i know, luigi, i didn't compare, i just said i have seen french names on american jersey.Luigi Vampa said:lili, you cant compare french canadians to the africans playing for france. the french canadians are 'french speaking' canadians. theyre not immigrants from france, theyre not the children of immigrants, theyre not even the grandchildren of immigrants. theyre canadian, born and bred.
i know, i know, it's just i wanted to say that some americans feel american despite they born in another country. that's all. so i don't see why it couldn't the same for france.Tinto said:It was like comparing club to NT play. Doesn't make sense. If those "french names" go to the Olympics, they play for Canada. That's the point.
Don't tell me you were one of those appalled by the notion of putting a light on the puck???mind you i rarely watch american broadcasts of hockey games
tricolornr1 said:The thing which most surprises me is that the americans jokes about the french beeing cowards, this mainly because of they surrendered in the 2nd world war and all of them seem to think France owes America to agree in everything for all eternity because America entered France 60 years ago (obviously to beat the nazists and not to liberate europe, otherwise they would have entered before).
Everyone knows that making derogatorty generalisations about a culture or race, is based more on bigotry or bias than fact. However, to accuse the Americans of being self serving, and making a distinction between beating Nazis and saving Europe, is just ludicrous. The worst thing I've ever read, and not too much different from the generalisations you are accusing others of making about France
anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world.
Thats subjective. You need to mention Waterloo, Crecy, Againcourt, Abraham Heights, Trafalger, Battle of the Nile, the Franco-Prussian War, much of World War I, all of World War II, before making such statements.
The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much when they only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not hate the Brits? They're the ones who killed thousands of Americans in the Revolution, and thirty years later they came back and attacked us again. That time around they managed to burn Washington DC to the ground while they were at it. How come you web jerks never mention that?
This is what really gets my back up. England and America have stood by each other since 1917...with the exception of the first two years of WWII (and boy did we miss them). France stood by America in the revolution, not because they were pro democracy, but Anti British Empire (France and Britain were fighting a war at the time). France owned great tracks of land in America, but Napoleon sold it to raise capital. If that hadn't been his plan, and he'd decided he wanted to keep that territory, things may have been different.
Let's take the toughest case first: the German invasion, 1940, when the French Army supposedly disgraced itself against the Wehrmacht. This is the only real evidence you'll find to call the French cowards, and the more you know about it, the less it proves. Yeah, the French were scared of Hitler. Who wasn't? Chamberlain, the British prime minister, all but licked the Fuhrer's goosesteppers, basically let him have all of Central Europe, because Britain was terrified of war with Germany. Hell, Stalin signed a sweetheart deal with Hitler out of sheer terror, and Stalin wasn't a man who scared easy.
Yes, a succession of governments in England followed the appeasement path...and paid the price. But one man kept the flame of resistance to this course alight. Winston Churchill. The greatest war leader of the 20th Century, and the most important man since Themistecles (spelling) of Athens. France surrendered, when the promised that they wouldn't. Not only that, but half the country entered into collaboration with the Germans. That isn't easily forgotten. Places like Greece, Yugoslavia, Russia, Ukraine etc, didn't engage in deals like that, and the populations paid the price. And despite the almost complete destruction of the industrial complexes or ports in Liverpool, inner city london, Coventry, Manchester, glasgow, England didn't surrender. Yes, the channel was a boon, but the fact we had a navy and an airforce that fought for a year against the Luftwaffe, and won, also had something to do with it!
Verdun. Just that name was enough to make Frenchmen and Germans, the few who survived it, wake up yelling for years afterward. The French lost 1.5 million men out of a total population of 40 million fighting the Germans from 1914-1918. A lot of those guys died charging German machine-gun nests with bayonets. I'd really like to see one of you office smartasses joke about "surrender monkeys" with a French soldier, 1914 vintage. You'd piss your dockers.
Yes, and the British lost 650,000 at the battle of the Somme. You may or may not know this, but in 1916, the French army mutinied, and Field Marshall Foch no longer had any faith in his french forces to lead any attack on the German line. His main spear head force was the British army, and by 1918, thanks to the lessons learned by Haig, they had become the finest army in the European theatre of war. By this stage, the Americans were making an impact too. It was their presence that forced the Germans to attack with all their forces at the beginning of 1918, and which they were eventually pushed back during and forced to consider surrender because of.
The English survived because they had the English Channel between them and the Wehrmacht. When the English Army faced the Wermacht at Dunkirk, well, thanks to spin the tuck-tail-and-flee result got turned into some heroic tale of a brilliant British retreat. The fact is, even the Brits behaved like cowards in the face of the Wermacht, abandoning the French. It's that simple.
The British escaped with some 215,000 men. 118,000 French soldiers also escaped at Dunkirk. It wasn't a victory, but like Themopolye, it gave the nation time and hope, to prepare for the coming onslaught. The fact that the British army left 30,000 of the elite guards units around the perimeter of Dunkirk to fight till the last man was off the beaches, is another reason to give thanks. It was because of this 'cowardly action ' that Britain could fight on, and form the starting point for the eventual liberation of France and the continent from the Nazi's. But that was a while ago, so who cares about that eh?
During WWI. In 1917 about 30,000 French soldiers just walked home, in protest of their terrible leadership. French soldiers commonly bleated like sheep in the presence of their officers because that's how the felt--like sheep led to the slaughter.Fobal klub said:
Your a firecracker today Hummy. Mr. H piss you off or did you see a bird go toe to toe with another creature on your way to the office this morning.Humbird said:I'm not interested in arguing with you.
You posted a which said to me that you didn't know about the mutinies in 1916-1917. It doesn't matter how many men were involved.
You can Google the words "French army mutiny" as well as I can and learn about it yourself.
Are you saying he's wrong?Fobal klub said::howler: