Why do we hate the french again?

[jaguar]

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.

[lookout123]

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

Originally Posted by Lookout123

"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.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by marichiko

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.

Originally Posted by wolf

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.

[staceyv]

It sounds like a case of "There's something about you I hate about myself"

[Trilby]

That's brilliant, stacey. could you expound on that a little? I like!

[lookout123]

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[capnhowdy]

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

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

[Guyute]

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...

Originally Posted by Guyute

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.

Originally Posted by Guyute

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by marichiko

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 million 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.