Post by 'nuff saidStill worried about the price of petrol at the pump, Frenchies?
<snip usual crap>
Hi asshole ! you're stupid and I can help you to slightly change (no,
don't thank me, it's my pleasure ...) - i'll try to make up for your
failing school system - All you have to do is chilling out and reading
the following lecture :
(well iguess you won't go further than line 10, but it'll still be a
huge progress in your personal knowledge, you prat)
Post by 'nuff saidGallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of
French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian...
Inform yourself, and you will understand that there nothing really
humiliating in that. The Gauls Won many battles and almost won but
caesar was decidedly a great and strong-willed stratege and helped by
germanic tribes cavalry (BTW there were gauls in the roman legions too
at this time). It was mainly the inter-gallic disputes that caused
their
defeat finally, and some strategical mistakes at Alesia.their opponent
was Julius Caesar, a man that the name was used as a title 2000 yrs
later (kaiser, tsar ...). See what I mean ?
BTW the gauls in the past invaded Roma, founded Belgrad on their way,
ransacked delphia (Greece) and invaded turkey (thence the Galates).
Post by 'nuff saidHundred Years War - Mostly lost, but saved at the last minute by a Female
schizophrenic who inadvertantly creates The First Rule Of French Warfare;
"France's Armies Are Only Victorious When Not Led By A Frenchman"...
Some battles were won, some battles were lost, finally the stuff was
going bad (about 120 yrs later) anyway
the english had some 'french allies (burgundians) and the knights and
soldiers fighting the
english/burgundians were french, Jehanne d'arc (Joan of Arc) didn't
fight the intruders alone ...
What the english gained with difficulty in about 100 yrs was regained
in
very few years by the
french though The french kings made mistakes that made the war lasting
some more years ...
You should remeber what is at the origin of this conflict : in 1066
the
Duke of Normandia (France) invaded England and won at Hastings, what
explains that the french language was the official language of the
english court at least 2 centuries, and that explains that TODAY,
you're
talking in a huge part in old french your whole day (in fact almost
everytime that you open your mouth) - BTW nowadays the motto of the
English monarchy is : "Dieu et Mon Droit" ( french ) and the motto of
the Most Noble Order of the Garter, which was founded in 1348 by King
Edward III as a noble fraternity consisting of the King, the Prince of
Wales (or heir-apparent to the throne) and 24 Knights Companion is
"Honni soit qui mal y pense".
Plantagenêts is neither saxon nor angles ...
Oh, BTW, a lot of your military terms and ranks are from France
(sergent, lieutenant, general ?, soldier (old french term for 'soldat'
:
solde = shekels that fighters was paid) corp, regiment, division, army
is obviously derivated from armee, platoon from peloton, squad from
escouade, batallion from bataillon, battle from bataille, even warrior
and war is derivating from 'guerrier' and 'guerre' some old french
words
starting by 'g' were changed the'g' becoming a 'w' in english (see :
william : guillaume, warden : guardien, wasp : Guespe (modern french :
guêpe), to waste : gaster (the old term for 'gater' (gâter pour les
non
ASCII 7 bits !) )
even 'marine' is not a typical native english word.
Some other words were taken to the french but they were taken by the
french from other countries : captain, colonel, canon, etc... so it's
a
little different.
'fleet' came from 'flotte' (french) that came from 'flotti' (old
scandinavian) that came from the old french 'flote' that meant "troop,
big bunch of persons", so I suppose this one counts anyway ;-)
"a lot of your military terms and ranks are from France"
What could this be meaning ... hmm ... let's see . Well I let you
search
by yourself (a clue ? war is not a so unknown thing to these swishy
frenchies ... maybe ?)
Post by 'nuff saidItalian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first & only country ever to lose
two wars when fighting Italians...
More precisions needed we won some wars VS italians, with françois
the
1st ! We brought back Leonardo da Vinci from those wars. Read about
the
Bayard knight BTW.
Are you talking about war VS Charles Quint (the 5th) because you
should
be informed that it is a lot more difficult to win when you're
fighting
a mega-power and that you're not one yourself ....
Post by 'nuff saidWars Of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huegonots...
? ? ? anyway it's Huguenots. Well more precisions needed, for what I
know we won and in fact even if at one
moment english were implied, they left before fighting AFAIK. If i'm
wrong highlight it. Oh BTW, the Huguenots were French.
Post by 'nuff saidThirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to
get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually, the other
participant began ignoring her...
Wrong ! we were implied from 1635 to 1648 and it was rather a
favorable
upshot AFAIK.
Sheesh ! what about the Franco-Spanish war that we totally won
(gaining
territories) wise-ass !
Strangely enough, your memory seems selective !;-)
Post by 'nuff saidWar Of Devolution - Tied...
The Dutch War - Tied...
No. We won AFAIK. We won many territories and cities.
Post by 'nuff saidWar Of The Augsburg League/King William's War/French And Indian War - All
who VS who, count the armies and the soldiers.
The seven years war : humiliation, true ! (I want just highlight the
fact that in north america in 1754, the
french were 85,000 in the "Nouvelle France" and the english people
were
1,485,634 in New England...
IN 1763, we lost : India (bar 5 cities), Ohio, Canada, left side of
the
Mississipi, Antilles (bar 3 islands) and Senegal (that will be retaken
later)
Post by 'nuff saidLost, but claimed as ties. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles
the world over to label this period as the height of French military
power...
The War Of Spanish Succession - Lost...
Anyway it's a Bourbon (french dynasty) on the Spanish throne, isn't it
?
Post by 'nuff saidAmerican Revolution - In a move that will become familiar to future American
generations, France claims a win even though American colonists saw far More
action. This is later known as "The De Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to The
Second Rule Of Fench Warfare; " France Only Wins When America Does Most Of
The Fighting"...
http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html
read from the start to the end. Just do it, wiseass !
--
To understand the background of the Revolutionary War, it is necessary
to understand the history of the preceding twenty years, and
especially
the Seven Years War (1756-1763). The Seven Years War was fought by
the European colonial powers from Canada to the West Indies and from
Europe to far-flung colonial empires in India and the Phillippines. In
North America, we know the part of the Seven Years' war that was
fought
here as the French and Indian Wars. The Seven Years' War was largely a
disaster for France and her allies. In the aftermath of the war, which
resulted in the loss of most French territory in North America and
India, the French instituted sweeping reform of the army and navy. The
French army that landed in Newport in 1781 was the product of this
thorough and fundamental reorganization.
The English victory, however, was dearly bought. The cost of fielding
the army that secured the safety of the English colonies was
tremendous.
This expense, together with the continuing cost of protecting these
colonies after the war, led to English demands that the American
colonists contribute to the cost of their own protection. As a result,
a
series of Acts of Parliament imposed a variety of taxes on the
colonists
during the 1760s and early 1770s. For many colonists, the chains that
had linked them to Britain for almost 150 years became the chains of
servitude, foreign domination and unjust tyranny. These taxes
ultimately
fueled the tensions and passions that burst into flames on Lexington
Green on April 19, 1775.
From the outbreak of armed rebellion in 1775, many in France
sympathized
with the colonists. Young, idealistic French officers like the Marquis
de Lafayette volunteered their services and in many cases their
personal
wealth to help equip, train and lead the fledgling Continental army.
The
French government hoped to redress the balance of power that resulted
from the French humiliation in the Seven Years Wars, which gave
considerable economic and military advantages to Britain. While
maintaining formal neutrality, France assisted in supplying arms,
uniforms and other military supplies to the American colonists.
This clandestine assistance became open after the defeat of General
Burgoyne at Saratoga in 1777, which demonstrated the possibility of
British defeat in the conflict and led to French recognition of the
colonies in February 1778. As a result of the victory of the
Continental
forces at Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin, who had gone to Paris as
ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate a Treaty of Amity and
Commerce
and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From this point, French support
became increasingly significant. The French extended considerable
financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied
vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their
purchase.
French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American
victory.
French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American
colonists
against the British. At the same time, British and French (and to a
lesser extent, Dutch and Spanish) forces fought for colonial wealth
and
empire around the world. From 1778 through 1783 -- two years after the
defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown -- French forces fought the British
in
the West Indies, Africa and India.
From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high
point
of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry
and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops
under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where
they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette.
Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by
the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse
intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated
the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy
to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis
on
the Yorktown peninsula.
At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of
time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies
completed
their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British
positions.
After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements,
Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped
French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to
surrender
his army.
On October 19, 1781, the British forces marched out between the silent
ranks of the Americans and French, arrayed in parallel lines a mile
long, and cast down their arms.
Abbé Robin, who witnessed the surrender, described the victorious
American and French forces present at the ceremony. "Among the
Americans, the wide variety in age -- 12 to 14-year old children stood
side by side with grandfathers -- the absence of uniformity in their
bearing and their ragged clothing made the French allies appear more
splendid by contrast. The latter, in their immaculate white uniforms
and
blue braid, gave an impression of martial vigor despite their fatigue.
We were all astonished by the excellent condition of the English
troops,
by their number -- we were expecting scarcely 3,000 and they numbered
more than 8,000 -- and by their discipline."
George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following
words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeaus; the French
fleet
was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle
were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to
Washington; in total naval and military participants the French
outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was
Rochambeaus victory.
How strange it must have been for these French troops and their
new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as
enemies
barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed
conflict with Frances ancient enemy and the colonists blood kin! In
the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the
new
American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial
domination
were finally broken.
--
Post by 'nuff saidFrench Revolution - Won, primarily due to the the fact the opponent was
French...
Wrong (For instance : Valmy etc...) see later ...
Post by 'nuff saidThe Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember The First Rule!)
due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British
footwear designer...
The french armies were composed of corsicans ?
We fought generally alone VS the whole Europe and we won, we possessed
almost the whole Europe during 15 yrs, Moscow burnt - who did this
things other than us ?
I know : who cares you're not here to be just, but to troll, sorry to
make you lose your sparetime making you quickly reading this.
Even at Waterloo, we were at some moments near to win against the
COALITION.
Post by 'nuff saidThe Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany's first go around at playing the
drunk frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on Saturday night...
Crimea wars (1854-55), Italy wars won by Napoleon III in 1859 ...
Post by 'nuff saidWorld War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United
States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep
Wrong. and not tied, asshole - so, you're a propagandist ...
1913 :
Population :
Germany : 67 millions
France : 39.6 millions (only country of those 4 countries that will
be
devastated by the war)
UK : 46 millions
USA : 95 millions
Germany : 1,700,000 dead soldiers
wounded : 4,216,000 soldiers
France : 1,500,000 dead soldiers (maybe underestimated for political
propaganda reasons / some even say about
2,500,000 - I dunno, it seems a lot, but you see what i mean)
wounded : 3,600,000 soldiers
UK : 740,000 dead soldiers
wounded : 2,090,000 soldiers
USA : 116,000 dead soldiers
Italy : 700,000 dead soldiers
Austria-Hungary : 1,500,000 dead soldiers
Russia : 1,700,000 dead soldiers
The plans of the germans was to crush the french before Russia have
mobilized all its army (germany at this time was reputated being the
most powerful army)
Result : We stood untill the victory, on the contrary of the Russians
..
BTW Greece stood (and so the blockade) because of the French troops
over
there IIRC.
1914-1918 : The French army was the major military actor on the
Western
front for 4 years. The British took a very active part on that front
for
4 years too. The allies under Marechal Foch's French command
eventually
won the war. The American troops massively arrived on the front only 4
months (July 1918) before the end of the war (November 1918).
Western front March 1918 : 174 allies divisions : 99 French + 58
British
+ 12 Belgian + 3 US + 2 portuguese.
Western Front November 1918 : 211 Allies divisions : 104 French + 60
British + 30 US + 12 Belgian + 2 portuguese + 2 Italian + 1 Polish.
After the war, the French were universally saluted as the country that
saved democracy and the victor amongst all the Allies (and especially
in
the US) and their international prestige was very high, just like that
of the US in 1945. It just seems like history is no longer taught in
the
US now.
Stop spitting on the graves of the 1,500,000 dead French soldiers TIA.
The USA that entered the war et the end of the war refused to hear
about the agreements that the Europeans made before :
The result : Because of the versailles' treaty as wanted by the USA
(that won't finally be recognized by the USA), the italians that had
about 700,000 dead soldiers,
didn't have the territories that was promised to them
in secret agreements made in London in 1915. The Italians were totally
torqued and thought they were deceived,
what were indirectly one of the vectors causing the birth of the
fascism
in 1919.
BTW USA and Uk pledged that they will help France in case of a German
agression, pledge that will be abandoned in 1919 by both.
Not even mentionning the fact that G. washington didn't honor his
treaty
with the French in 1794 for trade advantages with The UK that was at
war
with the French. Maybe because we were surrounded by the whole europe
wanting our end. Ingrates !
I add that The UK made many unconditional concessions to Germany with
the agreement of the French, since France almost abandoned its
diplomatic sovereignty to the UK from 1923 till WWII (why, will you
say
? Because we needed them to face Germany. We needed allies).
Chamberlain said "yes" to the nazis about the rebuilding of the of the
german war fleet in 1935.
France wanted to respond to the German army's reoccupation of the
Rhineland in 1936, but the UK opposed the idea giving thereby Hitler
the
greenlight for what he had in mind. They said that the
remilitarization,
of the Rhineland wasn't a threat to our vital interests... you
understand what it means in diplomatical language, don't you ? ;-)
No plants destroyed in Germany, no rebuilding in some parts of the
country ... in regions that have some economic importance (mines,
steel
industry, etc ...) but The USA and the UK made us go away from the
Ruhr
in 29 IIRC and abandon all german money for war reparations ... but we
were always in debts towards the allies (US mainly)
Post by 'nuff saidwith a winner, but one who doesn't call then "Fraulein". Sadly, widespread
use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French
gene pool...
moronic insult to your country since with such sentences , you make
seem
US dudes like degenerated conceited jerk-offs.
Post by 'nuff saidWorld War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States &
Britain, just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song...
We lost after 6 weeks because of BIG STRATEGICAL mistakes, ( I
insist on this because of the eternal "cheese eatin' surrender
monkeys"
coming from posts from your charming country) - BTW blitzkrieg was
partly inspired to Guderian by a book from De Gaulle (so all french
generals are not sorta genetically incompetents like you guys seem to
think.) you knew it I suppose since you're so learned !
The french army was in fact defeated because of a strategy of
encirclement that seemed impossible to realize for our gernerals, the
german armored divisions pass thru the Ardennes (highlands and woods)
that was reputated impossible to pass ! from the moment where the
front
was cut and that we were encircled in our biggest part, it was lost !
it's easy to understand !
BTW, 130,000 French soldiers died in this "lost for the beginning
battle" from the 10th may to the armistice 6 weeks later (allowing to
the english soldiers to go back to england though french were put in
pieces by bombing stukas and german tanks ! (see at the end))
[ BTW, 1 month after the beginning of the attack against France by the
Germans, Mussolini wanted his part of the cake and attacked France
that
was already in a total skedaddle ! His troops entered France and was
stopped and repelled in Italy by the very few French soldiers that
were
there.
French : 150,000 (casualties : killed : 38 / wounded : 42 /
disappeared : 180 )
Italians : 500,000 (casualties : killed 631 / wounded : 3,400 /
captured
: 1140 )
He was more successful in bombing the civilians fleeing on the roads
!]
Oh BTW... just a little digression ... England is an island (without
any
frontiers with another state), TIA to notice it !
With such a hammering, humiliating and "downcasting" defeat (and the
half of the country lost), the people needed a bright figure to give
them back hope and a slight confidence. It's a national hero from
1914-1918 that took power, P. pétain - 84 years old. He was renowned
to have been kind with the troopers in WWI.
He set a sort of regime near fascism to get the nation up (BTW some of
the government was people hating French revolution and wanting to give
back some old values to the people, pro-facists, cynic go-getters, and
antisemitic men.)
The first thing Petain had in mind was the survival of France (weird,
eh
?) what implied collaboration with the threatening, more powerful
germans - and Nazis, btw.
Oh I forgot : "France the collaborator", eh ? What about the free
french
and De Gaulle, the 2nd DB (Koufrah, Bir Hakeim), General Leclerc, Jean
Moulin, FFI, 1st army of De Lattre, Monte Cassino (general Juin)
etc...
In 1939, after Germany and USSR invaded Poland, We tried some military
operations in Norway (France & UK) we wanted to helped Finland but
Norway, denmark and sweden (IIRC) didn't wanted us to pass their
strait
to go help the finnish ... they didn't want to irritate Hitler ! Yeah
we
didn't attack directly when Poland was invaded...
Attacking at this occasion would have mean attacking germany and USSR
..
It was not a little affair... And BTW what you have to know is that
the
germans had a "maginot line", the Siegfried line (even longer than
ours)
and guess what : there were divisions in there, so ...
was it the good plan to go to the slaughterhouse without a better way
to act since the german divisions busy in Poland would have had the
time
to come back on us in a not so long time ....
Oh ,BTW where were the USA ?
Obviously not fighting the Nazis ...
In UK and France the horrid and frightening memory of WWI was a
cold shower for anybody (look at the stats I put above and) and I
add that we were with belgium the only western country to be
devastated,
the moon landscape left after the war would have make ponder anybody
(in
2003 we always find shells from WWI !) the young generation was in big
proportion decimated ... the north - north-east was an important
economical industrial joint ... the germans before leaving drowned our
mines too ...
So yes, we were less eager as a peaceful democracy with a trauma to go
to war than the pumped brain-washed nazi war-machine ... it's a fact
..
But when the war started after a moment the combativity appears more
strong and the more the situation was bad the more decided was the
soldiers (see dunkirk)
At some place French soldiers stopped the german thrust and opposed an
harsh resistance (well, of course I suppose that those kind of thing
happen in almost any war ... but it means that there were some
sufficiently ballsy and combative soldiers ...)
I add that after that Belgian surrended unconditionnally, after the
english left, after the big nunmber of prisonner in dunkirk and
elsewhere, the french soldiers kept on fighting outnumbered till the
armistice though it was pretty clear that all was lost !
They stopped when the marechal (Marshall) Petain demanded them to
stop.
Before the war, France was a democracy though the biggest part of
Europe
were autocracies (often for the 20's) and you despise France for what
happened and the way it acted !?!
It's easy to brag and give lessons when you never have been and
probably
will never be in such a huge crisis. we will never see you in this
kind
of situation, pure noble son of the USA, "in god you trust" : you can,
you are living in a hyperpower, wise-ass ! (and far from any real
direct
danger)
You are / were an hyperpower and you, despite this fact, dare make
comments on the weakness of the others and their attitude ! cheeky !
You came also because you could and had to earn. I thank and respect
the
US soldiers that came and freed us, but as I said in other
circumstances, how being sure that you would have come - it
relativizes
the "gallant white knight eikon", guy !
The US had official links (embassy and all that)
with the nazis until they were bombed by the Japs and that Hitler and
Mussolini declared war to them ? What they were doing until the dawn
of
1942 ? Selling for cash only (cash and carry law)... No wonder they
had
3/4 the gold reserve of the world after WW2, they surely knew how to
take advantage of Nations fighting against nazism... And by the way,
the
US had links with illegitimate government of Vichy far into the war,
and
recognized De Gaulle's government just few days before the Liberation.
BTW :
According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US
government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott
Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. :
www.clamormagazine.org
Nasty Nazi Business - Corporate Deals with Nazi Germany :
www.ranknfile-ue.org
The 1941 affaire : When Washington was at war with the FREE FRENCH and
backed the VICHY REGIME :
www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com
http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
BTW The French Fleet was under the Vichy's government control .... In
1942 when the german invaded the 'free' territory of France they
directed quickly towards the French Fleet at Toulon (South of France)
The French admiral gave the order to scuttle all the fleet in order
that
the germans don't take it...
According to De Gaulle that lived in England at this time, England had
very few troops on their soil and if the germans had taken the french
fleet, they could have succeeded in invading England.
In a way, maybe this admiral changed the future of the war ?....
population in 1939 :
France : 41.9 millions
germany : 79.5 millions
UK : about 48 millions (?)
Italy : 43.1 millions
USA : 131.67 millions (1940)
USSR : more than 150 millions (?)
casualties :
France :
dead soldiers : 211,000 to 213,300
dead civilians : 330,000 to 350,000
USA :
dead soldiers (on 2 fronts) : 292 to 298,000
civilians : negligeable - almost none.
UK :
dead soldiers : about 245,000
dead civilians : 92,700 to 150,000
Japan :
dead soldiers : 1,220,000 to 1,300,000
dead civilians : 672,000 to 700,000 (and some due to 2 nuking on
japanese cities)
Germany :
dead soldiers : 3,500,000 to 3,850,000
dead civilians : 780,000
USSR :
dead soldiers : about 7,500,000 to 11,000,000
dead civilians : about 7,000,000 to 10,000,000
Italy :
dead soldiers : 230,000 to 242,200
dead civilians : 150,000 to 153,000
China :
dead soldiers : about 1,310,200
dead civilians : 10,000,000
As you can see France (and others) suffered more of the war than USA
..
so pack back your lessons ...
Post by 'nuff saidWar In Indochina - Lost. French forces claim illness, take to bed with the
Dien Bien Flu... (sic)
1946-1954 , I thought that you didn't do better but you dare to brag
about it anyway, waow, cheeky, wise-ass.
In the same situation even the USA would have certainly lost this
battle.
The US didn't help militarily, France left Vietnam split in 2, the
Northern
part being communist. The US left Vietnam reunited under communist
rules, doesn't look to be a better job...
Post by 'nuff saidAlgerian Revolution - Lost. Loss marks first defeat by a western army by a
Non-Turkic Muslim force since The Crusades, and produces The First Rule Of
Muslim Warfare; "We Can Always Beat The French". This rule is identical to
the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish,
and Vietnamese...
We won in Algeria but De Gaulle gave up for personal political
reasons,
what proves your overt lack of knowledge - thanx.
Talking about the crusades, we won and founded christian realms that
lasted 2 centuries despite the fact that the muslims were more
numerous.
Have you ever heard about the Templars, BTW ?
Post by 'nuff saidWar On Terrorism - Keeping in mind it's history, France surrenders to
The 12/26/1994 the GIGN (our SWAT) stopped algerian islamists to crash
a
plane on Paris (Possibly on the Eiffel tower)
Post by 'nuff saidThe Germans and Muslims. Just to be safe, they attempt to surrender to
Vietnamese Ambassador, who takes refuge in a McDonalds...
Trolling is forbiden by the Geneva Convention...
Post by 'nuff saidQ. How many French troops does it take to defend Paris?
A. Who knows? They've never tried.
wrong : 1870-71 and against the vikings in 885 and 910...
I suppose we can add 1914 though Paris wasn't besieged but saved
during a battle in movemement.
Your historical knowledge is thin ... some of your examples are true
but a lot are incomplete or wrong and you unfortunately forgot to talk
about some of our victories sometimes wonderful, like when we stood
alone VS the whole Europe and won - BTW in the revolutionnaries war we
fought also VS other countries' armies and we won though our country
was broke ! (without money I mean)
What about the Franco-Gallic emperor Charlemagne (769-814) and
its big European Empire ? (also a vector of christianization in
Europe)
What about Clovis(465-511) (first king of France (Merovingian Dynasty)
[Louis, Ludwig, Lewis, Lodwick, Ludovic are names coming from the name
"Clovis"] that will conqueer almost all the Gaul and is the ONLY
reason
of the survival and the re-propagation of the official catholic
doctrine
in Europe (the other "germanic tribes" at this times were arians
(christian heretics (cf. Arius)) or heathen - What explains that
France
was also known as "the oldest daughter of the Church". Clovis was the
only catholic king of Europe and is the one that won against all the
others !
What about Charles Martel (The Hammer) that Stopped the muslim
expansion
in 732 and 739 (the Wisigothic Spain was invaded since 711)
France was a powerful realm.
Mathew paris an english chronicler qualified Saint Louis [1226-1270]
(aka Louis the IXth - and yes this is the very same saint louis from
who the name of the big city in Missouri is taken) as "the King of the
King".
Louis the IXth was become the arbiter of the Christian Europe.
His fame had gone beyond the western Europe. The mongols proposed him
to
take the Turks in the back in the near orient (This proposition is
kept
nowadays, in the "Archives Nationales" in Paris.
[BTW, the Russians were still vassals of the mongol horde at this
time,
IIRC]
At the beginning of the XIVth century, the italian poet, Dante,
was complaining that "the Capetian" (king of France - at this time
"Philippe IV le Bel"(1285-1314)) was extending his shadow upon all the
christiannity and was thinking about being crowned as Emperor like
Charlemagne.
Everywhere, between th XIVth and XVth century, "The Realm" (or The Big
Realm) or "The King" (or the Big King) designated the King of France
that was seen as the archetype of the King.
At the beginning of the XVIth century, the King of France was seen as
the ideal to reach. Machiavel, the politic theorizer, was admirative
of
the institutions of the realm of France.
Maybe you heard about the Magna Carta (1215) : it was imposed to the
king of England by his barons because he was weakened after the battle
of Bouvines won by the french...
you want a great french victory : in 1124, when the german emperor
invaded the Champagne region (France), the only fact that the french
king Louis the VIth deployed his army of knights, forced the emperor
to
go away without any fight ...
Napo during the campaign of Italy in 1796 won against 80,000
well-equiped professional Austrian soldiers, though his soldiers were
starved withouth good clothes, without any artillery ... and were
40,000...
(At this time France, its population and its army was
in a pitiful state, there were no more money, we were broke)
BTW, France is the biggest European country by the size (Russia and
Ukraine apart what is kinda special you will admit !) is this just
by chance ? (of course Germany was amputated after WWII but ...)
---
Dunkerque : 26/05/1940 - 04/06/1940
"Lord Gort, Commander of the British Expeditionary Force, (240,000
troops) saw that he could not complete his orders to retreat to the
Somme. On May 25, he indicated to Churchill that he could not link up
with Weygand's forces and he was creating a perimeter around the town
of
Dunkerque on the Pas de Calais. From May 27-30, the BEF consolidated
around Dunkerque, along with half of the French First Army. Five
French
Divisions set up a roadblock at Lille, where they held out for four
days
against seven German Panzer divisions. This allowed the British and
the
French in Dunkerque to set up a defensive perimeter and wait for
evacuation.
The plan had called for 48,000 men to be removed. By the evening of
May
30, 120,000 were rescued. Among these only 8,000 were French; this
worried Churchill greatly. He asked for more French soldiers to be
evacuated. "So few French have got out so far.......I will not accept
further sacrifices by the French."
On June 4, the last day of Operation Dynamo, over 26,000 French troops
were returned to England. The remaining 40,000 French troops were left
on the beaches and were taken by the German Army that very day.
The evacuation owed much to the unstinting bravery of the French First
Army fighting at the Dunkerque perimeter and to the RAF. 340,000
troops,
more than 100,000 of them French, could be evacuated to England to
fight
again another day
Most of the French went back to fight in France, but the rescue of the
BEF gave heart to the British public all out of proportion to the
defeat
it suffered."
__ other interesting stuff __
By John Chuckman, 19 March 2003, YellowTimes.org
"As probably only a few dozen people in middle America even likely
appreciate thanks to hyper-patriotic history texts, America's
Revolutionary War succeeded only because the French supplied arms,
cash, men, leadership, and a navy. It wasn't just help; it was
decisive.
There were two key battles in the Revolutionary War. The first was
Saratoga in 1777. That stunning victory over Britain's General John
Burgoyne was only possible because of a secret French gun-running
operation, much like those undertaken by the CIA today, directed by
Pierre de Beaumarchais, grand adventurer and author of The Marriage of
Figaro. America then was a relatively simple society with little
capacity for manufacturing the weapons necessary to take on the
British army.
Of course, France's secret assistance now may be viewed as the
greatest example of what intelligence people today call ''blowback''
in Western history. It makes the blowback of 9/11 -- directly
attributable to the CIA's work in Afghanistan -- seem tame by
comparison. For France played mid-wife to the birth of something that,
a little more than two centuries later, would arrogantly claim the
right to determine the fate of the planet.
The main importance of the victory at Saratoga lay in gaining
something the revolting colonists desperately wanted: a formal treaty
with France and a great bounty of loans, gifts, and military forces.
Of course, France's main interest was to hurt its great rival,
Britain, but then it certainly was not America's main interest to
liberate France in 1944-5.
The deciding battle of the Revolutionary War was Yorktown in 1781,
although a peace treaty was not settled until 1783. The truth is that
Yorktown was overwhelmingly a French victory. Washington didn't want
to attack Yorktown, but then Washington was a terrible general who
lost almost every battle he fought.
In 1781, Washington was fixated on a battle whose prospect was almost
certain failure, an attack on New York. It was General Rochambeau's
foresight and planning that made Yorktown possible, but it took a lot
of arguing to have Washington finally agree. One of Washington's most
trusted young generals, the Marquis de Lafayette, was given a
substantial role in the action.
French Admiral de Grasse blocked a British fleet from entering the
Chesapeake and evacuating the British army at Yorktown. French troops
in the thousands were among the most active. French engineers guided
the building of the entrenchments that sealed the fate of General
Cornwallis's army in a fortified encampment that had its back to the
water and no fleet to help.
The American forces carried French arms, and what pay they received
came from the French treasury. It was during this last stage of the
war that Americans massively lost interest. There had never been great
enthusiasm, with about a third of the population against it from the
beginning and another third indifferent (contrary to myth, revolutions
are almost always the work of minorities) -- the real explanation,
along with a stubborn unwillingness to pay taxes still evident today,
behind Washington's chronic lack of resources despite his countless
pleas for help from the colonial governments. But by the late 1770s,
Americans had become even more indifferent. It was around this time
that M. Duportail, a French officer serving under Washington, made his
famous observation about there being more enthusiasm for the
Revolution in the cafes of Paris than he saw in America.
America never repaid the massive loans made by the French. Years
later, when France underwent the agonies of a much more terrible
revolution, then-President Washington maintained a very cool distance.
Even when poor old Tom Paine was rotting in a French jail, expecting
any day to be executed, Washington ignored his pleas for assistance.
This was the same Tom Paine whose Common Sense and Crisis Papers were
so important in stirring support for America's revolution.
Well, despite the great chorus of gastric disturbance just south of
here, I shall proudly continue wearing my beret. After all, it was the
wonderful Ben Franklin who said that every man has two countries, his
own and France."
