About That “French Surrender” Thing ..

1. Fred, yet again, your ignorance is breathtaking. The whole point I was making is that the whole “Celtic” thing is mostly an artifical construct created by Irish nationalists. Parts of England are just as Celtic as parts of Scotland, for example.
   The Ulster Scots as you call them, are not blood cousins of the Dublin Irish, but are in fact of Scottish descent.
   Your comments about the English are basically racist, but this is probably to be expected on this site. You really are a twisted and bitter little man, you are probaly the  sort of half-wit who used to give money the IRA.
   The French are not at all popular in parts of Europe or North Africa, but I prefer to judge people on how they are rather than what nationality they are.

2. I live in France, I like French people, and I like how my French friends will happily tease me about being a perfidious  rosbif, while I tease them for being arrogant froggies. There’s nothing malicious or spiteful, we’re just playing with long held-stereotypes. And we both have a good laugh at the arrogant septics claiming to be the first to call them Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys.

   Personally I’d suggest the whole surrender name-calling is far older than WWII, far older than WWI, I’d suggest it goes all the way back to the Anglo-French animosity following the 100 Years’ War.  It’s only the 20th Century that has seen Anglo-French alliances, prior to that we were avowed enemies.

3. Not exactly. It started in the 19th century: Both our nations helped Greece gain its independance from Turkey. Then we helped the Turks against Russia during the Crimean War. And I won’t mention the poor Prince Impérial.

   Of course, during that time, there were also some disagrements: remember Fachoda?

4. “”And we both have a good laugh at the arrogant septics claiming to be the first to call them Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys.””

   Actually it sort of looks like you you’re laughing with them, not at them.

   Fact of the matter is, about 2 million French soldiers  died fighting for France last century. When you tell your “jokes” about how the French are afraid to fight, you spit on the memory of those soldiers. Period.

   And TheBigM, what the hell are you still doing here ? We’re obviously not getting through to you.

5. “”Your comments about the English are basically racist,””

   But a plethora of surrender jokes is A OK, right ?

   “”but this is probably to be expected on this site””

   Unfreakingbelievable. Newsflash. It’s the French who are the victim of xenophobic attacks by your compatriots. Constantly. Miquelon.org reports anti-French activity. This site is extremely well documented.

   So now we’re racists because we don’t accept being painted as cowards by your ilk?
   Or are we racists because we don’t think the Brits or Americans are superior beings ?

   You gotta love those double standards. People like trollie or the bigM are only here to justify French-bashing. Disgusting.

6. The history of England as a nation might be said to have begun with the Norman Conquest in 1066, followed by 200 yrs of occupation (the earlier time period under Alfred would not qualify; inasmuch, the land area under control being one-half in size). This example of a nation’s beginning might seem ruinous; however, we know that nation was to profit mightly from the Norman-French “injection”
   –going from what could be called a ‘sleepy backwater (near backwater) existence’ to that of  “dynamic duo”, to be punctuated by actions far and wide of event  lasting to this day. This hybrid, exhibiting “hybrid vigor” (not always successful) in action, has caused the more zealous historian to accurately label it “Anglo-Norman”, rather than  Anglo-Saxon; indeed, Englishman, you have much to be thankful for   –going from ‘sleepy village’ type to that of far more active, enterprising type.  During the Hundred Years War your nation was to cause a lot of trouble for France in ‘ventures-to-type’; however, we know that you were ultimately repulsed (unlike the fate of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, in forced union) by that ‘unbeatable foe’ across the channel, the Salian Frank, Gallo-Roman, Norman and Breton amalgam.
   Today we see that the British in their (Norman) “enterprising” have discovered oil off the shoreline of ‘their’ Falklands.  It remains to be seen how this will play  out against the rival Argentine claim of ownership over the Malvinas Islas.  In any event it seems the U.S. will not be backing the British ‘this time’ as opposed to the covert assistance rendered during the previous clash (the U.S. Secretary of Defense being awarded a British Govt. Citation for actions undertaken in that episode).
   The forgoing, “big M”, is your lesson for the day.  Chew on it and reflect; also, do far more reading so that you might advance in knowledge along this line.

7. Fred – Oh dear, another breathtaking display of ignorance and bias from the resident anglophobe Fred.
   Where to start with such nonsense?
   1 – “The history of England can be said to have began in 1066″  No, not really, that’s a very skewed way of looking at it, there were kings of England before 1066 (in the eight century acually), and it was a thriving country under King Alfred in the tenth century, although by 1066 England was not as unified as it had been in earlier centuries and this is reason why the Normans were able to conquer it. The Normans, did have an impact, no doubt, but they were no more cultrally advanced than the anglo-saxons, just militarily so. For many left-wingers, the Norman invasion was regrettable as England lost contact with its Scandinavian roots and became more of centralised, class-ridden country. Many of today’s English aristocratic families are descended from the Normans.
   2 ” During the Hundred Years War your nation was to cause a lot of trouble for France in ’ventures-to-type’;”
   To see the hundred years war as battle between England and France is just utter nonsense. The hundred years war was a battle between two royal dynasties for control of the French and English crowns.
   The conflict has its roots in the Norman conquest and was fought between the houses of Valois and Plantagent both of which had their roots in France.
   So, let me spell that out for you Fred, both royal dynasties had their roots in FRANCE, but the Plantagent house (or house of  ANJOU) ruled England at the time. If you acutally bothered to read about it (if you are able to read that is) you would also find out that the following regions faught on the house of Anjou’s side: Brittany, Burgundy, Aquitaine and Navarre.
   Am I missing something or are these areas in modern day France?
   3 “unlike the fate of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, in forced union”
   My god, this is just the most ignorant statement of the lot. No, the Scottish were not “forced” into a union as you put it, the ACTS OF UNION  were signed in 1707 between the two countries which brought the two parliaments together. Have you never heard of this??
   that ‘unbeatable foe’ across the channel, the Salian Frank, Gallo-Roman, Norman and Breton amalgam.
   ‘unbeatable foe ??? – The French have been far from unbeatable: Napolean was seen off by the Russians and an Anglo-Pussian Alliance. To this day, cold winters in Russia are called “un hiver pour les francais”
   The Franco-Prussion war? The second world war? Hardly unbeatable.
   Lastly, there is one huge flaw in your “argument” or more accurately rant that you put forward.
   You claim that it is only because of the Normans (or French as some people on this site see it) that Britain was able to become a global power, but then berate the British for supposedly dominating other countries. So surely this tendancy is down to the Normans, not the English. You can’t have it both ways.
   Fred, I would try reading some history books if I was you instead of unthinkingly regurgitating anti-English propoganda that you may have learned at school. Even on this riduculous site, you comments stand out from the crowd in terms of their crassness, ignorance and downright stupidity, although they do make me laugh.

    

8. Barney-  “But a plethora of surrender jokes is A OK, right? When I have made surrender jokes on here?
   Sorry, when has “my country”  (what does that mean?) made xenophobic attacks on France, as far as I am aware, much of the recent bile has come from the USA. The term “Cheese eating surrender monkeys” did not originate in the UK. 
   “Or are we racists because we don’t think the Brits or Americans are superior beings” –  Of course not, but Fred is suggesting that the English
   are inferior and that is racist.
   I am not justifying French-bashing at all, I am interested in the historical relationship between France and English-speaking countries having spent time living in France.  I personally think that the whole anti-French thing in the USA because of the Iraq war was ridiculous, but I am also interested in French people’s attitudes to English speaking peoples and as demonstrated by this site, you don’t have to scratch too far to find some fairly unpleasant views. 

9. To the BigM:
   Gosh, just imagine.  France was fighting France during the Hundred Years War !
   Are you out of your cotton-picking mind ?
   Again, during the above war the French proved to be “the unbeatable foe” (the English did hold onto Calais until being kicked out by the Revolutionary Armies at a later time). If you wish to discuss other events and times we can begin with
   the British stand at Singapore during WW II.  Yamashita, go get ’em !
   Napoleon’s failure in Russia:  We do know that he was warned against invading
   Russia by his senior commanders; but, being Napoleon, he did not listen to their
   voice of reason (not the first genius to have erred in a terrible way).  Typhus destroyed Napoleon’s Army  —alas, coupled to the most severe winter seen in a century.  One major battle was that of Borodino, terrible for both sides in losses;
   however, the French held the field and were the victors.
   You trumpet the Scandanavian element as affecting for the better their influence
   upon “Anglo” early development.  What is it that you find favorable; inasmuch,
   these people gave the “Anglo” a terrible beating anytime there was a clash ?  On one occasion, your resistance to the Dane was to launch a most treacherous reaction to their presence, slaughtering woman and children alike !
   Regarding the Saxon   —home-grown variety:  History relates this tribe would not meet the Franks under Charlemagne in open battle; instead, choosing the “hit and run” tactic w/ retreat to the forest edge.  Finally, the issue was settled, Charlemagne exacting a most telling measure in response; i.e., taking the youngest adult son from a family unit(s) and having him beheaded !  Five thousand Saxons being demanded and turned over to Charlemagne, thus lost their heads.  There is a statue of Charlemagne mounted on a horse, in front of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.  Both French and German claim him. Question:
   How does an Englishman view the Saxon admission to his bloodstream ?
   Regarding the so-called Acts of Union:
   As any Scotsman or Welshman will tell you there was no question of choice in the matter.  They were effectively crushed and the ‘upper snuffs’ made the decision for them.  England proper, being the size of a postage stamp, needed to grow to survive; moreover, these conquered people (Celts) made excellent cannon-fodder to have on hand for the future.  Beware the Welsh bowman !
   Regarding Hastings, 1066:
   “May the best man win” and he did ! The trickery of Harold was typically Saxon,
   learned in Albion’s hothouse of feud and counter-feud, a la Hatfield & McCoy.  As I remarked earlier, the victory was to have lasting consequence for the better in so many ways.
   One last question:
   Scatalogical, four-letter words are Saxon in origin.  Have you people advanced out of the trough to the point where you can cast these aside as being archaic ?
   Let us hope so.

10. Excerpt:
    http://stadiumdrives.com/2010-articles/june/hot-or-not-the-beginnings-6-22-10.html

    Not only are your soccer side falling apart in South Africa, basically surrendering to itself (surprise), but you had such an opportunity to steer the spotlight away from your idiocy on Sunday night.  Instead, French qualifier Gregory Havret, summed up what people the world over believe about you.  You are a smug and entitled people with little respect for anyone else.  And your food sucks.  Havret, fresh off a lovely run at the US Open to finish second, spent his entire post match interview whining about missed putts and talking about how good he really was, not once congratulating first-time Major-winner Graeme McDowell.

11. Grubby is demanding respect.

    LMAO

    Eat shit.

12. Barney, you’re such a clever diplomat!

13. Thanks for sending me this on Twitter. I agree that the French surrender misnomer is greatly overused and not historically accurate. It is too inconvenient for the person(s) to look into history and understand how this got started. France lost 50% of its male population in WW1. Normally a loss on this scale means the start of an end to a nation. The attitude of appeasement was heavily endorsed by the French teachers union and was understandable because they were trying to preserve the youth in order to keep the nation alive. Everyone knew they could not remain sustainable if they (France) experienced a similar loss again. Unfortunately this is part of pre-WW2 history is really not taught in our public school system and rarely appears in the arena of higher education (unless your area of study happens to be 20th century European history). I myself didnt learn about this until I was living in France

14. I like to come back to this site every once in while to marvel at the anti-English ranting of Fred and he rarely disappoints in his ignorance.
    Let me put you straight on a few of your most pointless and inane comments.
    1 – “France was fighting France during the Hundred Years War !
    Are you out of your cotton-picking mind?” – No, that’s not what I said, but the war was not just a case of “France v England” it was much more complex than that. At this point in time the kingdoms of France and England were very much intertwined and it was a battle between two ROYAL houses one based in England and another in France. How was it England V France if Burgundy, Aquitaine, Portugal and the Navarre were fighting on the English side? Despite this though the House of Plantagenet based in England won most of the major battles and considerably enriched England as a result, so the French were hardly the “unbeatable foe”
    However, despite the many losses suffered by France against the English in history, I would not say the French were not brave. Who can forget the brave stand of the French section of the SS, the Charlemagne Division, numbering 7,000 strong in 1944 who fought the Russians hard at Korlin. And what about the Vichy French forces who put up a brave fight against the US and British forces in North Africa? Specifically in Oran and Morocco where the allies thought the French would surrender.
    2- the British stand at Singapore during WW II.  Yamashita, go get ‘em – Yep, we surrendered here, but kept on fighting (on the right side). At least we didn’t collaborate with the Japanese like the French did in Vietnam though.
    3- “What is it that you find favorable; inasmuch,
    these people gave the “Anglo” a terrible beating anytime there was a clash”
    Not really, some the Germanic tribes that entered England where from the area of present day Denmark, so that explains the Scandinavian influence in England. Have you never heard of the Battle of Stamford Bridge?
    4- “As any Scotsman or Welshman will tell you there was no question of choice in the matter.  They were effectively crushed and the ‘upper snuffs’ made the decision for them.  England proper, being the size of a postage stamp, needed to grow to survive; moreover, these conquered people (Celts) made excellent cannon-fodder to have on hand for the future.  Beware the Welsh bowman”
    You assume that the average English was in favour of the act of Union when this was not the case. The Scots (and Welsh) did very well out of the British Empire, thank you very much, as Scotland’s attempt to found an empire had come to nothing.
    By the way, just so you know, it was the Normans who initially conquered parts of Wales and Ireland and not the Angles or Saxons. 
    But you have a point about the “celts” (whatever celt means) being used as “cannon fodder”. But what else were they good for? The Scots, Irish and Welsh were, on the whole, a drunken, disorganised rabble, but one thing you can say about them is that they like a fight. Perfect cannon fodder, much like the Algerians to the French. 
    5- Concerning the Norman conquest you said “As I remarked earlier, the victory was to have lasting consequence for the better in so many ways”.
    Well, if you think the colonisation of Ireland and the subjugation of Wales was a positive thing, then you are indeed right. The Norman invasion did nothing for England.

15.  “Who can forget the brave stand of the French section of the SS, the Charlemagne Division”

    “…Vichy French forces who put up a brave fight against the US and British forces in North Africa?”

    I take it then, you’re some kind of admirer of the SS/Vichy forces ( alot of them in the US/UK), or did you conveniently forget the tens of thousands of French who fought and died under the colors of Free France and in the Underground?  The so-called “bravery” of the SS/Vichy pales in comparison to the sacrifices made by Free French troops or the Resistance.    Of course, French-bashers such as yourself tend to weasel their way out of having to give gratitude to them- better to deny they ever existed, right?  Funny how selective memory works, wot?

16. poilu – thank you for making this clear. My grandpa certainly is grateful as well, wherever he is now. He was 20 when he went to war. He left us a diary which he wrote during war time, successively as a fighter, a prisoner, a fugitive, a prisoner again, a fugitive, a fighter again, then eventually the war was over and his life could start at last. He survived but many of his pals were killed, tortured, blown into pieces, or “just” maimed. Surrender monkeys? Yeah right…

    Will these rants about how many battles did the French/English/Martians win/lose, how brave they were, how far can we pee, never end?

17. Yeah, thebigm I can see how you care deeply about French-bashing…. lol
    What an amazing hypocrite you are.

    Anti-British comments, you say ?
    Well sorry, pal but you seem to deserve every bit of it and then some.

18. Not really Barney.  But why on a site which fights against French bashing do you allow Fred’s racist/offensive comments against the British to pass without comment? Surely you stand for respect for all countries/allies? Or am I wrong? Who is the hypocrite here?
    Surely the bravery of the Vichy French forces is just as important as that of the Free French who were mostly colonial troops.
    Just as many French supported the Vichy French as the Free French, as did the French colonies.

19. Fred’s racist/offensive comments against the British
    
    You’ve never actually browsed this site have you ?
    Because if you had you’d realize the difference between Fred correcting your francophobic vision of history and the countless actually racist anti-French comments this site have been documenting these past few years.
    The problem is that you people have enjoyed rewriting history to make the French look bad for so long that you have a a very hard time seeing your delusions shattered.
    
    Surely you stand for respect for all countries/allies?

    I do. But I have yet to see this respect reciprocated by the likes of you and that’s an understatement.

    You wrote that:

    I would not say the French were not brave. Who can forget the brave stand of the French section of the SS, the Charlemagne Division, numbering 7,000 strong in 1944 who fought the Russians hard at Korlin. And what about the Vichy French forces who put up a brave fight against the US and British forces in North Africa?

    See, you gave your game away there, pal. 
    No true friend of the French people would ever write that. And anyone who comes here of all places to write this kind of stuff knows exactly what they’re doing and has no right to complain about anti anything comments.

    I don’t know where you come from: Bremner’s blog, ffrance,  no psaran etc… but go back there. You’ll have more fun. You won’t be challenged.
    
    Free French who were mostly colonial troops.

    And honestly, “mate”. Grow a set and stop beating around the bush already. If you wanna call us cowards and surrender monkeys then do it once and for all.
    Perfide Albion, indeed.

20. Et tu Luke ?

    LukeRussert Luke Russert

    Also in the midst of depressing #debt talks, go #USA women’s soccer! I don’t like losing to #France in anything. #FreedomFries

21. […] Our most tweeted article : About That “French Surrender” Thing .. […]

22. “France lost 217,000 dead and 400,000 wounded. Compare that to America’s loss of 416,000 dead during four years of war in the Pacific and Europe.”

    and 1.8 million Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys surrendered

23. Didn’t the ‘great’ napoleon die in a British war prison, as a slave, shining british officers shoes. The reasons thqt so many frenxh here hate britain is because britain became a much more powerfull and important country than frqnce, that britain changed the world more tgqn any other nation in the history of the world, when britain created the industrial revolution and the entire modern worls, France qlso feel shqme because uk and usa rescues France in both world wars

24. I thibk that France qnd britain are both great nations, its just that britain is a bit greater, we took over the world while France could not, britain created usa, Canada, Australia, new Zealand, France did not create any countries like britain did. Britain mqde English the dominant world language, while French couldn’t do the same. The British empire was much bigger, richer and more powerfull than the French one. Britain still leads the huge commonwealth of over fifty countries, and our queen is there head of state, including canqda,Australia, new Zealand. Britain inventee more than any other nation in all human history, the best scientists are british, from Isaac newton to Charles Dickens, the list of British inventions is huge, even just in the last few years britain invented the world wide web and cloning and ivf. British popular modern culture dominates the whole world, our movies, television, music, videogames, books are the most popular in the world alongside America, France is a.million miles below britain when it comes to influence. In the whole world, there are only two alpha ++ cities, london and new York. London is the financial capital of the world, it is alao the aviation capital, music capital, insurance capital, cosmopolitqn capital, and the centre of world time, that’s no joke, London is Greenwich meantime, 0.00 hours, its set in London, as it reflecs britains total world dominqtion of the time. Britain has a history of constantly defeating France, from waterloo, to agincourt, to trafalger, to the hundreds year war, the thirty years war, the way britain took America and then canada, as France were not wtrong enough to rival britain. Britain is an island, so we always put our military effort and strength into our navy and airforce, france are on a cintinent, so concentrate mire in an army, if someone wants to defeat britqin, they need to be strong enough to fight the british navy and airforce, the German navy was weaker than britain, and the german qirforce wqs weaker than britain, so Germany failed to invade britain, and we totally defeated them. if britain was in the continent, like framce is, we would have concentrates more on an army like France did, but ours would have one. France fought Germany with their military, ans liat bqsly, britain fought geemqny with our military, magnificent navy and qirdorce, qnd won gloriously, when I think that britain was secured becauae of the bravery of the British pilots who destroyed the nazis in the battle of britain, after France had surrendered, it makes me proud to be British. Also ex French colonies are poor, while britain built hong kong, Singapore, malayaia, and made them very rich mega duties, tiger economies, we built their skyscrapers and made them rich, something frqnce found never do. There are only five great nations on earth
    #1 great britain
    #2 USA
    #3 Canada
    #4 Australia
    #5 new Zealand
    God bless the anglos

25. France was a primitive country before the English came and bought you some civilisation, then a few centuries later, we did the same again, when we invented the industrial revolution, and, after keeping it for ourselves for sixty years, to make us a much stronger nation than anybody else on earth, we then allowed the knowledge to be spread from britain to France, Germany and USA. At the same time the almost equally as great, scientific and technological revolution was happening in britain, and as before, we kept the bennifits to ourselves only for a few decades, to increase our lead and strength and technological and scientific lead, which britain was by then a century more advanced than any of our traditional competition. It was the huge advantage that this technological, scientific, industrial, and medical dominance of britain over the rest of the world, that helped britain to conquer the planet and force its culture and language and religeon on the world. In a small space of time, britain, this small island in the north sea, not only conquered, but conquered and assimilated most of the planet, but most importantly of all is that in such a small space of time, the ingenious, industrious British, invented a huge, world changing number of world changing inventions and also created almost every major sports, and allmost all sports. In short, britain did what no other counyry has ever done, we created a new age, something that only happens every hundreds of thousands of years, and never by one country, in all human history there have been four ages, first there was the stone age, then came the bronze age, then came the iron age, and then, through just one magnificent country, great britain, there was the industrial age, and the entire modern world. And the great thing with britain is, that’s just one of they’re innumerable achievments, including the biggest ever empire, most inventions, dominant language, invented democracy and modern law and scientific method, Protestantism. No other nation can match the achievments of britain, and certainly not France, to even try to compare France to great britain, is an insult to great Britain, France is a cool country, but they are no where close to being in the same league as great britain, the whole world can see that

26. I must say that I really have been watching the London 2012 Olympics very closely, ever since the games were awarded to london in 2005, the French eeew hateful, because it looked like Paris might win the bid to host the games, bit the London bid was better, and when the Olympic commitee awarded the Olympic 2012 games to London, the whole of britain celebrated, but the whole of France were bitter with anger and hate, even their media, it was sickening racism that the jelous French showed agqinst Britain, but we were the bigger man, and so forgave them. At the last oltmpics in Beijing, four years ago, britain was the top European country again in the medal table, and finnished fourth. At the London Olympics this summer, we were even better, and finnished third, we got more medals than frqnce, germany,italy,Spain and Holland COMBINED, britain is the only European superpower, we just won the us open in tennis, our golfers are the best in the world and win all the majors, we are the best at rugby, we are the best at cycling, we are the best qt sailing, we are the best at rowing, we are the best at kqboing, we are the best at fencing, we are the vest at boxing, we are the best at taekwondo, we are the best at, we ate kyqking, we are the beat at white water rafting, we are the best at long jump, we are the best at heptaflon, we are the best qt decathlon, we are the best at pentathlon, we are the best at modern decathlob, we are the best at juddo

27. Britain dominates formula one racing, nearly the whole sport and qll tge teams of formula one are British or based in britain, even the foreign teams qre based in britain and run by British people at the top, british bosses, British designers, British engineers, British computer wizards, british mechanics, and all thw worked famous British racers and British teams that mwje doemula one, British Bernie eccelatone who controlled the whole thing, ans the entire formula one is a British construct and sport.
    The biggese sport and leafue ov the world is the English premier league, it is vy far the rixhest and most dominant leaguw on earth, with more supporters all around the world than any other leagues or clubs. The world rally championship is alao q lqrgwly English sport and dominated by British, so is snooker, so is pool, so is darts, so is bowls, they are all British dominated sports, so is rugby, so is cricket, so is cycling, and these days preety much every sport, britain does great in these days, britain is the only real olympic power left in Europe, Europe only has one sporting and olympic superpower left to celebrate, and that is britain, which is apt, as it was britain that invented almost every sport that exists today, and even created the very concept of modern sport

28. To straa:

    But judging by your spelling mistakes, London is perhaps no longer the capital of English literacy these days.

    Now there is no doubt in my mind that England is a great country, with considerable achievements and legacy, and a ‘splendid’ culture I might add (for the few over there who still retain it), and what’s more I’ve married one of its birds and live in one of its ex-dominion, Australia. But judging by the many citizens leaving it in a hurry to come here, and telling me what a dump whole it’s become, it looks to me in the final phase of being swallowed up and digested by globalisation, like every other country.

    And as per your knowledge of about everything, it seems to be out of a book written by English people for English people nostalgic of the good old times. Hey Marc, we should write one just the same but for France, listing French success in Science, Arts, Sports and so on while ignoring the rest of the world. It would sound the same and take some room too.

    Now let’s see:
    – Wealth, I think, is the stuff of empires plundering the rest of the world, or imposing their larger economy to it (with sometimes the help of their military muscles), and on a more positive note, an achievement of the protestant ethic and capitalism, which is not just English, but also Dutch and German, and even partly French I would have thought. And correct me if I’m wrong but, of the late, it seems to me that when it comes to business, the English-speaking world is being quite overtaken by the Asian world.

    – The greatest and more numerous inventors by now are from America, not England, a country which was allowed to exist thanks to France (although this is not a popular topic at the moment), and whose most important ethnic group composing part of its population – since it’s been anything at all – is not the English, by the way, but the German. And judging by the quantity of brevets output, China, once again, is looking like it will soon top that.

    – Talking about the Germans, Hitler’s Germany was condemned in Nuremberg as one of the most horrible thing that ever happened, not because it offended the fab five by wearing ugly brown shirts, but because they did the following: 1) Invasion of land, 2) Genocide, 3) Enslavement of people, and a few other nasty things. Now here’s one for you, Straa: take any of the countries you so proudly listed from the British Empire’s legacy, including the USA, put a tick box in front the above 1, 2, and 3, and ask yourself this question: How is it again that these countries came to be here today? Ouch. A good thing they’re rich, militarily equipped, and tend to write their own history for everyone else to read.

    – “France was a primitive country before the English came and bought (I will assume here it’s brought, since at that time, they weren’t that rich) you some civilisation…” And me who thought it was the Romans who brought civilisation to the French, and then to the Brits, defeating Vercingetorix like they later defeated Boadicea. Until that time, the Brits were going with they dick in the air, with swirly symbols painted around it. They were called the Picts. Then, in 1066, from Normandy came Guillaume, a French-speaking descendant of Vikings, who brought French civilisation to you before you could become anything. He brought with him French architects, the bests of the time, who built all your cathedrals and castles, so called Gothic Art being a French creation. The rest, you own the Greeks and the Italians.

    – Indeed the Brits won many spectacular battles after this, you just seem to forget the many they then lost to the French for France to become free again, just as spectacular, like when Philippe Auguste besieged and took Richard the Lion’s heart fortress and kicked your splendidly fortified British arses.

    – Napoleon defeat was the result of many other countries fighting against France, and not just England. Least of which is Russia, who in reality won the bulk of the war. And he would have won Waterloo too if it hadn’t been for the arrival of the Prussians (sounds like Scooby-Doo). Like Hitler, in today’s moral he lost above all because his cause was wrong. As written above, though, this moral is lost on the English-speaking world’s conquests, whose people successfully massacred most the native populations by the millions, women and children included, having therefore not much adversity to worry about later on, and creating a nice little future for themselves. There lies the bulk of England’s success. History is a vast hypocrisy written to fit the interests of some. Quebec and the wars of that era were won in the same manner that the Japanese won Pearl Harbour. The British launched a surprise attack to destroy their fleet, without any declaration of war, while pretending to negotiate with the French. In Quebec and America, the French were then deprived of support and vastly outnumbered. Roosevelt would have called this an infamy, would he not? As per the defeat of 1940, France paid the ultimate price for its sacrifice during the first world war, much more consequent than that of England, as the war also ravaged its land. America (its business world), sided with Germany between the two world wars, who became more powerful than France, and that until 1941 when Hitler declared the war to America, not the other way around. England and France both lost the war together at the beginning. England was, once again – once more, only saved by the Channel, which gave it a second chance that France never got. It is not so well known (what a surprise) that the German invaded the Channel Islands. There, the British population surrendered, collaborated and did not resist whatsoever. Hadn’t it been for Churchill, a part of the British elite, including some royals, were ready to do the same. In no small part, England owns it success to its geography, her people are generally no better than any one else. By comparison, they were much fewer periods when France was not under attack by one or several of its neighbours, and therefore conquered, and hence divided and weakened. But in those periods, France flourished with magnificent classical creations.

    France has also developed an art of living that the entire world has adopted in one way or another, including England, who’s restaurants and cooking used to be a joke.

    – Britain do have a great Premier League, but with great stupidity in my mind, they spend an absolute fortune on soccer teams – and the complete twarts that play for them, money that would be better spent on their dreadful urban suburbs, rather than entertaining them. That in turn could save us some of the reality shows featuring the many drunk, dumb, doped and degenerate people that have also come to be the face of England these days, at home and abroad. And they did invent many sports, but for the spirit of sports and the Olympics, you’ll have to thank Baron Pierre de Coubertin.

    France’s history, particularly the past two centuries, certainly contains its lot of painful episodes. But in the end, just like Britain, it has much to be proud of.

29. Britain won the war because of our string navy and airforce, we concentrated our efforts there because we are an island, France concentrated their efforts on their army and lost, badly, if britain was on the continebt we would of concentrated more on our army, we fought with our military, navy airforce, and won, France fought with their military, army, and lost, end of. And in the napoleonic wars, france had many allies who fought with them, but britain still beat them all, and napoleon died in a British prison cell LOL

30. To Straa:

    Well, you obviously don’t have much to reply to what I wrote, and as in similar immature cases of “hey-Frenchy-look-which-Brit-can-piss-the-furthest” you find yourself going back to Napoleon and the Battle of Britain. Unfortunately even then, your historical knowledge is weak.

    Like many French, I don’t think much of Napoleon, an opportunistic ego who rose from the chaos of the French Revolution, an episode of horror that had considerably weakened France, and which was in good part the consequence of having helped America get its independence, leaving France financially ruined. All of this a vicious war cycle inherited from the middle ages, France having helped America to retaliate for the loss of Quebec, with both countries at each other’s throat since the dynastic wars started by Guillaume of Normandy.

    During the Napoleonic wars, France was on its own, having only the half baked support of the temporary allies it had conquered, which were wiped out, together with the bulk of its army, during the Russian campaign. Before that, he had only lost at sea. England repeatedly formed coalitions with Dutch, Prussians, Austrians, Russians, Portuguese, Spanish and others. Many men of these nationalities, like also Italians, were serving on Nelson’s fleet at Trafalgar, the English sailors composing only a part of the crews. And they formed Regiments who found themselves next to Wellington all along. Added to that, following the Russian retreat, Napoleon had lost support of a good deal of the French, who were fed up with him and his wars, which is why he had to abdicate the first time. When he escaped and came back the second time for the 100 days, he could only gather the support of limited part of France, other parts, like the entire West, revolted against him. After Waterloo, where he lost the last French supporters he had, it is him who gave himself to England, for that was his safest bet if he wanted to stay alive. England certainly played a key role in his demise, but the bedtime story of England defeating him on its own is just that: a myth.

    As per the Battle of Britain, beside that you’re simply repeating what I said in a different way – it is geography that first saved England – as its army was trashed on the continent. But even then you’re missing some pieces: the so-called lack of preparation of France and the Battle of Britain, as told by people like you, is also a lot of bulls.

    The Germans new that they lost the First World War because they tried to invest in their army equally on all sides, including in the navy, which meant they ended up producing less guns and tanks. So accepting they were mostly a continental power, they first concentrated on developing the Wehrmacht and Lutwaffe. Good for England, bad for France. Even worse for France, the country had never recovered from the first war. The so-called Spanish influenza had killed more people than the war itself, depleting its population amongst the youngest generations, precisely the 20 year olds that would have been so crucially needed in 1939. Disgusted by the butchery of war, its people had become strongly pacifist, and on top of that, governments were destabilized by a strong communist movement. France was also ruined. It did what it could, but after the crash of 1929 ran out of money to finish the Maginot line, and match German military development. Germany, on the other hand, benefited from the massive help of American business world, who had sided with it, as well as the support of Staline’s Russia, who was himself planning the war behind the German’s back. Staline was also using the French communists to sabotage the French war effort in factories. Germany was then 80 million strong, whereas France was only 40 million. France was also deadlocked with England as an ally, and therefore following England’s political decisions. Declaring the war to Germany was a folly it was never able to assume.

    Following the Battle of France, the Lutwaffe actually came very close to defeat England. When it first concentrated its strikes on the radars installations and the airfields, it did put the English Airforce on its knees. It is only by luck, if you can call it that, that a German bomber deviated from its military target and went to bomb London instead. Churchill retaliated and ordered Berlin to be bombed. Hitler got mad and diverted the entire bombing raids to the British cities. A strategic blunder that in the end lost him the Battle of England.

    As per the English fleet, it’s not that it was so great, but rather that Germany didn’t have much. And actually when Germany started its submarine war, it there too came close to win. Had it not been for Roosevelt and America, it is very likely that England would have lost there too, or at best been isolated, starved and neutralized. Without America and Russia coming to the party, Britain would not have weighed much in this war.

    Unsurprisingly, the British Empire also came to an end not long after the war. So no need to boast about it, it’s as gone as the good old French one.

    But what really pisses me off is the cohorts of wannabes like you, who have little historical knowledge or understanding and reduce massive horrendous historical tragedies to an immature pissing contest. Like you’re worth more than any French out there. But then again, perhaps it’s to make you feel better, for given your level of literacy, I’m ready to bet you haven’t achieved much in life.

    I won’t bother answering another of your comments. What I would appreciate though, is if you could go play somewhere else, like on fuckfrance.com, you’ll fit better there. This site is there to expose the very clichés people like yourself take pleasure at spreading, not to give them a tribune.

31. As an island britain concentrated its efforts on our nqvy and airforce, as a continental nation France concentrated on your army, the difference is we were stronger than you, if our geography were reversed, we would hqve concentrated more on our army any you woulf of had a better navy and airforce, but we would still have won. We fought with all our tools and won, you fought with all your tools and lost. Even in world war one, france were only saved bu UK amd USA. The English channel makes no difference, it didnt stop the Norman vikings coming to britain, and it didn’t stop the English invading France and agincourt and taking large chunks of France

    1. You should learn history before speak. Before 1950 France was not “continental”.

32. The reason people joke about France is for lots of different reasons, they laugh at you because napoleon was a midgit dwarf who got defeated by britain, and died in a British prison cell, shining the shoes of British soldiers, they laugh because while britain changed the world with the industrial revolution, France did nothing. They laugh because English became the worlds biggest and only alpha language, while French is dying, they laugh because the British empire was so much bigger and richer than Frances was, they laugh because France got conquered so easily by Hitler and because britain and America rescued France in world war one aswell, they laugh because britain invented all these inventions and France did not, they laugh because britain had all these world changing great scientists and technology, and France did not, they laugh because britain always defeats France in wars, they laugh because britain created all these sporys and france did not, they laufh because british modern culture, music,movies,television,books,video games,modern art and sport is dominant and french is not, they laugh because britain created entire new countries like usa, Canada, Australia, new Zealand, and France did not, they laugh because britain ruled mist of the world, and France did not, tgey laugh because britain created modern mega cities like Hong Kong, and france did not, they laugh because britain took most of Africa and mqde them richer than the parts that France took, they laugh because britain took India,Pakistan, much of the middle east, much of Asia, including China and we created shanghai, and we took america, Canada, australia, new Zealand and much much more, and France did not, they laugh because London is an alpha ++ city, one of only two in the world, along with new York, and Paris is not, they laugh because London is the financial and aviation capitol of the world, and Paris is not, they laugh because British cars are so much better than french ones, France has Renault, peugeot, and cutroen, while britain has
    Jaguar
    Bentley
    Rolls royce
    Mclaren
    Lotus
    Tvr
    Mg
    Aston Martin
    Rover
    Land rover
    Range rover
    Mini
    Morgan
    And many many more, they laugh because britains military is so much better than France, they laugh because britain created modern democracy and law, and not France, but most of all they laugh because France is a weak, unimportant country amd britain is in a different league, far above France, rule britania

33. #troll

    1. Un(e) gamin(e) de 14 ans, peut être? Au vu de la maitrise de la langue de Benny Hill, et du niveau des arguments.

34. France are controlled and belong to Germany, they own you, they are your boss, and you do what they say, you are just a German province

    1. In my experience, it’s always the smallest dogs who bark the most.

Comments are closed.