to the treaty was very small because we were the new kids. We had only been in the war a short time and not considered a major player by the rest of the allies.
If I was US I’d try to find information about “the Virginia company” because thanks to it, the Britain Crown could always be the owner of United States. It’s an economical power instead of a political domination which is too evident. Is it true ?
The Virginia Company only lasted for about 20 years in the early 1600s before the King yanked their charter and made Virginia a Crown Colony. It was an attempt to financially exploit "The New World" by the Brits just as the French, Spanish, Portugese and even the Vikings had done. 1776 put an end to that attempt, but then and now, the "Money" will cooperate across political boundries to their own benefit.
I'm glad you're smart enough to realize most of this thread was in fun and most of the barbs were directed at other posters rather than France.
Tell me, has France had to face the largest Evil the world has ever known ....WalMart? :worried:
Oh, I don't know about that. I liked "Poems, Prayers, and Promises" and "Back Home Again".
I said "just about everyone's." And if you promise not to breathe a word to another living soul, I'll admit to a sneaking fondness for "Country Roads," myself. ;)
I said "just about everyone's." And if you promise not to breathe a word to another living soul, I'll admit to a sneaking fondness for "Country Roads," myself. ;)
Same here. Although you want to be far away when I sing it in the shower. :scream:
Because of the amount of respect that I have garnered here over the years, I probably should not mention things like wearing out a copy of Rhymes and Reasons, and enjoying some of his sappier tunes ... yes, even that one.
They are all very singable.
I really like that French band Air. This intrigues me, and I want to look into more French pop. Many of the artists I like say they were influenced by Serge Gainsbourg.
Serge Gainsbourg : very famous in France
really really wonderful songs, I hope you can find them
French people love him because he was a bad boy always drunk, provocative but very sensitive. He wrote also songs for Jane Birkin (English girl only famous in France ?) and Birgitte Bardot (when she was young !). He was quite ugly but always seduced the most beautiful and famous women.
His lyrics are often based on play on words and poetry. His music is very rich, a lot of different styles.
I think his last songs were “easier”.
Most famous Songs : “Initials BB”, “Je t’aime moi non plus“ (with sexual whisper melt in the music), “Ballade de Melody Nelson”, “Je suis venu te dire que je m’en vais”, “la javanaise“…
Famous also in having said, in a TV French show where Witney Houston was the guest star, that he "wanted to fuck her". She became white for few seconds : What !!!!! :mad:
From the 60’s to 80’s there were always in France about the same 20 singers. And French were inhibited compared to US and British music, trying to copy. It wasn’t so good and almost forgot to sing like they before used to.
Now French music is influenced by anglo saxon pop, soul, techno, African, Arabian and Spanish rythm and the French touch… : the result is good.
Since nearly 2000 we've really got plenty of good singers : about 5 to 10 new per year, for us it’s an explosion, in every kind of style.
Exemples : Juliette (French style, humour), Manu Chao (world music, latino), Souad Massi (Algerian, pop, rai, flamenco), Thomas Fersen (French style), Yann Tiersen (music from the film “Amélie from Montmartre”), Lo Jo (world music), Camille (sounds like Bjork), Tiken Jah Fakoli (Coast of Ivory ? african political reggae), Lhasa (French/Spanish/English jazz/world music), Pink Martini (French/US jazz latino), St Germain (album “Tourist”, jazz techno, no lyrics)…
Less recent : Mano Negra (Rock latino), Noir Désir (French pop Rock), Rita mitSouko (French pop rock), Etienne Daho (French pop), I Muvrini (traditional band from Corsica), Renaud (beautiful lyrics, awful voice, made a song against “Miss Maggie”), Bernard Lavilliers (our Bruce Springsteen in spirit with latino-American influences), Laurent Voulzy (album “caché derrière” and others, good pop), Alain Souchon (beautiful lyrics, good pop), Francis Cabrel (soothing French pop Rock ), William Sheller (pop classic, piano), Mylène Farmer (pop quite original and successful), Enzo Enzo (French style), Zazie (pop), Michel Jonasz (Jazz), Claude Nougaro (Jazz + song “Toulouse” !), Jean Jacques Goldman (our national song maker, cautious humanist, the man French people would like to meet once, pop rock), songs of Starmania (“Tycoon”), Air, Daft Punk ……
If you like Serge Gainsbourg’s music, maybe you’ll enjoy “M“ (Matthieu Chedid), Dominique A, Alain Bashung, in a more modern way… and MC Solaar (pop rap)
Our French star : Johnny Hallyday (I think he isn’t original for US people)
Our French god : Charles Aznavour, we can’t say anything bad about this man. Respect.
You can find them on the web. (emule, kasaa, (un)official sites)
Lyrics French songs :
http://www.paroles.net/
And French singers with number of songs : clic “La Liste Complète des Interprètes“ :
http://www.paroles.net/artis/*
You don't want to know about John Denver. He's dead, thank God. Forget you ever even heard his name. Here in the US, he's just about everyone's favorite singer to hate. Now Jean Luc Ponty... ;)
Sorry, Jazz is really a fashion in France but I’m not a specialist despite there’s a little jazz festival in my birth village. I just know St Germain, Michel Petrucciani and some US jazz. An Old album : “Giants of jazz play Brassens”. Georges Brassens, Jacques Brel and Leo Ferré
are our 3 poets in songs, it’s often not really funny nor modern but the lyrics are timeless.
there were concerns that our green, unbloodied young men would be slaughtered if they weren't FULLY trained - and everyone's definition for that is different. there were many different proposals for ops plans, but in the end it was decided that the best course of action was to wait until the US had trained and equipped (haha) an overwhelming number of GI's to send over to the theater.
I think that real militaries like Eisenhower who said it was technically possible earlier are more qualified for this kind of opinion than politicians like Roosevelt and Churchill. Usually leaders decide and the technical people have to reach the objective.
But I won’t declare the war for that !
That's always been true but Wilson's input to the treaty was very small because we were the new kids. We had only been in the war a short time and not considered a major player by the rest of the allies.
In my books Wilson is Rotshild’s puppet
Tell me, has France had to face the largest Evil the world has ever known ....WalMart? :worried:
Walmart ? Why ? Is it another joke I never understand ? I’ve just heard the name. I’ve no idea about that. :confused:
I hope it’s not worst than Monsanto !
Have you got Alicia Key’s phone number ? or Nora Jones’s ?
Bye
Thanks for the information!
Many of us admire that film, which is just called Amélie here. Or even Amelie, without the correct accent.
Wal-Mart is a chain of warehouse-like stores that sells everything from tires to lettuce to DVDs to rifles. It's cheap, soulless, mass-produced crap, marketed to cheap, soulless, mass-produced people. When a Wal-Mart comes to town, the effect on family-owned businesses is similar to nuclear detonation, only slower. I loathe Wal-Mart, and shop there every week. I'm pretty sure the mark of the Beast will be that stupid smiley face on the commercials.
Walmart ? Why ? Is it another joke I never understand ? I’ve just heard the name. I’ve no idea about that. :confused:
I hope it’s not worst than Monsanto !
Ooh, that's a poser. Walmart takes normal corporate villainy to the extreme, while Montsano invents new ways to be evil. Walmart is bad for its employees and neighborhood, while Montsano is bad for its customers and their neighbors.
Thanks for the information!
Many of us admire that film, which is just called Amélie here. Or even Amelie, without the correct accent.
Ooooh, I loved that film! That was just the funniest movie! Remember the part about her kidnapping the garden troll and sending post cards from it at various places around the world?
I like the writer, Collette, too. She was a liberated gal long before the word "feminist" had ever been coined. I read everything of hers I could find. She wrote about LIFE and the wonderful way she lived it outside the bonds of the conventions of her times!
I wish the French wouldn't have given us all those existentialists like Sartre and Camus - very depressing.
French perfume is wonderful, though. Shalimar!
If you ever see a Walmart start to go up in France, blow it up and put the blame on Bin Laden! ;)
marichiko said "People ignorant of European history (that means 99.9999999% of all Americans) find it easy to make arrogant assumptions."
That was so funny, milk came out my nose!
you'll find the humor wears off shortly.
Seriously, though, what's this 'we' basiness - I'm referring to the original post, here. I don't know anyone that hates French folks other than my dad and he thinks India is in the Middle East!
that's because you are in california. californians, REAL californians, aren't that different than the french - they just don't have history to back up their attitudes. ;)
HAHAHA!
Are you saying that Californians are ARROGANT?! What do YOU kow about US?! Your simple mind cannot begin to fathom the complexity of what it is to be Californian. ;)
simple mind cannot begin to fathom the complexity of what it is to be Californian.
ain't that the truth.
My wife and i went to the St Regis (dana point, i think?)for sunday brunch a couple of months back. fortunately our old roommate works there and we didn't have to pay because there is no way in hell i'm paying $200 for breakfast. that was just stupid.
[SIZE=1]it sure was yummy though. and lots of famous people. but that is it. oh, and the view was beautiful too...[/SIZE]
HAHAHA!
Are you saying that Californians are ARROGANT?! What do YOU kow about US?! Your simple mind cannot begin to fathom the complexity of what it is to be Californian. ;)
Ooooh, can we start bashing Californians now? I know LOT'S about Californians. Colorado has Californians like other people have termites. People here have bumper stickers that read "DON'T CALIFORTNICATE COLORADO!" I did have a friend who was from California once. I forget what happened to him. I think he either got shot by a rancher or eaten by a mountain lion. Can't remember now... :apaw: :unsure:
Oh, nothing personal, Mr. Mouse! ;)
I spent a good year travelling around California, from Lakeside to Merced to Napa to Redding, and found really cool people all the way up. San Francisco and L.A. have high concentrations of weird, but much of the state is indistinguishable from the midwest, attitude wise.
When I was growing up, I thought everyone from California had a surfboard. I thought every child could swim underwater for 5 minutes, and everyone had seen a dolphin in the wild.
They thought we all skiied. 35 years and counting, and I've skiied 5-10 times. I think it's close to the higher number, but I'm not sure. People around here go skiing like others go on a picnic, so it's not particularly memorable.
They thought we all skiied. 35 years and counting, and I've skiied 5-10 times. I think it's close to the higher number, but I'm not sure. People around here go skiing like others go on a picnic, so it's not particularly memorable.
Gosh, do people count how often they strap on a pair of ski's? When I lived in Durango, I was in charge of opening the library every morning. Our director wanted to break some kind of record, so he never closed the library for ANY reason, not EVER! On bad snow days, I'd strap on my cross countries and ski in to work, open up the library for all the non-existant patrons that day, stack my ski's and poles next to the entrance, go in and make myself some coffee, and spend the day with my feet propped up on the reference desk reading. Now THERE was a cool job! How many times have I been skiing? HAHAHAHAHA! :lol:
Ooooh, can we start bashing Californians now? I know LOT'S about Californians. Colorado has Californians like other people have termites. People here have bumper stickers that read "DON'T CALIFORTNICATE COLORADO!" I did have a friend who was from California once. I forget what happened to him. I think he either got shot by a rancher or eaten by a mountain lion. Can't remember now... :apaw: :unsure:
Oh, nothing personal, Mr. Mouse! ;)
Only when it becomes acceptable for Californians to make fun of the bumpkins that insist on moving here to become
A) Movie stars
B) Dot.com tycoons
C) Carpet-bagging politicians
D) Undocumented farm workers
or
E) Rock stars
I have a friend from Colorado, ironically. He loves it here and wouldn't live anywhere else in the world, other than Germany, sans Munich, I think. Thankfully, he's smart enough to realize that people are people wherever you go.
When I lived in Switzerland I never snow-ski'ied. It was considered 'vulgar', or, in other words, "like some tourist."
Only when it becomes acceptable for Californians to make fun of the bumpkins that insist on moving here to become
A) Movie stars
B) Dot.com tycoons
C) Carpet-bagging politicians
D) Undocumented farm workers
or
E) Rock stars
I have a friend from Colorado, ironically. He loves it here and wouldn't live anywhere else in the world, other than Germany, sans Munich, I think. Thankfully, he's smart enough to realize that people are people wherever you go.
I was just having a little fun with you, Mr. Mouse. I actually do know
several pretty cool folks from Cali. My only real complaint against you guys is that you have made Colorado real estate prices go up, cuz a lot of you have moved here and exchanged your more expensive West coast properties for houses here in the Rockies. But I don't blame any Californian PERSONALLY for this phenomenon.
Many of us admire that film, which is just called Amélie here. Or even Amelie, without the correct accent.
In France Amelie is called “Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain”.
The director, Jean Pierre Jeunet has realised after : ”Un long dimanche de fiançailles” about the WW1 with the same esthetic. I found it quite intricate with a lot of characters. We must be well awake, and ready to see the same actors than in Amelie plus Jodie Foster. Nevertheless it’s a very beautiful film dealing with WW1 in a realist way. Go and see it ! :thumb:
http://wwws.warnerbros.fr/movies/unlongdimanche/long_dimanche_flash-640.html#
Our last successful film is “les choristes” that reminds me of “Billy Elliot”
http://www.leschoristes-lefilm.com/
Wal-Mart. It's cheap, soulless, mass-produced crap, marketed to cheap, soulless, mass-produced people. I'm pretty sure the mark of the Beast will be that stupid smiley face on the commercials.
“It's cheap, soulless, mass-produced crap, marketed to cheap, soulless, mass-produced people” I will copy it. I hope you’ve got no patent on it !
In France Walmart is still not here but we’ve got clones named : Leclerc, Carrefour, Auchan, Casino… (They sell also lettuce but no rifles !). It’s the same problem. 20 years ago medias were proud to say that we were the first in the world to invent such sh.. and bring cheap material happiness to middle class families (which are sometimes now unemployed). “Communism promised heaven, Leclerc made it !”. Now nobody boast about them.
Is it common in the US to talk about the mark of the Beast ? In France it’s not well known. As we’re a Cartesian country you’ve got chance to be seen as mad for most of French people .
I was looking forWalmart's smiley and found others symbols.
They are not really positive : the 666 gencode over US and the star of the Illuminati… Brrr :worried:
(2) Pierre Capretz,
Pierre Capretz : ???
I wish the French wouldn't have given us all those existentialists like Sartre and Camus - very depressing.
Yes if you want real French headaches you can read Sartre or Proust. But I’ve appreciated Camus “la Peste” despite it’s not funny.
I’ve heard that French (and Belgian, like French fries) comics are not well known abroad despite the latest ones are very creative. You can have a look at some (sorry it’s not those I prefer) :
http://www.read-box.com/
Clic ENTRER, bibliothèque on top, chose a picture, clic “lancer la lecture”, suite, zoom, suite page suivante…
I prefer page 9 : ”La conjuration d’opale”, ”le combat ordinaire” (excellent, need to be french to understand ?), p13 ”Où le regard ne porte pas”, p16 ”Thorgal”, p1 ”Bételgeuse”, p19 ”XIII”…
If you can find them in Walmart, then they are not so bad !
Most Americans' exposure to French bandes-dessinées has been either Heavy Metal magazine (Métal Hurlant in translation) or Astérix.
You can have a look at some (sorry it’s not those I prefer) :
http://www.read-box.com/
Clic ENTRER, bibliothèque on top, chose a picture, clic “lancer la lecture”, suite, zoom, suite page suivante…
Merci beaucoup pour ca - useful and enjoyable way to keep my rusty French from seizing up altogether during the winter months
I want to hug some French folks and tell them nice things.
one good thing about the french! - FRENCH KISSING!!!
We've already thought of that and the sensual joy that is French kissing still doesn't make up for all the other stuff.
You're jaded.
Welcome to the cellar, piercehan
Y'now, they hosted a great World Cup, too.
so what - it's soccer. [ducks and runs]
I want to hug some French folks and tell them nice things.
Me too, will you keep a eye out for their husbands, for me. ;)
Welcome to the Cellar, piercehan. :) Good observation, you may have a future as a spin doctor or an agent.
Y'now, they hosted a great World Cup, too.
Et 1, et 2, et 3 zéro !
French supporters were singing "et 1, et 2, et 3 zéro" (and 1, and 2, and 3 to 0)
when France won the final against Brazil (3/0) in 1998 World cup.
It was the first time France won this cup.
In 2000 France won the european championship in Holland, becomming the first country to win those 2 tournaments in two years.
Y'know....as an English bird I have a sort of inherited disdain for the French......but actually on the couple of occassions I have visited France the people have been lovely. They've been friendly and helpful and if you make even the slightest attempt to talk in French they tell you what it should have sounded like then drop into English to be helpful:) Now I am sure not all of them are like that but my experiences of French people have been entirely positive.
Why they may have a beef with Americans? well that is a whole other story. They ( like many Europeans) have seen America grow up into a huge world striding bully with power and arrogance to rival the British Empire at it's height and which percieves itself to be above ( or seperate from) the rest of the world community. ( eg complete disdain for the UN, a refusal to sign up to a world court unless it's own soldiers are exempt and the refusal to sign up to kioto)
Y ( eg complete disdain for the UN, a refusal to sign up to a world court unless it's own soldiers are exempt and the refusal to sign up to kioto)
The problem is not that "we" won't, but that "you" did.
I hate them because they continue to whine about Lance making all their racers look like the Nancy-Boy pastry chefs they are.
i heard today that they've revived the rumors about him juicing so he could beat them.
maybe, just maybe the banned substance that he used was... SOAP. he used said banned substance to cleanse the scum from his flesh, thusly becoming more aerodynamic. you can obviously see how this would be an unfair advantage over the french riders.
SOAP ?
Maybe it's the mass murder weapon US are looking for in Irak ? :)
SOAP ?
Maybe it's the mass murder weapon US are looking for in Irak ? :)
Why, I do believe bargalunan is getting the hang of it!! :) :)
Indeed. good shot.
However, Lance has to overcome an even greater obstacle to win. The wind resistance caused by his gargantuan American BALLS. er. ball. The French don't have that problem, obviously.
bargalunan has vestigal ones, at least, he still has hope.
So, you're saying is that the only reason French women reproduce is tourism, aren't you? You know, that's got a side benefit. Give it long enough and none of the French will be genetically French. There could be some light at the end of the Chunnel!
Europeans shouldn’t have reproduced to give birth to ungrateful US children !
In France we say : Little car --> Big penis and Big car --> Little … !
Do you still enjoy your big Pick-up, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick… ?
To answer you Mr Noddle, as for me I’ve got a very little and nice Peugeot 306 !
Meanwhile I must agree that French people don’t have enough courage to have balls cancer operation as Lance did in order to win races.
Even without doping he deserves winning : Respect !
If because of Monsanto you all get balls cancer, French could help US women… Friendly ! :)
In France we say : Little car --> Big penis and Big car --> Little … !
That's a common misconception. Peugots are for butt pirates. Get a truck. :lol:
What does barg know ... his alternative vehicle is a Citroen, the only vehicle worse than a Peugot.
Hell, Citroens are so bad we won't even import them! We let in the Yugo.
Indeed. Citroen and Peugeot make cars for unassisted people able to use a gear lever ! :lol:
PS : it's true Citroen are worse than Peugeot.
They are made by Peugeot but don't deserve this name.
Bye
bargalunan, I like you.
Are you really, really sure you weren't adopted from a foreign orphanage? :lol:
:blush:
I will look at my genealogy.
Perhaps one of my female ancestry commited sin with an American soldier.
PS : "commited sin" in French means having sex outside the marriage
What does barg know ... his alternative vehicle is a Citroen, the only vehicle worse than a Peugot.
[/i]
Isn't Citroen French for 'lemon'? It's not like they didn't warn you.
Sometimes in France Citroen is nicknamed "citron" (=lemon)
Dear bargalunan:
Here is a picture of an old Citroen. Can you offer me any details? I think it's a model DS, circa 1958...but I know verrrrry little about it, really. Any info?
Another beauty...
edit:
corrected faulty link, thanks wol
Oh my word that's frightening.
(after you
correct the URL ... you're missing a "g" at the end there).
You better know French old cars than me. It's archeology !
First one seems to be a DS 21. Its number 75 means it comes from Paris.
Maybe it's a de luxe model with 4 headlights !
Second one, I don't know. Never seen.
Citroen is known for is particular design...
His most famous car was the
2CV (say "duchvo")
still used by seldom lucky students. :)
1st photo : DS 21 1967 and 1969
2nd : 2CV (1945 to 80's)
Do never laugh at a 2CV, it's a French national symbol ! :love:
So good chilhood memories...
The 2CV is a fun little car. Cute in a way. But I wouldn't want one.
I just discovered a new reason to hate the French.
They ruined the perfectly good cover art on an amazing book.
Would you buy this book? Look at that cover. It's hideous.
Maybe the French would. Their tastes are different.
It's not really science fiction either, is it? More historical fiction, I'd say.
Mmm... four rotor Enigma machine on the cover. As a former Intelligence guy, I'd at least pick it up and see how the thing reads. As a former intel guy, I recommend the book Blind Man's Bluff as worthy of attention from the spy-curious.
However, Lance has to overcome an even greater obstacle to win. The wind resistance caused by his gargantuan American BALLS. er. ball. The French don't have that problem, obviously.
bargalunan has vestigal ones, at least, he still has hope.
Okay, Nood, let's start singing:
"Armstrong -- has only got one ball!/Barga -- has two but they are small..."
The last Yugo I've ever seen on the road disappeared from Oxnard, CA two, maybe three years ago. It was red. Rather untidy inside. I suspect its owner (30-something male Caucasian, collar-length dark brown hair, medium build) now drives something a bit ... less surprising. It probably goes faster too.
As far as the question asked by the thread ... I still only get as far as "they're French" and I can't come up with anything else.
Meet anybody from around Paris and you will know. I believe it happened with DeGaulle pumping up the citizens by letting them think they were the center of the world. Some of them truly believe that.
Salvador Dali said the center of the world was Perpignan station (city in south of France).
Even the genious can smoke too much.
Times are changing and France loses its magnificence. So sad...
If he was still alive he would say the new center of the world is Los Angeles. ;)
Okay, Nood, let's start singing:
"Armstrong -- has only got one ball!/Barga -- has two but they are small..."
I know where is Urban Guerrilla's center of the world.
You can't find it on a map, but in an anatomic atlas :D
Maybe the French would. Their tastes are different.
I'm not sure when I see the successful US singers, fastfood and films in France.
And we're going to elect a politician nearly as mad as Bush.
The cover is really awful, so sorry. :(
Aren't many of our jazz singer/musicians more successful in France than in the US?
That's not necessarily a good thing ... Donny Osmond, David Hasselhoff, Jerry Lewis ... you see what I mean?
:biggrin: Hee hee, Barga.
My Muse ran out of gas before I could come up with anything as good as "Himmler -- his are dissimilar" for a third line -- that's my favorite version of the third line of The Colonel Bogey March (and you haven't lived until you've heard a Japanese JASDF military band playing it!). "And poor old Goebbels/Has no balls/At all" is pretty much an insert-name-here kind of line.
Reminds me of the man from Rizes:
There once was a man from Rizes
Whose balls were of different sizes
One ball was so small
It was no ball at all
But the other won several prizes
Aren't many of our jazz singer/musicians more successful in France than in the US?
There are a lot of jazz festivals in France. French are found of Jazz, especially middle and high social classes. I don't know if it's less or more important than in USA.
It's a tradition in France since 1920/30 when US jazz musicians (Ellington, Bechet, Armstrong (not Neil, neither Lance but Louis) were playing in Paris (Saint Germain).
That's not necessarily a good thing ... Donny Osmond, David Hasselhoff, Jerry Lewis ... you see what I mean?
I don't know who is Donny Osmond ?
David Hasselhoff : clean white smile, K2000, Alerte à Malibu (Malibu beach). I can't stand him, I prefer Pamela Anderson.
Jerry Lewis is nearly unknown for French who were born after the 70's.
I don't know who is Donny Osmond ?
David Hasselhoff : clean white smile, K2000, Alerte à Malibu (Malibu beach). I can't stand him, I prefer Pamela Anderson.
Jerry Lewis is nearly unknown for French who were born after the 70's.
I thought Hasselhoff was popular in Germany, not France.
BTW, just saw him in a cameo in "Dodgeball" on HBO, verbally castigating the German team for losing. Very funny movie. :lol:
